Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

What If?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
With all the talk about obesity among children, it would be extremely beneficial.
The army, with compulsory PT still has a problem with complete fitness. Training is not tailored to the person. I get why but it's a group effort if you want to run a triathlon, learn from those that have,granted you will have some edge to start but the military isnt needed boss has done it.

Now then why ,pray tell,not ban fatty foods mandate pt for all,vets never get fat ,out of shape after service?
 
we won ww2 using conscripts...

There are several differences. In WWII, conscripts were in for the duration of the war, plus one year. They weren't very effective right out of basic, but they learned on the job over a period of time. Nam was one year conscription in the combat zone. By the time they started to learn how to be effective, they mustered out. Another factor, much of the fighting in WWII was done by tens of millions of our allies. The Germans lost millions of troops on the Russian front. There is no proof that US conscripts could have defeated Germany one on one.

We fought Korea and Nam mostly by ourselves, with only a small percentage of the troops our allies. Except for the South Koreans and Vietnamese that we trained and equipped. The PLA pushed US forces back from the Yalu, then dug in near the original border. US conscripts could not budge the PLA for 3 long years. In Nam we used conscripts. Year after year they couldn't force the north to make peace, until US voters said enough. South Vietnam was thereafter conquered by North Vietnam. The Vietnamese conscripts we trained could not get the job done.

Contrast that to the all volunteer Army's performance in Kuwait. Iraqi forces were decisively defeated, and fled back to Iraq in disarray. Baghdad was quickly occupied in the 2nd war versus Iraq. Professional armies are just better in the modern era.
 
JohnCB said;

"Screening by an improved ASVAB testing would help with determining placement)

It also would greatly reduce expenses of our government services (minimal pay including room and board instead of competitive wages and good employees offered supervisor positions) "

This is exactly what the Soviet Union did for many years.
It is a form of Communism.
 
Anybody got an idea how this would affect American culture?

Depends on how well it is implemented. Russia conscripts people, but treatment of conscripts is generally harsh. People avoid the draft over there, because they don't trust their leaders to treat them fairly. New conscripts are abused by older conscripts. Sort of a free for all that somewhat resembles the abuse of the weak that goes on in some US prisons. Not even Vlad will send these poorly trained and motivated conscripts into battle. Volunteer soldiers are being sent to Ukraine and Syria. Setting up a system like this will make Americans similarly suspicious of their leaders. Better to just leave things as they are, rather than set up something that is not well thought out.

OTOH, Israel does a pretty good job of training their conscripts. They train hard and realistically for about 3 years. They are widely acknowledged as one of the best quality military units in the world. If the US sets up a system similar to that, the US will have a large number of well trained people that can come to the nation's defense if needed. It won't save any money though. Realistic training is very expensive. Lots of fuel, ammo, spare parts, and wear on the equipment. Israel does this expensive training because they are seriously outnumbered by hostile foes. If they are invaded, every able bodied Israeli is well trained to to respond effectively. Since it would their homes that are being invaded, not some foreign jungle they never heard of, they will be well motivated to fight ferociously. Their well trained conscript military has historically been super effective. Their training seems to give them a sense of unity. Of working together to keep each other safe.

When it comes to sending soldiers far from home, rather than defending their families, volunteer armies tend to work better. Consider the Roman Empire. At one time, Rome used conscripts. They were not all that effective when sent far from Rome. Conscripts just wanted to go home to their families. Then Gaius Marius completely overhauled the Roman Legions. He started the practice of using volunteers who enlisted for a long time, and training them extensively. Rome went on to conquer a fantastic empire using these well trained career soldiers. The conscript militias Rome originally used were only really good for defending their homes. Similar to Israeli soldiers today being extremely effective when defending their homeland.

If the US tries to get cheap, and once again use inadequately trained conscripts to save on troop pay, it is likely to lead to reruns of Korea and Vietnam. Conscript armies generally only fight well when defending their actual homes. In Nam, conscript soldiers called the song "We've got to get out of this place" the national anthem of Vietnam. Conscripts were not well trained for Nam, and not well motivated. Conscripts came home bitter, and the American public was so appalled that they demanded the draft be eliminated. Using inadequately trained conscripts in remote locations was a disaster that should not be repeated.
 
Last edited:
Switzerland was also mentioned. They conscript for about 6 months. It gives them a sizable trained militia that can defend their mountainous homeland, if they are invaded. They never actually go to war, so it is uncertain how effective their training is. However, mountains tend to be good defensive terrain. When the Allies invaded Italy, they rolled rapidly up the boot. When they got to the Alps, they were fought to a standstill. German mountain troops spent the rest of the war firing down at the Allies from superior defensive positions.

My guess would be that Swiss conscripts would do a pretty good job of defending Switzerland, with their 6 months of training. If they were shipped to Vietnam for some reason, they would not perform well. They would have no idea how to fight effectively in the jungle, and they would hate the jungle. Conscripts would complain loudly that they wanted to go home to their families in Switzerland. Conscripts would be unmotivated, and generally not care one bit about whatever their leaders were trying to accomplish by sending them far from home. Swiss voters would probably demand that the draft be abolished. Conscripts would come home bitter, and suspicious of Swiss leaders.
 
Last edited:
There are several differences. In WWII, conscripts were in for the duration of the war, plus one year. They weren't very effective right out of basic, but they learned on the job over a period of time. Nam was one year conscription in the combat zone. By the time they started to learn how to be effective, they mustered out. Another factor, much of the fighting in WWII was done by tens of millions of our allies. The Germans lost millions of troops on the Russian front. There is no proof that US conscripts could have defeated Germany one on one.

We fought Korea and Nam mostly by ourselves, with only a small percentage of the troops our allies. Except for the South Koreans and Vietnamese that we trained and equipped. The PLA pushed US forces back from the Yalu, then dug in near the original border. US conscripts could not budge the PLA for 3 long years. In Nam we used conscripts. Year after year they couldn't force the north to make peace, until US voters said enough. South Vietnam was thereafter conquered by North Vietnam. The Vietnamese conscripts we trained could not get the job done.

Contrast that to the all volunteer Army's performance in Kuwait. Iraqi forces were decisively defeated, and fled back to Iraq in disarray. Baghdad was quickly occupied in the 2nd war versus Iraq. Professional armies are just better in the modern era.
Uhmm ok,we used Vietnam era ,plenty of nam vets still were in.

German af,no match,navy? Nope,we armed,trained the raf,russia.we did it. 100 men died flying in my town. 30 were Britons

Much of desert storm was guard,reserves which cant be called full time soldering, standards are same .

I didnt do my mos at all in theatre,nor was it anyone to do force pro until later on it became doctrine
 
Last edited:
Nope,we armed,trained the raf,russia.we did it.

Yes we did. Arming foreign troops is not the same as drafting US conscripts though. Foreign troops did much of the fighting. We just armed them. The US was very good at producing manufactured goods during WWII. Some people are good at working in factories. Building tanks and planes is also useful to the war effort.

Much of desert storm was guard,reserves which cant be called full time soldering, standards are same .

Guard is volunteer, not conscripts. They don't train as much as full time, but they have far more training than Nam conscripts had. Guard tend to stay in for a long time, sometimes decades.

Uhmm ok,we used Vietnam era ,plenty of nam vets still were in.

There were lots of volunteers in Nam. Some volunteered for several tours. They did a marvelous job, and were effective soldiers. If we had used all volunteers in Nam...

Yes you have to actually pay volunteers, but soldiers deserve their pay.

“The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 1 Timothy 5:18b NKJV
 
Last edited:
Gates Commission Report said:
It is undesirable for generally the same reasons as mandatory National Service. For one thing, it would impose on the military more untrained personnel than can be productively employed. A one-year tour of duty - the usual term proposed - is prohibitively expensive in view of the very short period an individual would serve after receiving costly training. Assuming current eligibility standards, a two-year tour would force on the services more than 2,000,OOO non-career persons at any given time.

Many of these things have already been carefully considered. Here is a PDF of the Gates Commission Report on conscription. (Gates was President Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense.) It was commissioned by President Nixon to study the matter, and report back on how to best defend the nation. The conclusion, you do have to pay volunteer career soldiers, but this is less expensive than training a new batch of conscripts every year. Effective military training in the modern age is very expensive.

In ancient days, relatives could train children how to use swords, spears, and slings on their farms. By the time they reached maturity, they were already very familiar with how to use the weapons of the day. Impressing them into a local militia for defense was easy. They knew effective combat techniques to defend their cities with swords and spears.

No one keeps jet fighters and main battle tanks in their backyards so that they can train their children in modern combat tactics. By the time children today reach maturity, they generally have absolutely no idea how to bomb enemy troop formations from an F-35. It requires years of very expensive training to teach people how to effectively use modern combat machines. Its just not worth doing unless they plan to become career military.
 
Last edited:
Certain countries like Switzerland and Israel require two years of compulsory military service of all it's citizens. (Switzerland is only men)

Now of course it's deferrable up to a point for some qualified reasons like school or pregnancy.

What if America adopted a similar policy except it would include all forms of public service...like road building, vehicle maintenance, public works, various paperwork, and material handling...and of course military service. (Screening by an improved ASVAB testing would help with determining placement)

It also would greatly reduce expenses of our government services (minimal pay including room and board instead of competitive wages and good employees offered supervisor positions)

It would change things...
What kind of manner would it change things?
Would it be beneficial or a waste of efforts? How would you feel about a term of service.
I could certainly see this. I myself spent 4 active and 3 reserve in the Air Force...like my mother also did, she was a dental hygienist in the Korean war. I would have to say that most of the positions on the base were every day types of jobs. Of course there is Intelligence, munitions and all the secret and dangerous positions as well and, yes, most definitely leave those things to the Military. Besides, there are tons of civilians working on Military bases already but...I do like your idea. Did they not do that during WWII? Kind of, anyhow? Was not our economy booming because ALL people in this country put their hands to the till?
 
Back
Top