And while America fights insurgents the world over,

[dave_the_nerd]

Pffft, are you celebrating the Les Miserables movie? Who celebrates a movie plot?

:awe:

1848.

 

[Ruptga]

Actually, the French revolutionary forces stormed the Bastille to get ammo for the weapons they stole earlier that morning. They weren't significantly armed up to that point. And they only got in, because the commander couldn't stomach killing his own people anymore. He was holding that fort with invalid war veterans and twelve mercenaries, losing one man for a hundred revolutionaries.

This very fact demonstrates, how little the second amendment has to do with whether a revolution will succeed or not. The army decides whether a revolution goes ahead or not. That's why a a volunteer army is a danger to democracy, since the people isn't represented equally in the army.

I don't think I've heard that argument before. It seems reasonable, but does it hold up with modern examples? My first thought was of Egypt, which does have a draft of sorts. On the other hand, their military is about 1/3 active, 1/3 reserve, and 1/3 paramilitary, which would definitely lead to some disproportionate representation.

I don't have any problem with the first half of the argument. But, it seems to me that diversity within the entire military would be moot if there were a high degree of conformity among its commanders, which the draft would do little to protect against.

 

[momeNt]

Actually, the French revolutionary forces stormed the Bastille to get ammo for the weapons they stole earlier that morning. They weren't significantly armed up to that point. And they only got in, because the commander couldn't stomach killing his own people anymore. He was holding that fort with invalid war veterans and twelve mercenaries, losing one man for a hundred revolutionaries.

This very fact demonstrates, how little the second amendment has to do with whether a revolution will succeed or not. The army decides whether a revolution goes ahead or not. That's why a a volunteer army is a danger to democracy, since the people isn't represented equally in the army.

Conscription as a remedy, for the purposes of even distribution, is hardly the sort of free democracy that Americans envision. Sure it can be majority rule democracy, but not a free democracy, as conscription kind of defeats that purpose.

 

[_Rick_]

Conscription as a remedy, for the purposes of even distribution, is hardly the sort of free democracy that Americans envision. Sure it can be majority rule democracy, but not a free democracy, as conscription kind of defeats that purpose.

And yet it's the sort of free democracy that the Swiss live.

There can be no personal freedom without shared obligation. Where the limits of that obligation are to be placed are for a society to decide.
Personally, if I could choose, I would opt for a year long service - 6 months of which are military basic training, and 6 months of which are social services to aid the old and sick who are in need of help.

The point would be to allow everyone involved to gain empathy for both soldiers and menial workers, as well as the old and frail. While 6 months won't allow for a standing army, it becomes possible to maintain a very large reserve defense force, and a small professional expeditionary force to be used for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, as well as managing strategic assets (aircraft, recon, NBC). Bi-annual refresher exercises could maintain the reserve's operational capability. At the same time, the army consists mostly of conscripts, which are trained sufficiently to operate their assigned weapons and stations but have a loose peace-time command hierarchy, and would be unlikely to follow orders that would have them engage with civilians of their own country. In the case of civil war then, the professional army would only ever play a minor role. A large reserve is also less likely to blindly follow their commanders in situations that are very clearly morally questionable. Fighting an invader wouldn't be, but fighting people whose cause you support? That's unlikely to happen at a large scale. Furthermore, if the army supports an unpopular course of action, desertion will factor majorly into the effectiveness.

If this feels like too much of a burden for civil liberties, well it balances the burden of having an army which can act undemocratically with relative ease and little means for control. Seeing the role the military plays in any civil war, I'd rather opt for the former, but I myself have seen the burden conscription places on a society, and I know that giving a year of your youth away is asking a lot. But equal rights should also mean an equal burden...

The problem would obviously be the use of strategic assets in a domestic setting, which can easily tip the balance toward the professional arm of the military. I'm not sure there's a solution to that particular problem, short of GPS-based lockouts in the actual hardware, which technically prevent the use of ATG/artillery/NBC weapons against targets inside the border. Which probably isn't desirable in the case of an actual invasion...