Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Screw that, I dunno about the rest of the world but I manage to balance my heavy video game playing with biking, working out in other ways, hiking and reading.

   

Sigh.. " You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"


If one is looking for awareness, teach them history, if one wants the new generations to be strong, teach them psychology and physical education. Forcing people to join the military will only create animosity, especially if one is forced to join right before or after post-secondary, if it's before it ruins their plans, and puts them at a disadvantage with wanning of knowledge, if after it puts them in a terrible financial situation, a recruit's pay isn't enough to pay university debt.

Life's a highway, there's only one way you're going to get through, if she starts to twist, be more like Chris, put your hat on tight and just Ledoux it. Damn you dangling preposition!

   

There's a reason that forces have gotten smaller in the past fifty years. It's called technology. And to use techonology effectively, you need tons of training.

In WW2, you had to bomb an entire city to destroy a factory. Sometimes that didn't even work! Nowadays, you fire a couple of cruise missiles and bye bye! Same goes for the army. A battalion of highly trained pros on the ground supported by some airpower (smart bombs again) can handle a force many times their size. A Halifax frigate would be more than a match for any WW2 battleship, just as an F-15 could wipe out a squadron of Spitfires. Both need highly trained professionals with tons of training to work properly.

The Iraqis had a conscript army/air force before Desert Storm. How well did they make out?

Conscript armies are an aberration. They first appeared a few hundred years ago when it became possible to support massive armies (in the hundreds of thousands) and equip them with cheap, mass-produced weaponry. For most of recorded history, soldiers have generally been professionals (yes, there were exceptions like Rome and Sparta). The difference here is that they didn't serve a short 1/2 year term and muster out (they were in it for the long haul, essentially making them professional troops). But for the most part, it was only in times of war, that farmers and peasants were drafted. They received little or no training and little or no weaponry, and were essentially nothing more than cannon fodder that were fed into the meat grinder to soften up enemy troops.

Throughout time, the best soldiers have always been professionals, be it royal guards, European knights, samurais, etc.

   

Classic

   

So then, what you are really proposing is a massive job creation program. Induct thousands of people, give them a taste of military life and then send them on their way. I thought you were talking about real conscription, whereby people actually spend a year or two in the armed forces (like many Europeans).

What you want has been done before (Katimavik and SYEP). I myself did SYEP before a short stint in the reserves. BTW, the Tory government has brought back the Katimavik program. I don't believe there is a military element (SYEP) like there was back in the late 80s though.

You pay a bunch of kids to march up and down the field and shoot rifles on the range. I'm sorry, but all the real soldiers who trained us considered us not much more than glorified cadets. This won't help anything other than lower youth unemployment...

   

Training in the US takes 6-9 weeks as I recall. Unless you elect to take special training or more advanced fields the only 6 month course related to military I know of is for Diplomatic Security, and thats because the people have to learn just about everything about fighting, counter intelligence, police work, and a good amount of diplomacy.



Taiwan has a (partially) conscripted army, yet is able to maintain western standards for its troops. The air force might have conscripts but the the actual pilots will be officers with a 7-10 year tour, the conscripts will be the ones loading and repairing the planes. And I think your confusing conscripts with poorly trained conscripts, which do not necessarily go hand in hand. A conscript can be given the same amount of training and tour length as a volunteer.



The Iranian airforce destroyed them too, and I'm pretty sure they were also conscripts.



But that has nothing to do with the fact of whether they were conscripted or volunteers. If there were to be another major war, there would be conscription again (hence why the US still kept selective service) and they'd be in it for quite sometime, just as they were in WWII.

   

do I think it is a good idea no fucking way....would I defend the borders of my country ...without a fucking doubt

   

where the hell have you been? they are manditory.

   

I was referring to Canadian history itself. I think general history with Canadian content is required. When I went to school it was required only to grade 10 and I believe you could skip it as long as you had the credits from other courses but I could be wrong on that as it has been decades. It was my favorite subject, never missed a class as I think Canada rocks!

   

They teach us local history in grades 3 and 4 nowadays. we don't really learn much about the rest of the country. should be part of the curriculam that we have to visit 7 of the 10 provinces and one of the territories to graduate.

   

Funny. I've learned about thr various native groups, colonial history to confederation, all the way from there to about 1995. From Etienne Carter, to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to Pearson. Heck, I've learned Ancient history as well. I learned quite a bit in school.

   

Perhaps for cannon fodder. That is basic training, which will make any person a soldier, but not necessarily a well-trained one.

To train a real professional soldier these days takes at least a year of intensive training, and that's assuming he goes from course to course to course without any practice time in between or R&R. You don't create a marksman or paratrooper overnight. A regular forces trooper in the Canadian Armed Forces takes a shitload of courses to learn how to use the weapons in the arsenal (like shoulder-fired AA missiles, AT weapons, even to drive armoured vehicles). In a Western military, you are cross-trained on highly technical weapons systems and that takes time and money. Nations that use conscripts do so because they are cheap...

In conscript armies like South Korea, Finland, the old USSR, etc, you are taught how to fire your assault rifle and march and not much else. I know several South Koreans, so I'm speaking from first hand info. It's only after you decide to stay after your term of enlistment is up and become a career soldier that you get the chance to join the special forces or get a lot of advanced training. Sure they might train you on the squad support weapon or how to drive a truck, but the advanced courses are for the career pros.

And I'm not talking about fighter pilots, ship captains, or colonels in charge of a battalion, I'm just talking the rank and file. These pros takes 5-10 years to train to an elite edge. That's why Western pilots for example are so much better than Chinese or other air forces. Ours spend twice (some like the US - as much as three times) as much time in the cockpit as pilots in the old USSR, PLA Air Force or most other nations. You don't pay a conscript to fly a 25 million jet at Mach 2, 200 hours a year. He flies a trainer, if he flies at all. By not having to train thousands of conscript pilots, your training establishment can instead train several hundred to incredible levels. That the difference, train 2000 pilots for 10 hours each or 100 for 200 hours each. Who's the better pilot?




Actually, most nations have a partially conscripted armed forces. In just about any conscript nation, there will be a core of long serving pros, maybe 25% (higher if they're lucky but all depending on the nation's wealth). But most get in, do their service with as little effort as possible and get out. That does not make for a motivated soldier.

Yes, there are conscript armies that are not bad. But man for man, there isn't a conscript army (except the Israelis maybe) who are better than our professionals here in Canada or the US. A battalion of Canadian soldiers would kick the ass of any conscripted nation on the planet (again, excepting maybe the Israelis), even if they had identical equipment.

And any pilot who spends 7-10 years in the air force is not a conscript, he's a professional. A conscript is one who is "One compulsorily enrolled for service, especially in the armed forces; a draftee." There isn't a nation in the world that forces its men/women to serve that long. Most of those were conscripts who chose to become a professional.

You can train a conscript all you want, but if he is only in the service for 12-18 months (on average), then how much can he absorb and become fully competent at? The difference is that a professional will have several years mastery on the assault rifle, AA missile, heavy MG, whatever. He's going to know far better how to employ that weapon, what to do to jury-rig/fix it, etc than a conscript who went through a two week course on it 8 months ago will.





Yes, the Iranian air force did quite well against the Iraqis. But again, I'd bet that the majority of their pilots were long term professionals who re-upped several times. The Iranians had the most powerful military force in the Persian Gulf before the revolution because the Shah paid them well, equipped them well and had them trained to US standards.




There might be, or there might not. Canada didn't institute conscription for overseas service until 1944, and by the time they did, only a few thousand actually went overseas.

   

I don't think that conscription for the whole of society would be feasable nowadays but seeing how young people are acting these days I think think that it could be a good thing for young offenders. Obviously not too young anyone over 16 or 17 instead of institutionalisation. I can't really speak for Canada as I haven't lived there for 8 years but here in Britain the behaviour of children is getting worse and worse and a year or so of boot camp might do them some good.

Theres a tv show over here called Bad Lads Army. Where they get theives, car robbers and other young men with some sort of criminal history and put them through 50s style basic training. It works quite well and alot of them come out a new person, some even wanting to join the real army. There are of course some who can't be changed and they get rooted out quite quickly but the majority get through it.

Definately something that could be done on a larger scale I think.

   

I think to force people to join the forces would be a mistake and effect
our National Identity as a whole.

As a serving member, I want people in uniform who want to be in uniform.
I don't want the dregs of any society with a weapon. It takes a special
understanding and a whole lot of heart to wear the uniform. Its not everyones piece of cake, and thats why we have people entering into a basic contract. If they like it they stay if not they don't, best of luck to them.

We have a strong forces because the people who wear the uniform want to,
and are proud to do so. They put everything into it and are proud of their
achievements, and rightfully so.


Take a moment and send your thoughts to those serving over seas.

Thanks

   

Bye your own admission mandatory service would be perfect.

"Its not everyones piece of cake, and thats why we have people entering into a basic contract. If they like it they stay if not they don't, best of luck to them.

People are going to wash out that is a fact but some will stay and others will be noted.

Frankly I am getting sick and tired of some of these disrespectful little pricks running around thinking the world owes them because they were born.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next