MedVision ad

Should conscription be re-introduced in 21st Century Australia? (1 Viewer)

Should conscription be re-introduced in 21st Century Australia?


  • Total voters
    110

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Basic problem: if security is such a looming issue and we feel the need for a revamp, then I think that troop no. would be one of the last places to start. First of all, we would look at upgrading the technology and numbers (of machines or the 'weapons of war') of both the Navy and the Airforce (ie constructing large groups of ac carriers, subs, better fighter planes etc and in larger numbers). Naturally, we would then look to acquiring the necessary numbers to man / fly / operate these pieces of technology. Many of these are specialist, which would make conscription undesirable and probably ineffectual; and I doubt it would be a necessity for fulfilling the required no.

We would then look to developing a decent and largely independant (or at least capable of indepedance if the situation called for it) war industry - aim at the long term production of our own munitions, ammo, uniforms, weapons, vehicles, etc. Furthermore, we would aim to expand (as before) our own engineering areas which relate to the design of such devices.

Once we came to the army, if we really wanted to improve it, we would look to upgrading our armour no. and level of technological advancement. Then, possibly then, we would come to the issue of troop numbers - we have a fair distance to go before we even need to consider conscription. As it stands, simply increasing the number of troops would do very little in a modern war (even though the army is still essential). A mass of bodies are not going to defend against against nukes or standard cruise/ballistic missiles (indeed, if we regarded this as a seroius threat, we would begin to look to developing effective counter active defensive systems instead). And it would work far better if we developed a better method of persuading a larger number of people that entering the army/ other armed branch was desirable in not only a personal and fiscal level, but also on a wider cultural level, rather than violating our national principles by forcing people to fight. Also persuading soldiers to stay in the army a long time after their minimum service time has expired would also assist (ie maintaining a strong veteran base). Conscription would also fail simply because the public would reject it and try at every term to undermine it. It would not make a noteworthy difference.
Yes my second contention.

Even if we bolster numbers, we're still severely lacking
a. Firepower
b. Technology
c. Boats and planes and air craft carriers and all of the other important components that make it worth having an army.

So basically we're looking at spending billions upon billions upon billions of dollars to upgrade and maintain an army we may never use. GG guys.
 

lpodnano

5eva alone
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
1,561
Location
;)
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
i dont think past servicemen fought and died so their grandchildren could be conscripted into the army 60yrs later to fight wars they probably wont even agree with

im sure any of the veterans would urge any of us not to go to war because they wont want anyone else to see the shit they saw. if australia came under direct threat then this would obviously be neccessary, but if that were the case i think there would be plenty of VOLUNTEERS who would enlist the defend the country.

one of the main reasons why mateship and courage etc were attributes of former australian servicemen was because they were volunteers and were there on their own account, not being forced by the government. obviously vietnam is an exception but look what happened there. people were divided over conscription and this hurt the overall war effort.
Plus in Vietnam, the soldiers didn't come back as heroes, they came back and portrayed as villains even though they were conscripted.
I don't think conscription should be reintroduced.

I find the fact unfair that young men have to be forced to fight in an old man's disagreement. Volunteers would be fine because they actually want to do it.
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Plus in Vietnam, the soldiers didn't come back as heroes, they came back and portrayed as villains even though they were conscripted.
I don't think conscription should be reintroduced.

I find the fact unfair that young men have to be forced to fight in an old man's disagreement. Volunteers would be fine because they actually want to do it.
They also came back mentally fucked and alcoholic because they were subjected to jungle warfare, which isn't the same as trench warfare or any other type of battle, on top of being social pariahs.
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,897
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
Your arguments make no sense, sam.

"OMG China and the rest of the world is going to attack Australia using Nukes and shit lol oh but you see if we force a few thousand civilians with only very basic training to fight for Australia then we'll be safe okay lol".
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
In response to zimmerman;

Sam W: It's not my war.

Optimus Prime: Not yet, but I fear it soon will be. Your world must not share the same fate as cybertron.
 

walkahz

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
221
Location
WOY WOY
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
I voted yes because if you arnt willing to fight for our great country then you dont deserve to live in it. It might teach people some disipline as well and stop this country going to the dogs.
The conscription issue is tricky as it is impossible to ensure that it is implemented properly (which i am sure this incompetent government could not do). If conscription isnt done well it is pointless.
 

chlodogg

New Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
9
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
forcing people to fight wars is NOT the answer to our society's flaws.
 

cactuar

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
42
Location
Newcastle
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
I voted yes because if you arnt willing to fight for our great country then you dont deserve to live in it. It might teach people some disipline as well and stop this country going to the dogs.
The conscription issue is tricky as it is impossible to ensure that it is implemented properly (which i am sure this incompetent government could not do). If conscription isnt done well it is pointless.
are you serious?
 

Cookie182

Individui Superiore
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
1,484
Location
Global
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I voted yes because if you arnt willing to fight for our great country then you dont deserve to live in it. It might teach people some disipline as well and stop this country going to the dogs.
The conscription issue is tricky as it is impossible to ensure that it is implemented properly (which i am sure this incompetent government could not do). If conscription isnt done well it is pointless.

Does anyone actually have a choice where they are born?

By what criteria can we judge "deservingness" over a drifting landmass at specific point in universal time?

At one point we tried race, that failed. What is your answer? The degree of nationalism- something I view as a frivilous illusion. Oh cause we see how great overt nationalism has worked through history- "I killed X amount of people of country Y, I'm so much more deserving of country Z status"
 

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
yeah basic training of a fraction of our popualtion will definitely be able to protect us from China.
Unconventional/guerilla warfare (Australia is perfect for it) and superior weaponry (which we currently have) would allow us to fend off a Chinese invasion long enough for our allies to help us out. In fact, it's exactly that concept which Australia's current defence force is based and trained on: holding out long enough for support from America and Europe.

But in reality, the bigger threat is probably one of our resource-hungry South-East Asian neighbours which collapses from civil war or dictatorship who don't possess the political clout of China nor the economic success. That could make for a desperate group of people.

The likelihood of Australia being invaded in the next 50 years? Improbable, but not minuscule.
 

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
No we're not. We're surrounded by ocean. Most of our closest neighbors such as Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands pose no military threat whatsover.
There's this place called South-East Asia with a bunch of hybrid regimes and failed states and we happen to be just below it.

If you're referring to Indonesia it is neither a hybrid regime, nor a failed state, it is considered a functional democracy (not that that means alot). It has never posed any military threat to Australia, never expressed any intention to attack Australia and does not have the resources, particularly in terms of naval power, to invade Australia even if it wanted to.
Actually, given the progress Indonesia has made in roughly only 10 years from military dictatorship to brimming democracy I think we should be far, far closer to them in military ties and free trade than we currently are. But I'm not going to kid myself into thinking they're a bunch of pacifists. Look at Papua, Aceh, East Timor. It's only been 10 years, so let's forgive but not forget. Indonesia is a very, very resource hungry nation and that's going to get worse as it grows. It's already chock full of way too many people, of dozens of different ethnic groups, all wanting the same resources, opportunities, and rights. It's current economic growth rate of 4 to 6% is not even enough to counteract unemployment and the birth rate. To blindly assume that Indonesia could never fall into civil war or dictatorship again that could threaten Australia's own safety is woefully ignorant.

Our military has not been used to actually defend Australia since WW2. Since this time it has only been used in overseas conflicts that have nothing to do with us.
I'm sure the government is ever so sorry Australian soldiers were used in peace-keeping missions to improve the quality of life of neighbouring countries.

So you accuse China of nationalism, yet support conscription and military expansion?
I support limited conscription during an invasion of Australia and expansion of the military to ensure our defencive capability is being maintained as a preventative measure against invasion. Explain to me exactly which of those is nationalistic? Oh wait, you consider defending Australia to be nationalistic. OK, thanks for the input Dom. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

JonathanM

Antagonist
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
1,067
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
This shit is going too fast for me to follow, I'm bailing.

I support it:

1. Because we're a fucking pussy nation atm, and it's 'bout time we got some conquering done.

2. Cause we're fat shits and it'd be a perfect solution to the obesity epidemic

3. Give all those lebos something productive to do.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top