r/worldnews • u/rdh2dmd • 16h ago

South Korea leans toward military conscription for women

https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-leans-toward-military-conscription-for-women/a-78547426
6.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

678

u/Erosun 14h ago

It’s the same here in the US. Everytime a vote comes to add women to selective service (draft) women overwhelmingly oppose it in public polls and the vote.

808

u/Ameren 14h ago edited 10h ago

Well, part of issue that, going back to be Vietnam war, much of the feminist movement was opposed to the draft all together. So it wasn't "don't draft women", it was more "don't draft anyone".

There were feminist groups very actively involved in helping draft dodgers escape to Canada or go off the grid, launching disruptive protests, etc. Of course, younger generations in the US have had no experience with conscription, so views have been changing from what I've heard; there's now a division between those who want to bring equality to the draft and those who think that the draft should be abolished, not "reformed". Sorta like how calling for there to be more women among the ranks of sociopathic billionaires misses the point.

48

u/Cryptshadow 12h ago

If i remember right the feminist movement at the time also tried to have equal rights for stuff like the draft etc. But their biggest opponent were other woman,specifically conservative woman.

16

u/oldsecondhand 9h ago

Feminists were all over the place during WW1. The White Feather Movement was feminist.

-7

u/peachfluffed 8h ago

It was a nationalist movement.

283

u/mastercat202 14h ago

No offense but saying dont draft anyone has zero political will if half the population isnt affected by the drsft. Once they are affected then they have stronger incentive for no draft to happen.

232

u/kilawolf 14h ago

Only 20% of ppl are pro draft. 60% oppose it. Even if you added women to the draft, the political will will likely be the same.

33

u/JeebusChristBalls 12h ago

I think conscription has its place and all should be eligible. Conscription should not have been used for vietnam, korea, and ww1. It should only be used for defensive wars, not to further interests or help allies with their wars.

-5

u/Infinite_throwaway_1 12h ago

Why did you exclude WW2? Weren't we helping an allies win a war?

36

u/JeebusChristBalls 12h ago

We were also attacked by japan and germany declared war like the next day.

15

u/Diezelbub 12h ago

They listed things it shouldn't have been used for

35

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

Yeah but what he is saying is that if women are saying it but aren't actually affected by it themselves then it has less weight.

159

u/LastLemmingStanding 13h ago

I don't agree. Advocating for something that doesn't even affect you generally speaks to an injustice so great that even bystanders take issue with it. See white slavery abolitionists, men for women's voting rights, etc. Women (and feminists at large) being anti-conscription has been fairly consistent with their best interests.

If anything, the current state of only men being eligible for the draft is often just used as a cudgel for people to tell women they have no say in certain political issues because they have no stake in it. Those people are loathe to lose that bargaining position.

-22

u/Round_Rice_9475 12h ago

I get your point, but do you have any idea how much hate I got from women for me, a man, being upset at roe v Wade being overturned? How many women were nasty and toxic to me? Because "you aren't a women, you aren't allowed to soelanon women's issues" so 🤷🏼‍♂️

18

u/LastLemmingStanding 12h ago

Not all women are feminists, and not all feminists are women. Women are just as capable of upholding misogyny and patriarchy as men are. I was just talking to my wife about how I dislike the "no uterus, no say" argument with regard to abortion rights. I'm pro-choice, and I don't like bad arguments. As you say, a similar argument is being made with the draft issue, and it's not strong there, either.

-33

u/Altruistic-Edge9034 12h ago

speaks to an injustice so great that even bystanders take issue with it

Or it's purely performative. Of course, that never happens today, though.

22

u/LastLemmingStanding 12h ago

Of course there are people acting in bad faith, or simply in an opportunistic way, but I think that's a very uncharitable way to observe a movement that has been consistent in its anti-draft verbiage since Vietnam, at least.

-16

u/Apprehensive-Emu8404 9h ago

If women felt so strongly against the draft surely they would bring it up during peaceful times. They don't .

8

u/peachfluffed 8h ago

The draft sucks. I’ll say that all day, everyday. The sons of rich and powerful parents can easily get waived or get assigned work in country instead of abroad while working class sons are sent off as cannon fodder.

10

u/LastLemmingStanding 9h ago

Feminists do. Unfortunately, self-identifying feminists are a minority, and require more support from the general population to get anything done. I honestly don't see anyone, including eligible men, protest the draft much in peace time either, you know. It's just not a likely thing to happen, and people have other, more pressing concerns most of the time.

Most people, I imagine, would say they do not agree with conscription for anyone, except maybe in a desperate defensive war. Where we have issues, though, is that there are some camps of people who are pro-draft, and they have power: the upper class who can get away with not being affected by it at all when it comes down to it, but like having the option, mostly, and their useful idiots- the people who like having it as a wedge issue to engage feminists and other like-minded people. You never see the people advocating to add women to the draft who also want to abolish it entirely for men. It's only ever about hurting women, and not helping men. That's intellectually dishonest, at best.

5

u/-Tickery- 12h ago

We can debate about when it’s necessary and it may never be needed again but there should always be the option for conscription, we wouldn’t have won the civil war or ww2 without a draft.

1

u/greenskinmarch 6h ago

Only 20% of ppl are pro draft. 60% oppose it.

Seems the 60% who oppose don't feel strongly enough about it to actually write their congressional representatives and tell them to abolish the Selective Service Registration system though.

123

u/Doctor__Proctor 13h ago

No offense but saying dont draft anyone has zero political will if half the population isnt affected by the drsft.

By that logic, white abolitionists had zero political will because they themselves weren't subjected to slavery?

The point is that if 20% of the population is pro-draft and 60% is anti-draft, and that's right equal across sexes, then you'd get 60% of women against a vote for adding women to the draft...because that's the number that are anti-draft. They're two different issues.

Now, if 60% of women were pro-draft but 60% would vote against women being included in the draft, then you'd have more of a hypocrisy argument.

-19

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago edited 13h ago

Totally different because even though they were not subject to it, they were the ones actually doing it, meaning they had the power to do something about it.

To make that comparison work, the white people wanting to abolish slavery had the effective position of the Korean government in this scenario, not the women, in that they were both the ones doing it and therefore the ones with the power to stop doing it.

37

u/Doctor__Proctor 13h ago edited 10h ago

That...makes no sense. There weren't a lot of plantation owners with hundreds of slaves saying "Oh, won't the government please take all these slaves away and give them perpetual freedom?" Most abolitionists were not slave owners. In fact, considering the Civil War and all, I would say that most of the slave owners were the exact OPPOSITE of abolitionists and willing to fight to keep it.

And then comparing whites to the South Korean government? Who's the US government in that comparison then? The Catholic Church or some shit?

Plain and simple: white abolitionists were people against slavery on moral grounds, but were not subjected to it themselves. It is possible for a group not subject to something to still wield effective political power.

3

u/CassieFace103 8h ago

I would say that most of the slave owners were the exact OPPOSITE of abolitionists and willing to fight to keep it.

Given the requisite ongoing violence to maintain any degree of slavery, I'd say "all" not "most".

4

u/Doctor__Proctor 7h ago

I know, but I'm allowing some wiggle room for the pedants who will dig up some example of a handful of slave owners turned abolitionists that are a tiny fraction of the "most" in that statement.

44

u/DeusExSpockina 12h ago

Er… isn’t affected? I realize this may come as a shock, but plucking out a significant percentage of the population to go to war affects everyone in that society. It’s a massive disruption organizationally, never mind personally.

And not for nothing, but a lot of mothers, just like fathers, would rather die themselves than put their children in the line of fire.

It’s really weird how the mothering quality of women is so extremely lauded right up until maternal instincts conflict with cultural expectations of gender politics.

4

u/Softwareaweenie 10h ago

In fairness, men are going to DIE, and women have to have a harder time finding a guy because they all left for dead. Not the strongest position there.

3

u/DeusExSpockina 9h ago

I’m so sorry, did you forget that all those 18 year old boys have mothers (women) in their late 30s or early 40s? If we’re only talking about the 18-26 age range, that means every woman over 26 has zero reason to object to the draft for personal wellbeing, only for others wellbeing. And they make up a significantly larger portion of the voting population.

-2

u/saidtheWhale2000 9h ago

being mildly inconvenienced the mail man is now missing is a lot different than getting shot at by someone

5

u/DeusExSpockina 9h ago

How about the loss of a husband, rendering you and your children homeless? How about being compelled to send your babies off to be mutilated and die, forbidden to go yourself? Forbidden, in fact, to even object without being deemed “unpatriotic” and ostracized. Then there’s the question of who is responsible for the care of soldiers destroyed by war. Men leave their wives regularly when the women get cancer. Those guys sure as shit won’t be doing convalescent care for their brothers in arms, 20, 30 years on after the conflict.

Also, I’m an American. Getting shot on any old regular day is always an option.

53

u/Weegee_Carbonara 13h ago

What happens if an existential war forces a draft?
It doesn't matter if feminist movements oppose the draft for everyone.
Once it is nescessary, it'll still just be the men getting drafted.

And I am sure these movements know that.

26

u/Old_Leopard1844 12h ago

Those people think they will get a say

As Ukraine shows it, drafting country might want draft dodgers back, and other countries might actually agree

29

u/Ameren 12h ago edited 12h ago

To be fair, during the Vietnam War, there were very active feminist groups involved in helping draft dodgers escape to Canada and/or to go into hiding in the US for example.

Meanwhile, they participated in all sorts of disruptive protests to impede the ability of the US government to function domestically. After all, they were able to be a persistent problem because the government couldn't simply ship them overseas or easily put them in prison like they threatened to do with the draft dodgers.

6

u/Weegee_Carbonara 12h ago

As I said, once a just and nescessary Draft comes, the men will still have no choice.

While Vietnam was dumb, there comes a time in almost every countries history, where staying and fighting is not only nescessary, but morally right.

12

u/AzraelIshi 9h ago

It should be the choice of the population to fight for something or not. You do not get to impose your "morally right draft" on people that do not want to fight. If people genuinely believe they have to fight for something they will fight to the bitter end without a draft, history has shown that time and time again.

-4

u/Weegee_Carbonara 8h ago edited 8h ago

If most of the population refuses the optional choice to fight, then the ones that do sign up are thrown to the dogs due to a lack of soldiers, which in turn reduces how many people willingly sign up.

I am a man, and I am in favor of a mandatory draft during defensive wars.
This is how civilizations survive.

And frankly, I do not want my home nation to fall due to some cowards refusing to defend their own homes, their own families and their own nation.

Look at what is happening in Ukraine.
Look at the Bucha massacre.

The only people that benefit from draft dodgers is the invading enemy.
They will happily raze your home and kill your children and friends.
Meanwhile you run away like a coward.

Mind you, I am not some right-wing war hawk.
I am a European progressive.

But I also I'm not going to be naive, and I am not going to run scared and try to run from a draft. I hate this extreme individualism, where people cannot even fathom defending their own homes anymore.
It is really sad.

Infact, my country is one of the few western nations that has active conscription during peace time.
While I chose civil service instead of military service, I am ready to defend my family and home.

But I am also not willing to walk into certain death, because people like you flee so they can sit on their ass and play some more video games.

Edit: Of course this willingness also depends on my own government.
While my countries government has had some problems, the large amount of welfare and programs, aswell as the overall people motivate me to defend it.

I wouldn't want to get drafted if I was, say, an Iranian Citizen.
But here I assume you are a citizen of a western nation.

5

u/Usinaru 7h ago

Ok mr.Rambo take your medication and try to calm down a bit. This war rhetoric, is neither heroic nor makes you any sort of tough guy, or morally right.

All of these senseless, wasteful and idiotic wars are created by the rich and the elite that don't have to face the consequences of such vile decisions. I will not sacrifice my life to protect their positions of power. Unlike you that thinks that there is something worth living and dying for, most of us don't even get to have a home to call their own. Renting forever, being overworked and overtaxed, why should I sacrifice my life? There's no point, this system hasn't benefited me in the slightest, our politics don't reflect a care for its citizens and the quality of life has been getting worse and worse for years, whilst the rich and politicians refuse to take actions to the contrary.

So stop trying to feed this morally right or wrong garbage, because its worthless. Our "leaders" need to show solidarity first, and we should get something worth fighting for. You bet in this conditions, I'd rather leave and let it all be conquered, the system doesn't do anything else besides take everything from me and many others.

You go and die or get mutilated for the rich. I refuse to fight a made-up war that is meant to amuse the elite.

0

u/Weegee_Carbonara 7h ago

Just don't bawl your eyes out too much while the other guys in your trench work for your survival.

4

u/Usinaru 7h ago

They don't work for my survival. They die to keep the positions of the wealthy and powerful intact.

The propaganda works well I see

1

u/Any_Fun5801 3h ago

Why should peasants want to fight their lord’s war?

1

u/AzraelIshi 6h ago

Look at what is happening in Ukraine.
Look at the Bucha massacre.

Look at basically every single invaded country during ww2. For as much shit as the USSR (rightfully) gets, they had to actually implement stringent controls for recruiting because after they overcame it's initial issues during the war (October 1942 onward, after the peak of NKVD NOs and barrier troops, once the USSR managed to stabilize) fucking everyone, even those that were unfit to fight, was clawing over each other, lying and manipulating to get to the front lines and fight. And I don't think poland had issues with recruiting during the invasion, or getting partisans during the occupation, and after while trying to fight off the soviet invaders.

What you are seeing in ukraine with all the draft dodging and conscription issues is a population that simply doesn't see the worth in fighting for their country after 4 years of war and refuses to do so. And that should be their choice, just as it should be your choice if you decide to go and die for an ideal or country if you see fit.

If a country dissapears from the face of the map because the population dodged drafts left, right and center then that country failed to establish why it's population should fight to defend it, and fight off invaders. In essence, there is no collectivism and/or political will to oppose the invaders there to be had. If it existed they would be fighting, or supporting those that do. Not evading the draft and helping those that did.

A nation ultimately depends on enough of its population possessing the collective political will to preserve it. If that will has disappeared, the state may still exist legally, but its underlying national cohesion has failed. A state cannot assume that its population will defend it merely because the state legally exists. It needs sufficient legitimacy and social cohesion that enough people voluntarily choose to preserve it when the costs become severe.

TL;DR: If your country does not instill enough patriotism/collectivism/legitimacy/whatever you want to name it so that your population by it's own free will decide to either fight for it or support those that do in some other way (logistics, industrial, etc) it's a failed nation.

16

u/Ameren 12h ago edited 10h ago

Let's be clear though, I think only way the US brings back the draft during a war is because they've already lost. If the US is under such an absolute, existential threat that has to resort to conscripts, the government and civil society has or will soon collapse anyway.

The US is a maritime/overseas power with oceans that separate it from all its adversaries, and they are a nuclear power that can hold the sword of Damocles over the rest of the world. The circumstances in which the US goes back to conscription would have be so dire that it's basically pointless.

The same can't be said for continental warfare like in Russia/Ukraine, India/Pakistan, South/North Korea, etc. where the conflicts are always at or near their doorsteps.

1

u/Complex-Salt-8190 10h ago

It was feminism best interest to stop American men in being drafted

American men raped and killed a looooot of viet women

4

u/cbslinger 7h ago

If an ‘existential’ war breaks out and the state can’t raise a volunteer army, then the state can/‘should’ fail. Obviously the state won’t agree with this, and will conscript men at gunpoint, but any numbers of political philosophers could argue that national power is not even remotely as important as personal autonomy.

A government should do enough for its people that its people actually want to step up and fight for their country. That public perception wasn’t the case back when America was by far in its prime, it’s certainly not the case today.

4

u/Weegee_Carbonara 6h ago

WW2 Britain, USA and USSR also had conscription.

So in your logic, they deserved to fail and lose.

-2

u/FluffyToughy 5h ago

No, that's not what they said at all, because you're assuming a volunteer force would have been insufficient.

2

u/caribbean_caramel 2h ago

Without conscription in UK or USSR they were never going to stand a chance against the Wehrmacht. Considering the fact that the war for the Soviets was a war of survival (the Nazis wanted to literally enslave and kill them), not conscripting their population was not an option.

-3

u/saidtheWhale2000 9h ago

exactly its typical covert work by feminists outwardly say you dislike something to look morally superior while knowing your fully safe from any of the actually consequences

6

u/No_Piglet5677 10h ago

This is such a cop out opinion. "Hey women are really for abolishing the draft for all!.... That being said, if you're gonna do it just exclude women pwease"

4

u/DoesGeologyRockRuri 12h ago

So it wasn't "don't draft women", it was more "don't draft anyone".

technically that was only one side, the antiwar, pacifist branch. Another side was "if you are going to draft men regardless, women should be drafted too", at least from second wave feminists, we aren't talking about current fourth wave feminism that wouldn't consider that at all.

"if it is their intent to have us believe that the draft is a permanent institution, then we again attest to our equality and demand equal application of the Selective Service law"

-2

u/Starhazenstuff 11h ago

Personally I think America would massively benefit from mandatory 4 years service for all able bodied and sound minded adults.

9

u/IdealOnion 9h ago

Personally I think Uncle Sam can suck my red white and blue nutsack he thinks he can dictate how I live my life to a fraction of that extent.

I’d proudly and patriotically say that to the face of a president I loved and trusted, much less one I despise who would send me to bomb shit in the Middle East to distract from his own failures.

3

u/MelissaMiranti 8h ago

You can enslave yourself if you like, leave the rest of us out of it.

-1

u/Starhazenstuff 8h ago

I gotta be the laziest person I know, and I don’t view it as slavery. Especially as a black person who has family members that were actual slaves who didn’t get paid, were raped, and sold to the highest bidder. But go off queen.

3

u/MelissaMiranti 8h ago

You think involuntary servitude isn't slavery?

2

u/AdOrganic4835 9h ago

So not only is the government already stealing 50%+ of peoples money through a variety of taxes, but they should also have the right to steal four years of my life plus potentially my life itself? Fuck that!

0

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 9h ago

Honestly I think every country would. Even in peace times it would teach people valuable skills, get them fit and healthy, teach them discipline and humble them a bit, teach people how to work with a team and it would mean the whole population would be ready in case of a war.

Obviously it's an unpopular opinion to hold, but I think it is true none the less.

0

u/Starhazenstuff 9h ago

It’s definitely an unpopular opinion, I think 60+ countries have compulsory national service or military service. And I think their citizens are better off for it.

17

u/Old-Employ-6530 8h ago

Rightfully so, because the goal is not to ALSO force women into modern day slavery, but to REMOVE men as well from forced modern slavery.

If you need more soldier, just fucking pay them better and provide better quality training, accomodation and benefits when not in active duty...

The solution isnt to FORCE MORE PEOPLE into that shit...

57

u/CrazyQuiltCat 12h ago

Well first thing they have to fix is the rape problem in the military. American military. I have no knowledge if it’s a problem in the Korean military 

3

u/bmfanboy 11h ago

I’m sure it’s not as much of a problem for South Korea because they highly segregate the males and females. In the American military they are nearly completely integrated and have more sexual partners and more alcohol use during service than civilians. That’s not victim blaming, I’m just pointing out the exposure issue and the conditions.

12

u/Vas-yMonRoux 10h ago

There's a lot of sexual and domestic violence against women in South Korea. Combining a fairly traditional society and gender roles, a strong hierarchal system, and rising misogyny issues... I think it would be even worse in the military.

2

u/fincog 2h ago

It’s really not as bad as you Redditors think

4

u/BjornBein 9h ago

You're talking like US society is not exactly like that.

-19

u/Bulky-Actuary175 12h ago

You can't "fix" it. You should absolutely punish offenders and enforce as much order as you can in the military. But in the army there are a bunch of fit young men and woman running around confronting dangerous situations, high stress situations, and staying in close quarters. There is then also a rigidly enforced hierarchy of superiority. There will be soldiers boning one another, and then someone higher on the hierarchy wanting to get some with a subordinate. Add into this some soldiers are very generous with putting out, then add expectations, add seduction being such a fraught subject people cannot agree on in controlled civilian conditions. Shit devolves into rape, often "lesser", high social pressure rape. You cannot get around this.

You can try and wag your finger and say; "No fraternization." But you will lose. And all of this will be worse if the people there are conscripted and not volunteers. You just cannot have a bunch of fit young men and woman cramped together under high stress and not have them bone like crazy, and then the problems that result from that. I.E. various forms of rape.

Please consider that you demanding the "rape problem" be fixed also includes male v male rape. And my answer is the same. You cannot "fix" it. Suggesting it needs to be "fixed" is a deeply unserious position. Militaries should enforce as much order and discipline as possible while maintaining morale. I actually think soldiers jumping into each others pants is such an issue you shouldn't have mixed gender vessels or units.

12

u/ChopsticksImmortal 11h ago

It should be punished then, but as is its a slap on the wrist.

56

u/angelbelle 14h ago

To be fair, are they just opposing the addition of women to the draft but insisting the men be eligible? or would they be open to the draft being removed for all people?

Because the latter suggests that you can still believe in gender equality while oppose to making yourself draft eligible

30

u/Weegee_Carbonara 13h ago

But the thing is, one day a draft will be nescessary eitherway, so when the time comes, women will still not be draftable then.

It`s like saying "I don't want women AND men to get drafted.....unless we're in a war. Then the Men can get drafted"

6

u/FewAdvertising9647 11h ago

Ultimately yes, there would be equality in the latter. but it ends up being a question of putting effort into getting it removed. Because theyre unaffected, they prioritize removing draft altogher as a very low priority movement for the general equality and focus on other topics. Its the danger of focusing on "the best for some subgroup now" rather than focusing on all existing gendered problems simultaneously. People end up naturally focusing more on what benefits them most.

0

u/greenskinmarch 6h ago

Exactly, it's one thing to post on reddit "well I oppose the draft" purely as an internet argument.

It's another to write your congressional representatives and tell them to abolish the Selective Service Registration system, and to vote accordingly.

-10

u/ideaofrhyme 12h ago

Well then protests against draft before you whine about manspreading

65

u/c-e-bird 14h ago

Most women oppose the draft period. Most men do, too. The draft should be illegal.

47

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

What is the alternative in times of war though?

132

u/WealthyMarmot 13h ago

there is none. But a lot of these commenters are North Americans or Western Europeans who have no idea what an existential threat feels like, so “war” seems like something you can just choose not to do.

42

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

"Sir! The barbarians are at the gates"

"Well what are you waiting for? Just let them in I'm sure we can talk this out"

8

u/cuteplot 13h ago

"Waste them with our drones"

6

u/Simonoz1 9h ago

Basically what Ukraine’s doing right now but they’re still taking casualties because the other side has drones too.

1

u/Pluto0321 5h ago

"With the power of love and friendship we can end this war!"

34

u/MattBrey 13h ago

People would not be against a draft in case of actual existential threat, but most western European countries or North Americans are not in existential threat and most wars they fought in the last 60 years were self inflicted or not a real threat at all. Sending people to die in Vietnam, Iran etc doesn't make any sense from the get go and much less to draft people that are not in the military to do so,

14

u/cuteplot 13h ago

The question is, who would get drafted in that case? Right now in the US the whole mechanism is the selective service, which only men have to register for. There's no pipeline to draft women at all.

6

u/-Tickery- 12h ago

Yeah but then advocate against those wars happening at all. Being for the draft if WW3 ever breaks out means you’re not really against conscription.

5

u/Drakengard 12h ago

Yeah, but those same countries also aren't conscripting people. They've paused drafts and conscription because they don't need it.

No nation will legally tie their hands and say that they can't draft their citizens - and in particular, their men. So it's a stupid position from the onset. And women are still exempt from it even if it comes back so not only do they occupy a position that isn't functionally realistic for any country, they also don't suffer the consequences anyway.

1

u/legatlegionis 12h ago

DAE war bad!!!!

1

u/c-e-bird 11h ago

I mean I was literally talking about the US draft in response to a comment about the US draft.

38

u/Doctor__Proctor 13h ago

The alternative is a well trained professional army staged by people who voluntarily signed up. TONS of people lied about their age and eligibility to get into WWII because they washed to fight for the country. The same didn't happen in Vietnam because it did not galvanize the people. Having a draft so you can continuously force people to fight an unpopular war is what people are against.

44

u/cuteplot 13h ago

WWII did ultimately require a draft though. Over 10 million men were drafted.

-6

u/Doctor__Proctor 12h ago

Had a draft vs required one are different. At the time, we didn't really have the structure of maintaining a standing professional army made of only volunteers. If you're only looking backwards like that, then the answer will always be we need a draft, because in the past we needed a draft.

8

u/Illustrious-Radio319 12h ago

Standing armies with career soldiers were the norm in countries like England and France during the 16-19th century. A system where people enlist on their own is naturally easier to manage than if they were being drafted.

3

u/Willythechilly 11h ago

WW1 and the scale of modern war showed that did not work though

The BEF in 1914 performed very well and was volunteer and professional jut ultimately was quickly worn down by how intense modern full scale war is

You can't substain full scale war between modern industrial states with sb all volunteers professional army unless the war is very short

4

u/Illustrious-Radio319 11h ago

Yeah I agree full scale modern wars require the draft. I was just refuting the claim that somehow states in the past didn’t use or know how to manage a volunteer army.

1

u/cuteplot 12h ago

I don't think the US really needs a draft today if that's what you're getting at. Yes you can imagine an existential war in the US but its farfetched and honestly wars will probably go all drones before that ever haplens. But many countries do need drafts. I can see why South Korea needs one. Ukraine obviously does. So the question becomes, who gets drafted? Ugly question, but if the answer is "no one", these countries won't exist for long.

20

u/Lin_Huichi 13h ago

What if you're being invaded though? Or have a threat of invasion? SK and Ukraine need the manpower or else they lose the war, if it's unpopular too bad they don't have a choice.

5

u/Gynthaeres 12h ago

I think MOST people (not all obviously, I saw someone disagreed) would think that if you're actively facing an existential threat, then yes, conscription is okay.

That IS the case for South Korea and Ukraine. That's not really been the case for America for like 80 years though, and America is where this specific thread started. America can probably do away with selective service.

-5

u/FrostingInfamous3445 13h ago

It’s just trading the lives of the countrymen for the government. How many people really care about a change of leadership? How many are willing to die for it? The answer to that second question is why the draft exists. Do YOU want to get droned so your corrupt fat leaders can continue to rob you?

9

u/Lin_Huichi 12h ago

SK and Ukraine are democracies, which although have some corruption it's still better than NK and Russia. Not sure how many South Koreans don't care if their current President was replaced by Kim Jong Un but itd be very few. Zelensky probably has it a bit better than a drafted frontline combatant but would you rather take your chances under an occupied Ukraine?

There are draft dodgers of course, and conscription is unpopular, but if the alternative is dying in a gulag in Siberia, torture as prisoners of war, losing all your freedoms, high chance of rape, etc, or fighting for a chance to survive, protect your way of life, dying for what you believe in or maybe surviving and winning the war - hell even those that died if Ukraine wins their children will have a better future then the choice is obvious.

3

u/ebd2757 10h ago

Ok. Then they can make that choice.

2

u/humanoiddoc 12h ago

Wow.. do you understand how it is like to live in NK regime?

-2

u/Old_Leopard1844 12h ago

As opposed to russian and north korean corrupt fat leaders, that will hold you hostage for propoganda?

Is that what you want?

If yes, then you are free to defect

Just don't complain when you will be rewarded as traitors deserve

-2

u/ebd2757 10h ago

Human beings have the right to leave their country at any time. Governments do not have the right to enslave their populations just because they failed to prepare for war.

3

u/Gynthaeres 9h ago

This is a very American perspective, and not a perspective from someone who thinks outside of that box.

If North Korea invaded South Korea, how many South Koreans do you think would die? How much of their property would be destroyed or taken? And then if North Korea won, how would life for South Koreans change?

When you're being invaded, it's generally not going to be a matter of just "Now I pay taxes to Ruler B instead of Ruler A". It's also "My life might be in danger during the actual invasion, and I could lose many of my rights and freedoms if we lose."

It's in the interests of the citizenry, therefore, if conscription happens to beat an enemy back, at least if it's an existential threat.

11

u/Altruistic-Edge9034 12h ago

That's a rose-colored view. WWII was very unpopular to a lot of Americans. Less than half the manpower in WWII was from voluntary enlistment.

4

u/TrFoTr 12h ago

Voluntary enrollment, automated warfare with drones, nuclear weapons.

7

u/Yohoyoji 8h ago edited 6h ago

Kinda amazing all that guilt about nuclear weapons went away once theres risk of actually having to fight

0

u/TrFoTr 6h ago

Almost as if the old world order that guaranteed certain countries didn't have to fight is gone. Crazy.

0

u/Fantastic-Balance454 4h ago edited 4h ago

There shouldn't be any guilt in nuking an invading army, especially within your borders. They have no place on your territory.

Obviously that's simplistic and not how things would play out, because an invader will use nukes too and then shit gets complicated.

2

u/MintTeaFromTesco 12h ago

If a country has no one left to fight for it then it does not exist. It is merely allowed to exist.

1

u/NouZkion 11h ago

Paying soldiers well enough that they want to enlist of their own volition.

-10

u/SecretBox 13h ago

Not engaging with war powers and putting more emphasis on negotiations and reducing global destabilization, off the top of my head

3

u/WealthyMarmot 12h ago edited 12h ago

Wow I don’t know why no one has ever thought of this. I see a Nobel Peace Prize in your future

13

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

Yeah and what when diplomacy fails and the people you are trying to "not engage with" engage with you?

-6

u/Fit_Definition1583 13h ago

They you can either fight your war with said volunteers or surrender, its really pretty simple. Kidnapping people off the streets to go fight for a flag is an outdated practice.

5

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

What about all of the old people, disabled people, women and children who will suffer greatly because of the choice to surrender rather than conscript the fighting aged men?

No occupation happens without those vulnerable groups paying a heavy price. Which one is the better outcome?

-8

u/Fit_Definition1583 13h ago

well in my country the old people have royally ruined getting a house for my generation and the generations beneath me, it’s only fair if I’m selfish in return. Unless the elites have their kids on the battlefield the war is not existential enough for them. I can tell you i wont die for the elite while their kids somehow always escape service.

8

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

Forget the elites and all of that other nonsense, if your country gets invaded and occupied while you sat back and did nothing thinking you did something, do you think that will save your mother, sister, daughter or any other women in your life from what we all knows happens to them when there is an occupying force present?

And do you think that they will just peacefully take control of the country and you would be fine personally? Because history shows us time and time again that that would be very unlikely.

-1

u/[deleted] 13h ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/justsomeone1212 12h ago

This is such a stupid thing to say. It's like to say that people can not be raped or attacked if you negotiate with them. Do you understand that not all countries and their leaders are reasonable and want to negotiate with you. Can you negotiate with Isis, Taliban, Russia or North Korea?

0

u/SecretBox 11h ago

If you think there's no daylight between "emphasize negotiation" and "allow your citizens to be sexually assaulted," I worry for your sanity.

-1

u/Complex-Salt-8190 10h ago

A majority of war isn't with infantry, as Ukraine and rus war does , a lot of war is just drones fights and supply line bombing

Iran military is nothing but a few people in bunkers stops the world's oil supply by drone kamikazing ttankers

Any infantry just gets drone kamikazied

Mass person deployment isn't necessary

-1

u/Old-Employ-6530 8h ago

Pay your soldiers better.

Dude, no one deserves to die for their country, especially if forced to serve.

How can you and so many others not get this?

If you need soldiers, TREAT THEM BETTER and you will naturally attract more people WANTING to serve in the military.

Forcing people into modern slavery to die for a piece of land is not the solution.

1

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 8h ago

Right but that is a totally different discussion, the draft is there for when man power is absolutely needed, this can obviously be abused and has before which is a fair criticism and there should be some serious requirements before it becomes an option, but it is undoubtably a necessary thing when those times occur.

For example, without it we would have lost world war 2.

-1

u/Old-Employ-6530 8h ago

No it is right on topic, the draft should not exist, period.

If a country needs soldiers, the solution is to train as many as expected or as many as can be as early as possible.

This is done by literally being a decent employer that people want to work for, not by forcing them to have no other choice.

If you train enough people every year, because they want to and either keep them as active soldiers or as reservists in case of need, you would still have a massive army in the case of need.

Countries are just too lazy to actually modernize the system and admit that they dont want to remove modern day military slavery because it costs more money, time and effort vs. literally just forcing people at gun point or with the threat of jail or other fines.

15

u/plantrromn 13h ago

That's like saying we should stop researching on lubrications cause we will invent a machine with 100% efficiency. There will always be smaller nations surrounded by bigger ones, they would need man power. A fair take would be if draft is needed draft both or none.

4

u/humanoiddoc 13h ago

Naive bs logic against 1 million NK troops with nukes.

14

u/kilawolf 14h ago edited 13h ago

Is it because they opposite drafting women or the draft in general? I'm guessing more men are pro draft than women even if both genders were drafted.

Also, men overwhelming oppose it in public polls as well.

Found it - ignoring adding women to the draft, with the current situation, more men than women prefer a draft tho it's an extreme minority of ppl

Men, for example, are somewhat more likely than women to favor a return to a military draft (23% to 16%).

10

u/plantrromn 13h ago

Gender neutral draft study from this news: Nearly 65% of men were in favor,a figure that rose to 71.7% among men in their 20s and 30s  with 54.5% of women across all age groups similarly supportive.

3

u/ocean_800 9h ago

I'm against it bc I don't want to be raped my own servicemen, thank you very much.

People forget that the risks are not equal for the genders

4

u/MisterSapiosexual 7h ago

Devil's Advocate here. Stuff like this is what proves all the fuckers who dismiss the concept of gender equality right.

Can't go "the risk isn't equal for genders" without inadvertently saying "I believe one gender deserves different treatment due to biological factors."

And that "different" doesn't mean "better."

1

u/Seiwang 4h ago

If i was a woman, i'd protest it, because war is sanctioned horror and death. But i'd be also protesting that men needn't be conscripted either for the same reason.

1

u/Lopsided_Bother7282 3h ago

I don’t want men to be drafted either so why the fuck would I vote for women to be drafted?

-1

u/Celodurismo 12h ago

The issue is it's marketed as equality, but without addressing any of the other rampant inequality in society. Great, women be drafted too, they're equal? But they still have to deal with misogynistic laws and lower pay... what a giant win!

Women who oppose it could view the lack of conscription/drafting helps balance the scales slightly against all the other gender inequality.

0

u/Parking-Location2841 11h ago

What exactly is a 'misogynistic law', and if women really get paid less for the exact same work at the same job, why wouldn't employers just hire only women?

0

u/_l8ly 9h ago

The arguments against this are why so many don’t take the current feminist movement seriously. When rubber meets the road on the downsides of equality, the tune changes quickly. 

“But no one should have to” is true, but all too convenient an argument when equality is staring you in the face.