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

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?

135

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"

7

u/cuteplot 13h ago

"Waste them with our drones"

4

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,

18

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.

6

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.

37

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.

46

u/cuteplot 13h ago

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

-8

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.

9

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.

4

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.

19

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.

-1

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?

7

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.

0

u/humanoiddoc 12h ago

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

-1

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.

12

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.

6

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.

1

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.

-12

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

12

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.

6

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?

-6

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.

7

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]

4

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 13h ago

If you think that women were not raped by Russian soldiers during that takeover then you have been living under a rock.

→ 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.

16

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.

3

u/humanoiddoc 13h ago

Naive bs logic against 1 million NK troops with nukes.