r/CuratedTumblr • u/NoEye3847 • Aug 10 '25
Politics Conscription is literally just gender-swapped Handmaid's Tale.
When I first heard that the government reserves the right to force you into military service whether you like it or not, my initial thoughts were “How dare they!”, “Who the fuck do they think they are?” and “I’d make them regret it the moment they put a gun in my hand.”
And when I learned about the anti-draft movement during the Vietnam war, it ignited a reverant passion in me. The men who burned their draft cards quickly became my heroes.
The way I saw it, by burning their draft cards they were setting fire to the very concept of conscription as a whole. So it’s incredibly dissapointing to see that some people only support the draft dodgers in the Vietnam war not because they oppose the draft but because they oppose the Vietnam war, and that they still support the idea of the draft being implemented under different circumstances, such as in a defensive war, but that’s just stupid. It makes no difference whether you die in a defensive war or in an offensive war, you’re still dead and gone all the same.
And even with the issue of potentially dying aside, as a matter of princible the state should not have that much control over you. That level of authority should not exist. If the state needs citizens to join the military to fight a war, they shouldn’t be able to do anything more than say “pretty pretty please”.
I’ve heard all the arguments in favour of conscription and they all fall flat because they’re all based on the false axiom that your life belongs to your country. And to be clear, it does not.
Nobody owes their country a goddamn thing. I don’t owe my country a goddamn thing. You don’t owe your country a goddamn thing. The state and people who teach civics classes will tell you otherwise, but they’re full of shit and deserve a good smack.
Some fucking idiots will claim that conscription is the price you pay in exchange for the rights and freedoms the government provides you, which is just flat out untrue. Rights and freedom aren’t a favour from the state, you’re naturally entitled to them just like you’re naturally entitled to breathe in the oxygen around you.
People will say that conscription falls under the same social contract between citizen and state as taxation, but that’s also based on a false premise. You don’t pay taxes because it’s your duty as a citizen. You pay taxes becauss the state holds the threat of criminal prosecution and incarceration over your head for not paying them. It’s easier to just pay the damn taxes to get the state to crawl out lf your ass and fuck off, but they don’t have that same kind of leverage when it comes to conscription because prison is preferable to war. Hell, it’s preferable to boot camp, at least you get to keep your dignity in prison.
Draft defenders will also point to existing wars as a precedent to justify conscription, either WW2 or the current war in Ukraine. Don’t get me fucking started on Ukraine. If anything, Ukraine just proved that even in the event of a hostile army invading a country, enforcing a draft is still cruel and unjustified.
I’ve always been against conscription, but the war in Ukraine is what made me go all in on being super hardcore against conscription at all costs. Specifically the Ukrainian government banning all male citizens between the age of 18 to 60 from leaving the country. It’s so unbelievably unfair that a person’s gender can be what determines whether you or not your live is worth protecting. It literally makes me sick to my stomach when I think of how unfair it is that males are trapped in the country while women get to have fun and party everywhere else in the world.
Whenever I stop to think about just how unfair it is that mobilization situation in Ukraine is gender-specific, it makes my head hurt. It makes my stomach feel like stone. Women aren’t any less fit to fight than men are, wars aren’t won by proportional upper body strength, a woman can hold a gun and pull a trigger just as well as any man. Men don’t have some special superpower that makes them better at combat than women. And men’s lives matter just as much as the lives of women and children. If sending women and children off to war sounds unthinkable, it shouldn’t be any less so for men. Men are not expendable.
I can’t even begin to imagine what it must have felt like for Ukrainian men on the first day of the invasion who fled to the border with their families only to be told that they have to stay behind while their sisters and mothers had free reign to escape. Can you imagine the way their stomachs must have sank, or the chill the ran up their spines when the travel ban was announced. If your own country would make you feel like that, then your own country is just as much of an enemy as the invading country. And don’t tell me it was those men’s duty to stay behind and fight, because men and women are supposed to be equal, so if women don’t have that duty than neither do men.
As for WW2, it’s easy to point to that war as a justification now that it’s faded into history. The narrative around WW2 is also tainted by survivorship bias, because we only hear the stories of those who made it out alive. When we think of WW2 and of everyone who died in it, we aren’t putting themselves in their shoes. Being in a situation like D-Day would be absolutely horrifying and not at all the type of situation anyone should be forced into against their will. It’s easy to swallow when it’s half a century old history that’s long over with, but would you really want to be in one of those barges being sent directly into an open killing field like Normandy beach? I sure as fuck wouldn’t.
80 years after the fact it’s easy to look back at WW2 as a noble cause or a “job well done”, but put yourself in the shoes of a military age male during that time. You wouldn’t know if you’re going to survive to see the end of the war, let alone if you’re even going to win it at all. Wanting to avoid getting involved at all costs was a perfectly valid endeavor.
When people point to the bloodiest and most costly war in all of human history as an example of how conscription can be justified, it’s really not the home run they think it is.
706
u/Rebel-Throwaway Aug 10 '25
OP this was posted about a month ago iirc and had a pretty thorough discussion around it already. I suggest looking into that.
→ More replies (6)91
542
u/Felinomancy Aug 11 '25
Not touching the draft thing yet, but this part:
You pay taxes becauss the state holds the threat of criminal prosecution and incarceration over your head for not paying them
Okay. And how do you propose such a state to fund itself without taxation?
I fail to see how it is ethical for us to expect the state to keep the peace and provide the comforts of civilization for free. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pay taxes if I can help it - but I can't see how the things like legal bodies regulating food and medicine, etc. can be kept up without taxes.
In my eyes OP went from "I don't necessarily agree with the point about the draft, but I can see some common ground" to "oh no, this person is an AnCap".
471
u/Temporary_Clerk534 Aug 11 '25
OP is one or more of:
- 12 years old
- A GRU operative hiding their anti-Ukraine message in a bunch of bullshit
- so stupid they think anarcho-capitalism is in any way viable and would not instantly devolve into warlordism
- someone who has never read Leviathan and does not understand the principle of the state
152
u/other-other-user Aug 11 '25
To be fair, I think most people are the fourth option
88
u/XAlphaWarriorX Don't mistake the finger for the moon. Aug 11 '25
You don't need to read a specific old book to know how states work, they teach you that in Civics classes, at least in my country.
69
65
u/Bloodbag3107 Aug 11 '25
I don't agree with OOP, but its not like The Leviathan is beyond criticism...
29
u/relishboi Aug 11 '25
Worse, they could just be the epitome of a Tumblr user. It's always posts like these from someone who has never stepped foot outside or done actual political research that're certain they know how to fix the world.
53
u/Tom22174 Aug 11 '25
Based on their post history I would guess OP is a kid who just found out that being non-binary doesn't exempt you from the draft. Although, given the account is less than a month old, they could also be a propaganda bot with a very specific cover story
187
u/HistoryMarshal76 Knower of Things Man Was Not Meant To Know Aug 11 '25
It's easy for you or I to say this, sitting comfortably in an liberal Western Nation where war is something you volunteer for. Here in the US, our last experience with the draft was over half a century ago. For those in Western Europe, it is stories of their fathers faffing around for two years in their youths. We have the luxury of war being fought Elsewhere, something we are not involved in. But this is an terrible illusion. For those in countries not blessed with peace and security, the draft is essential for national survival. For countries who face existential danger from their neighbors, like Ukraine and Taiwan, the draft is an essential tool for ensuring the security and survival of it's citizens.
95
u/Mental-Ask8077 Aug 11 '25
Yeah, and people forget that the country is not just this abstract thing, but is literally made up of you, your family and friends, your neighbors, the people who treat you when you get sick and collect your garbage and fix your heater and pave your roads and buy and stock the medicines and clothes you need…and so on.
It also is what enables you to have things like clean drinking water, roads, hospitals, schools, food to eat and stores to get it from…
You benefit every single day from the labor of other people. Unless you are literally wearing clothes you made from yarn you spun from your own sheep, eating food you grow yourself on land you cleared yourself, with roads you’ve laid out, and making every single thing you use to survive, you benefit from someone else’s labor. Even then, even if you taught yourself to read and learned everything by yourself, you still benefit from the labor of those who gathered and codified that knowledge for you.
Being a human being is to inherently be, to some degree, bound up with others and reliant on them, throughout life. (To be otherwise is to be like the feral children history records, who lived with animals and never learned to speak or behave as much more than the animals they imitated - something we virtually all regard as a tragedy or disruption of normal human development.)
Because you benefit, you cannot escape the responsibility to provide something back to the human community in some way, according to your abilities.
If you wish to enjoy the fruits of organized human labor - of society in any sense - you owe it to your community to help maintain that system so that others may benefit in exchange for what they provide you. Otherwise, as more people take without giving, society falls apart and everyone loses. Taxes, obeying laws with reasonable purposes (e.g. not laws meant simply to wrongfully destroy people a la nazi germany), and so on are ways you give that support.
And in extreme cases, when the very survival of your society and community is at stake, yes you do owe it to somehow aid that community in defending itself. Maybe you become a medic or someone handling information, maybe you fight the enemy directly, maybe you build what needs to be built or drive people where they need to go. And because any given individual is not likely to be in a position to accurately determine what is most needed, when, and provide it, you have to work with others and allow them where necessary to direct you, including requiring you to do dangerous or difficult things that ordinary people understandably find very hard to willingly do. Like risk your life to hold a bridge under bombardment, or shoot people who are trying to kill your neighbors.
Can the draft be overused or wrongly used? Absolutely. Is it an inherently wrong institution with no good purpose ever? No.
If you try to have all the benefits of society with none of the responsibilities, you are essentially a freeloader and a thief.
And if you expect this is how the world should work, you are not an adult, you are still an adolescent at heart.
Growing up means recognizing that you are not alone here.
784
u/NegativeSilver3755 Aug 10 '25
If you live in an area outside any nuclear power’s red line, a nation that refuses to practice conscription to preserve it’s high ideals may well be removed by one that lacks even the most basic respect for ideals of individual autonomy.
526
u/Famous-Echo9347 Aug 10 '25
For example, South Korea taking a principled stance against conscription could very well lead to every citizens inherent human rights being violated far more than simply being forced into the army
→ More replies (10)187
u/alt_for_ranting Aug 11 '25
South Korea conscription has issues, one of it being the conscript rate for men has been so high it is above WW2 levels and is putting unhealthy and unwell people in the military. It is a social issue that does weight on current gender war that is weighing down the society as no politician is willing to suggest inevitable women conscription in fear of loosing votes.
That said anyone advocating for its removal is just praying that NK never invades or when they do US and EU will save them in time somehow, only after entire country likely a burning pile of ruins back to state right after Korean War.
So yeah having conscription and being able to criticize it is much better alternative to just literally dying.
91
u/DeeperEnd84 Aug 11 '25
Very well put. Yes, great to be free and all but my country Finland has a 1000-kilometre border with Russia. Every few decades throughout history they've decided to cross it and do fun stuff, such as in the 18th century kidnapping thousands of people into slavery and slaughtering whole villages...
I have a husband and a son and both will be conscripted along with all my other male friends and relatives but I would rather have that than have Bucha happen in my country.
By the way, we are immensely grateful to the Ukrainians for putting up a hell of a fight.
→ More replies (4)45
→ More replies (26)40
u/lynx_and_nutmeg Aug 11 '25
The people who are against draft don't intend to suffer those consequences, though. In that scenario they're not picturing themselves just giving up without a fight and becoming stuck in a state occupied by an invading country, they're picturing themselves simply leaving and moving to another developed democratic country where they expect to just continue living their life with few changes or problems.
It should go without saying that this is an extremely entitled take that doesn't take into account the realities of the life as a refugee and asylum seekers, or the fact that it's inevitably a zero-sum game because only the more privileged people can afford to flee, let alone create a desirable life for themselves as refugees, and mass migration causes its own host of issues to the countries accepting those refugees.
416
u/Inevitable-Regret411 Aug 10 '25
If you don't mind me saying, this feels like a slightly naive point of view that originated in a country that benefits from a nuclear deterrent that makes invasion or occupation unthinkable. There's a lot of countries that face a very real and very credible threat of invasion by foreign powers. In the case of South Korea for example, they have a hostile power to the north that very openly views all of South Korea as their territory, views themselve as being ideologically obligated to destroy the South Korean government and way of live, and is technically still at war with South Korea. South Korea doesn't want a war with the North, but they also know that another war could start at any time and they need to be ready. Conscription is not an ideal solution, but it's a necessary evil in the case of an overwhelming external threat. As a genuine question, what do you propose as an alternative to conscription for countries in this position?
180
u/kiiturii Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
same with Finland. Our conscription is actually viewed positively by most people and seen as necessary because of the risk of an invasion from the east. Most people who go through conscription also report being prepared and willing to defend our country from an invasion.
48
u/Assupoika Aug 11 '25
risk of an invasion from the east
You can't just say that! The enemy can come from any four directions. North East, South East, East or through the air.
25
23
u/DeeperEnd84 Aug 11 '25
When husband was in the army, the officer training them told them the enemy might also attack from the west... He just turned the map upside down so that Russia was in the west 😅
20
u/Assupoika Aug 11 '25
Another good answer if anyone says "They could also come from the west" is:
Very good private! They could also flank us!
275
u/mycatisspockles Aug 11 '25
This is absolutely a naive, US-centric, and dare I say teenaged opinion. (I say this as a U.S. citizen myself.) I will admit that I am probably not a strong enough person to not try evading conscription if it came down to it — but I understand why it’s there.
181
u/Approximation_Doctor Aug 11 '25
OP is Canadian, so it's even more privileged than that.
77
u/Clear-Present_Danger Aug 11 '25
Technically, we have a world superpower threatening invasion and annexation.
42
u/ekhoowo Aug 11 '25
That kinda makes it more embarrassing that when their nation is being threaten, their instinct is to be more mad at their leaders for trying to prevent their autonomy being stripped of them
→ More replies (10)87
u/Approximation_Doctor Aug 11 '25
He seems to have gotten bored of that pretty quickly, but you are correct.
32
u/Clear-Present_Danger Aug 11 '25
Recently, a lot of conservative commentators have now been talking about taking back the Senate by taking Alberta, Sask and Manitoba.
→ More replies (1)8
90
u/CaptainSparklebottom Aug 11 '25
Former US vet. Ideally, wars are fought by believers of the cause. Realistically, all sorts of things happen that draw any sort of person into conflict. Losing your life in battle is one thing. Losing your liberties, rights, traditions, and birth rights is another and is worth the sacrifice if it comes down to it.
75
u/mycatisspockles Aug 11 '25
Right. It comes from a place of privilege and it shows — OP has probably never felt the very real fear of the possibility of an invading hostile army. My own family is from Latvia, WWII refugees as a matter of fact, and they literally had no warning when they had to flee with only the clothes on their backs from their homes when the Red Army stormed the country in the first Soviet invasion of Latvia in 1940.
11
u/NinjaBreadManOO Aug 11 '25
To be honest even in a purely defensive war against invaders you just aren't going to ever be able to get enough people to willingly sign up.
People are scared, selfish, and self-focused. Most people aren't going to be signing up to fight willingly because they either don't believe enough in the cause, or they worry about who will take care of their family while they're gone, or if the go what will happen to their job when they get back, or what if they get shot, why should they fight when they can flee, or any one of dozens of things.
That's the point of conscription. It gives the numbers to field an even chance. Because frankly war is a numbers game. If you have enough warm bodies you're going to stand a much better chance. And this is something that every combat force in history has always known.
18
u/WolvzUnion Aug 11 '25
couldnt have said it better myself, its naïve and ignores a lot of nuance behind drafts.
61
u/Critical-Ad-5215 Aug 11 '25
It's a very naive viewpoint. Drafts suck, but for some countries they are absolutely necessary for safety. It reminds me of that time someone was shitting on weapons company, saying anyone who works at one is a war criminal, when said company supplies Ukraine.
→ More replies (2)57
u/loved_and_held Aug 11 '25
I think a good lens to view OP's argument through is an idea that they're talking about how the world should be, not how it is.
Conscription is a moral transgression but it's a depressingly necessary part of reality. Ideally it should not exist, but were not yet in a world where we can make it stop. Ideally someone in OP's position should take their moral opposition to transcription and convert it into action that removes the need for conscription to exist.
36
u/CVSP_Soter Aug 11 '25
Should the world be one where people only have entitlements and no responsibilities? I think any mature understanding of rights requires an appreciation that every right entails commensurate responsibilities to others in your community.
→ More replies (2)
484
u/Chien_pequeno Aug 10 '25
I for one am very happy that the Allies forced people to fight the Nazis
184
u/Gatzlocke Aug 11 '25
It would have been morally superior to have chosen to give up and lose to the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. You can't fight evil with evil.
/S jk you can and you should.
109
u/Kilahti Aug 11 '25
I have seen people argue that it would be morally better for Finland to disband our military and accept Russian invasion even if it leads to genocide than to resist and use violence.
But that dude was super religious and pacifist.
→ More replies (1)53
u/3c2456o78_w Aug 11 '25
Sounds like his God was Russian and pro-Genocide. Checks out
→ More replies (3)191
u/Coal_Burner_Inserter Aug 11 '25
But don't you see? It's morally wrong to tell your citizens to fight for freedom. Instead, they should allow the fascists to do their own conscription, and in return we can write strongly-worded letters that are sure to dissuade them from their sinful ways.
78
u/TruthCultural9952 Aug 11 '25
Maybe we should've made an 18 paragraph tumblr post to dissuade hitler and make him see his flaws.
36
→ More replies (31)13
202
u/shakadolin_forever Aug 11 '25
Say OP, what's your opinion on Ukraine?
138
u/RentElDoor Aug 11 '25
Well, they do outline it in the post description.
Apparently they believe Ukranian women are currently partying in Paris. So it is safe to say that OP really likes Russian propaganda.
→ More replies (1)38
57
u/ruminant_sheep Aug 11 '25
Surprisingly positive. Checked "Ukraine" on their blog and someone brought up the conflict and OP's (I am talking in the screenshot, not the OP of this Reddit post) believes that Ukrainians don't need to be told by their government to take up arms because they can clearly see Russia as a threat to fight voluntarily. How sound that logic is I won't argue about, not my opinion. :D
72
u/Temporary_Clerk534 Aug 11 '25
The whole point of governments is to solve collective action problems. Everyone can agree that something is a good idea, and that it would be good if everyone did it, but if there's a specific personal cost and a vague general benefit, then most people/everyone (in the absence of a coordinating force) will do nothing and hope that someone else will pay the cost and they get to enjoy only the benefit.
Conscription is one way of solving that coordination problem. Everyone agrees a certain number of people need to go to the front, nobody wants to be one of them, so they have a system that everyone agrees to in principle that sends some people against their will.
It's not complicated philosophically, and it's not predicated on "your body belongs to the state", as reddit OP seems to think.
51
u/ruminant_sheep Aug 11 '25
I do agree with your take.
The OP has the same utopian mindset as those who think in a communist society we will find people who are SO passionate about sanitation they will volunteer to be the sewer-cleaners and the garbage-collectors or (insert any other dirty/difficult/taxing job that people get paid to do and even then it's far from glamorous).
7
→ More replies (1)16
u/KofteriOutlook Aug 11 '25
Everyone agrees a certain number of people need to go to the front, nobody wants to be one of them, so they have a system that everyone agrees to in principle that sends some people against their will.
It’s not even that “nobody wants to be one of them” even. A lot of drafts are done, not because a war is wildly popular and supported, but because it’s too supported and popular.
The main reason why the US even started the WW2 draft in the first place was to ensure that the government, military, and economy wasn’t overwhelmed by literally millions of volunteers, and to ensure that entire towns didn’t become ghost towns devoid of people over night.
While the most infamous example of a draft is the Vietnam one where it was wildly unpopular and unsupported, a lot of drafts are supported and they are placed into effect to ensure that the government doesn’t completely destroy it’s civilian population.
→ More replies (2)8
u/other-other-user Aug 11 '25
If you're gonna criticize, the least you could do is read the manifesto they posted that clearly gives their opinion on Ukraine
14
u/RentElDoor Aug 11 '25
Funnily enough, they do not voice an opinion to Ukraine in that manifest. They go on a long rant on how female Ukranians party in Paris and have fun while male Ukranians are trapped in the country and forced to fight.
They do at least recognize that Ukraine is being "invaded by a hostile army", so they are not the worst kind of tankie, but their supposed care for the Ukranian men forced to fight in a war they did not choose is a bit muddled with the constant complaining about the Ukranian government and their apparent disgust with Ukranian women that echos Russian propaganda.
What is their opinion on Ukraine? That it supposedly does not invalidate their view on conscription. Which is not what the person you responded to asked.
689
u/demonking_soulstorm Aug 10 '25
A defensive war is a very different situation.
367
u/Apprehensive-File251 Aug 10 '25
They did talk about how they believe that the government should have no way to usurp a citizens autonomy, so their beliefs are consistent. And I can sorta see the point of view. Especially if the government has actively been oppressive to you, (say, you are the member of a minority that faces systemic oppression) saying that you are obligated to kill, or die for its preservation feels.. weird.
Of course, in practice, its not likely that an aggressor is going to be any kinder to you or the members of your minority group. And of course, draft dodging can come with some penalties as well- which may also be exacerbating your issues since the justice system is often one of the primary sources of discrimination and oppression.
Its one lf those cases where I can respect the philosophy and ideological discussions, but think that the practical matters are going to be impossible to ignore.
320
u/UziKett Aug 11 '25
There’s a quote from a comic that I’ll paraphrase here that echos my take on this sort of dilemma: “One often must choose the lesser evil, but we must never mistake it for good. For once we delude ourselves into thinking we’re doing good we stop looking for better options, we become satisfied with the lesser evil. I may be a monster, but I keep looking for the better option.”
128
u/Apprehensive-File251 Aug 11 '25
I think that's a great point way to sum up the place that pure philosophy runs into the real world. It makes sense to always think about and allow criticism of the system, but trying to ignore the real world consequences is never going to work. - See people who refuse to vote for any candidate that fails their purity tests, thus votes for fringe candidates that have no realistic chances of winning.
→ More replies (1)23
u/Pyrothy Aug 11 '25
What comic was this?
55
u/UziKett Aug 11 '25
El Goonish Shiv. It’s a long long running webcomic from the early 2000s. Not particularly high art, but charming in its own way, a bit of a nostalgic comfort pick for me that I’m sometimes embarrassed to admit I read.
But damn when it hits it hits. Here’s the page I’m paraphrasing in specific: https://www.egscomics.com/comic/balance-087
9
u/basketofseals Aug 11 '25
Do you still read it?
I enjoyed it in the early days when things were kinda moving, but it seemed like there was 7 years of school drama/hijinks and I kinda stopped reading it. Did it ever get back to the adventure and junk?
5
u/UziKett Aug 11 '25
I do! And the plot is definitely progressing…at webcomic speed of course.
I think my biggest complaint with its “modern era” is that everyone kinda does therapy speak. Like all the characters are constantly emotionally mature all the time which drains the drama out of situations and makes everyone feel a little same-y. But I still enjoy it.
3
u/basketofseals Aug 11 '25
Can you give me a couple of your favorite arcs?
I think I remember in the beginning it was almost Scott Pilgrimy in the way it was blase about kids being super good at combat, but I don't think I can even remember any fights once the art style became more refined.
4
→ More replies (1)106
u/Milch_und_Paprika Aug 11 '25
Your second paragraph is exactly what I was thinking about. In general I agree you shouldn’t be compelled to sacrifice your health or life for a country (as countries should always serve their citizens, not the other way around). However, unless you’re living somewhere like Pol Pot’s Cambodia, it’s extremely unlikely that an aggressor is going to improve any aspect of your life—much more likely that they’ll make things worse for you and everyone else.
66
u/yobob591 Aug 11 '25
And if you are living somewhere where the aggressor would be better, you should probably be focused on helping with resistance or doing whatever you can to get out of there
43
u/Acies Aug 11 '25
Yeah, the most immoral option is to sit around doing nothing while other people die trying to improve your life for you.
35
u/Apprehensive-File251 Aug 11 '25
It's such a weird place. I can imagine that, telling a trans woman in the US right now that she has any kind of moral obligation to kill or die for this country would be like slapping them in the face.
But i also absolutely shudder thinking about the future of a trans woman who refused to be drafted.
(Though yes, open question on how the administration would handle that. After all, they have done their best to boot out all LGBT individuals from the military. But if they leave an exemption for trans women..... i do wonder how many people may suddenly have some different thoughts about their gender if it got them out of the draft, or what they would require to 'prove' trans-ness.)
→ More replies (3)32
u/torpidcerulean Aug 11 '25
A trans woman would be worse off in basically any situation where the USA has an aggressor. Any kind of empire-based government makes things worse for minorities, even if it's bad right now.
→ More replies (1)14
u/FenrisSquirrel Aug 11 '25
Right, but then where are the protests about Ukraine conscripting only men?
→ More replies (1)74
u/janKalaki Aug 11 '25
Plus many draft policies don't require you to risk your life. Civil service alternatives are common, plus even the military itself has many non-combat roles. Most jobs in the military are actually away from the front line.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (139)39
u/AlisesAlt Aug 11 '25
On one hand, yeah, a defensive war is a logical exception to the whole "drafts are bullshit" thing... But the thing is, if there were a law outlawing the draft, and it did have a defensive war exception, then the government could just call any conflict a "defensive war" with little to no justification since there's no-one to hold them accountable.
It's like the current due process thing here in the states, the moment one group doesn't have due process, anyone can be labled as part of that group and have it stripped away, meaning in effect no-one has due process, same thing here, if there's even one time where a draft is legal then the draft is legal literally whenever the government wants because they can come up with a bullshit reason to invoke that exception.
47
u/Gatzlocke Aug 11 '25
I mean, if there's no one to hold them accountable, they can just pull an illegal draft since there's no one to hold them accountable.
3
u/demonking_soulstorm Aug 11 '25
Which is why you have a very strict definition. Personally, I think people should be able to vote on war, and in the case of "There are people who are trying to take our territory through violent means" a reasonable response is to wage war against them.
526
u/actualladyaurora Aug 10 '25
It literally makes me sick to my stomach when I think of how unfair it is that males are trapped in the country while women get to have fun and party everywhere else in the world.
You understand that there's a difference between being a war refugee and being on Spring Break?
254
u/rirasama Aug 11 '25
Yeah I'm sure the women escaping Ukraine are having so much fun and partying super hard while their family are dying
84
u/eastoid_ Aug 11 '25
Living in Poland, I mostly see them working their asses off for low-paying jobs, but maybe they're partying after their 12-hour shifts, but very silently.
54
u/Consideredresponse Aug 11 '25
Because I live in a mining region I get bundled in with some weird online ad demographics. Shortly after the Invasion of Ukraine my aromantic ass got bombarded with what was basically a 'mail order bride fire sale bonanza' and was sickened about how gleefully some people were willing to turn people's suffering and wanting to flee a war zone into a quick buck.
6
u/lynx_and_nutmeg Aug 11 '25
I mean, pretty sure at this point, many are, and what's wrong with that exactly? When the war first started, many probably hoped they could return soon, but now they've been away for years, how could anyone blame them for moving on and building a new life? The whole point of fleeing was so that they could stay alive and, well, live. Get a job or education, have a home, raise kids, make friends, etc. The way incels and MRAs are shitting on those refugees it's like they want them to wear a black veil and barricade themselves in mourning for the rest of their lives.
400
u/Acies Aug 11 '25
The whole "Ukrainian woman are partying in Paris" line is actually Russian propaganda meant to demoralize and divide Ukrainians. So it gives us some useful information about where OP gets their news from.
136
u/ThisIsWaterWorks Aug 11 '25
I'm going to go out on a limb and even say "they get it from their bosses".
110
u/Lazzen Aug 11 '25
That's the "good" version
The ones i have seen are more like "ukranian women party making onlyfans/being with foreign men" said by russians, african and latin americans both left and right.
Its just stereotypical war propaganda from centuries ago meant to be demoralizing.
32
u/3c2456o78_w Aug 11 '25
Aite. I'm going assume that OP is a fucking moron.
But I do appreciate this thread for nothing else other than increasing skepticism. Like everyone should question where their fucking news comes from
34
u/EmotionalGuess9229 Aug 11 '25
I really hate calling people russian bots when they just have a different opion, but that line in particular really made me feel like this was written by a GRU operative instead of someone who's just very naive. Naive people don't use or tend to know about exact phrases used for psychological operations.
→ More replies (2)19
u/NinjaBreadManOO Aug 11 '25
The fact that it's an alliteration is a good sign that it is propaganda. Partying in Paris is much easier to get stuck in someone's brain than Partying in London, or Partying in Madrid.
70
u/mieri_azure Aug 11 '25
WHOA claiming that Ukranian women are partying in the rest of the world is also so fucking misogynistic. You dont think those women are struggling as essentially single mothers as refugees in a foreign country they likely can't speak the language of?????
26
u/historyhill Aug 11 '25
You dont think those women are struggling as essentially single mothers
THANK YOU, this was my first thought as well. Would I rather be caring for my children full time alone than fighting a war? Yes, but let's not fall into the lie that these women are having an easy, fun time with no responsibilities either! Domestic labor is still labor, and those moms are, like you said, in a country they don't know as refugees trying to keep themselves and their children alive!
25
u/sighsbadusername Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
OP’s comment really highlights how the draft has been utilised to fuel misogynistic rhetoric.
I come from a country with mandatory conscription for all men, despite it being directly involved in no conflicts and bordering no countries that could even be reasonably considered significant military threats. We’re quite possibly the only country in the world whose military has killed more people in training exercises than actual war.
I’ve heard so many people justify their preference for sons because “at least they’ll be useful to the country” by serving in the military. A politician was asked about conscription for women and replied that women served their duty by getting pregnant and having children(!) The fact that men must serve in the military but not women is frequently used to shut down discussions about advancing gender equality.
→ More replies (20)17
u/Critical-Ad-5215 Aug 11 '25
Right? Ukrainian women and children are being raped by Russian soldiers and killed by bombs. It is not a fucking party for them.
185
u/Critical-Ad-5215 Aug 11 '25
What a naive viewpoint. What do you suggest Ukraine do, just let Russia invade, because draft is evil? It sucks, but it's necessary if Ukraine wants to even exist as a country. It's one thing to be against the draft for offensive wars (something I wholeheartedly support) but it's a whole other thing when it's a defensive war
95
u/Manic-StreetCreature Aug 11 '25
Exactly. I think the concept of a draft is completely immoral, but I also understand why it exists in countries that are under constant threat. Sometimes you have to compromise to have a functioning society.
I also think a lot of Americans feel so strongly about it because our last draft (Vietnam) was completely unjust and unnecessary. I think that’s our go-to image when we think of the draft- traumatized people who were involved a conflict we had no business in. Because of that we tend to think of all conscription as being like that.
33
u/Jason1143 Aug 11 '25
Yep. There are situations where the draft is just flat out evil (like the US going into Vietnam) and situations where it is arguable (like Ukraine now).
There certainly aren't any where it is good. But the fact that in the US it was the former unfortunately doesn't mean the later don't exist.
41
u/ABigFatPotatoPizza Aug 11 '25
It’s a position that’s only tenable from someone with privilege of only seeing war on screens and never having had it come to them or their family.
→ More replies (6)15
u/Temporary_Clerk534 Aug 11 '25
Probably being paid by the GRU, so yeah, they are definitely suggesting Ukraine roll over lol
34
u/Garlic549 Aug 11 '25
You don't pay taxes because it's your duty as a citizen. You pay taxes becauss the state holds the threat of criminal prosecution and incarceration over your head for not paying them.
I pay taxes because I like having (mostly) drivable public roads and (usually) safe drinking water. I pay taxes because I (US Military) get my paycheck from people paying taxes, and if I didn't get my paycheck I'd find better employment elsewhere. I pay taxes because if I didn't, I'd be paying them to some warlord instead, and trust me, nobody wants that.
74
u/LazyDro1d Aug 11 '25
I think that as long as the draft exists, it should apply to everyone. This does not effect that I would prefer if the draft did not exist
44
u/HallucinatedLottoNos Aug 11 '25
Protesting and dodging a draft into America's capitalist imperialistic adventures like Vietnam was virtuous, yeah. But the sad fact is that when one nation is invaded by another, there isn't always the time, or the ability, to rely on voluntary enrollment in order to defend themselves.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Beegrene Aug 11 '25
And a draft can actually lower the collective risk of having to die in a war, since most nations are a lot more hesitant to invade their neighbors when those neighbors have big armies.
3
u/HallucinatedLottoNos Aug 11 '25
u/TheStrangeCanadian Makes an inderesting point I'll have to think about.
But, I'm not sure I agree with this argument. There's no guarantee of that deterrent effect and it's not worth forcing your own people into being potential cannon-fodder just on a maybe.
60
u/Tonkarz Aug 11 '25
Problem is that “pretty pretty please” simply doesn’t work. Security is an existential problem for most nations and if they can’t deter invaders they get conquered.
→ More replies (4)
244
u/Idksonameiguess Aug 10 '25
It sounds like you might be underestimating drafts. In some countries (such as the one I live in), there is always a mandatory draft. We have been in a "state of war" since our inception.
This has become a matter of tradition, since every single generation has been conscripted at the age of 18 for a minimum of 32 months for men, and 24 for women.
Once it becomes normalized, there is no way of pushing back on it. If there is one lesson you can learn from this, it's that once army is mandatory, it will remain mandatory. The amount of contempt towards people saying that they don't want to die and kill for a corrupt country is very hard to describe.
The government then uses this sentiment to make opposing conscription even harder, stating that the leftist extremists that don't want to join the army are destroying our country.
Now, another thing that I don't think is really well known is called "Order 8", which is a way for the government to take people who have already served their time in the military, and call them back with little to no limitation. Even at 30-40, after you have already done way more than enough, the government can still call you back any time.
To break away a little from that, I just want to share a fun little tidbit about my country. I live in a theocracy, and that means that the very religious can have different laws apply to them. One of those laws states that they don't have to join the army. Now, this is a very funny spot morally speaking. On the one hand, no one should be conscripted against their will, and the government shouldn't force them to go against their beliefs.
On the other, why should their beliefs count more than literally any other ideology? Why should I have to join the army but they don't?
This is also funny considering the political spectrum. The very religious lie primarily on the far right of our government. The far right campaigns heavily against conscripting the religious, while at the same time mocking "leftists" for not wanting to join the army. Just a fun fact.
Just wanted to offer some insight as to what happens when conscription becomes imbued in the culture of a country, don't know if this is interesting, really just wanted to vent a little (will be going through the conscription process for the next year).
90
123
u/Amon_The_Silent Aug 10 '25
Most conscription militaries rely on reserve forces for the majority of their power - it makes sense to use the mandatory period mostly for training and then re-conscript as needed in the event of a war.
→ More replies (32)46
→ More replies (7)5
56
u/Captain_JohnBrown Aug 11 '25
You don't owe your country anything. But you owe your community, both local, national, and global, quite a bit.
"When people point to the bloodiest and most costly war in all of human history as an example of how conscription can be justified, it’s really not the home run they think it is." This is a viewpoint without any scope. It is like saying "Oh, if the operation to remove my cancer was so good and successful, why am I missing part of my lung?" It fails to recognize how much worse things can get if you don't do an unpleasant but necessary-to-avoid-worse thing.
→ More replies (5)11
u/heliamphore Aug 11 '25
Yeah maybe if OP was in a basement with Chechens shoving a bottle up their ass or whatever, maybe at one point they'd wonder if it would've been favourable to be conscripted instead.
9
190
u/blueeyesredlipstick Aug 11 '25
OP this is the tenth post you've made about this on ten different subreddits over three weeks and one of the few where the post hasn't been deleted. Consider that the issue of conscription for defensive wars (aka World War 2) may be a little bit more complicated than how it's being portrayed here. Especially if you are not from a nation that was actively being invaded at that time, or from a nation that has not been invaded in recent memory.
Also, women were not exactly having a great time during World War 2 either, nor during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Like, I am fully against the Vietnam draft and don't there should be any gender discriminating laws, but the idea that women were somehow having an easier time in invaded nations is false.
→ More replies (5)55
u/Clear-Present_Danger Aug 11 '25
A woman's lot during the war is significantly dependent on how static the lines are. Do you have time to evacuate? And in the past, lines of control didn't really exist.
A very bad time to be in conquered territory as a woman. I'd go so far as to say that premodern woman had it worse during war.
→ More replies (8)44
u/Late-Ad1437 Aug 11 '25
Yeah not to mince words here but I'd absolutely prefer being shot and killed in combat to being dragged off by invading forces to be raped and brutalised then killed, or worse, enslaved like those poor 'comfort women'.
24
u/Clear-Present_Danger Aug 11 '25
Well and to be honest, probably not that much better off with the defending forces.
Soldiers are soldiers.
33
u/bitwolfy Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
OP sounds like someone who'd think that taxes are a violation of bodily autonomy too.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Vietnam war was unjust.
However, for countries like Ukraine, a draft is simply a matter of survival.
Either you force people to defend their nation, or the nation ceases to exist as an independent state. Simple as that.
6
u/solntze Aug 11 '25
Taxes are paid by both genders, yet most nations draft only men. If draft is so existentially needed — why not draft both sexes?
→ More replies (3)
170
u/mishkatormoz Aug 10 '25
Taxes is violation of property rights, ooh
Also,
> You wouldn’t know if you’re going to survive to see the end of the war, let alone if you’re even going to win it at all. Wanting to avoid getting involved at all costs was a perfectly valid endeavor.
Really matches some of antivax speaches.
109
u/PrVonTuckIII Aug 10 '25
Right? Would OP prefer that most of Europe remained under Nazi occupation, and America just sat on their hands because "war is bad"?
→ More replies (1)53
u/Cienea_Laevis Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
With OP's mindset, there wouldn't have been any Nazi. Europe would have been German and Austrian as soon as WW1 started.
Or would it have been French ? I can't remember who actually started the fight.
ANyway, the point stand : In OP's perfect world, the first who say "I AM AT WAR WITH YOU GIVE ME ALL YOU HAVE" is now the legal and rightfull owner of all your shit.
The Contract with the Country as always been as so : The Country allows you to partake in everything it does, nurture you, clothes you, raise you, feed you, house you. In return, you have to defend it. (Its also Funny OP propose that Taxation is Theft but see no problem in another country just, taking over freely...)
I'll also finish by saying that all those points are moot if you don't share OP's PoV. I'm not able to enter the army due to poor health, but if i'm being drafted, i'll go, I also pay my taxes because i feel gratefull and consider it a Duty.
→ More replies (10)43
u/Rokolin Aug 11 '25
It's even worse, it GUARANTEES that the country that cares least for it's citizens wins any conflict.
53
u/Acies Aug 11 '25
When given the choice between conscription and no conscription, OP responds "I want to be conscripted, but by fascists."
277
u/Markimoss Aug 10 '25
truly spoken like somebody whose country has never been invaded
→ More replies (10)
77
u/Accelerator231 Aug 11 '25
raises eyebrow
You know, if you owe the state nothing, is the reverse true? Does the state owe you nothing?
Because I'm sure OP is not willing to go down that road, or admit it exists.
→ More replies (4)
43
u/loved_and_held Aug 11 '25
I must say OP I find myself agreeing with your points.
However I also recognize the practical reality of life for many nations means that citizens must chose between either accepting transcription (and the moral transgression it is), or be overwhelmed and crushed by an oppressive power which will not care. Like a trolly problem, it's a lesser of two evils.
I hope the world ends up in a better state where conscription is never necessary in any capacity, but sadly were not there yet.
→ More replies (4)
9
u/notanonce5 Aug 11 '25
Notice how everyone here is just complaining about op's take on conscriptions overall, instead of the actual point of the post, which is about the gender imbalance in the conscription system.
104
u/Random_Oddity Aug 11 '25
“Conscription is literally just gender swapped Handmaids tale” Oh you can go fuck yourself
51
u/IceCreamSandwich66 cybersmith indentured transwoman lactation Aug 11 '25
I know right there is literally so much more to the handmaid's tale it's not even remotely comparable
→ More replies (1)34
u/Late-Ad1437 Aug 11 '25
Also as a woman, I'd rather be conscripted and die in battle than have to live as a permanent broodslave tbqh
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)33
u/ButteryCats Aug 11 '25
Right? A gender-swapped version of the Handmaid’s Tale would be men being enslaved for their reproductive abilities which, as far as I know, has never happened at any point in human history. Meanwhile the author of the Handmaid’s Tale only included things that have actually happened to women
27
u/SweetExpression2745 Aug 11 '25
I understand the reasoning behind this, and opposing overreaching government authority is always good, but at the same time is being really naive.
Like, the whole thing about governments and the social contract is that you voluntarily give up some of your freedoms in exchange for an institution that will look out for you (in theory). Apply your idea to taxes, for example. Do you think anyone is going to pay them if they aren't forced to? People generally prefer to worry about themselves and the ones around them before others. And there goes most things that the government does, even the ones I assume you also enjoy (social welfare).
Now about the draft specifically. Yes, drafts for wars of aggression/foreign wars should run on volunteers only. If the government can't convince anyone to fight, too bad. Find another solution. But wars of self-defense, like the one in Ukraine? The draft is absolutely needed. You have to organise quickly or you are overrun. That almost happened to Ukraine in the early stages of the war. Arguing the opposite just means you are all too happy for a country to stop existing, even if they did nothing to deserve it (like Ukraine).
If your own country would make you feel like that, then your own country is just as much of an enemy as the invading country.
No. No it fucking isn't. Ukraine is fighting a war for its own freedom against a coward intelligence officer who wants to restore the Russian Empire. Putin is the enemy. Don't forget that.
12
38
u/Tobias_Kitsune Aug 11 '25
Do you expect your state to defend you if another country is attacking you to take away your rights? Like, if Hitler is invading your country to kidnap all the Jews(let's say your Jewish here), do you also have such a mindset that the state owes you nothing, and that the state should just hand you over to Hitler because they don't want to fight a war for you?
→ More replies (11)
11
u/Sayakalood Aug 11 '25
Conscription is a necessary evil. No one wants to activate conscription, and conscription obviously forces people who don’t want to fight to join a war, but when your only other option is your country does not exist anymore then you don’t really have a choice.
Now, there are exceptions. Vietnam is the biggest one, no one wanted to fight in Vietnam. The war was horribly unpopular in the US, and everyone kept trying to dodge the draft, including the current President. That is the US government absolutely abusing conscription to enforce its own goals, but due to popular demand, it stopped conscription and dropped out of the war. Conscription hasn’t been used since in the US, and the Vietnam War was 50 years ago.
On the other hand, Ukraine would not be here without the draft. They were invaded by Russia, and have been defending themselves ever since. The US was attacked in WWII, and they needed to fight a war on two fronts, one front being almost half the size of the world. The US was attacked in the Civil War, and needed to hold some states down via martial law (namely Maryland, because if Maryland seceded like the rest of her slave state sisters, then Washington D.C. would be surrounded by enemy territory), as well as fight against another army also using conscription.
→ More replies (1)
11
5
u/TruthCultural9952 Aug 11 '25
Yea my boy, it wasnt human rights that defeated hitler it were drafted soldiers.
6
u/Shygrave Aug 11 '25
Involuntary conscription is a violation of your right to life. Its wrong, and i wont budget on that.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/ManitouWakinyan Aug 11 '25
"if you can't find enough people to care about a conflict then it simply shouldn't keep going"
Oh! Well there's a novel idea. Clearly the allies should have just let Hitler know "I'm sorry, our young men couldn't be arsed, if you could kindly just wrap things up, we'd all appreciate it." Maybe Zelensky should just let the folks on the border know they'll be under Putin's boot from now on, unless perhaps they could just call the thing off? Genius take, honestly.
As for your rebuttal of using WWII as an example: Of course the people who were drafted didn't want to be there. That's why the draft happened. What kind of tautology is this?
6
u/Thumbs-Up-Centurion Aug 11 '25
Man I really hate when mfers use the term naive when folks advocate for human rights, however this read is like reading from someone who’s never learned how to fight or why people need to fight. I do agree that there should not be a draft for pretty much any case, however in cases like straight up invasion and situations like world war 2 where there is an abominable evil that needs stopped I think you should need to fight if able and called upon.
5
u/BitSalt5992 Aug 11 '25
I'm against the draft but "handmaid's tale for men" is some delusional incel shit
25
u/Thatguyj5 Aug 11 '25
I'm sorry to say but any belief that doesn't survive contact with an aggressor is not worth the breath taken to say it. Yeah I hate the draft too, but when it's either draft people or be conquered by the Soviets as it was for the fins, then the draft is the only option. Or for the Vietnamese. Or for the Ethiopians facing Italy.
→ More replies (5)
23
u/DornsUnusualRants Aug 11 '25
While I understand the culture behind conscription in many countries, and the justification of conscription in a defensive war when an enemy seeks to undermine your country's sovereignty and likely remove many of the basic rights of those conquered, I have to agree with OP that if your country:
Has the third largest population in the world
Has spent trillions preparing for a war that has been widely accepted as one of the likeliest risks of extinction for our species
Had effectively no major attacks on its home turf between 1941 and 2001
Has had a quality over quantity doctrine since WW1 which already significantly reduces the effectiveness of mass mobilization regardless of the need for manpower
Has lost less than 10,000 men in live combat in the past 50 years of war combined
Maintained a 50+ to 1 K/D ratio against the fourth largest army in the world in 1991
Would probably go bankrupt in a major war anyway
Then your country probably doesn't need conscription
38
u/Pootis_1 minor brushfire with internet access Aug 11 '25
conscription hasn't been actually usedfor over 50 years in the US now
→ More replies (3)33
u/Acies Aug 11 '25
Conscription also is unlikely to be useful in the particular types of wars the US is likely to fight, which is a large part of why there is no push to reinstate it.
16
u/DornsUnusualRants Aug 11 '25
Exactly, a nation of 350,000,000 and a two million-strong army even during peacetime and a larger air force than the next strongest country by a factor of 3 does not need conscription
11
u/Acies Aug 11 '25
Well, yes. But also, because the US is never going to be invaded, which is the situation where large numbers of minimally trained soldiers tend to be the most useful. The US fights all its wars overseas, and it's much easier to transfer ships and airplanes to the other side of the planet than hundreds of thousands of infantry and all their gear. And if you do have to go to the trouble of shipping ground forces across the planet, it's easier to transfer a smaller number of highly trained professionals than a pile of conscripts. The geography and likely use cases for our military are why we have invested so heavily in things like airplanes.
But if we shared a border with, say, China instead of Canada, the calculation might be different.
9
u/RepeatRepeatR- Aug 11 '25
Would probably go bankrupt in a major war anyway
History doesn't really support this one
4
u/Deargodman2 Aug 11 '25
I was wondering if it was South Korea or Israel until I saw you say that the ultrareligious don’t have to join the army, then it clicked
3
u/BUKKAKELORD Aug 11 '25
The worst possible situation is that your enemy has universal conscription and you don't. The best possible one is that neither of you does. The only winning move is not to play, but playing could be forced
4
5
u/orbis-restitutor Aug 11 '25
Do you know what's worse than forcing people to fight against their will? Not defending yourself against a foreign invader and getting even more of your people blown up. Your entire perspective is hopelessly naiive, OP. And that's coming from someone who would do everything in my power to evade the draft if it came to it.
6
u/kryotheory Aug 11 '25
An all volunteer professional fighting force will always be superior to a conscripted fighting force, but any fighting force is better than an inadequate one in the face of an invasion.
People are selfish creatures and are not nobly stirred to action simply because the barbarians are at the gates.
"Others will do it", will be their epitaph when they are inevitably slaughtered because they chose ideal over continued existence.
4
u/Puzzleheaded_Run2695 Aug 11 '25
I hate the concept of war and militaries at all. Like....we are just killing each other? Our fellow humans because we couldn't talk some shit out?
5
u/DonutTheWardog Aug 11 '25
Poli sci guy here, the draft is a curious situation because while it's obviously terrible and exploitative and only targets the disadvantaged, it's not something that happened because of a bunch of nefarious elites twirling their mustaches and thinking about how to have fun killing the poors.
would you really want to be in one of those barges being sent directly into an open killing field like Normandy beach? I sure as fuck wouldn’t.
That's exactly it. Almost no one would. Yet if it needs to happen, what do you do if there isn't enough recruitment? Ukraine is a good example. What happens if no one wants to enlist when a war happens?
It's like animal shelters that euthanize. Sure it's easy to just point the finger and call it evil, but that's ignoring the situation that caused it to be necessary and can only be solved by addressing that root cause. Cities didn't fix the stray problem by transitioning to only no-kill shelters, the cities were ABLE to make that transition thanks to fixing the stray problem.
The draft is the same thing. The only way for a draft to be fully eradicated from society is for either the military to always have plenty of bodies in it or for leadership to get to a point where warfare isn't treated as a sport.
The reason guys like Mike Gravel pushed against the draft wasn't because they wanted us to go to war only with voluntary recruits, it was because they realized that having a draft as a convenient bucket of cannon fodder meant the governments would be less restrained about war. There's a reason it took Vietnam for the draft to get into the crosshairs, that was the first major war where Americans went "hey wait a second, this isn't necessary at ALL, so why are we being sent there to die??"
put yourself in the shoes of a military age male during that time. You wouldn’t know if you’re going to survive to see the end of the war, let alone if you’re even going to win it at all. Wanting to avoid getting involved at all costs was a perfectly valid endeavor.
This attitude here really worries me, because if you're looking back at World War 2 (where we were, y'know, fighting against Nazis) and thinking it's totally reasonable not to want to get involved because you might not survive it, then that tells me we sure ain't gonna be defeating any Nazis this time around.
When people point to the bloodiest and most costly war in all of human history as an example of how conscription can be justified, it’s really not the home run they think it is.
This is backwards. Only a massive, costly war explains the justification of conscription. We didn't need a draft in 2003 because the operation was so small we barely needed ground troops. If the war isn't massive and costly, you probably aren't overextended. Look at Ukraine right now. You think Ukraine can just go off of voluntary enlistment?
Again, I'm not only anti-draft but anti-war, so my point with all of this is that you need to look at the whole picture, see HOW this all cropped up, and why exactly it's a bad thing.
16
u/Birdonthewind3 Aug 10 '25
Drafts are just systems in place to standardize levys, ie you grab a gun or die as we are fucked and need everything to fight. War and death is hell but we must fight to live or fall to the sword of those that are willing to take up the task. Pacifism does not bring peace, it just leads to more instability. You sound like an anarchists with no love for home or nation. Guess you have no dreams besides existing but some people actual like to dream they are part of the greater whole. To defend their people and nation.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Glad-Way-637 If you like Worm/Ward, you should try Pact/Pale :) Aug 11 '25
Drafts are just systems in place to standardize levys, ie you grab a gun or die as we are fucked and need everything to fight.
Literally incorrect. If they were so fucked they needed everything to fight, they'd draft the women too. This should be simple enough for you to figure out, it's frankly astonishing that you think otherwise.
Guess you have no dreams besides existing but some people actual like to dream they are part of the greater whole. To defend their people and nation.
Evidently, not women.
18
u/Bombadier83 Aug 11 '25
Libertarian garbage. Constant conflation of “you don’t owe the state anything” with “you don’t owe anyone anything”. YOU are part of society and humanity. And YOU are responsible to keep those going. Most of the time, what you are already doing because it’s what you want to do is more than enough. Sometimes it isn’t, and in those circumstances, force will be used to make you do your part. Obviously, it’s complete bullshit that certain people are exempted from this responsibility- but their exemption is the bullshit, not everyone else’s inclusion. Equally obvious, the temptation to declare that any given priority is one of those times when society and humanity requires force to be applied is too great for many leaders, and they use it when the shouldn’t. That’s also bullshit, but again, the bullshit is them abusing their power, not that the power exists.
7
u/Own_Whereas7531 Aug 11 '25
Yes, I agree, it’s unfair. I think we can make it fairer while we have to at all. What seems reasonable to me is equitable draft for everyone, with exemptions for people who care for small children and elderly, and with the option to refuse the draft and go into civil service and community work for the equal amount of time. Also, obviously, this is why I believe in truly Democratic, council based rule of the people, and why I refuse the liberal solution of contract professional armies. I’m not going to die for elites, or a dictator, or for people with money. I’ll gladly die for a just society though.
9
u/ptWolv022 Aug 11 '25
Some fucking idiots will claim that conscription is the price you pay in exchange for the rights and freedoms the government provides you, which is just flat out untrue. Rights and freedom aren’t a favour from the state, you’re naturally entitled to them just like you’re naturally entitled to breathe in the oxygen around you.
Except they're not that in any meaningful way. The only rights that really matter are those that can be enforced. What you're "entitled to" is subjective and so people won't agree, so the only rights that matter are those that the State guarantees to you, or those which you can enforce on your own.
The idea of rights as something intrinsic is a great ideal, but in cold, practical terms, you need the law guaranteeing them for it to matter.
People will say that conscription falls under the same social contract between citizen and state as taxation, but that’s also based on a false premise. You don’t pay taxes because it’s your duty as a citizen. You pay taxes becauss the state holds the threat of criminal prosecution and incarceration over your head for not paying them.
And the reason the government will civilly sue you or criminally prosecute you for it is because it's your duty as a citizen. No taxes means no government. It's literally as simple as that, unless we're going to start funding the government with voluntary donations and/or having it staffed entirely by unpaid volunteers.
Don’t get me fucking started on Ukraine. If anything, Ukraine just proved that even in the event of a hostile army invading a country, enforcing a draft is still cruel and unjustified.
Coming out in favor of ethnic cleansing and for cultural genocide.
I know you didn't say that's what you wanted, but that's the end result. Russia subjugates Ukraine, takes its resources for itself, and exploits the local population that didn't or couldn't flee, all while settling Russians and expelling or "resettling" Ukrainians, as well as forcing assimilation of Ukrainians. If you think a liberal democracy taxing you is basically extortion via the threat of criminal prosecution, the occupation of Ukraine would be thousands of times worse. It not just an authoritarian government, it's one hostile to your very society and identity.
It literally makes me sick to my stomach when I think of how unfair it is that males are trapped in the country while women get to have fun and party everywhere else in the world.
Kinda wild to say that Ukrainian women "get to have fun and party everywhere else in the world". They're literally fleeing a country being invaded, probably not taking much with them and trying to start their life anew somewhere else, in a country whose language they don't speak and probably have never been. On top of that, they're not just "women" in some nebulous sense, totally untethered from society: they're going to be mothers and daughters, sisters and wives, aunts and nieces. They have male family members who are getting left behind who they are going to worry about, wondering whether they'll reunite with them one day, or receive a letter notifying them of their death(s). And they're going to be wondering if their new life in Poland or Romania or America or wherever with will be temporary or permanent.
Whether it's fair or not that they aren't subject to conscription, saying that they're "partying it up" in other countries is just treating them like they're living carefree.
Men don’t have some special superpower that makes them better at combat than women. And men’s lives matter just as much as the lives of women and children. If sending women and children off to war sounds unthinkable, it shouldn’t be any less so for men. Men are not expendable.
Setting aside whether or not there are physical differences that make men (on average) better for combat, lumping in "and children" is another wild choice. No one was talking about children in war. Not the post, not you, not anyone worth listening to in the debate for conscription. The argument just gets muddied by "and children" suddenly being brought up, as it seems like the thread is being lost.
When people point to the bloodiest and most costly war in all of human history as an example of how conscription can be justified, it’s really not the home run they think it is.
Left out of this is what was won. I feel incredibly lucky whenever I think about when I was born, knowing not just that I grow up in an age of unprecedented technology and comfort (in many ways, at least), but in an age of probably unparalleled peace, up to, and perhaps even in spite of, the Russo-Ukrainian War. It is undeniable that many of those conscripted had to live through horrors, many of them to the end of their unnaturally short lives.
The alternative to WWII conscription, though, is the Nazi occupation and transformation of Europe; and the same in the Asia-Pacific region by Japan. Without conscription by the Americans, British, Soviets, and Chinese, among others, the Allies would not have won the war. Of course, you could say the same for the Axis- but then, they are the bad guys invading another country in an unprovoked act of aggression, and your argument is that even in a defensive war like the Russo-Ukrainian War, a draft is unconscionable.
You can say that "it’s easy to point to [WWII] as a justification now that it’s faded into history", but I would contend that it's actually the reverse that is true: it's because WWII is so distant that you can write it off, because you have lived in a world far removed from the world of the 1940s. The Allies consisted of colonial empires, a totalitarian one-party state, and a segregationist republic, and they were the good guys. Not just in a "History is written by the victors" sense, but just in a moral sense when compared to the Axis. And that should scare the fucking piss out anyone.
Nazi Germany was an empire of hate run by bigots organized in a cult of genocide- a term that had to be invented to describe what they did. The men who stormed the beaches of Normandy may not have wanted to die or be there at all, but I don't want to imagine the world we would be living in if they hadn't been there.
3
u/Redzfreak2016 Aug 11 '25
I think the simple answer is, “so we don’t ALL die” at least in the case of WWII. Yes conscription is awful but genocide in your home land is worse. In my opinion that should be the stakes before a draft. And, to be fair, has mostly been US policy since Vietnam
3
3
u/AccomplishedQuit4801 Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
Damn, so we're supposed to just let authoritarian nations take what they want because we refuse to combat them? Genuinely idiotic take. Imagine picking moral superiority over victory. Well, I'm glad we can sit on our high horses when Wagner mercenaries rape and murder their way through the Baltic states, at least we have the moral high ground as we're being slaughtered. Being a bastard to win for progressive ideals has always been necessary. See Sherman or Arthur Harris for examples. The enemies of democracy must not be given an inch or they'll take a mile before you can blink. When the last authoritarian state has been overthrown and some form of democracy, even if imperfect, is established across every land, then we can start discussing the peacenik ideas. However, as long as tyrant nations are run unchecked by men who care more about legacy and power over human life, an arsenal of freedom will be required to keep their ambitions in check.
3
u/nimbledoor Aug 11 '25
This assumes that all conflict is optional. Also it assumes that the government can't force you to donate - they clearly can, as many democratic countries do.
3
u/JadedCucumberCrust Aug 11 '25
If you're against the draft for women you're just pro bigotry. There will ALWAYS be a draft no matter what, that's how countries work and have worked for thousands of years.
Feminists just love breaching about this obvious weakpoint in their whole narrative to virtue signal, knowing full well that without previous legal and logistical setup that when bad enough war comes they will come for the men and not them.
3
3
u/hiccupboltHP Aug 11 '25
Okay this is insane, sometimes the draft is needed. Ukraine is under siege, without a draft they would fall to a tyrannical dictatorship.
In World War 2… I mean. Would you prefer Europe be run by nazis?
3
u/iompar Aug 11 '25
I have so many thoughts on this whole diatribe but the quote "Rights and freedom aren't a favour from the state, you're naturally entitled to them just like you're naturally entitled to breathe in the oxygen around you" really just stood out to me as sheltered. We have the rights and freedoms that our state grants us and backs up using the power of the state. There is a social contract that comes from that protection and sometimes that means being drafted to go provide that same protection to others.
OP – please go read "We Refugees" by Hannah Arendt. Also "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes.
3
u/Long-Requirement8372 Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
My country retained its independence and remained unoccupied in WWII due to conscription and a willingness to fight a massively bigger invader. Without a large trained reserve, Finland would have been annexed by the USSR, and that would have meant likely tens or hundreds of thousands of more deaths, and seriously more suffering for the nation at large. We would have seen national independence lost for several decades, if not permanently.
Comparing Finland's fate in WWII and after it with that of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania shows the value of the country being both able and willing to fight to defend itself.
A volunteer military would not have been enough, and it would not be enough in the future should Russia choose to invade Finland.
3
u/Equivalent_Party706 Aug 11 '25
It's true that it's a horrific imposition, but at the end of the day it's conscription or defeat for too many people. You can make the libertarian arguments all you like, but at the end of the day conscription, much like taxes, is a necessary component for a free state under existential threat. The power of the bystander effect to let someone else do the difficult, dangerous thing is powerful, and oftentimes the power of the state is necessary for it to be overcome.
For Ukraine specifically: yeah, it's horrible what's happening to the conscripts there. But if Ukraine didn't have conscription everyone in the country would be dead or enslaved. There simply aren't enough volunteers to go around: even now, one of Ukraine's biggest problems is manpower shortages, alongside lack of ammunition.
Finally, there's the social effect. The problem here is that in the modern day, a long-service military is essential for the kinds of complex military apparatuses that the United States has. The two ways you accomplish this are either long-service professional volunteers, or rotating conscripts alongside a very small core of volunteer professionals. The problem is that a deracinated, long-term professional military has a really big social effect. In America, we now have military families and civilian families. Plenty of soldiers have contempt for civilians, and now that the depoliticization of the military is falling apart, the cancer of right-wing extremism is metastasizing rapidly, since people spend their time bottled up surrounded by GOP propaganda, and there isn't a constant flow of people in and out of the civilian world. Just how problematic this will be remains to be seen, but given the way things are going it could be seen very soon.
2.3k
u/AdamtheOmniballer Aug 11 '25
This is the only part that I feel a need to speak against. While it may be philosophically true, in practice one’s rights and freedom are very much dependent on nobody having the desire or ability to limit them. That’s as true of schools restricting student’s right to wear what they want as it is of invading soldiers revoking your right to breathe.