It also exposes to the military people who would not otherwise have considered it (it’s not glamorous) but who find it fits them well. Several of the noncoms in my brother’s battallion were former draftees; a couple of his draftmates decided to stay after realizing that they could actually manage the levels of discipline required and that some of the educational opportunities could be quite interesting.
Here’s hoping Russia doesn’t finish all over Sweden’s peninsula.
This is a conundrum I’ve never understood: Why is it that the Scandinavian countries - arguably the world’s most liberal behind Iceland - go for things like national military conscription, and also Sweden in particular has a robust domestic arms industry (Saab Viggins, Drakens, Gripens, etc.)?
Because we have a large, not overly friendly neighbour in the east, and we need to have something that looks like a credible ability to defend ourselves(granted our currently military is a joke, but meh) and like I said upthread, we don’t have the population to recruit for that on a purely voluntary basis. The idea is that by having general conscription in peace time there will be a large portion of population with military training that can be quickly called up if the shit hits the fan.
When it comes to the arms industry, that is mostly a result of cold war era politics, while Sweden was closely aligned with NATO, we were officially neutral and could not been seen as relying too heavily on either side for weapons, so we had to build our own.
It is my understanding, based on nothing more than an opinion, that the Finnish military is quite good. Does anyone know?
Mogle, by neighbor to the east you were referring to Russia, is that right? Or was it Finland? Or both?
The Finns were very good in WWII.
Molotov Cocktails!
Conscription is a lousy way to man-up a information-age army.
Modern weapons systems - even the ones used by the grunts - need a sophisticated knowledge of information systems. Conscription grabs random people above a minimum qualification threshold, but only occasionally the motivated, sophisticated young men and women the service really needs.
When I served, they had a lot of respect. My currently still-serving friends tell me that that’s not changed any. That doesn’t prove that they’re actually any good - But it’s a good indicator that they probably are.
They will be trained, and be able to be called up when the balloon goes up.
Training is one thing. Training the persons best able to make full use of the training is another. As a former recruiter, I will bluntly tell you that not all persons whom meet the moral, mental, and legal minimums are suitable for training.
There are far more people whom are just barely above the cut-off, and only qualifiy for operating a mop, than there are people capable of using sat-nav systems and writing coherent battlefield reports. Conscription does away with that very necessary distinction.
They realize, as Sweden found out, the alternative is to fall short of required strength. And at the least Denmark and Norway have had a bad experience within living memory of getting rolled over, and the Finns of having to grind out bare survival. You can be as liberal and socialdemocratic as you want yet still feel it necessary to keep up the defenses so you can *stay *liberal and socialdemocratic.
BTW, gotta say it, SAAB makes some fine looking fighters.
The answer is obviously Russia. There are no problems with Finland.
They’re not selecting that small minority by drawing at random from everyone above the “moral, mental and legal minimums”.
It’s true that a private military will always be more motivated than conscripts, but it’s not like draftees are placed around willy-nilly. At least in the Finnish army conscripts go through an evaluation before getting drafted. There’s also specialised branches, like paratroopers or combat divers, that conscripts have specifically try for where requirements are very high. You are evaluated throughout your service and are assigned a war time role that suits your abilities.
Don’t know about Sweden, but Finnish homeland defence willingness against a superior enemy is at 71%, one of the highest rates in Europe.
That’s the problem with conscription: It’s non-selective. EVERYONE is in the pool, and the pick is drawn at random. Even drafting small numbers won’t get you the “Uppers” (as they were called, when I was On The Bag) - Instead, you’ll get a mix that is roughly representative of society as a whole.
Here’s another dirty recruiting secret: “Uppers” are the primary target demographic. The recruiter’s main competitor for high-quality recruits isn’t other services - It’s universities.
Did you miss the word not? I just pointed out there is no random draw, with a cite from the article.
I don’t know what system you’ve experienced, but the Scandinavian system, grown out of previously compulsory military service for all males, screens every young citizen (at least in Norway where women have been included for several years) with tests of both physical and mental ability and motivation as well as registration of academic achievement. You can get a deferment for having started university studies, but that doesn’t mean the military has lost the chance to use you. I personally had to go in after completing my masters.
What I missed was the context of a national system which sorts and conscripts based on narrow criteria - That would certainly not fly here. Thus, your statment did not make sense to me; now it does. Thank you.
I am curious, at what age are they screened?