Should Ireland have conscription?

CrabRevolution

There's ~65'000 people of school leaving age in a given year. Imagine the astronomical cost of having to administer a system of identifying them, sorting them, training them, feeding them, supervising them, transporting them, punishing those who don't do it etc.

On top of that you'd need to employ thousands of officers/managers/administrators to organise the whole thing. The bureaucracy of it would probably be eye watering.

I'd imagine the army would hate it too, instead of taking in maybe a few hundred dedicated soldiers per year you now get to spend your efforts working with tens of thousands of teenagers who will do the minimum to get by and never contribute to the army once their year is done.

AnGaelach

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It might be a good idea in principle but not if it would further suppress minimum wage jobs

It hasn't had that sort of impact in Scandinavia afaik. "Conscripts" have their cost of living covered and they're given a small stipend to spend on what they want (less than minimum wage I think).

And I also don't think the increased "labour" would really affect those working in health, considering nurses and doctors are overloaded with work - if anything, the less stressful working conditions would probably lead to a better quality of life for those currently working in the field.

AnGaelach

CrabRevolution wrote: »

There's ~65'000 people of school leaving age in a given year. Imagine the astronomical cost of having to administer a system of identifying them, sorting them, training them, feeding them, supervising them, transporting them, punishing those who don't do it etc.

Countries of similar size to us maintain very large reserves and conscription services for not an inordinate sum of money - Finland spends about €2.8bn per year (compared to the €20bn we spend on welfare), and has 22,000 conscripts, 900,000 reservists.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

On top of that you'd need to employ thousands of officers/managers/administrators to organise the whole thing. The bureaucracy of it would probably be eye watering.

Funnily enough, the Irish army is "top-heavy" and has a plethora of officers.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'd imagine the army would hate it too, instead of taking in maybe a few hundred dedicated soldiers per year you now get to spend your efforts working with tens of thousands of teenagers who will do the minimum to get by and never contribute to the army once their year is done.

I think the Army would begrudge it right now, not because they don't want to train people, but because their budget is strapped enough as it is.

Finland wrote:

Homeland defence willingness against a superior enemy is at 76%, one of the highest rates in Europe.[6]

I think the Army would be only too happy to have 76% of people in the country willing to defend it.

A Little Pony

You can have conscription, us Northern boys would still whip you!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think the Army would be only too happy to have 76% of people in the country willing to defend it.

I was wondering about this: what scenario do you forsee that Ireland would be invaded AND have a chance of defending itself from invasion?

A Finnish friend of mine reckons Finland would be lucky to last more than 5 days if the Russians ever decided to go in.

AnGaelach

A Little Pony wrote: »

You can have conscription, us Northern boys would still whip you!

Ah, but you boyos have been training since the Solemn League and Covenant

AnGaelach

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Exactly what scenario do you forsee that Ireland would be invaded AND have a chance of defending itself from invasion?

Well, the point went completely over your head didn't it? I was disputing the point that the military would hate conscription. I'd argue that they'd love it, if they got the funding for it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

A Finnish friend of mine reckons Finland would be lucky to last more than 5 days if the Russians ever decided to go in.

Strange, every Finn I've spoken to thought they were going to be the next Simo Hayha

shane9689

Conscription is pretty useless in times of peace. Its only useful during major wars. Places like Ukraine and Syria need it, but its completely pointless in Ireland. Especially when we need to focus on updating our military equipment to stuff that actually requires less manpower. I mean look at china, theyre cutting back their army because its too big and pretty useless. What good is a half-trained man with a rifle when you could have a couple of well trained drone pilots and spec ops with high end equipment instead

AnGaelach

shane9689 wrote: »

Conscription is pretty useless in times of peace. Its only useful during major wars. Places like Ukraine and Syria need it, but its completely pointless in Ireland. Especially when we need to focus on updating our military equipment to stuff that actually requires less manpower. I mean look at china, theyre cutting back their army because its too big and pretty useless. What good is a half-trained man with a rifle when you could have a couple of well trained drone pilots and spec ops with high end equipment instead

Because you need critical mass for a military to be effective. What you're arguing is that the Americans should scrap their military and replace every 100 men with green beret

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AnGaelach wrote: »

Well, the point went completely over your head didn't it? I was disputing the point that the military would hate conscription. I'd argue that they'd love it, if they got the funding for it.

No, I selected a specific point you made and asked a question realted to it - I don't need to respomd to the entire post.

I deleted the rest of the post from the quote for that reason.

AnGaelach

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, I selected a specific point you made and asked a question realted to it - I don't need to respomd to the entire post.

I deleted the rest of the post from the quote for that reason.

Yes, so you missed the point entirely.

CrabRevolution

AnGaelach wrote: »

Countries of similar size to us maintain very large reserves and conscription services for not an inordinate sum of money - Finland spends about €2.8bn per year (compared to the €20bn we spend on welfare), and has 22,000 conscripts, 900,000 reservists.

We can't spare billions for vital infrastructure like Metro North, how in God's name do you think we can piss billions away on involuntarily service?

The start up costs alone would be several billion. Finland as a country is geared towards the perpetual fear of Russia, so they have prepared extensively to fight. Not so with us, the UK won't invade and the best argument put forward seems to be wishy washy "pride, character, confidence" stuff rather than any notion of fighting.

And the majority of "countries of similar size to us " (Croatia, Czech Republic, Belgium, Portugal, New Zealand) have abolished conscription. I've yet to see any evidence that national confidence and character plummeted upon the abolition of conscription.

Funnily enough, the Irish army is "top-heavy" and has a plethora of officers.

The Army has about 8'000 people, unless every single one of them is an officer we'd need to employ many, many more

I think the Army would begrudge it right now, not because they don't want to train people, but because their budget is strapped enough as it is.



I think the Army would be only too happy to have 76% of people in the country willing to defend it.

AnGaelach

CrabRevolution wrote: »

We can't spare billions for vital infrastructure like Metro North, how in God's name do you think we can piss billions away on involuntarily service?

That's capital investment. Current investment has its own budget.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The start up costs alone would be several billion. Finland as a country is geared towards the perpetual fear of Russia, so they have prepared extensively to fight. Not so with us, the UK won't invade and the best argument put forward seems to be wishy washy "pride, character, confidence" stuff rather than any notion of fighting.

Start-up wouldn't be several billion, it'd likely be a phased-in policy, not "okay every stop working and get out to do your retroactive conscription service".

CrabRevolution wrote: »

And the majority of "countries of similar size to us " (Croatia, Czech Republic, Belgium, Portugal, New Zealand) have abolished conscription. I've yet to see any evidence that national confidence and character plummeted upon the abolition of conscription.

Those countries are also either in NATO or allied with the US, neither of which we are. Countries of similar size to us that are neutral would be - Finland and Austria. Sweden used to have it before scrapping it (but they want to reintroduce it).

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The Army has about 8'000 people, unless every single one of them is an officer we'd need to employ many, many more

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yes, so you missed the point entirely.

No, I did this:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, I selected a specific point you made and asked a question realted to it - I don't need to respomd to the entire post.

I deleted the rest of the post from the quote for that reason.

BrokenArrows

I think conscription in its traditional sense is a bad idea.

However i think encouragement to spend a year in a reserves would be a good idea.

dogbert27

CrabRevolution wrote: »

We can't spare billions for vital infrastructure like Metro North, how in God's name do you think we can piss billions away on involuntarily service?

The start up costs alone would be several billion. Finland as a country is geared towards the perpetual fear of Russia, so they have prepared extensively to fight. Not so with us, the UK won't invade and the best argument put forward seems to be wishy washy "pride, character, confidence" stuff rather than any notion of fighting.

This is mainly why Finland has it. While we as a people would find it stupid to fight to the death for Ireland Finns would defend against Russia to the last man.

Besides, if anybody invaded Ireland we'd invite them with open arms, bring them to the pub, get them wasted until they forgot what they came for and then send them home!

CrabRevolution

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's capital investment. Current investment has its own budget.



Start-up wouldn't be several billion, it'd likely be a phased-in policy, not "okay every stop working and get out to do your retroactive conscription service".



Those countries are also either in NATO or allied with the US, neither of which we are. Countries of similar size to us that are neutral would be - Finland and Austria. Sweden used to have it before scrapping it (but they want to reintroduce it).

OK, imagine tomorrow the government said "5 years from now there will be no CAO intake, all Leaving cert students (or those of equivalent age) will go into national service."

So there's 65'000 new soldiers. Where will they operate? How many bases and barracks would need to be built? How many vehicles would need to be bought? How many guns? How many bullets? Uniforms, meals, beds, bags? How much health care?

I also don't see how being in NATO makes any difference. Unless you're saying there's a real and tangible threat of Ireland being invaded.

AnGaelach

CrabRevolution wrote: »

OK, imagine tomorrow the government said "5 years from now there will be no CAO intake, all Leaving cert students (or those of equivalent age) will go into national service."

So there's 65'000 new soldiers. Where will they operate? How many bases and barracks would need to be built? How many vehicles would need to be bought? How many guns? How many bullets? Uniforms, meals, beds, bags? How much health care?

The military would have to answer those questions for you, but if the Government has 5 years to prepare, then they can begin budgeting for it 5 years earlier and your "several billion start-up" becomes spread over those 5 years. The variable costs (weapons, equipment, ammunition) don't kick in until you have those soldiers, so it's probably more in the region of tens of millions a year instead of "billions". At least until the conscripts start flowing in, in which case it'd likely still be around the Finnish expenditure of €2.8bn

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I also don't see how being in NATO makes any difference. Unless you're saying there's a real and tangible threat of Ireland being invaded.

Because their military is geared towards supplementing the US or other major allies in the alliance - Britain or France. Ireland isn't going to be sending aircraft or specialist teams to support the U.S., chances are we're not going to be involved at all.

CrabRevolution

AnGaelach wrote: »

The military would have to answer those questions for you, but if the Government has 5 years to prepare, then they can begin budgeting for it 5 years earlier and your "several billion start-up" becomes spread over those 5 years. The variable costs (weapons, equipment, ammunition) don't kick in until you have those soldiers, so it's probably more in the region of tens of millions a year instead of "billions". At least until the conscripts start flowing in, in which case it'd likely still be around the Finnish expenditure of €2.8bn



Because their military is geared towards supplementing the US or other major allies in the alliance - Britain or France. Ireland isn't going to be sending aircraft or specialist teams to support the U.S., chances are we're not going to be involved at all.

I'm suggesting we save even more money by spending nothing, because it's a waste of resources.

So you're saying we're not going to be involved in a war. Why do we need conscription?

AnGaelach

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'm suggesting we save even more money by spending nothing, because it's a waste of resources.

The money gets recuperated through taxes (of which we have plenty), it's not like the money is being flown to a deserted island in the pacific and buried.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

So you're saying we're not going to be involved in a war. Why do we need conscription?

Are you saying Austria is going to be involved in a war, surrounded by NATO and EU members? I'd much rather if young men like me were/are given some direction after leaving school, there's many people who go to university who just go because they should despite not knowing if it's even what they really want to do. How much money do you think you'd save if your kid went into the military for 6 months and then going to study what they want (or getting a trade, job) instead of dropping out of university that you paid 3k for?

Give people a 6 months or 9 months in the military so that they have real world experience, so that they have an idea of what they'd like to do, so they have a bit of national pride and self-confidence about themselves, instead of quibbling over "well you're not spending my pennies:mad:".

NiallBoo

So...without having to read through several pages...

Exactly what is the motivation for having conscription in a country where recruitment for the armed forces is over-subscribed?

CrabRevolution

AnGaelach wrote: »

The money gets recuperated through taxes (of which we have plenty), it's not like the money is being flown to a deserted island in the pacific and buried.



Are you saying Austria is going to be involved in a war, surrounded by NATO and EU members? I'd much rather if young men like me were/are given some direction after leaving school, there's many people who go to university who just go because they should despite not knowing if it's even what they really want to do. How much money do you think you'd save if your kid went into the military for 6 months and then going to study what they want (or getting a trade, job) instead of dropping out of university that you paid 3k for?

Give people a 6 months or 9 months in the military so that they have real world experience, so that they have an idea of what they'd like to do, so they have a bit of national pride and self-confidence about themselves, instead of quibbling over "well you're not spending my pennies:mad:".

It's inevitable that some people choose the wrong course, and even so, it's not some endemic problem that's draining the country's money. Even if it were a massive issue, military service isn't the answer.

I've no idea what makes you think serving in the military will make it clearer to people what they want to do in college. Like what part of military training clarifies to a person the difference between studying computer science and business?

I went to university, but didn't like the course so dropped out and started another course the following year which I loved. Please explain to me how serving in the army would have helped me in any way?

How will running around the Curragh allow a lad choose UCC over NUIG? Will shooting a target make him think "yup, biological sciences has better career prospects than physics"?

You have a solution (in this case military service) and you're looking for any old problem to fit it to.

The national pride and self confidence thing is just emotional waffle, I've never seen anyone say pride decreases in countries which have abolished conscription.

El Tarangu

AnGaelach wrote: »

The military would have to answer those questions for you, but if the Government has 5 years to prepare, then they can begin budgeting for it 5 years earlier and your "several billion start-up" becomes spread over those 5 years.

Yes it could... but why would it want to do any of those things?

Maybe you wouldn't mind paying the UCC (Universal Conscription Charge) to pay for these things, but I certainly would.

elefant

NiallBoo wrote: »

So...without having to read through several pages...

Exactly what is the motivation for having conscription in a country where recruitment for the armed forces is over-subscribed?

Some lads were forced to go to university straight from secondary school. The army will save us.

I think that's it anyway.

El_Duderino 09

elefant wrote:

Some lads were forced to go to university straight from secondary school. The army will save us.

Discipline and snowflakes was also part of the reasoning. And turning Jimmy the scumbag into a lean, mean fighting machine. Now he's trained to organise his mates to hurt people rather than having to figure out how to hurt people by himself...

NiallBoo

Punish the young-uns for...for..whatever it was...

And help them develop life skills by teaching them how to shoot people.

Got It.

Carry on.

ooompie5

No point in conscription unless we first decide whose side we are on or else fund a defence force capable of being a realistic deterrent.

Del2005

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because you need critical mass for a military to be effective. What you're arguing is that the Americans should scrap their military and replace every 100 men with green beret

You need a critical mass of people who want to be there for the military to be effective. The US had 500,000+ conscripts in Vietnam and got there asses whipped, they also had a huge amount of fragging. Saddam has one of the biggest armies and the majority rushed to surrender.

While the SAS fought a successful war in Yemen and the French didn't have to send many troops to retake the Northern parts of Mali that the Malian conscript army lost.

Del2005

Widdershins wrote: »

A lot to be said for discipline and endurance etc.

The answer to every problem is that it's someone else's responsibility.
It's not the Armies, or any other organisations, job to teach discipline and endurance. It's the responsibility of the parent(s) or guardian(s) to teach these things to children.

Del2005

ooompie5 wrote: »

No point in conscription unless we first decide whose side we are on or else fund a defence force capable of being a realistic deterrent.

We have always been on the UK and US side. During WW2 while we were "neutral" and supposed to inter any combatants who landed on our territory we interred axis soldiers but no allied.
We were responsible for the successful outcome of Operation Overlord.

Our air defence, and until the very recently our long range search and rescue, is provided by the RAF.