Does conscription mean sending poorly trained, disgruntled young people into battle, or can it encourage civic duty and help defend Europe?

Does conscription mean sending poorly trained, disgruntled young people into battle, or can it encourage civic duty and help defend Europe?

  • talOP
    2•10 months ago

    But having a concscript sent against a technologically developed professional army is just sending the conscripts to slaughter without serious gain.

    In the current conflict, at least, I think that without (conscripted) infantry to defend the artillery, the artillery would be in pretty deep trouble.

    For example the gulf war and iraq war against the army of Saddam Hussein were won decisively despite the US having much less boots on the ground.

    Iraq was, at the time, considered to have very strong air defenses. In practice, they got destroyed very quickly in the opening phase. But the US had prepared the American population for much higher losses in advance of the war, and was conservative in their expectations. We have the benefit of hindsight, so we know that the conflict was very much a one-sided affair, but in the runup to the conflict, the militaries involved were not so sure. Iraq definitely had a different view, else they would not have fought the war.

    A video that talks about the opening air war in Iraq that I’ve enjoyed watching:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺English
      2•10 months ago

      But if Iraq actually had the strong air defenses, the war would have looked much different as you said. You cannot operate modern AA systems with conscripts. Those are professional capeabilities. And again i dont say to leave systems unguarded without infantry. but 10 professional soldiers make short work of 30 conscripted ones. Again there is plenty of videos from the current war in Ukraine, where russian conscripts lose against much smaller numbers of professional ukrainian soldiers.