![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"A scene in the film Alice's Restaurant accurately captures the chaotic situation in the lower Manhattan draft center where people slipped through the cracks. In this case, a person was rejected for a criminal record (littering), but people probably evaded for less. Conversely it was the poor and uneducated who were often swept up without any understanding of how to escape the system."
This passage is simply inaccurate. This scene in Alice's Restaurant cannot possibly have accurately captured the chaotic situation with the poor and uneducated being often swept up without any understanding of how to escape the system. The notion that the draft during the Vietnam War disproportionately conscripted the poor and the undereducated while the sons of the white middle and upper class used their families' influence to largely escape the war is not true. 79% of those who fought in Vietnam were at least high school graduates, compared to 45% for WW2. 50% of the veterans were from solid middle-class families, and about 25% from the lower-middle/"working" class, and the rest from below the poverty line. The passage is completely misleading and I deleted it.
http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.26.194 ( talk) 00:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've just started Category:Conscription Armies, which is a category of articles about military structures which include conscripts. It is aimed to be a comprehensive list, but as a category it does not include explanations and other information as given in this article. Maybe the information presented here can somehow be integrated with the articles about the respective countries' militaries? Moonshiner 05:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The information is inaccurate: Serving for the "Technisches Hilfswerk" or for a voluntary fire brigade is usually not for 10 months continuously, but rather for 6 years with training exercises every fortnight and of course the duty to come in immediatly in case of an emergency. (Members of voluntary emergency response service usually have a pager for this purpose.)
The "Zivildienst", this one in fact 10 months, is the alternative choosen by the majority of conscious objectors, and usually means serving in an institution of public health care or the like.
I did not change the article yet as I'm unsure about the duties of the "Ersatzdienst" people in case of war. Maybe somebody knows more? sanders_muc 12:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Also, is it still possible to evade military service by being born in Berlin? My uncle was exampt this way. crimson30 22:43, 26 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Not just being born in Berlin. But during the Cold War many young people flocked to Berlin, because all inhabitants of Berlin were exempt from the Draft, because Berlin was formally considered not to be part of West Germany under the 4-powers agreement between the victory powers of the 2nd WW. -- 89.54.2.233 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose moving the information on conscientious objection to its own page. Not all COs seek to avoid conscription; many CO's (including myself) asked for and received discharge from the military after serving in it for many years. Kricxjo 04:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There should be some more info about the situation in Israel where there's a growing movement of youth refusing to serve in the army (particularly service in the West Bank) and who are being sent to jail.
i would like to point out that...
"In the era of total war, the conscription is the only alternative for a small nation to build an army of credible strength without depending on alliances. This is particularly the case when the opposing state is significantly larger. In such a case, a voluntary force could not, regardless of its quality, stand against the sheer numbers of the opposing force. Israel, surrounded by much more numerous Arab nations, is a classic example of this situation."
...is not an accurate fact, israel has been taking military aid since its creation, and without the military aid, would have never defeated the arabs, nor declared itself a state on palestinian land. the paragraph makes israel seem like the defending victom and not the overpowering invader that it really is. im not being anti sematic, im not being biased, im talking out of facts i read in books in an american university politics class. 7areega 03:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"Switzerland Although Switzerland has the largest standing civilian army in the world, the military service is voluntary. Conscription applies to male citizens in accordance with kind. 59 Federal Constitution the general dienstpflicht. The military service lasts in accordance with kind. 13 military law usually between the ages of 20 to 42. The requiring ones become refresher courses quantities until a rank-referred number of days to be taken into account is reached. For the crew ranks this number amounts to a maximum of 300 days. " AndyL 17:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is written in a past tense that suggests that it is about a specific place or time, but where/when is never mentioned. Very vague...but hard to edit in case it is actually refering to a specific time and place (maybe Vietnam war/US)? Ideas? -- 83.108.22.14 15:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Revival of the draft page has been marked for deletion, so I am moving my talk: contributions, posted there to here.
Unfortunately, Kerry's 100 day plan has disappeared from his site. I still prefer the John Kerry forum URL I posted because it is an exact quote, obviously a cut and paste of the original. The quote is also preserved several other places on the web, just search google:
Here is a URL that references a fact sheet:
Bush in the second debate, practically did a "read my lips" that he would not implement a draft. Kerry is far more likely to implement a draft. He is a nationalist with the hubris to beleive he knows what is best for others. In addition to his "100 Day Plan to Change America" where he proposes mandatory public service to graduate from high school. He thinks everyone has a duty to serve their nation and to encourage this he proposes a system where college tuition is paid for in exchange for service. His key supporter, Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory public service back in the late 70s, perhaps they were inspired by JFK, "Ask not ...". Then look at the history of the volunteer army and the draft. Senator's Barry Goldwater and Mark Hatfield co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968. Conservatives have been behind the professional army movement and critical of the quality of a conscript army, especially in this technological age. While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to conservative principles in this area. I can't support Bush for other reasons, but with a son that would become draft age during a 2nd Kerry term, there is no way I could support him. Bush is more predictible than Kerry, and he will avoid a draft on principle, and I also believe Bush is less likely to institute a draft based on his and Kerry's personal historys. Note that he chose to avoid the combat that Kerry thought was his "duty". Now perhaps you think that is admirable, but the problem with these "duty" types, is that not only do they think it was their duty, they think it is you and your son's duty also-- Silverback 08:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here is a site that preserves the original 100 days page before it was purged page snapped from google before the purge-- Silverback 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There are now more links documenting the John Kerry position link that is posted in the **external links** section. Here is another quote that may be of interest, also from his web site "On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation."'
The last several sections under "The Problems of the Draft in the United States" are blatantly POV. Specifically these:
It's not proper for Wikipedia to state as a fact that, for example, "Once a nation views its civilians as military assets, i.e. subject to the draft, its opponents, whether conventional or terrorist, are justified in also viewing those same civilians as legitimate military targets." That's clearly an opinion. If the opinions expressed in these five sections are held by a significant number of people or are otherwise notable, they should be properly attributed and sourced, and counterarguments given the same treatment. I'll hold off briefly on deleting all of these sections to see if anyone wants to salvage them in that fashion, but in their present form, they're not even close to being acceptable. JamesMLane 06:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"In a fourth case, Justice Benjamin Cardozo noted that the exemption of conscientious objectors from military service was always an "act of grace" by the state and was never meant to establish "a right of private judgment . . . above the powers and compulsion of the agencies of government." [1] "government has the right to the military service of all its able-bodied citizens, and may, when an emergency arises, justly exact that service from all."Richter v. US, 181 F.2d 591 (1950) at 592-3
Some documention has been installed directly into the page, feel free to add some of the above or elsewhere from here. I will continue this work later tomorrow. It is looking good.--
Silverback 10:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agree completely with JamesMLane. Recent text does not pass NPOV laugh test. Wolfman 15:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
00:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is the most authoritative encyclopedias, the articles are signed, produced by a person willing and able to do so. Do they always present every side? Since this is a wiki community project, where are the contributers to the pro conscription side? I submit they are the same place as the contributers to the pro side on murder and slavery. Total balance should not have to be achieved, the modern moral consensus has changed, just as it has in slavery. Even mere paternalistic mandates such as Kerry proposed for high school graduation have had to be expunged from his site and hidden, although not outright reversed or rescinded. -- Silverback 01:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I got partway through the changes I sketched above. There's now a specific subheading for the United States, with two paragraphs about the history and legal challenges. I didn't touch the subsections on "Perception of the Draft as Unfair" and "Selective Service Reforms", which I think need much work. The heavily POV sections are now under the heading "Arguments for and against conscription". Not a single one of them is currently in acceptable form. POV's must be attributed. The Manifesto cited under "The Draft As Slavery" doesn't use the word "slavery", so, at a minimum, the description of the Manifesto would have to be reworded. The statement in the next paragraph that the Thirteenth Amendment issue hasn't been decided by U.S. courts is clearly wrong. The remaining subsections are in even worse shape. I've deliberately left all these subsection headings in improper title case, rather than Wikipedia's standard sentence case, as a flag to indicate the passages that still need fixing. JamesMLane 08:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I deleted the two most egregious examples of POV posturing. The remaining ones still have plenty of problems. This article should be reporting arguments about the draft, not making them. Part of the distinction is in attributing an argument to someone specific and notable, with references. Otherwise, it sound like Wikipedia endorses the argument.
The addition of the template box at the beginning of the article looks very distracting to me. I've seen some articles where such a template box is over to the right, so that it's not confused with the table of contents, but in this instance I think it would be even better just to delete it. The other articles are all linked in this article at the appropriate points, so I don't think the template is particularly useful. JamesMLane 18:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Silverback's latest addition, under "The Draft As Justification for Terrorism", seems to me to be another blatantly POV passage. What is the context of the Brandeis remark? The rest of the addition is a long quotation about "total war" -- the quoted passage doesn't draw the link to conscription, which is a completely different concept. As matters stand, I think the whole section on "Arguments for and against conscription" has a few nuggets of fact that could be retained but about 90% of it should be deleted. JamesMLane 03:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Conscription is just like bombing civilians with nuclear weapons." -- Khaighle 22:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I am going to trim the conscription#United States section and merge content with the Conscription in the United States article unless I get some good objections. Zeimusu 00:05, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
I must inform you that the mandatory military service in Italy is no longer provided. The Italian military army, since January 1, 2005, will be formed just by volunteer, professional forces. Should I delete the paragraph or just update it? Ciao. Angelo.romano 21:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here is a list from a WRI report dated 2004 and an older one from the UN Commission on Human Rights dated 1997. Can such a list be added without making the page enormous? It may be easy to check the conscription status of some of the countries (e.g. Japan, South Africa, India, New Zealand, Malta, Pakistan) but very difficult to back it with official online references. Any ideas? -- Skopiestelos 20:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The only reason to boldface the word "only" in the discussion of Arver is to convey Silverback's disagreement with the decision. A properly NPOV presentation would simply say that Arver rejected the Thirteenth Amendment argument. What we have here is blatantly POV, as well as being too much detail for the general article; specifics about American law should be left to the U.S. article. JamesMLane 18:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There have been several requests to try to organize Category Military since it has over 50 articles and over 50 sub-categories. I am trying to help out, by adding a new sub-category Politics about Military, which will include this, and other articles about the sometimes controversial nature of how people get recruited into the military, such as child soldiers, also issues of gender, different religions side by side, conscientious objector and so forth.
AlMac| (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I am not certain about this, but as I remember from some Thais who were in one of my classes last year, in Thailand you have a choice of serving a short term in the army, I don't know the length, or drawing a ball out of a container and if it is one colour you have to serve in the Thai army for a longer period of time, but if it is the other colour you don't have to serve in the army. I believe this qualifies as conscription (though selective), but I am not sure of it or know any details. So if anyone can confirm it or give any details, this could be added to the article. say1988 01:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
There any verification for the more unusuall comments about Iraqs past conscription? Thanx 69.142.2.68 17:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any information on Eritrea, but I noticed the following sentence: "The Eritrean government is well-known for hunting down and torturing suspected draft evaders". While this may be perfectly true, I suspect it would require at least a citation, otherwise it's simply an opinion. / Mario, February 16, 2005
Contrary to popular opinion, prolonged wars of aggression can and will be waged with conscript armies. Both of the World Wars is a proof of this. Almost all forces which participated on both world wars had conscription armies, and all totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and USSR, have always relied on conscription. The only question is about indoctrination, maintaining discipline and economy, not whether the army is made up of volunteers or conscripts. Of course, disciplinary problems may prove grave, and it is estimated some 5% of all Soviet losses in WWII were executions.
Somehow, it seems amazing from a social science standpoint how the most impoverished or wrecked of nations can raise immense armies within such a short time, within a span of a decade. I have tried to start further development of the subject at military recruitment (whose focus is primarily voluntary recruitment) but I am interested in the scope here as well, as well as development of strength, or whether the military happens to suddenly increase many times in size, etc. Slightly OR contributed I started, but it was to get the ball rolling. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 03:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The size of the article is 75kb, and the Countries with mandatory military service (partial list) itself is 30kb. Maybe we can make that into its own article. Skinnyweed 23:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tag which was not founded on discussion here. According to my view, the moral statements made in the section are not meant to be encompassing but to relate the POVs reported. I really tried to rewrite them without using the word "should" but this would require much longer expression. The worldviews reported in the section are not compatible with most Wikipedians, but they do exist. The support for conscription can be founded even on the Western philosophical tradition, not only on the Eastern. For example, Rousseau and Hegel with their followers strongly believed in conscription. Of course, the mainstream of Western thought is at the present against conscription, but these views are reported in the section, "Arguments against C". The section tagged was in the part "Arguments for C". In my view, an NPOV approach requires that this section honestly reports those arguments without trying to disqualify them immediately. -- MPorciusCato 07:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraphs don't mention the distinction between a draft -- where some people (or some men, depending) of military age are conscripted but others aren't -- and universal military service, where everyone is conscripted when they reach a certain age. Since many of the pros and cons of conscription depend on which model of conscription you're thinking of, I think this is an important distinction that ought to be made up front. Glaurung quena 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this subsection be deleted. Listing only Muhammed Ali (who didn't actually serve) and Elvis is ridiculous. On the other hand, listing all notable persons who have been conscripts would create a prohibitively long list. For example, it would include most European notables of the 19th century and most U.S. politicians who served in Vietnam, Korea or in the world wars. We might as well compose a list of people who have been vaccinated. -- MPorciusCato 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The link to Maciavelli does not seem to contain the text referenced in the link description. 65.198.133.254 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. ( You can help!)-- VS talk 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
VS talk has removed an external link to a website which I publish containing information and on Draft Resistance and the Vietnam War in Australia. I believe this link is still relevant to the article. To avoid a conflict of interest, I should not post the link to the article myself unless it has been discussed on this page. Other editors are free to post the link if they think it is relevant.-- Takver 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"While it is frequently pointed out that feminists and others calling for more equal treatment of women in society have rarely extended their demands to include equality for women regarding the draft, it should be noted that many such persons are also opposed to war in general."
"it should be noted such persons are...." it should be noted? where? Unless someone can give scourced statistics that feminists are significantly more opposed to "war in general" than the average person I'm going to delete that.. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
69.158.142.183 (
talk)
07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Germany's GDP is just a little higher than Swaziland's GDP and more than ten times smaller than the one of Slovenia? I somehow doubt that :D
Not even a word about Poland? A big shame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.199.198.237 ( talk • contribs)
In Poland, Conscription is enshrined in art. 92 of the Constitution, which states: "1. It shall be the sacred duty of every citizen to defend the homeland. 2. Military service shall be an honourable patriotic duty of the citizens of the Republic of Poland." See http://www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/archive/poland.htm
Perhaps yet another "List of" article is called for here — List of conscription policy by country. OTOH, perhaps not. -- Boracay Bill 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
For armies to be effective, personnel discipline is required. True? -- Garzj019 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted "parliamentary democracy" to "democracy" for the following reasons, which I explain here because the explanation is too long to fit in an edit summary:
An IP tried to add the point: "Mercenaries also do not enjoy the status of prisoner-of-war in Geneva convention during the wartime, but may face summary execution as common criminals." While the first part is correct, the latter part is incorrect. The Geneva conventions expressly prohibit summary executions of any person, whether they are combatants or not. A person detained by an armed force, has the right to have his status defined by a competent tribunal. After being defined non-combatant, such as a mercenary, the person may be tried for crimes he has committed in the court which has jurisdiction over the matter. Any violent act made by a non-combatant is viewed as a common crime, not as an act of war, while a combatant has immunity for acts of war he has undertaken while pursuing hostilities against the enemy, unless those acts break the laws of war. For example, charges of espionage, murder, attempted murder and assault apply to non-combatants but not to combatants. In many countries, such crimes carry capital punishment but for example in most European countries, a mercenary would face only life imprisonment, as those countries have renounced even the war-time capital punishment. -- MPorciusCato 12:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It didn't reference any sources at all, and I deemed it to be superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.26.163 ( talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The general POV in this article seems to be anti-conscription (which does actually have quite a few good points). Also, specifically in the arguments for and against conscription, refutations (sometimes unfounded) are provided for all the arguments for consciption, and in none of the aguments against conscription. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.226.249 ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have something more specific to go on here. How about using {{ POV-statement}} tags? CKCortez ( talk) 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"... although they might then be drafted for non-combat work, such as serving as a combat medic."
Am I the only person who thinks that that state is a little, well, contradictory? Come on, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.217.138 ( talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the GDP's for the countries Malta and Moldova seem unusually high... 5 trillion and 2 trillion respectively. These should be aligned with the main article GDP numbers of the respective country. A cross reference of all the countries GDP may be necessary. Should I proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groz2065 ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In the Countries with and without mandatory military service section of the article, the table, which is a rip-off from the source webpage, lists out the conscription in the countries as well as the form of government. I feel that the form of government "pseudo-democracy" is POV. Even when a state has democratic structures but without a real chance for an alternance of power, it is nevertheless a democracy. For my country, Malaysia, one may argue that it is a "federal pseudo-democracy", but the people still have the say in politics and go to the polls every five years. It is just that the people keep voting the same party into power. Furthermore, this article is about conscription, so I don't think that land area, GDP, population and form of government must be included here. -- Joshua Say "hi" to me! What have I done? 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
With this edit, I reverted a change by User:AZ'sReincarnation, and had changed the Government entry for the U.S. from "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" to "constitution-based federal republic", giving an edit summary of "Strong my ass... NPOV you nationalists."
The reversion restores the entry to agree with the information found in the cited supporting source for this column. The source cited is the CIA World Factbook, 14 June, 2007 which, admittedly, might be a POV source on this particular point. I suggest to AZ'sReincarnation that if (s)he believes that it is worthwhile to editorialize in dispute of this point from the supporting source, (s)he add an assertion disputing this point and cite an appropriate supporting source for that assertion -- similar to the way some other entries handle conflicting info between the overall cited supporting source and other conflicting sources (e.g., the Conscription field for Croatia. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What is done in various countries with people with handicaps? In watrtime, I'm sure it is different; the old joke that you qualified for the Russian front in Germany if you were breathing during World War Two, for instance. But, even that might differ in different nations, and I see nothing in the article referring to it. ("4F" is a strictly American term, bthough it does provide a link to the American Selective Serive System.) 209.244.187.155 ( talk) 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
could we use some more neutral colours than red and green. It says conscription implies good. personally i think consciption is vile and would rather go to prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 ( talk) 10:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest changing to pink and light blue to nearly match the colors on the map. Dynzmoar ( talk) 11:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant the Land Area, GDP & GDP per capita shown in the table are. What might be more informative is:-
Does anyone have a statistic on the number Americans drafted who "dodged" the draft (as both a total number and as a percentage?)
I've rewritten and greatly shortened the section Conscription#Arguments for and against conscription. I've attempted to give equal weight to both sides. Be bold when editing, but please try to be balanced. Zeimusu 01:10, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
Of the many violations of the NPOV policy in this article, one of the most flagrant is this paragraph:
It was removed by an anon but promptly restored by Silverback. The paragraph represents one point of view. Even to present it as a "Some have argued" type point would be poor, because of the lack of attribution of the opinion. To state it as a flat-out fact, however, is quite unencylopedic. I'm removing it. Anyone who wants to restore the thought is welcome to do so, provided it's properly attributed. This passage from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is applicable:
Of course, this one small change only begins to address the POV problems of this article. I focus on it only because I noticed the anon's perfectly correct removal of it -- without an entry on the talk page but with a sufficient justification provided in the edit summary -- and the prompt reversion of the anon's edit. JamesMLane 01:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
HALF THE ARGUEMENTS FOR CONSCRIPTION ARE ACTAULLY ARGUEMENTS AGAINST, WITH 'HOWEVERS' THROWN IN EVERY COUPLE OF PARAGRPAHS —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
140.159.2.32 (
talk)
11:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the tags littered over the ad are 6 months or more old, don't see current discussion for most and they seem out of date. 72.228.150.44 ( talk) 11:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, "invention" hardly seems an appropriate word. Second of all, this entire section babbles in a disjointed fashion. Third of all, the current paragraph ending this section concerning the United States has absolutely no bearing on either this section or the article in general, and should be deleted for these facts alone, let alone the fact that given the current political reality, it is utterly absurd in nature. - ampermc 04:10 UTC 19 Aug 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:11:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Obviously some higher up figures made a career of it, but the majority of forces were conscipts for several years, yes?
-G
... content removed to save space ...
Still represents a contradiction ("do not have any from"). Its also clumsy because its long and reuses "conscription" unnecessarily. Im going to reword it. If you are agreeable, go ahead and delete this section of the talk page so it doesnt continue to clutter. Otherwise we can continue to discuss. Catskul 04:09, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) (p.s.) Change of "forced" to "involuntary" is two fold: "forced" has negative conotation; "Involuntary" is a neutral. Second, in a related matter, forced can be interepred as threat of death/harm, where in not all cases is conscription under threat of physical harm, probably more often under threat of imprisonment or fine; "Involuntary" is more general and encompases both meanings.
I propose that the sentence, "Russia and China, as well as many smaller nations, retain mainly conscript armies." be removed. China does not have conscription (I don't know about Russia). Arashi 26-Nov-03
You're right I am from China and there is NO CONSCRIPTION!!! There is some sort of military training in highschool for a few weeks, students are taught basic military skills and self defence but thats all. However in China you are only allowed to be enlisted for 2-3 years. Even if you pass the physical test you are still discharged(non-commissioned officers are kept), this is done so that there are more civilans that are former soilders. Since you are not allowed to stay in the army for more than 2-3 years as an enlisted, this could be a form of conscription since you are forced to leave(Though no one is forced to join). Also not sure about Russia. Mao Zedong 24-Nov-05
That is also true about where i come from, Yemen. They abolished conscription in 2007. Google it and you'll see. That mapis inaccurate. Look at http://www.indexmundi.com/yemen/military_profile.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.106.21 ( talk) 06:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I second this. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONSCRIPTION IN CHINA. High school students have a compulsory one week program of boot camp training, but it is for physical excercise and no one is forced to join the military. I have already altered it but it was changed back to its incorrect form. devilhunterred October 14 2009
The money that Dubya authorized was not for reactivating the Selective Service; that would require an Act of Congress. He authorized more money for the Selective Service to be sure that it could be reauthorizedby then.
Response to "The money that Dubya...reauthorized by then.": I'm not sure what the conventions are for talk areas like this, so I'm not deleting the text. Simply put, the above statement is just more unfounded speculation. The simple fact is that in 2003 and 2004, the budget remained the same at $26 million, which is the same value proposed for 2005. This information is available from the US OMB website(PDF). A quick Google search indicates that in 1998 under Clinton, the budget was $24 million and in 2001, it was up to $25 million. These links are not as authoritative, but I'm sure if anyone cares enough, they can find historical budget figures on the OMB website. I don't think a $1 million increase from 2001 to 2005 is enough to conclude that "Dubya" is trying to reactivate the draft. This is the same point I was trying to make when I took this baseless conjecture out of the main article. (Edit: Here is another source of information that states the case better than I have.)
The United States is currently listed as "Conscription: No". I find this patently absurd, considering that conscription has been instated four times in the lifetimes of many currently living US Citizens, if you include the World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War--five times, if you consider the 1980 re-instatement of mandatory registration with the Selective Service System as being equivalent. Even more absurd is the current paragraph under the heading "Invention of Modern Conscription", which purports that conscription is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future in the United States, especially given the fact that we are now engaged in another pseudo-war which has, as of this date, lasted longer than our involvement in World War II. -- ampermc 04:03 UTC, 19 Aug 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:05:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Some Wikipedians have asked for arguments for conscription. I post them here in order to submit them for neutral discussion. Well combined with the points stated above, they should make the page itself less POV. As a citizen of Finland (which is easily deduced from my WHOIS information), one of the last Western democracies to use almost universal male conscription, and having served as a conscript, I am personally aquainted with the topic.
The types defence forces can be grossly divided into three systems: regular armies, cadre systems and militia systems. The USA, Great Britain and most other NATO countries have regular armies. In such army, the units are organized of professionals and a major part of the fighting force is always at the service. Typically, the peace time units are immediately deployable and the full mobilization only complements them. Almost all armies before the French revolution followed this model. The pros for this kind of army are clear: you have a combat ready strike force that is politically easy to deploy. The con is the expense of such force. A small nation cannot support a force much larger than a hundred thousand soldiers.
The cadre system consists of a small cadre of career soldiers and a large reserve of reservists. The conscripts form the active component of the army and are trained by the cadre of officers and NCOs who occupy the key command positions and positions requiring special technical skills (e.g. pilots). The conscripts train for the wartime duties and after completed training, are demobilized. If needed, the service time can be made somewhat longer than actually used for the training to provide the nation with a force of fully trained conscripts to give protection against surprise attacks. In the time of national emergency, the nation enters total war, and the army can be expanded even over ten-fold. Most NCO and officer duties of the war time defence force are undertaken by trained reservists who, which should present no problem, as also the most talented citizen are part of the reserve. The main advantage of the system is that the country can have a low defence budget and still retain a large army. It is also very difficult to use such a defence force except in a grave emergency where wide political support can be found. However, the cost of weaponry has risen to such an extent that it is becoming the limiting factor for the size of the defence force, instead of national man power. The weak point of the cadre system is the mobilization. It takes usually a few days and means total restructuring of the force. All peace time units are either disbanded or change form and a abundance of new units are formed. It will take a time span from one day to two weeks to form a combat ready unit, depending of the training level of the reservists.
The militia system is the on used in Switzerland and can be considered the ultimate model of a citizen army. I believe it has been discussed elsewhere.
The viewpoint raised by Silverback and others is that the nation has no higher right to exist than the individual. This is a sound argument. However, if approached from the viewpoint of game theory, it can be argued that the conscription is not immoral. The chance to die in a war is actually quite low, of the order of 1 %. On the contrary, if the alternative is the near-total obliteration of the nation, as happened for example to the Jews or the Chechens in the 1940s, the chance to die in the war becomes actually much lower than in the case of not fighting. In such case, it is reasonable for anyone concerned to fight, and to ensure oneself that everyone else is also fighting. Similarly, many other infringments of peace-time rights, e.g. rationing, can be carried out, as these enhance the average chance of survival. However, great care must be taken to insure that the country defending itself does not permanently destroy its free lifestyle and democracy. (This has been accomplished, for instance in Great Britain during WWII.) I hope I have established above, that a small country has no way to defend itself against a wide-scale attack of a major power, unless it has conscription. However, the fundamental axiom of rationale can be questioned. It is quite possible that there is no realizable threat to the nation. For example, it is hard to imagine any country making large scale invasion to the USA with a purpose of destroying a large part of its civilian inhabitants. However, many countries, e.g. Israel, have such an underlying fear which may or may not be rationally founded.
The final reason for the conscription and the concept of total war is the deterrent of "one-sided destruction". If we consider the possible enemy capable to act rationally, its reasons to invade are based on solid analysis of objectives. For example, a major power may wish the natural resources, key infrastructure or strategic points in the country. It will invade if the political, human, and economical costs are outweighed by possibilities of same forms of income. Most attacks can be deterred if country credibly accepts the doctrine of total war. Even after defeating the country, the enemy will have to quell to guerilla resistance, which may go on for years, and rebuild the infrastructure, which will have been totally destroyed in the fighting. In short, the majority of the nation deters the enemy by a credible collective suicide threat, which requires certain amount of fanatic nationalism. This is the main disadvantage of such a strategy.
The conscription has also a few minor advantages among which is the chance to physically educate the youths of the nation, thus lowering future social expenses. The conscripts, who form a good outline of the whole nation, also present the military with good opportunity to recruit its cadre from among the most talented. Of course, there is also the point of indoctrination, which is ambivalent but can, to my view, be used also constructively.
To get a good outline of the idea of total war, please see the Emergency Powers Act which outlines the reserve powers for crises other than war. For the war, the following also applies, but is only in Finnish and Swedish Act on the State of Defence In Finnish. -- 130.230.131.108 15:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
i want to suggest a further pro-conscription argument, that is that a country that has in peacetime a largely conscript army is less prone an likely to go to war due to the fact that the army would be comprised from children of all classes including the rulling classes and the people who make decissions, were as a fully professional army would be almost entirely be comprised of members and children of the poorer classes whose fate is less likely to be taken under consideration by the ruling classes whose children would be safe.
I would apreciate it if someone would try to formulate this idea properly and place it in the list of pro-conscription arguments, that is ofcourse if they find it to be reasonable as i believe it is the case.
thank you 88.218.38.140 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Exile 16:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add a few possible pro-arguments for conscription as well. These arguments revolve around the use of the draft due to too few volunteers in the enlistment-based military of the United States. The first reason the draft may be used is because of wide-spread civilian disagreement with a completely necessary war. One example is World War 2-operating under the assumption that the United States' involvement in the war after the Pearl Harbor bombings was justified-the war was fought with an army consisting of 61% draftees (around 11,500,000 men, according to Bluejacket). Whatever the reasons for the public's lack of higher enlistment rates, our military operations from 1939-1945 in the Pacific may not have been as successful as they were with the mere 6,000,000 (1/3 the total) volunteers. Though there were few civilians willing to step up to a necessary task, the draft ensured America's victory over the hostile Japan. Another point to make out is the fluxuation of volunteer enlistment correllating with the strenght of the U.S. economy at the time. When the economy is weak and there are fewer technical/luxury jobs being offered, it makes sense that there will be a steady, if not rising, employment of manual labor/blue collar workers. In these rough times, all sorts of students and laborers may seek military careers to make ends meet when they may have formerly been aiming towards a civilian based tech-job or whatnot. This scenario holds true vice versa-when the economy is flourishing and tech-industry is employing, military personnel may turn to other jobs that are higher paying or less injurious or life-risking, but still applying the same concepts and ideas already learned throughout their careers-A completely reasonable and rational choice from anybody's point of view. Therefore, even if a war is widely supported, a strong economy may incite personnel to look elswhere in the civilian industry for a better-paying, easier-going job and lead to an overall lack of military employment. A drafting program could serve to pull some of these personnel back to their military jobs in order to carry out a war at hand. 67.171.167.100 ( talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
draft evadees seems a bit too general
Forced conscription was abolished in Venezuela (1999 constitution) http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_III.htm article 134 JRSP —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRSP ( talk • contribs) 10:21, February 7, 2006
Starting 1991 there is no conscription in Venezuela, starting in western state of Zulia and quickly spreading nationwide. At the present there's only a short paid training on gerilla-like tactics offered by the government to prepare people for the "imminent invation of Venezuela thuru the USA", and the common proffesional armed force. But conscription there's not! someone should please correct the map, I don't know how. Quaipau ( talk) 15:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
IF the Russian military is in as bad as the Russian Generals claim, someone with 20,000 boy scouts can take the place over. I suspect this is a propaganda ploy for someone to try that. I grew up during the time Russia was the USSR and could make the rest of the planet kow-tow to them, except NATO and allies. Martial Law 23:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Conscription army in Russia (and other ex-USSR countries) is inefficient, but there is always regular army. That's why Russia is trying to expand regular army and minimize conscription. In Ukraine a politician promised banning conscription, but as always when she achieved power, she easily forgot her promises. As for Chechnya, inefficiency is more a political will by oligarchs, government was controlled by them when first war was. -- Sasha Chorny ( talk) 00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the Russian military is generally much worse then the generals claim in terms of both conditions for conscripts and fighting ability (as Chechnya had illustrated for the last ten years). And I believe they (the generals) have only themselves to blame. They had been too slow in finding inefficiencies, and it was on their watch that the corruption levels in the military skyrocketed. No wonder most sane Russians are trying to escape the service by whatever means possible. Having been deemed fit for service while drawing a disability pension I have to say that even if conscripted army might be considered a good thing, the current execution of the idea in Russia nullifies most of the positive arguments.
Maximpbar 18:39, 19 May 2006
"Such an offense, legally considered an offense of "bad moral character", prevents the "unpatriotic" citizen from ever holding public office."
This isn't NPOV at all is it? And yes I realize that they're in quotes but that still looks like it's favoring the conscriptors.
Montenegro,Bosnia and Herzegovina,Venezuela,Afghanistan and Iraq don't have conscription any more.Bulgaria will end conscription in less then 3 years.
"The cost to benefit ratio of conscription during war time is also debatable. As technology improves, the necessity of a soldier on the battlefield becomes less and less necessary. Superior technology, not superior numbers, has become the deciding factor in war. The cost to train, equip, and care for a poorly trained conscript does not justify the contribution (if any) he or she makes to the armed forces."
This is not fact. Look to recent wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. etc. These countries all were (are) subject to technologically superior enemies. Proving that it is very much possible to fight a war with old weapons and basic traning. Look to Afghanistan, they use ak-47 and rpgs, yet NATO are experiencing great difficulty taking them down. For a small country, conscription can be useful to make a technologically superior enemy suffer great economic losses... 1 black hawk is how many million dollars? How many billions did the US spend in Iraq? This is not even mentioning Vietnam. For a small country, advanced technological warfare is even harder due to (most likely) less funding and numbers. If the goal of the enemy is to take control of a country, then they must step on the ground, they must move amongst the citicents. However, if the militia and the population look the same, if not are the same. What do you do? you cannot see or find you enemy, or is everyone your enemy, and you are really surounded? They cannot control a nation without public support/acceptance and if one quarter of the inhabitants are trained in military combat, that's gonna be hard to get if there is a strong national feeling.
Sincerly, Martin.
Someone wrote "In Canada, during both of the World Wars, most French from Quebec didn't want to fight in the wars. So, 98% of them evaded this by reporting sick."
This is totally racist and unacceptable, with no sources at all to prove that ridiculous anti-Québec claim. First, Francophones are called Québécois, French-Canadians or Quebecers, not French. Secondly, Québécois fought like everybody else in Canada, and suffered casualities like everybody else. While opposition to the war was high in Québec (by the time of the conscription, opposition to the war was quite high in the rest of Canada as well) Québécois did their military services like everybody else, with only a few cases of people mutilating themselves to avoid conscription. Also, I removed the part about Prairie farmers shooting their sons' toes, as I suspect there isn't any sources proving that either and that it is just another racist comment, making it seem like it was a wide-spread method to avoid conscription while in fact there was only a few rare cases of it happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.156.183 ( talk) 04:12, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
While the statement seems inappropriately formulated, and may well be factually incorrect, it is not actually racist. Let us keep "racist" to its actual meaning, related to race, not as a generic ad hominem argument. 94.220.243.191 ( talk) 11:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Another serious POV issue is questioning if the US volunteer military "is really volunteer?" This is ludicrous. If I had more time, I would pull up the published statistics. The US military is more educated than the US population ON ALL LEVELS. It has more high schools grads, more college grads, and more graduate school grads, percentage wise, than the rest of the population. Then the argument that they join the military because they are destitute and have no other option means the rest of the population must also not have a chance...considering we've got around a 5% unemployment rate, I find this hard to believe.
There is a difference between choosing to join to further your education, serve your country, or simply be a professional soldier and being forced to. The POV here is that no one wants to be a soldier/sailor and that it is a last choice.
While my input is rather anecdotal, ever single person (except me, a civilian my whole life) in my office has a graduate degree, makes six figures, and is either retired or reserve military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.28.104 ( talk) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Without taking a position one way or other on whether the US military is truly "volunteer" or not, the logic/ premise of the first commentator's argument is flawed - yes, the military probably does have a higher education level than the population in general, but what's relevant is the education level of those joining the military at time of their enlistment. That's what's relevant to the argument of how voluntary was their enlistment and how many other options they might have had when considering whether to sign up or not. Lumping the entry-level recruits w/ the West Pointers or those who've been in the force for years and took advantage of the educational opportunities just obscures (whether deliberately or carelessly) what's truly relevant to the question of the alternatives available to enlistees at the time of enlistment.
Let's not confuse what is voluntary with what is non-voluntary. The US armed forces are voluntary. Do they offer incentives to get people to sign-up? Absolutely. There are many men and women who take advantage of those incentives to better themselves. But to suggest they did not have a choice is inaccurate at best. I personally knew many volunteers who had the choice to join for education benefits, or take on student loans. I knew others who volunteered because the pay and benefits for their families was better than what was currently available in civilian life. But there was always a choice. Are there risks for the choices we make? Of course there are. Choosing to live in downtown Chicago vs. the suburbs probably increases the risk an individual takes to being exposed to violent crime, but some people choose to do so for the benefits of being closer to work, cultural attractions, less commute, etc. Those who sign up to take advantage of the military benefits, also sign up for the risk of being sent to a conflict (and all that entails). The US military is a volunteer military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macairet ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This term is used in the table. There is no official term pseudo-democracy. IMo it is OK to use vague terms in newspapers rants but not in encyclopedia. The term must be replaced by official one. e.g., Singapore is parliamentary republic rather than "pseudo". BTW, after some thought, the term "democracy" must go out of the table as well and official form of gov't used instead. Laudak ( talk) 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the government forms listed here are pretty arbitrary. Who decides if a democracy is 'pseudo'? Is it one where the ballots are too complex for the voters to understand and where the courts get to override the voters decisions (anyone guess who I'm talking about?). Why does the UK get 'constitutional monarchy' rather than 'democracy', and why does the US get 'democracy' rather than 'constitutional republic'? Is Cuba more 'dictatorial' than Iran? Some of this stuff seems to have been made up. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
GDP figures used in the article are completely wrong, while Nationmaster lists CIA figures. How comes?
For example, Nationmaster lists Russian per capita GDP close to $10,000, while the tables shows $5.500. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.178.57.102 (
talk)
13:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Since according to the article, Lebanon has no longer mandatory service, could someone update the map? (i.e. color Lebanon in blue). Thank you. Eklipse ( talk) 15:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Lebanon DOES have mandatory service! The exception is if a household has just one son, otherwise, it's mandatory. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.4.43.40 (
talk)
10:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm from the Philippines and I'm wondering. We are giving the choice between ROTC or CAT. CAT is some sort of civil service while ROTC is weekly boot camp training. Is ROTC a form of conscription? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.41.6 ( talk) 10:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph sounds off to me. "Small countries have several options to raise a sizeable army. One is to put every able-bodied man under arms. This is how Switzerland managed to stay independent despite repeated attacks throughout history. The Swiss militias were so successful that their fighting style and weapons (especially the halberd) were quickly adopted by their enemies. This in turn made the Swiss very popular as mercenaries; many rulers even raised Swiss Guards. The rich Flemish trade cities of the early 14th century raised huge militias that could even defeat armies of knights. The famous Battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) is a good example." Mostly the line "This is how Switzerland managed to stay independent despite repeated attacks throughout history." It sounds like original research to me, and it just sounds weird. Plus "The rich Flemish trade cities in the early 14th century raised huge militias that could even defeat armies of knights.". What's makes these "knights" so great? It should be re-phrased. Plus this article doesn't have ANY citations. Moocowsrule ( talk) 06:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed tha following which was recently added as a closing sentence in the Conscientious objection section: "The philosophy of John Mill enshrines individual concience, and forbids the coersion of an individual and the subordination of their beliefswer to this question. to the greater good. ". The edit summary was: "Adds philosophical support to the 'Conciece Objections' section of the article."
Perhaps I'm just a dunce, but my reaction was "Who the heck is John Mill?". He is not mentioned elsewhere in this article, and bit if wikisearching and googling didn't provide a quick answer to this question.
Perhaps this is useful, but it needs a bit of context. Perhaps something like: John Mill, very famous philosopher, said in his book yammer yammer, "quote from the book".<ref>citation of the book, giving page number of the quote</ref> -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just added a section on Feudal Levies, the medieval equivalent of conscripts. I haven't sourced any of it yet but I will soon and invite anyone who wants to add further info or citations to do so. I really feel that this article could do with a lot more history of conscription in the military. Master z0b ( talk) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the German WP says, conscription was made in during World War first only in Great Britain and later in Northern Ireland - not in the later Irish Republic. Does anyone know anything about? The Irish Free State was founded after the war, and I've never before heard about any kind of political or juristical separation between the later Northern Ireland and the rest of the island before that time. 217.228.69.4 ( talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
"The young girls were put under various categories of training and testing for intellectual ability, physical beauty, and other talents. Blond and blue eyed women or dark-haired pale-complected women who fit preconceived Turkic ideals of beauty were especially prized. Those that had the best abilities were then put through various sexual traumas to prepare them as permanent sex slaves to whet the Sultan's sexual appetite and give him children."
This article is about conscription. But this part talks about traumas of young girls and there is no reference or sources for this part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.142.40.66 ( talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The whole thing is irrelevant to the context of the article. I had removed it from the article. -- Joshua Say "hi" to me! What I've done? 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A minor point. Draft card currently redirects here, but there is no reference to the document in question. Thoughts on perhaps creating a different article? Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit, changing the conscription info for the Philippines from "No" back to "Yes", as indicated by the supporting source cited in the Article. This is the second time I have done this.
Article II, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution reads, "The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service." I suspect that, though allowed, conscription for military service is currently not practiced by the RP Government; However, I have been unable to locate aciteable verifiable and reliable to support this. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The Philippines had mandatory military training for all high school seniors and male college freshmen and sophomores. The program, at least for college, is now called the National Service Training Program, for all college freshmen and sophomores (male and female) and therefore it could be said that the country has national service, but not conscription. Even if the NSTP did not exist, the Philippines did not require military service, only training, for its citizens. There have been no call-up of reserves since World War II. Will edit the article appropriately when I find references to support the things written above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskabobbins ( talk • contribs) 07:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No honorary mention of conscription 30 years ago in South Africa but no longer in effect? Invmog ( talk) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there any value to including the description of the government of the countries? Also, is there any standard to them? Why does Libya get a distinction between "theory" and "practice" while none of the other Communist states/despotisms do? Why is the US A "Constitution-based" country when none of the other ones (Like, say, France or Germany) are? What is the qualification for "emerging" ? 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This section sounds bizarre to me:
Those that showed special promise in fighting skills were trained in advanced and arcane warrior skills, put into the sultan's personal service, and turned into the ultimate fighting weapons known as the Janissaries
I propose that the sentence, "The former military dictatorships of Turkey, Greece, Spain, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia and Libya maintained draft systems throughout their reigns..." be edited, deleting "Indonesia. Indonesia does not have conscription. Toukairin 30-Nov-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toukairin ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be differentiated, that some nations abolished the conscription and others just have suspended it (like the US)? Thus, can't it be stated in parenthesis in the image comment "No conscription (abolished/suspended)? -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 ( talk) 10:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
From the qoutes that are available online it appears that Brandeis was talking specifically about freedom of speech in the context of war, and that he didn't mention conscription when he said that "all bets are off". It is possible that someone quoted Bradndeis out of context. The article needs the original qoute, not the third-hand source that is used now. Sjö ( talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Is outdate and duplicated to other articles, I would suggest point to Per capita GDP#Lists of countries by their GDP -- Jor70 ( talk) 10:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In the beginning of 2010 this article was a mess and rife with original research and unsupported statements. I and others have cleaned up most of it, and what the article needed was expansion with sourced facts, e.g. on the history of conscription. The recent edits have rewritten the article, removed citation and introduced unsourced text. The editor seems to have a clear anti-conscription bias as shown by e.g. the phrase "Conscription is the State’s slave labor". In other words, the article is heading back to being a mess of unsupported statements again. I urge Amp873 to add references to the statements, otherwise his/her edits risk being reverted per Wikipedia policy. Sjö ( talk) 10:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The article has been restored several times. Some of the objections to the changes by Amp873 are:
I'm sure that some of Amp873's edits and sources can be merged carefully into the current text. I intend to do that but I'd prefer consensus on the talk page first. Sjö ( talk) 06:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
most nations no longer conscript soldiers and sailors
I seem to be failing to be able to see that from the map. Added a [?] in the respective place.
-- 217.229.26.48 ( talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two things about Taiwan which need to be clarified:
1. Women are not conscripted to the military service. The sources given in the article did not list their original sources.
2. The Interpretation 490 did not state that "the male-only conscription does not violate the constitution". The problem is that the English translation and the original Chinese version are different. The responsibility should not totally fall on the translator. I have read the original version. The writing and punctuation are terrible. It's hard to believe that such poor writing was employed in a document like this. It has nothing to do with the style of legal document. A sentence runs between point to point and should roughly talk about the same topic. There is a sentence (from point to point) in the original document which reads,
"立法者鑒於男女生理上之差異及因此種差異所生之社會生活功能角色之不同,於兵役法第一條規定:中華民國男子依法皆有服兵役之義務,係為實踐國家目的及憲法上人民之基本義務而為之規定,原屬立法政策之考量,非為助長、促進或限制宗教而設,且無助長、促進或限制宗教之效果。"
If loyal to the original punctuation, that would read,
"Given the physical differences between males and females and the derived role differentiation in their respective social functions and lives, the Legislature enacted Article 1 of the Conscription Act indicating that, pursuant to laws, eligible male citizens have the duty of performing military service, the regulation was made in order to fulfill the national goals and constitutionally prescribed basic duties of the people, it is of legislative policy nature, it does not encourage, endorse, or prohibit any religion, nor does it have such effects."
At the beginning of the sentence it was talking about the differences of the both genders, and without any sign it changed to talk about the religion. The writing level was really astonishing. Qrfqr ( talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Military service is voluntary. I don't know why the map shows that Indonesia has conscription. Rad vsovereign ( talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Germn defense minister von Guttenberg plans to abolish conscription as part of an army reform program (see links at [4]), though it's not yet decided in parliament. So Germany could now be coloured orange in the map at the intro, depending on the exact meaning of "planning to abolish". -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
"Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" Should this really be mentioned? Why have the USA a stronger democratic tradition then other countries in the list? Nicob1984 ( talk) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The sexism and forced male-gender-role of male-only conscription is worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.100.194 ( talk) 15:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic according to the Lebanese Constitution ( http://www.presidency.gov.lb/English/ThenatureoftheLebanesesystem/Documents/Lebanese%20Constitution.pdf). A.h. king • Talk to me! 10:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't get it, if Switzerland it's suposse to be the neutrality country, they never go to war, why in the hell do they have conscription? they don't even need an army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.205.45.193 ( talk) 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The map shows Bangladesh doesn't conscript. But the Constitution of Bangladesh provides for conscription in the Name of the President when necessary (i.e. in wartime), although it never has been practiced.
Is this kind of conscription "No conscription" or "Conscription"?
Ratibgreat ( talk) 04:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In light of the above, I propose that the table presentation format be revised to the following:
Country | Land area (km2) [1] | GDP nominal (US$M) [2] | Per capita GDP (US$) [3] |
Population [4] | Government [5] | Conscription [6] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia | 7,617,930 | $1,220,000 | $44,474.51 | 21,766,711 | Federal Parliamentary Democracy | No (abolished by parliament in 1972) [7] |
Australia | 7,617,930 | $1,220,000 | $44,474.51 | 21,766,711 | Federal Parliamentary Democracy | No (abolished by parliament in 1972 [8]) |
The info presented agrees with Nationmaster info. The info in parenthases elaborates on the Nationmaster info. The linked footnote presents further elaboration and cites a supporting source. I've colored only the one column and have moved the footnote link inside the parens. | ||||||
Bermuda | 53.3 | $5,850 citation needed | $97,000 citation needed | 68,679 | parliamentary; self-governing territory | Yes citation needed |
Bermuda | 53.3 | $5,850 citation needed | $97,000 citation needed | 68,679 | parliamentary; self-governing territory | Yes citation needed |
Nationmaster doesn't have conscription (or some other) info on Bermuda. I've colored only the one column. | ||||||
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 51,197 | $16,320 | $3,246.78 | 4,622,163 | Emerging Federal Democratic Republic | Yes, [6] No (Abolished on January 1, 2006.) citation needed |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 51,197 | $16,320 | $3,246.78 | 4,622,163 | Emerging Federal Democratic Republic | Yes (WRI [9]) |
No (Abolished on January 1, 2006.) citation needed | ||||||
The "Yes" info is from Nationmaster. Since we present info which conflicts with this, I would add that Nationmaster info here. Nationmaster cites War Resisters International as their source. I would explain the "WRI" acronym in a footnote. I've split the conflicting info (in this case, unsupported) into a separate row. | ||||||
Burma | 657,740 | $35,650 | $285.60 | 53,999,804 | Military Junta | Yes but not enforced as of January 2011 [update]. [10] |
Burma | 657,740 | $35,650 | $285.60 | 53,999,804 | Military Junta | No (FWCC [15]) |
Yes but not enforced as of January 2011 [update]. [16] | ||||||
Nationmaster cites Friends World Committee for Consultation as their source. I would explain the acronym in a footnote and would probably provide a link their website there. |
Those are the only entries I've looked at so far. Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've started work on this. Note that the rowspans conflict with table sortability, and I've consequently made the table unsortable. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I've worked around the conflict between rowspans and sortability by eliminating rowspans. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Posted this on another wikipedia article, but I just want to reiterate that China DOES NOT practise conscription. It's constitution states that conscription is legal/can go ahead, but it has never ever been practised or put in place. This is mainly due to the fact that China already has enough volunteer soldiers from its 1.3 billion population. So yeah, just hope you guys could update it. 203.213.40.129 ( talk) 09:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
updated and transferred in current discussion page Gomoloko ( talk) 08:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The sources whether Germany has conscription or not differ?
Of course they do. The yes-source is from 1997, while the no-source is from 2010 and says it will end in 2011. Anyone noticing anything?
If you want a real source:
1. Learn German
2. Go at bundesgesetzblatt.de and click on kostenloser Bürgerzugang
3. Find Nr. 19 vom 02.05.2011, open it and then open number 5
Congratulations! You have found the Wehrrechtsänderungsgesetz 2011, an act passed by the Bundestag - on the last page you can even find the signatures of the President, the Chancellor, and the two responsible ministers ( defence and family).
Now look at point 2 (it's on the right side of the first page). If you speak German, read for yourself, if not, read what I have written down here:
Point 2 states how Section 2 (in German: §2) of the Wehrpflichtgesetz (Conscription Act) shall be changed. According to the new Section 2 (created by this act), the Sections 3-53 of the Conscription Act (which is nearly the entire act) are only valid during the state of defence.
That means that conscription in Germany has been abolished by federal legislature for peacetime.
Article 13 (on the last page) states that this law becomes effective on 1 July 2011, so the last day Germany had conscription will be 30 June 2011.
To summarize everything: Conscription in Germany will be abolished from 1 July 2011 on.
PS: You're wondering why the family minister signed an act dealing with conscription? That's because she was responsible for the alternative service.
-- Harald Meier ( talk) 20:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The new constitution being drafted in Iceland includes an article that explicitly prohibits the introduction of conscription in Iceland. I don't know of any other country with that kind of stance against conscription so I suppose it would be a notable fact to include in this article. Perhaps it is best to wait until the new constitution is formally in force. -- 157.157.69.51 ( talk) 11:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Removing the line "Who Claimed mandatory conscription to be unconstitutional." where it was inserted into a paragraph where it didn't belong.Obviously someone who believes in the draft is attempting to push they're beliefs on random people by inserting random nonsense lines inside of this article.Just warning people to watch out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.250.155 ( talk) 08:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Turkish AKP party(is the goverment), told that have plan to make the army proffesional.
Turkey need to become orange color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk) 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.berlingske.dk/leder:aid=449936/# http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=322948 http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=322885
Denmark need to become blue color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk • contribs) 06:08, September 5, 2011
Exist military service at Denmark, but is voluntary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk • contribs) 08:57, September 5, 2011
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav051404.shtml http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/centralasia/uzbek-army.htm
Need to become orange color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk) 02:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2011/03/30/296630/Premier-sets.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.114.51 ( talk) 01:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Need to become orange color at the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.114.51 ( talk) 01:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This edit attracted my attention to this section. This section of the article currently says, without support, "In 1973, President Richard Nixon abandoned the draft and by 1975, President Gerald Ford abolished it. From then on registration was voluntary. ... In 1980 Jimmy Carter unsuccessfully tried to reinstitute the Selective Service Project." A quick look at http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm turns up "Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service." Assertions in this subsection need a verification check and, if confirmed, should cite supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The US most certainly DOES require registration for the selective service ( http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm . The article still shows the US as not mandating registration. President Carter restored the requirement by executive order in 1980 http://www.sss.gov/QA.HTM#quest8. There has been pressure to return to an active draft in 2005 ( http://www.cqpress.com/product/Researcher-Draft-Debates-v15-28.html), and the legislation currently does not prohibit use of conscripts. Further, as recently as 1987, judicial conscription of convicts was still present; in 1987, the Dept of the Army ceased accepting judicially ordered individuals, according to the Stars and Stries article in 1987, the other services had ceased accepting them about a decade earlier. One of the guys I went through basic with in 1987 joined under judicial mandate for a non-violent misdemeanor conviction, and the DI's made it public knowledge to the platoon. Wfh ( talk) 10:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The list of countries with conscription should be removed for a few reasons:
While I have no problem with the list being included in the article, I will say it is very inconsistant. for example it fails to mention that Jamaica and Australia are monarchies. It says that the UK is a Commonwealth Realm but does not say that Australia is. I think it could do with a cleanup. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 11:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Norway: http://www.wri-irg.org/node/13541
Venezuela: http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk) 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no link to the serious problems that arose in Canada for both WWI and WWII, e.g., the article Conscription_Crisis_of_1917 G. Robert Shiplett 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Medvedev told that after 5-7 years, Russia will have army 100% professional-voluntary.
At army will be 90% professionals, and 10% volunteers.
www.arms-expo.ru/049051124050053057054055.html www.aif.ru/society/news/101586 http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20111125/497704011.html http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=641678
Russia need to become orange color at the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.131.90.28 ( talk) 23:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how to go about changing things with all the intricate formatting, but says here China does have conscription, it just doesn't release data about which recruits are conscripted, as acquiring them by voluntary or compulsory means is a local responsibility:
Darkmusashi ( talk) 05:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Italy is not in the table.
I remember Italian-Canadian friends having issues in the 1970s when visiting Italy because they could suddenly become subject for their military service.
At that time, it made Italy sound like Switzerland, Israel, and so on. West Germany.
Varlaam (
talk)
17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is the American section so much larger than any of the others? Threadnecromancer ( talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
Nigeria not have obligatory military service. Have only obligatory "social service" for those who have diploma, to they have experience after their studies.
This is not obligatory military service, so Nigeria need to be blue color at the map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Service_Corps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.85.149 ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the issue of universal or partial conscription should be mentioned. For example, during the 1950's era in the USA and Australia, only a proportion of the eligible young men were actually recruited, based on some kind of lottery arrangement. On the other hand, in some countries basically ALL young males are supposedly conscripted, unless they have some medical excuse. This includes South Korea and Turkey and Switzerland, not sure about Russia these days. This seems to me to be a pretty important political distinction which should be mentioned for those less familiar with the issue. Eregli bob ( talk) 07:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It is never licit to conscript woman in any form or manner, therefore that term is not apt, and must make why for voluntary inscription. Conscription of woman is equitative to conscription of children & child labour, specifically for the purpose of their smaller size (ie: coal mining forced servitude). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 ( talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone having good English-language sources for arguments pro/con conscription, what becomes to army quality? Here [7] (1981) a Cato guy interestingly argues that in US conscription would lower the average quality of recruits. Or is there discussion of the subject in some other wiki-article? -- J. Sketter ( talk) 14:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it doesnt need a source. historically most conscipts did poorly in comparison to professional Military men. look at vietnam put kids right out of high school in a junjle with out proper training other than your basic drills + the fact they don't give a shit about said war. this all lowered their kill rate and many missed on purpose when confronted(not metally trained to kill) as well as frequent spray and pray(leading the AR serise to be burst to prevent wasted bullets). The civil war is another great examples of the poor army quality of conscription.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.191.20.2 ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The map in the info-box has Antarctica coloured as "no enforced conscription." Yet, there is a colour option of "no standing army." The fact that Antarctica was not classified as "no standing army" implies that it does have a standing army, it's just not a conscripted army. Since Antarctica isn't even a country, how can it have a standing army, especially as the Madrid Protocol designates it as a 'natural reserve devoted to peace and science' ( /info/en/?search=Antarctica#Politics)? -- Wertyu739 ( talk) 01:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Edit: Just found out there's a separate talk page for the picture. I'll post this there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wertyu739 ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Ukraine has conscription again [8] -- Львівське ( говорити) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Besides, the source about Ukraine plans to end conscription is outdated. It is from before the current pro-russian unrest, witch destroyed any plans by Ukraine to end conscription.
The map caption says orange is for "reinstates conscription" which a) doesn't make a lot of sense (is it "reinstated conscription" -- that's the same as "conscription"; is it "plans to reinstate conscription"?) and in any case, b) it doesn't match the caption on the image's page. -- Taejo| 대조 15:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The map has China colored blue ("No enforced conscription"), but the chart states that China does have conscription. So, which is it? Tad Lincoln ( talk) 04:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
it seems they do officially but in practice it is a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalbendini ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It meant China has conscription, but it's not enforced due to sufficiently large volunteer pool as a result of China's population size. Hence China's membership in the No enforced conscription club: it's there in the book, but enforcing it isn't necessary and probably will bankrupt the government. Unless WWIII happens, and it's a land ware, it's hard to see China ever enforcing conscription.
This article should make some reference to this "proto" conscription practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AB07:219:3401:3E8E:3117:7421 ( talk) 05:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Ukraine reinstates conscription. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27247428 Please update the information. -- Reprarina ( talk) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As of 2014_12 the map at this article shows that there is no forced conscription in Brazil, but Conscription_in_Brazil clearly states that there exists a forced conscription. Which of the articles is wrong?
Taiwan currently has conscription, but in the process of abolishing it, not reinstating it. Only men are drafted. - Szqecs ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The meaning of the word mandatory has been discussed in the section above on #Austria. In fact, the question of the meaning of this word appears to lie at the heart of that discussion. However, the impact of a consensus decision regarding the meaning of that word for purposes of this article would have impact beyond this article's assertions re Austria, so I have started this new discussion section.
As I said in the section above, the word Mandatory is defined here as "Required or commanded by authority; obligatory", with an example usage given as "Attendance at the meeting is mandatory." Also see here, defining the word mandate as "An authoritative command or instruction". This might be thought of as indicating by the use of the word mandataory that the section headed "Countries with and without mandatory military service differently" speaks of countries where military service is required by law for at least some persons. Perhaps introductory material clarifying this ought to be added ahead of table the section presents.
I believe that a section with this name ought to observe the usual meaning of the word mandatory in selecting and presenting content contained therein.
I note that this section came into being (prior to the addition of the table) with this 7 January 2004 edit, which merged material from a separate article titled Mandatory military service which had existed for just one day and which now redirects to this article.
The section could be re-headed something like "Countries with and without compelled military service", and could present content regarding countries where military service is compelled (with and/or without an underlying legal mandate). However, I suspect without having checked that (1) the two sets of countries are not identical and (2) some of the supporting sources currently cited in support of an assertion that conscription is mandated would not support an assertion that the conscription mandate is enforced.
More appropriate at this point, I think, might be the presentation of clarifying information about countries where supporting sources exist with information that conscription mandates are or were not enforced for particular periods, and citing those sources. Perhaps this might be in a subsection on "Countries where Mandatory Conscription is not enforced", or "... is not universally enforced", or "... is or has been sometimes not enforced".
Perhaps, on the other hand, the section and the table it presents ought to be eliminated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the text because it asserted that Israel was the only country that had universal conscription for women. North Korea does too. Some women might get exemptions in North Korea, but they also do in Israel, as the text admits.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that in the field of ancient military this article should include at least a reference to Structural history of the Roman military. Diegopiacc ( talk) 09:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Austria still has conscription
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20001612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.131.104 ( talk) 21:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
http://derstandard.at/2000012854620/Jenseits-der-Vor-Stellung-Will-nicht-gibts-nicht this article is in German and describes how a 17 year old views conscription in Austria today, http://www.bundesheer.at/adressen/pdf/stellung_vorarlberg_2015.pdf conscription does exist in Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.208.182.159 ( talk) 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Austria has been changed back to red. Roopeluhtala ( talk) 07:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Given it is a part of Denmark still I don't see why it is counted as lacking any sort of armed force. Looking at the wiki article on the topic Denmark has responsibility for defending Greenland and maintains military bases ther — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threadnecromancer ( talk • contribs) 18:45 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that Czech Republic is planning to reimplement conscription in 2016 or 2017, for both genders. [18] [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalNomad ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
We've been rolling this section around over at Talk:Sexism, and the consensus seems to be trending toward including a very scaled down version of the section and moving the full version over here, if those on this article are open to it. It seems like a great improvement over the sexism section currently in place. Take a look and see what you think. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 20:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Sexism
Conscription has been widely criticized as sexist. [21] [22]: 102 Historically, only men have been subjected to conscription, [23] [24] [25] [26] [22]: 255 and only in the late 20th century has this begun to change, though most countries still require only men to serve in the military. The integration of women into militaries, and especially into combat forces, did not begin on a large scale until late in the 20th century. In his book The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys (2012), philosopher David Benatar states that the theoretical arguments are immaterial to those who are pressed into service: "Some women are excluded from combat, but many more women are exempt. While some men are excluded from combat (because they fail the relevant tests), many more are pressured or forced into combat." According to Benatar, "[t]he prevailing assumption is that where conscription is necessary, it is only men who should be conscripted and, similarly, that only males should be forced into combat". This, he believes, "is a sexist assumption". [22]: 102
Currently, only nine countries conscript women into their armed forces: China, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Peru and Taiwan. [27] Other countries—such as Finland, Turkey, and Singapore—still use a system of conscription which requires military service from only men, although women are permitted to serve voluntarily. In 2014, Norway became the first NATO country to introduce obligatory military service for women as an act of gender equality. [28] [29] The gender selective draft has been challenged in Switzerland, [27] but the case was rejected by the Federal Supreme Court on the grounds that the specific law requiring service takes precedent over the general law forbidding sex discrimination. [30] [31] Chantal Galladé, former president of the Swiss Defence Committee calls the conscription of men a discrimination against both men and women, cementing the stereotypical gender roles of men and women. [32]
The practice of conscription has been criticized by various men's rights groups, such as the National Coalition for Men, which claims that "no gender oppression is comparable". [33] These groups have been joined on occasion by certain feminist activists. According to Joshua S. Goldstein, beginning in the 1970s "liberal feminists" have argued in favor of extending conscription to women, taking the position that "the best way to insure women's equal treatment with men is to render them equally vulnerable with men to the political will of the state". Others have disagreed, however, contending that "by integrating into existing power structures including military forces and the war system without changing them, women merely prop up a male-dominated world instead of transforming it". [34]
Anthropologist Ayse Gül Altinay has commented that "given equal suffrage rights, there is no other citizenship practice that differentiates as radically between men and women as compulsory male conscription" [35]: 34 and continues elsewhere, stating that "any attempt to de-gender nationalism and citizenship needs to incorporate a discussion of universal male conscription". [35]: 58 She goes on to quote feminist writer Cynthia Enloe, who argues that "there is a reason that so many states in the world have implemented military conscription laws for young men: most of those men would not join the state's military if it were left up to them to choose". [35]: 31–32
In the United States, all men must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. [36] Those who fail to register may be punished by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. They may also be ineligible for federal student financial aid, federal job training and federal employment. [37] As of 2014, transgender females who are born biologically male are required to register for selective service, but may file for a exemption in the event they are drafted. [38] Transgender males who are born female are not required to register but may face difficulties in receiving benefits which require registration. [39] Currently, women are exempted from the Selective Service System as only males are required to register; this cannot be changed without Congress amending the law. [40]
The selective service has been challenged in court in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, Elgin v. Department of Treasury in 2012, and a lawsuit is currently pending appeal in the case of National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. All have argued in small or large part on the grounds of equal protection and due process on the basis of gender. [41] Thus far all rulings have upheld the program, though on differing grounds. Professor Stephanie M. Wildman of Santa Clara Law called the decision in Rostker v. Goldberg "chilling to any advocate of full societal participation". [42] In the ensuing congressional debate, Senator Mark Hatfield argued that:
The paternalistic attitude inherent in exclusion of women from past draft registration requirements not only relieved women of the burden of military service, it also deprived them of one of the hallmarks of citizenship. Until women and men share both the rights and the obligations of citizenship, they will not be equal. [43]
References
- ^ "Nationmaster: Land area". source: "CIA World Factbooks". 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ "Nationmaster: GDP". source= "CIA World Factbooks". 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ "Nationmaster: Per capita GDP". source: "CIA World Factbooks". 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ "Nationmaster: Population". source: "World Development Indicators database". and "CIA World Factbook".
- ^ "Nationmaster: Government type". source: "CIA World Factbooks". 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ a b "Nationmaster: Conscription". source: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997. Data collected from the nations concerned, or as otherwise indicated.
- ^ Conscription was abolished by law in 1973. But the Defence Act 1903 as amended retained a provision that it could be reintroduced by proclamation of the Governor-General. Potentially all Australian residents between the ages of 18 and 60 could be called up in this way. However, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1992 further provided that any such proclamation is of no effect until it is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Though actual legislation is not required, the effect of this provision is to make the introduction of conscription impossible without the approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, Gary Brown (October 12, 1999). "Current Issues Brief 7 1999–2000 — Military Conscription: Issues for Australia". Parliamentary library; Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group. Retrieved 2007-08-10.
- ^ Conscription was abolished by law in 1973. But the Defence Act 1903 as amended retained a provision that it could be reintroduced by proclamation of the Governor-General. Potentially all Australian residents between the ages of 18 and 60 could be called up in this way. However, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1992 further provided that any such proclamation is of no effect until it is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Though actual legislation is not required, the effect of this provision is to make the introduction of conscription impossible without the approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, Gary Brown (October 12, 1999). "Current Issues Brief 7 1999–2000 — Military Conscription: Issues for Australia". Parliamentary library; Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group. Retrieved 2007-08-10.
- ^ War Resisters International (WRI)
- ^ "Burma to bring in conscription". January 11, 2011. Retrieved January 13, 2011.
- ^ "Burma: World's Highest Number of Child Soldiers" (Document). Human rights Watch. October 15, 2002.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Six Youths Conscripted into Burmese Army" (Document). Narinjara News. August 4, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Arakanese Youth Arrested and Conscripted by Burmese Army" (Document). War Resisters' International. June 19, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Six Youths Conscripted into Burmese Army" (Document). Narinjara. August 4, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ explanatory footnote
- ^ "Burma to bring in conscription". January 11, 2011. Retrieved January 13, 2011.
- ^ "Burma: World's Highest Number of Child Soldiers" (Document). Human rights Watch. October 15, 2002.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Six Youths Conscripted into Burmese Army" (Document). Narinjara News. August 4, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Arakanese Youth Arrested and Conscripted by Burmese Army" (Document). War Resisters' International. June 19, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Six Youths Conscripted into Burmese Army" (Document). Narinjara. August 4, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ Berlatsky, Noah (May 29, 2013). "When Men Experience Sexism". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on January 5, 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ a b c Benatar, David (May 15, 2012). The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-67451-2. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
- ^ Goldstein, Joshua S. (2003). "War and Gender: Men's War Roles – Boyhood and Coming of Age". In Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: Men and Women in the World's Cultures. Volume 1. Springer. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-306-47770-6. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
- ^ Kronsell, Anica (June 29, 2006). "Methods for studying silence: The 'silence' of Swedish conscription". In Ackerly, Brooke A.; Stern, Maria; True, Jacqui Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge University Press. p. 113. ISBN 978-1-139-45873-3. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
- ^ Selmeski, Brian R. (2007). Multicultural Citizens, Monocultural Men: Indigineity, Masculinity, and Conscription in Ecuador. Syracuse University: ProQuest. p. 149. ISBN 978-0-549-40315-9. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
- ^ Joenniemi, Pertti (2006). The Changing Face of European Conscription. Ashgate Publishing. pp. 142–149. ISBN 978-0-754-64410-1. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
- ^ a b "INDEPTH: FEMALE SOLDIERS – Women in the military — international". CBC News. May 30, 2006. Archived from the original on April 4, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Koranyi, Balazs; Fouche, Gwladys (June 14, 2014). Char, Pravin (ed.). "Norway becomes first NATO country to draft women into military". Oslo, Norway. Reuters. Archived from the original on January 28, 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
{{ cite news}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Women in the Armed Forces". Norwegian Armed Forces. October 27, 2014. Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (January 21, 2010). "Judgment of 21 January 2010" (in German). Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "General conscription does not discriminate against men according to federal court". Humanrights.ch (in German). Menschenrechte Schweiz (MERS). March 28, 2013. Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Bondolfi, Sibilla (March 15, 2013). "Abolition of conscription: Compulsory military service for men only is 'untenable'" (in German). Archived from the original on December 6, 2013. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
{{ cite news}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Selective Service (military conscription)". National Coalition for Men. Archived from the original on March 15, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Goldstein, Joshua S. (July 17, 2003). War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. Cambridge University Press. pp. 41–43. ISBN 978-0-521-00180-9.
- ^ a b c Altinay, Ayse Gül (December 10, 2004). The Myth of the Military-Nation: Militarism, Gender, and Education in Turkey. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-403-97936-0.
- ^ "Selective Service System: Welcome". Selective Service System. Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. February 12, 2015. Archived from the original on April 28, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Benefits and Programs Linked to Registration". Selective Service System. Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. December 21, 2010. Archived from the original on April 15, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions: Question #35". Selective Service System. Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. April 9, 2015. Archived from the original on March 30, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
How does the Military Selective Service Act apply to individuals who have had a sex change? Individuals who are born female and have a sex change are not required to register. U.S. citizens or immigrants who are born male and have a sex change are still required to register. In the event of a resumption of the draft, males who have had a sex change can file a claim for an exemption from military service if they receive an order to report for examination or induction.{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Selective Service and Transgender People". National Center for Transgender Equality. May 27, 2005. Archived from the original on March 16, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Women and the Draft: Women Aren't Required to Register". Selective Service System. February 25, 2014. Archived from the original on March 27, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Angelluci, Marc E. (April 13, 2013). "National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System" (PDF). National Coalition for Men. United States Government. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 21, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Wildman, Stephanie M. (January 1, 1984). "The Legitimation of Sex Discrimination: A Critical Response to Supreme Court Jurisprudence". Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. Santa Clara University School of Law. p. 294. Archived from the original on February 5, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
:|archive-date=
/|archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; May 2, 2015 suggested ( help); Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help); line feed character in|title=
at position 51 ( help)- ^ MacDwyer, Sara (September 9, 2010). "Rostker v. Goldberg: The Uneven Development of the Equal Protection Doctrine in Military Affairs". Golden Gate University Law Review. Women's Law Forum. 12 (3). Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Once the combat issue is put in proper perspective and the evidence of women's recognized ability to perform military functions is assessed, it becomes apparent that an exclusion of women from a draft registration requirement would be the product of the archaic notion that women must remain 'as the center of home and family.' One court apparently recognized as much about the Congress which enacted the prior draft law. In upholding that law's exclusion of women, the court stated: 'In providing for involuntary service for men and voluntary service for women, Congress followed the teachings of history that if a nation is to survive, men must provide the first line of defense while women keep the home fires burning.' At one time judicially accepted, such romantically paternalistic underpinnings of sex-based classifications are intolerable under current equal protection doctrine. Overbroad generalizations concerning one sex or the other no longer can [ sic] used to substitute for a functional, gender-neutral means of distinguishing between the physically unfit and the able bodied. The paternalistic attitude inherent in exclusion of women from past draft registration requirements not only relieved women of the burden of military service, it also deprived them of one of the hallmarks of citizenship. Until women and men share both the rights and the obligations of citizenship, they will not be equal.{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help); line feed character in|title=
at position 47 ( help)
I've done a bit of housekeeping, mostly rearranging things so that the sections follow some logical order, and so there isn't a gigantic list in the middle of the article. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I removed the following sentences from the "draft dodging" section under the US. It may be repurposed elsewhere so I don't want to throw it away, but I can't really see somewhere to stick it right now, and it's unsourced anyway. The entire section save this portion is about the US, so it seems better suited to a sub-section under the US than a general section on draft dodging that has 95% of it's coverage about the US. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 01:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The Central Asian Revolt started in the summer of 1916, when the Russian Empire government ended its exemption of Muslims from military service. The conscription also became unpopular in Grand Duchy of Finland during the reign of Nicholas II and was suspended; instead Finland paid a levy tax, "military millions" as compensation for abolition of conscription.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Timothyjosephwood (
talk) and here's the world fact book
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/er.html 07:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)The article claims No, although conscription exists legally, in practice total objectors have not been punished since 2011. The Norwegian Military claims they now have conscription for women. [20] How is that possible if Norway doesn't have conscription? Norway also has subscription for their Civil Defence forces. And they do get punished [21]. We do need to make a phrase that informs that many manage to avoid the service. But Norway has conscription, nevertheless. Please argue for keeping the text as it is. If no response, I will change it. Vbakke ( talk) 12:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Norway has conscription, according to this article ( http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2013/01/12/flere-ungdommer-soeker-fritak-fra-foerstegangstjeneste) 10 % of applications to be exempted from service were denied in 2013 (post removal of alternative service). Conscientious objection is not the only grounds for exemption, but it seems unlikely that none of the denied applications were for this reason. In any case, you have to apply to be exempted from service, which makes it conscription, and not all applications are accepted, which means that it is not de facto abolished. 85.166.127.45 ( talk) 20:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I removed this discussion from the third opinion noticeboard because it is a dispute between more than two editors. Consider the dispute resolution noticeboard. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope the current version is acceptable (If not, we should do it like for Burma and Indonesia.) Note that the earlier comments by other editors all disagreed with you. 85.166.25.161 ( talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This debate is going nowhere, you can't have arbitary numbers for total objectors as a mark of whether conscription "exists" or not, where would you set the limit? 100 objectors? A thousand? Ten thousand? The fact is that conscription is written in our constitution and still enforced to this day - and has even been expanded for women. During the selection process you can absolutely get forced to sign up for a year in the armed forces after high school, I stand as a proof to that, and as do many of my other friends who didn't want to but still had no other choice. It's not voluntarily, even if some gets to dodge it. This is parallel to C-papers in Finland, where also many other manage to dodge it. As long as people get forced to serve, and the conscription institution is protected by law - the country does have conscription. See here and here. EpsonNokidding ( talk) 10:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
As several of the previous editors have remarked, there seem to be a lot of errors or dubious decisions in the classification of individual countries in this article and its accompanying main graphic. Moreover, these errors seems to have a definite bias toward claiming, on any available pretext, that conscription is rare. Some of the many examples include:
At this point, for roughly 50% of the entries that I have checked in detail, the map is either misleading or definitely wrong!! -- 202.63.39.58 ( talk) 16:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Conscription. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"A scene in the film Alice's Restaurant accurately captures the chaotic situation in the lower Manhattan draft center where people slipped through the cracks. In this case, a person was rejected for a criminal record (littering), but people probably evaded for less. Conversely it was the poor and uneducated who were often swept up without any understanding of how to escape the system."
This passage is simply inaccurate. This scene in Alice's Restaurant cannot possibly have accurately captured the chaotic situation with the poor and uneducated being often swept up without any understanding of how to escape the system. The notion that the draft during the Vietnam War disproportionately conscripted the poor and the undereducated while the sons of the white middle and upper class used their families' influence to largely escape the war is not true. 79% of those who fought in Vietnam were at least high school graduates, compared to 45% for WW2. 50% of the veterans were from solid middle-class families, and about 25% from the lower-middle/"working" class, and the rest from below the poverty line. The passage is completely misleading and I deleted it.
http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.26.194 ( talk) 00:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've just started Category:Conscription Armies, which is a category of articles about military structures which include conscripts. It is aimed to be a comprehensive list, but as a category it does not include explanations and other information as given in this article. Maybe the information presented here can somehow be integrated with the articles about the respective countries' militaries? Moonshiner 05:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The information is inaccurate: Serving for the "Technisches Hilfswerk" or for a voluntary fire brigade is usually not for 10 months continuously, but rather for 6 years with training exercises every fortnight and of course the duty to come in immediatly in case of an emergency. (Members of voluntary emergency response service usually have a pager for this purpose.)
The "Zivildienst", this one in fact 10 months, is the alternative choosen by the majority of conscious objectors, and usually means serving in an institution of public health care or the like.
I did not change the article yet as I'm unsure about the duties of the "Ersatzdienst" people in case of war. Maybe somebody knows more? sanders_muc 12:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Also, is it still possible to evade military service by being born in Berlin? My uncle was exampt this way. crimson30 22:43, 26 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Not just being born in Berlin. But during the Cold War many young people flocked to Berlin, because all inhabitants of Berlin were exempt from the Draft, because Berlin was formally considered not to be part of West Germany under the 4-powers agreement between the victory powers of the 2nd WW. -- 89.54.2.233 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose moving the information on conscientious objection to its own page. Not all COs seek to avoid conscription; many CO's (including myself) asked for and received discharge from the military after serving in it for many years. Kricxjo 04:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There should be some more info about the situation in Israel where there's a growing movement of youth refusing to serve in the army (particularly service in the West Bank) and who are being sent to jail.
i would like to point out that...
"In the era of total war, the conscription is the only alternative for a small nation to build an army of credible strength without depending on alliances. This is particularly the case when the opposing state is significantly larger. In such a case, a voluntary force could not, regardless of its quality, stand against the sheer numbers of the opposing force. Israel, surrounded by much more numerous Arab nations, is a classic example of this situation."
...is not an accurate fact, israel has been taking military aid since its creation, and without the military aid, would have never defeated the arabs, nor declared itself a state on palestinian land. the paragraph makes israel seem like the defending victom and not the overpowering invader that it really is. im not being anti sematic, im not being biased, im talking out of facts i read in books in an american university politics class. 7areega 03:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"Switzerland Although Switzerland has the largest standing civilian army in the world, the military service is voluntary. Conscription applies to male citizens in accordance with kind. 59 Federal Constitution the general dienstpflicht. The military service lasts in accordance with kind. 13 military law usually between the ages of 20 to 42. The requiring ones become refresher courses quantities until a rank-referred number of days to be taken into account is reached. For the crew ranks this number amounts to a maximum of 300 days. " AndyL 17:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is written in a past tense that suggests that it is about a specific place or time, but where/when is never mentioned. Very vague...but hard to edit in case it is actually refering to a specific time and place (maybe Vietnam war/US)? Ideas? -- 83.108.22.14 15:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Revival of the draft page has been marked for deletion, so I am moving my talk: contributions, posted there to here.
Unfortunately, Kerry's 100 day plan has disappeared from his site. I still prefer the John Kerry forum URL I posted because it is an exact quote, obviously a cut and paste of the original. The quote is also preserved several other places on the web, just search google:
Here is a URL that references a fact sheet:
Bush in the second debate, practically did a "read my lips" that he would not implement a draft. Kerry is far more likely to implement a draft. He is a nationalist with the hubris to beleive he knows what is best for others. In addition to his "100 Day Plan to Change America" where he proposes mandatory public service to graduate from high school. He thinks everyone has a duty to serve their nation and to encourage this he proposes a system where college tuition is paid for in exchange for service. His key supporter, Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory public service back in the late 70s, perhaps they were inspired by JFK, "Ask not ...". Then look at the history of the volunteer army and the draft. Senator's Barry Goldwater and Mark Hatfield co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968. Conservatives have been behind the professional army movement and critical of the quality of a conscript army, especially in this technological age. While more of a moderate than a conservative, Bush subscribes to conservative principles in this area. I can't support Bush for other reasons, but with a son that would become draft age during a 2nd Kerry term, there is no way I could support him. Bush is more predictible than Kerry, and he will avoid a draft on principle, and I also believe Bush is less likely to institute a draft based on his and Kerry's personal historys. Note that he chose to avoid the combat that Kerry thought was his "duty". Now perhaps you think that is admirable, but the problem with these "duty" types, is that not only do they think it was their duty, they think it is you and your son's duty also-- Silverback 08:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here is a site that preserves the original 100 days page before it was purged page snapped from google before the purge-- Silverback 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There are now more links documenting the John Kerry position link that is posted in the **external links** section. Here is another quote that may be of interest, also from his web site "On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation."'
The last several sections under "The Problems of the Draft in the United States" are blatantly POV. Specifically these:
It's not proper for Wikipedia to state as a fact that, for example, "Once a nation views its civilians as military assets, i.e. subject to the draft, its opponents, whether conventional or terrorist, are justified in also viewing those same civilians as legitimate military targets." That's clearly an opinion. If the opinions expressed in these five sections are held by a significant number of people or are otherwise notable, they should be properly attributed and sourced, and counterarguments given the same treatment. I'll hold off briefly on deleting all of these sections to see if anyone wants to salvage them in that fashion, but in their present form, they're not even close to being acceptable. JamesMLane 06:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"In a fourth case, Justice Benjamin Cardozo noted that the exemption of conscientious objectors from military service was always an "act of grace" by the state and was never meant to establish "a right of private judgment . . . above the powers and compulsion of the agencies of government." [1] "government has the right to the military service of all its able-bodied citizens, and may, when an emergency arises, justly exact that service from all."Richter v. US, 181 F.2d 591 (1950) at 592-3
Some documention has been installed directly into the page, feel free to add some of the above or elsewhere from here. I will continue this work later tomorrow. It is looking good.--
Silverback 10:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agree completely with JamesMLane. Recent text does not pass NPOV laugh test. Wolfman 15:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
00:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is the most authoritative encyclopedias, the articles are signed, produced by a person willing and able to do so. Do they always present every side? Since this is a wiki community project, where are the contributers to the pro conscription side? I submit they are the same place as the contributers to the pro side on murder and slavery. Total balance should not have to be achieved, the modern moral consensus has changed, just as it has in slavery. Even mere paternalistic mandates such as Kerry proposed for high school graduation have had to be expunged from his site and hidden, although not outright reversed or rescinded. -- Silverback 01:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I got partway through the changes I sketched above. There's now a specific subheading for the United States, with two paragraphs about the history and legal challenges. I didn't touch the subsections on "Perception of the Draft as Unfair" and "Selective Service Reforms", which I think need much work. The heavily POV sections are now under the heading "Arguments for and against conscription". Not a single one of them is currently in acceptable form. POV's must be attributed. The Manifesto cited under "The Draft As Slavery" doesn't use the word "slavery", so, at a minimum, the description of the Manifesto would have to be reworded. The statement in the next paragraph that the Thirteenth Amendment issue hasn't been decided by U.S. courts is clearly wrong. The remaining subsections are in even worse shape. I've deliberately left all these subsection headings in improper title case, rather than Wikipedia's standard sentence case, as a flag to indicate the passages that still need fixing. JamesMLane 08:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I deleted the two most egregious examples of POV posturing. The remaining ones still have plenty of problems. This article should be reporting arguments about the draft, not making them. Part of the distinction is in attributing an argument to someone specific and notable, with references. Otherwise, it sound like Wikipedia endorses the argument.
The addition of the template box at the beginning of the article looks very distracting to me. I've seen some articles where such a template box is over to the right, so that it's not confused with the table of contents, but in this instance I think it would be even better just to delete it. The other articles are all linked in this article at the appropriate points, so I don't think the template is particularly useful. JamesMLane 18:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Silverback's latest addition, under "The Draft As Justification for Terrorism", seems to me to be another blatantly POV passage. What is the context of the Brandeis remark? The rest of the addition is a long quotation about "total war" -- the quoted passage doesn't draw the link to conscription, which is a completely different concept. As matters stand, I think the whole section on "Arguments for and against conscription" has a few nuggets of fact that could be retained but about 90% of it should be deleted. JamesMLane 03:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Conscription is just like bombing civilians with nuclear weapons." -- Khaighle 22:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I am going to trim the conscription#United States section and merge content with the Conscription in the United States article unless I get some good objections. Zeimusu 00:05, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
I must inform you that the mandatory military service in Italy is no longer provided. The Italian military army, since January 1, 2005, will be formed just by volunteer, professional forces. Should I delete the paragraph or just update it? Ciao. Angelo.romano 21:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here is a list from a WRI report dated 2004 and an older one from the UN Commission on Human Rights dated 1997. Can such a list be added without making the page enormous? It may be easy to check the conscription status of some of the countries (e.g. Japan, South Africa, India, New Zealand, Malta, Pakistan) but very difficult to back it with official online references. Any ideas? -- Skopiestelos 20:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The only reason to boldface the word "only" in the discussion of Arver is to convey Silverback's disagreement with the decision. A properly NPOV presentation would simply say that Arver rejected the Thirteenth Amendment argument. What we have here is blatantly POV, as well as being too much detail for the general article; specifics about American law should be left to the U.S. article. JamesMLane 18:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There have been several requests to try to organize Category Military since it has over 50 articles and over 50 sub-categories. I am trying to help out, by adding a new sub-category Politics about Military, which will include this, and other articles about the sometimes controversial nature of how people get recruited into the military, such as child soldiers, also issues of gender, different religions side by side, conscientious objector and so forth.
AlMac| (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I am not certain about this, but as I remember from some Thais who were in one of my classes last year, in Thailand you have a choice of serving a short term in the army, I don't know the length, or drawing a ball out of a container and if it is one colour you have to serve in the Thai army for a longer period of time, but if it is the other colour you don't have to serve in the army. I believe this qualifies as conscription (though selective), but I am not sure of it or know any details. So if anyone can confirm it or give any details, this could be added to the article. say1988 01:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
There any verification for the more unusuall comments about Iraqs past conscription? Thanx 69.142.2.68 17:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any information on Eritrea, but I noticed the following sentence: "The Eritrean government is well-known for hunting down and torturing suspected draft evaders". While this may be perfectly true, I suspect it would require at least a citation, otherwise it's simply an opinion. / Mario, February 16, 2005
Contrary to popular opinion, prolonged wars of aggression can and will be waged with conscript armies. Both of the World Wars is a proof of this. Almost all forces which participated on both world wars had conscription armies, and all totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and USSR, have always relied on conscription. The only question is about indoctrination, maintaining discipline and economy, not whether the army is made up of volunteers or conscripts. Of course, disciplinary problems may prove grave, and it is estimated some 5% of all Soviet losses in WWII were executions.
Somehow, it seems amazing from a social science standpoint how the most impoverished or wrecked of nations can raise immense armies within such a short time, within a span of a decade. I have tried to start further development of the subject at military recruitment (whose focus is primarily voluntary recruitment) but I am interested in the scope here as well, as well as development of strength, or whether the military happens to suddenly increase many times in size, etc. Slightly OR contributed I started, but it was to get the ball rolling. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 03:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The size of the article is 75kb, and the Countries with mandatory military service (partial list) itself is 30kb. Maybe we can make that into its own article. Skinnyweed 23:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tag which was not founded on discussion here. According to my view, the moral statements made in the section are not meant to be encompassing but to relate the POVs reported. I really tried to rewrite them without using the word "should" but this would require much longer expression. The worldviews reported in the section are not compatible with most Wikipedians, but they do exist. The support for conscription can be founded even on the Western philosophical tradition, not only on the Eastern. For example, Rousseau and Hegel with their followers strongly believed in conscription. Of course, the mainstream of Western thought is at the present against conscription, but these views are reported in the section, "Arguments against C". The section tagged was in the part "Arguments for C". In my view, an NPOV approach requires that this section honestly reports those arguments without trying to disqualify them immediately. -- MPorciusCato 07:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraphs don't mention the distinction between a draft -- where some people (or some men, depending) of military age are conscripted but others aren't -- and universal military service, where everyone is conscripted when they reach a certain age. Since many of the pros and cons of conscription depend on which model of conscription you're thinking of, I think this is an important distinction that ought to be made up front. Glaurung quena 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this subsection be deleted. Listing only Muhammed Ali (who didn't actually serve) and Elvis is ridiculous. On the other hand, listing all notable persons who have been conscripts would create a prohibitively long list. For example, it would include most European notables of the 19th century and most U.S. politicians who served in Vietnam, Korea or in the world wars. We might as well compose a list of people who have been vaccinated. -- MPorciusCato 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The link to Maciavelli does not seem to contain the text referenced in the link description. 65.198.133.254 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. ( You can help!)-- VS talk 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
VS talk has removed an external link to a website which I publish containing information and on Draft Resistance and the Vietnam War in Australia. I believe this link is still relevant to the article. To avoid a conflict of interest, I should not post the link to the article myself unless it has been discussed on this page. Other editors are free to post the link if they think it is relevant.-- Takver 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"While it is frequently pointed out that feminists and others calling for more equal treatment of women in society have rarely extended their demands to include equality for women regarding the draft, it should be noted that many such persons are also opposed to war in general."
"it should be noted such persons are...." it should be noted? where? Unless someone can give scourced statistics that feminists are significantly more opposed to "war in general" than the average person I'm going to delete that.. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
69.158.142.183 (
talk)
07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Germany's GDP is just a little higher than Swaziland's GDP and more than ten times smaller than the one of Slovenia? I somehow doubt that :D
Not even a word about Poland? A big shame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.199.198.237 ( talk • contribs)
In Poland, Conscription is enshrined in art. 92 of the Constitution, which states: "1. It shall be the sacred duty of every citizen to defend the homeland. 2. Military service shall be an honourable patriotic duty of the citizens of the Republic of Poland." See http://www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/archive/poland.htm
Perhaps yet another "List of" article is called for here — List of conscription policy by country. OTOH, perhaps not. -- Boracay Bill 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
For armies to be effective, personnel discipline is required. True? -- Garzj019 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted "parliamentary democracy" to "democracy" for the following reasons, which I explain here because the explanation is too long to fit in an edit summary:
An IP tried to add the point: "Mercenaries also do not enjoy the status of prisoner-of-war in Geneva convention during the wartime, but may face summary execution as common criminals." While the first part is correct, the latter part is incorrect. The Geneva conventions expressly prohibit summary executions of any person, whether they are combatants or not. A person detained by an armed force, has the right to have his status defined by a competent tribunal. After being defined non-combatant, such as a mercenary, the person may be tried for crimes he has committed in the court which has jurisdiction over the matter. Any violent act made by a non-combatant is viewed as a common crime, not as an act of war, while a combatant has immunity for acts of war he has undertaken while pursuing hostilities against the enemy, unless those acts break the laws of war. For example, charges of espionage, murder, attempted murder and assault apply to non-combatants but not to combatants. In many countries, such crimes carry capital punishment but for example in most European countries, a mercenary would face only life imprisonment, as those countries have renounced even the war-time capital punishment. -- MPorciusCato 12:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It didn't reference any sources at all, and I deemed it to be superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.26.163 ( talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The general POV in this article seems to be anti-conscription (which does actually have quite a few good points). Also, specifically in the arguments for and against conscription, refutations (sometimes unfounded) are provided for all the arguments for consciption, and in none of the aguments against conscription. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.226.249 ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have something more specific to go on here. How about using {{ POV-statement}} tags? CKCortez ( talk) 07:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"... although they might then be drafted for non-combat work, such as serving as a combat medic."
Am I the only person who thinks that that state is a little, well, contradictory? Come on, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.217.138 ( talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the GDP's for the countries Malta and Moldova seem unusually high... 5 trillion and 2 trillion respectively. These should be aligned with the main article GDP numbers of the respective country. A cross reference of all the countries GDP may be necessary. Should I proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groz2065 ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In the Countries with and without mandatory military service section of the article, the table, which is a rip-off from the source webpage, lists out the conscription in the countries as well as the form of government. I feel that the form of government "pseudo-democracy" is POV. Even when a state has democratic structures but without a real chance for an alternance of power, it is nevertheless a democracy. For my country, Malaysia, one may argue that it is a "federal pseudo-democracy", but the people still have the say in politics and go to the polls every five years. It is just that the people keep voting the same party into power. Furthermore, this article is about conscription, so I don't think that land area, GDP, population and form of government must be included here. -- Joshua Say "hi" to me! What have I done? 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
With this edit, I reverted a change by User:AZ'sReincarnation, and had changed the Government entry for the U.S. from "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" to "constitution-based federal republic", giving an edit summary of "Strong my ass... NPOV you nationalists."
The reversion restores the entry to agree with the information found in the cited supporting source for this column. The source cited is the CIA World Factbook, 14 June, 2007 which, admittedly, might be a POV source on this particular point. I suggest to AZ'sReincarnation that if (s)he believes that it is worthwhile to editorialize in dispute of this point from the supporting source, (s)he add an assertion disputing this point and cite an appropriate supporting source for that assertion -- similar to the way some other entries handle conflicting info between the overall cited supporting source and other conflicting sources (e.g., the Conscription field for Croatia. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What is done in various countries with people with handicaps? In watrtime, I'm sure it is different; the old joke that you qualified for the Russian front in Germany if you were breathing during World War Two, for instance. But, even that might differ in different nations, and I see nothing in the article referring to it. ("4F" is a strictly American term, bthough it does provide a link to the American Selective Serive System.) 209.244.187.155 ( talk) 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
could we use some more neutral colours than red and green. It says conscription implies good. personally i think consciption is vile and would rather go to prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 ( talk) 10:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest changing to pink and light blue to nearly match the colors on the map. Dynzmoar ( talk) 11:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant the Land Area, GDP & GDP per capita shown in the table are. What might be more informative is:-
Does anyone have a statistic on the number Americans drafted who "dodged" the draft (as both a total number and as a percentage?)
I've rewritten and greatly shortened the section Conscription#Arguments for and against conscription. I've attempted to give equal weight to both sides. Be bold when editing, but please try to be balanced. Zeimusu 01:10, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
Of the many violations of the NPOV policy in this article, one of the most flagrant is this paragraph:
It was removed by an anon but promptly restored by Silverback. The paragraph represents one point of view. Even to present it as a "Some have argued" type point would be poor, because of the lack of attribution of the opinion. To state it as a flat-out fact, however, is quite unencylopedic. I'm removing it. Anyone who wants to restore the thought is welcome to do so, provided it's properly attributed. This passage from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is applicable:
Of course, this one small change only begins to address the POV problems of this article. I focus on it only because I noticed the anon's perfectly correct removal of it -- without an entry on the talk page but with a sufficient justification provided in the edit summary -- and the prompt reversion of the anon's edit. JamesMLane 01:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
HALF THE ARGUEMENTS FOR CONSCRIPTION ARE ACTAULLY ARGUEMENTS AGAINST, WITH 'HOWEVERS' THROWN IN EVERY COUPLE OF PARAGRPAHS —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
140.159.2.32 (
talk)
11:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the tags littered over the ad are 6 months or more old, don't see current discussion for most and they seem out of date. 72.228.150.44 ( talk) 11:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, "invention" hardly seems an appropriate word. Second of all, this entire section babbles in a disjointed fashion. Third of all, the current paragraph ending this section concerning the United States has absolutely no bearing on either this section or the article in general, and should be deleted for these facts alone, let alone the fact that given the current political reality, it is utterly absurd in nature. - ampermc 04:10 UTC 19 Aug 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:11:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Obviously some higher up figures made a career of it, but the majority of forces were conscipts for several years, yes?
-G
... content removed to save space ...
Still represents a contradiction ("do not have any from"). Its also clumsy because its long and reuses "conscription" unnecessarily. Im going to reword it. If you are agreeable, go ahead and delete this section of the talk page so it doesnt continue to clutter. Otherwise we can continue to discuss. Catskul 04:09, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) (p.s.) Change of "forced" to "involuntary" is two fold: "forced" has negative conotation; "Involuntary" is a neutral. Second, in a related matter, forced can be interepred as threat of death/harm, where in not all cases is conscription under threat of physical harm, probably more often under threat of imprisonment or fine; "Involuntary" is more general and encompases both meanings.
I propose that the sentence, "Russia and China, as well as many smaller nations, retain mainly conscript armies." be removed. China does not have conscription (I don't know about Russia). Arashi 26-Nov-03
You're right I am from China and there is NO CONSCRIPTION!!! There is some sort of military training in highschool for a few weeks, students are taught basic military skills and self defence but thats all. However in China you are only allowed to be enlisted for 2-3 years. Even if you pass the physical test you are still discharged(non-commissioned officers are kept), this is done so that there are more civilans that are former soilders. Since you are not allowed to stay in the army for more than 2-3 years as an enlisted, this could be a form of conscription since you are forced to leave(Though no one is forced to join). Also not sure about Russia. Mao Zedong 24-Nov-05
That is also true about where i come from, Yemen. They abolished conscription in 2007. Google it and you'll see. That mapis inaccurate. Look at http://www.indexmundi.com/yemen/military_profile.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.106.21 ( talk) 06:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I second this. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONSCRIPTION IN CHINA. High school students have a compulsory one week program of boot camp training, but it is for physical excercise and no one is forced to join the military. I have already altered it but it was changed back to its incorrect form. devilhunterred October 14 2009
The money that Dubya authorized was not for reactivating the Selective Service; that would require an Act of Congress. He authorized more money for the Selective Service to be sure that it could be reauthorizedby then.
Response to "The money that Dubya...reauthorized by then.": I'm not sure what the conventions are for talk areas like this, so I'm not deleting the text. Simply put, the above statement is just more unfounded speculation. The simple fact is that in 2003 and 2004, the budget remained the same at $26 million, which is the same value proposed for 2005. This information is available from the US OMB website(PDF). A quick Google search indicates that in 1998 under Clinton, the budget was $24 million and in 2001, it was up to $25 million. These links are not as authoritative, but I'm sure if anyone cares enough, they can find historical budget figures on the OMB website. I don't think a $1 million increase from 2001 to 2005 is enough to conclude that "Dubya" is trying to reactivate the draft. This is the same point I was trying to make when I took this baseless conjecture out of the main article. (Edit: Here is another source of information that states the case better than I have.)
The United States is currently listed as "Conscription: No". I find this patently absurd, considering that conscription has been instated four times in the lifetimes of many currently living US Citizens, if you include the World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War--five times, if you consider the 1980 re-instatement of mandatory registration with the Selective Service System as being equivalent. Even more absurd is the current paragraph under the heading "Invention of Modern Conscription", which purports that conscription is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future in the United States, especially given the fact that we are now engaged in another pseudo-war which has, as of this date, lasted longer than our involvement in World War II. -- ampermc 04:03 UTC, 19 Aug 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:05:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Some Wikipedians have asked for arguments for conscription. I post them here in order to submit them for neutral discussion. Well combined with the points stated above, they should make the page itself less POV. As a citizen of Finland (which is easily deduced from my WHOIS information), one of the last Western democracies to use almost universal male conscription, and having served as a conscript, I am personally aquainted with the topic.
The types defence forces can be grossly divided into three systems: regular armies, cadre systems and militia systems. The USA, Great Britain and most other NATO countries have regular armies. In such army, the units are organized of professionals and a major part of the fighting force is always at the service. Typically, the peace time units are immediately deployable and the full mobilization only complements them. Almost all armies before the French revolution followed this model. The pros for this kind of army are clear: you have a combat ready strike force that is politically easy to deploy. The con is the expense of such force. A small nation cannot support a force much larger than a hundred thousand soldiers.
The cadre system consists of a small cadre of career soldiers and a large reserve of reservists. The conscripts form the active component of the army and are trained by the cadre of officers and NCOs who occupy the key command positions and positions requiring special technical skills (e.g. pilots). The conscripts train for the wartime duties and after completed training, are demobilized. If needed, the service time can be made somewhat longer than actually used for the training to provide the nation with a force of fully trained conscripts to give protection against surprise attacks. In the time of national emergency, the nation enters total war, and the army can be expanded even over ten-fold. Most NCO and officer duties of the war time defence force are undertaken by trained reservists who, which should present no problem, as also the most talented citizen are part of the reserve. The main advantage of the system is that the country can have a low defence budget and still retain a large army. It is also very difficult to use such a defence force except in a grave emergency where wide political support can be found. However, the cost of weaponry has risen to such an extent that it is becoming the limiting factor for the size of the defence force, instead of national man power. The weak point of the cadre system is the mobilization. It takes usually a few days and means total restructuring of the force. All peace time units are either disbanded or change form and a abundance of new units are formed. It will take a time span from one day to two weeks to form a combat ready unit, depending of the training level of the reservists.
The militia system is the on used in Switzerland and can be considered the ultimate model of a citizen army. I believe it has been discussed elsewhere.
The viewpoint raised by Silverback and others is that the nation has no higher right to exist than the individual. This is a sound argument. However, if approached from the viewpoint of game theory, it can be argued that the conscription is not immoral. The chance to die in a war is actually quite low, of the order of 1 %. On the contrary, if the alternative is the near-total obliteration of the nation, as happened for example to the Jews or the Chechens in the 1940s, the chance to die in the war becomes actually much lower than in the case of not fighting. In such case, it is reasonable for anyone concerned to fight, and to ensure oneself that everyone else is also fighting. Similarly, many other infringments of peace-time rights, e.g. rationing, can be carried out, as these enhance the average chance of survival. However, great care must be taken to insure that the country defending itself does not permanently destroy its free lifestyle and democracy. (This has been accomplished, for instance in Great Britain during WWII.) I hope I have established above, that a small country has no way to defend itself against a wide-scale attack of a major power, unless it has conscription. However, the fundamental axiom of rationale can be questioned. It is quite possible that there is no realizable threat to the nation. For example, it is hard to imagine any country making large scale invasion to the USA with a purpose of destroying a large part of its civilian inhabitants. However, many countries, e.g. Israel, have such an underlying fear which may or may not be rationally founded.
The final reason for the conscription and the concept of total war is the deterrent of "one-sided destruction". If we consider the possible enemy capable to act rationally, its reasons to invade are based on solid analysis of objectives. For example, a major power may wish the natural resources, key infrastructure or strategic points in the country. It will invade if the political, human, and economical costs are outweighed by possibilities of same forms of income. Most attacks can be deterred if country credibly accepts the doctrine of total war. Even after defeating the country, the enemy will have to quell to guerilla resistance, which may go on for years, and rebuild the infrastructure, which will have been totally destroyed in the fighting. In short, the majority of the nation deters the enemy by a credible collective suicide threat, which requires certain amount of fanatic nationalism. This is the main disadvantage of such a strategy.
The conscription has also a few minor advantages among which is the chance to physically educate the youths of the nation, thus lowering future social expenses. The conscripts, who form a good outline of the whole nation, also present the military with good opportunity to recruit its cadre from among the most talented. Of course, there is also the point of indoctrination, which is ambivalent but can, to my view, be used also constructively.
To get a good outline of the idea of total war, please see the Emergency Powers Act which outlines the reserve powers for crises other than war. For the war, the following also applies, but is only in Finnish and Swedish Act on the State of Defence In Finnish. -- 130.230.131.108 15:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
i want to suggest a further pro-conscription argument, that is that a country that has in peacetime a largely conscript army is less prone an likely to go to war due to the fact that the army would be comprised from children of all classes including the rulling classes and the people who make decissions, were as a fully professional army would be almost entirely be comprised of members and children of the poorer classes whose fate is less likely to be taken under consideration by the ruling classes whose children would be safe.
I would apreciate it if someone would try to formulate this idea properly and place it in the list of pro-conscription arguments, that is ofcourse if they find it to be reasonable as i believe it is the case.
thank you 88.218.38.140 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Exile 16:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add a few possible pro-arguments for conscription as well. These arguments revolve around the use of the draft due to too few volunteers in the enlistment-based military of the United States. The first reason the draft may be used is because of wide-spread civilian disagreement with a completely necessary war. One example is World War 2-operating under the assumption that the United States' involvement in the war after the Pearl Harbor bombings was justified-the war was fought with an army consisting of 61% draftees (around 11,500,000 men, according to Bluejacket). Whatever the reasons for the public's lack of higher enlistment rates, our military operations from 1939-1945 in the Pacific may not have been as successful as they were with the mere 6,000,000 (1/3 the total) volunteers. Though there were few civilians willing to step up to a necessary task, the draft ensured America's victory over the hostile Japan. Another point to make out is the fluxuation of volunteer enlistment correllating with the strenght of the U.S. economy at the time. When the economy is weak and there are fewer technical/luxury jobs being offered, it makes sense that there will be a steady, if not rising, employment of manual labor/blue collar workers. In these rough times, all sorts of students and laborers may seek military careers to make ends meet when they may have formerly been aiming towards a civilian based tech-job or whatnot. This scenario holds true vice versa-when the economy is flourishing and tech-industry is employing, military personnel may turn to other jobs that are higher paying or less injurious or life-risking, but still applying the same concepts and ideas already learned throughout their careers-A completely reasonable and rational choice from anybody's point of view. Therefore, even if a war is widely supported, a strong economy may incite personnel to look elswhere in the civilian industry for a better-paying, easier-going job and lead to an overall lack of military employment. A drafting program could serve to pull some of these personnel back to their military jobs in order to carry out a war at hand. 67.171.167.100 ( talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
draft evadees seems a bit too general
Forced conscription was abolished in Venezuela (1999 constitution) http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_III.htm article 134 JRSP —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRSP ( talk • contribs) 10:21, February 7, 2006
Starting 1991 there is no conscription in Venezuela, starting in western state of Zulia and quickly spreading nationwide. At the present there's only a short paid training on gerilla-like tactics offered by the government to prepare people for the "imminent invation of Venezuela thuru the USA", and the common proffesional armed force. But conscription there's not! someone should please correct the map, I don't know how. Quaipau ( talk) 15:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
IF the Russian military is in as bad as the Russian Generals claim, someone with 20,000 boy scouts can take the place over. I suspect this is a propaganda ploy for someone to try that. I grew up during the time Russia was the USSR and could make the rest of the planet kow-tow to them, except NATO and allies. Martial Law 23:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)
Conscription army in Russia (and other ex-USSR countries) is inefficient, but there is always regular army. That's why Russia is trying to expand regular army and minimize conscription. In Ukraine a politician promised banning conscription, but as always when she achieved power, she easily forgot her promises. As for Chechnya, inefficiency is more a political will by oligarchs, government was controlled by them when first war was. -- Sasha Chorny ( talk) 00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the Russian military is generally much worse then the generals claim in terms of both conditions for conscripts and fighting ability (as Chechnya had illustrated for the last ten years). And I believe they (the generals) have only themselves to blame. They had been too slow in finding inefficiencies, and it was on their watch that the corruption levels in the military skyrocketed. No wonder most sane Russians are trying to escape the service by whatever means possible. Having been deemed fit for service while drawing a disability pension I have to say that even if conscripted army might be considered a good thing, the current execution of the idea in Russia nullifies most of the positive arguments.
Maximpbar 18:39, 19 May 2006
"Such an offense, legally considered an offense of "bad moral character", prevents the "unpatriotic" citizen from ever holding public office."
This isn't NPOV at all is it? And yes I realize that they're in quotes but that still looks like it's favoring the conscriptors.
Montenegro,Bosnia and Herzegovina,Venezuela,Afghanistan and Iraq don't have conscription any more.Bulgaria will end conscription in less then 3 years.
"The cost to benefit ratio of conscription during war time is also debatable. As technology improves, the necessity of a soldier on the battlefield becomes less and less necessary. Superior technology, not superior numbers, has become the deciding factor in war. The cost to train, equip, and care for a poorly trained conscript does not justify the contribution (if any) he or she makes to the armed forces."
This is not fact. Look to recent wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc. etc. These countries all were (are) subject to technologically superior enemies. Proving that it is very much possible to fight a war with old weapons and basic traning. Look to Afghanistan, they use ak-47 and rpgs, yet NATO are experiencing great difficulty taking them down. For a small country, conscription can be useful to make a technologically superior enemy suffer great economic losses... 1 black hawk is how many million dollars? How many billions did the US spend in Iraq? This is not even mentioning Vietnam. For a small country, advanced technological warfare is even harder due to (most likely) less funding and numbers. If the goal of the enemy is to take control of a country, then they must step on the ground, they must move amongst the citicents. However, if the militia and the population look the same, if not are the same. What do you do? you cannot see or find you enemy, or is everyone your enemy, and you are really surounded? They cannot control a nation without public support/acceptance and if one quarter of the inhabitants are trained in military combat, that's gonna be hard to get if there is a strong national feeling.
Sincerly, Martin.
Someone wrote "In Canada, during both of the World Wars, most French from Quebec didn't want to fight in the wars. So, 98% of them evaded this by reporting sick."
This is totally racist and unacceptable, with no sources at all to prove that ridiculous anti-Québec claim. First, Francophones are called Québécois, French-Canadians or Quebecers, not French. Secondly, Québécois fought like everybody else in Canada, and suffered casualities like everybody else. While opposition to the war was high in Québec (by the time of the conscription, opposition to the war was quite high in the rest of Canada as well) Québécois did their military services like everybody else, with only a few cases of people mutilating themselves to avoid conscription. Also, I removed the part about Prairie farmers shooting their sons' toes, as I suspect there isn't any sources proving that either and that it is just another racist comment, making it seem like it was a wide-spread method to avoid conscription while in fact there was only a few rare cases of it happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.156.183 ( talk) 04:12, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
While the statement seems inappropriately formulated, and may well be factually incorrect, it is not actually racist. Let us keep "racist" to its actual meaning, related to race, not as a generic ad hominem argument. 94.220.243.191 ( talk) 11:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Another serious POV issue is questioning if the US volunteer military "is really volunteer?" This is ludicrous. If I had more time, I would pull up the published statistics. The US military is more educated than the US population ON ALL LEVELS. It has more high schools grads, more college grads, and more graduate school grads, percentage wise, than the rest of the population. Then the argument that they join the military because they are destitute and have no other option means the rest of the population must also not have a chance...considering we've got around a 5% unemployment rate, I find this hard to believe.
There is a difference between choosing to join to further your education, serve your country, or simply be a professional soldier and being forced to. The POV here is that no one wants to be a soldier/sailor and that it is a last choice.
While my input is rather anecdotal, ever single person (except me, a civilian my whole life) in my office has a graduate degree, makes six figures, and is either retired or reserve military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.28.104 ( talk) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Without taking a position one way or other on whether the US military is truly "volunteer" or not, the logic/ premise of the first commentator's argument is flawed - yes, the military probably does have a higher education level than the population in general, but what's relevant is the education level of those joining the military at time of their enlistment. That's what's relevant to the argument of how voluntary was their enlistment and how many other options they might have had when considering whether to sign up or not. Lumping the entry-level recruits w/ the West Pointers or those who've been in the force for years and took advantage of the educational opportunities just obscures (whether deliberately or carelessly) what's truly relevant to the question of the alternatives available to enlistees at the time of enlistment.
Let's not confuse what is voluntary with what is non-voluntary. The US armed forces are voluntary. Do they offer incentives to get people to sign-up? Absolutely. There are many men and women who take advantage of those incentives to better themselves. But to suggest they did not have a choice is inaccurate at best. I personally knew many volunteers who had the choice to join for education benefits, or take on student loans. I knew others who volunteered because the pay and benefits for their families was better than what was currently available in civilian life. But there was always a choice. Are there risks for the choices we make? Of course there are. Choosing to live in downtown Chicago vs. the suburbs probably increases the risk an individual takes to being exposed to violent crime, but some people choose to do so for the benefits of being closer to work, cultural attractions, less commute, etc. Those who sign up to take advantage of the military benefits, also sign up for the risk of being sent to a conflict (and all that entails). The US military is a volunteer military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macairet ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This term is used in the table. There is no official term pseudo-democracy. IMo it is OK to use vague terms in newspapers rants but not in encyclopedia. The term must be replaced by official one. e.g., Singapore is parliamentary republic rather than "pseudo". BTW, after some thought, the term "democracy" must go out of the table as well and official form of gov't used instead. Laudak ( talk) 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the government forms listed here are pretty arbitrary. Who decides if a democracy is 'pseudo'? Is it one where the ballots are too complex for the voters to understand and where the courts get to override the voters decisions (anyone guess who I'm talking about?). Why does the UK get 'constitutional monarchy' rather than 'democracy', and why does the US get 'democracy' rather than 'constitutional republic'? Is Cuba more 'dictatorial' than Iran? Some of this stuff seems to have been made up. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
GDP figures used in the article are completely wrong, while Nationmaster lists CIA figures. How comes?
For example, Nationmaster lists Russian per capita GDP close to $10,000, while the tables shows $5.500. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.178.57.102 (
talk)
13:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Since according to the article, Lebanon has no longer mandatory service, could someone update the map? (i.e. color Lebanon in blue). Thank you. Eklipse ( talk) 15:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Lebanon DOES have mandatory service! The exception is if a household has just one son, otherwise, it's mandatory. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.4.43.40 (
talk)
10:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm from the Philippines and I'm wondering. We are giving the choice between ROTC or CAT. CAT is some sort of civil service while ROTC is weekly boot camp training. Is ROTC a form of conscription? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.41.6 ( talk) 10:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph sounds off to me. "Small countries have several options to raise a sizeable army. One is to put every able-bodied man under arms. This is how Switzerland managed to stay independent despite repeated attacks throughout history. The Swiss militias were so successful that their fighting style and weapons (especially the halberd) were quickly adopted by their enemies. This in turn made the Swiss very popular as mercenaries; many rulers even raised Swiss Guards. The rich Flemish trade cities of the early 14th century raised huge militias that could even defeat armies of knights. The famous Battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) is a good example." Mostly the line "This is how Switzerland managed to stay independent despite repeated attacks throughout history." It sounds like original research to me, and it just sounds weird. Plus "The rich Flemish trade cities in the early 14th century raised huge militias that could even defeat armies of knights.". What's makes these "knights" so great? It should be re-phrased. Plus this article doesn't have ANY citations. Moocowsrule ( talk) 06:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed tha following which was recently added as a closing sentence in the Conscientious objection section: "The philosophy of John Mill enshrines individual concience, and forbids the coersion of an individual and the subordination of their beliefswer to this question. to the greater good. ". The edit summary was: "Adds philosophical support to the 'Conciece Objections' section of the article."
Perhaps I'm just a dunce, but my reaction was "Who the heck is John Mill?". He is not mentioned elsewhere in this article, and bit if wikisearching and googling didn't provide a quick answer to this question.
Perhaps this is useful, but it needs a bit of context. Perhaps something like: John Mill, very famous philosopher, said in his book yammer yammer, "quote from the book".<ref>citation of the book, giving page number of the quote</ref> -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just added a section on Feudal Levies, the medieval equivalent of conscripts. I haven't sourced any of it yet but I will soon and invite anyone who wants to add further info or citations to do so. I really feel that this article could do with a lot more history of conscription in the military. Master z0b ( talk) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the German WP says, conscription was made in during World War first only in Great Britain and later in Northern Ireland - not in the later Irish Republic. Does anyone know anything about? The Irish Free State was founded after the war, and I've never before heard about any kind of political or juristical separation between the later Northern Ireland and the rest of the island before that time. 217.228.69.4 ( talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
"The young girls were put under various categories of training and testing for intellectual ability, physical beauty, and other talents. Blond and blue eyed women or dark-haired pale-complected women who fit preconceived Turkic ideals of beauty were especially prized. Those that had the best abilities were then put through various sexual traumas to prepare them as permanent sex slaves to whet the Sultan's sexual appetite and give him children."
This article is about conscription. But this part talks about traumas of young girls and there is no reference or sources for this part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.142.40.66 ( talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The whole thing is irrelevant to the context of the article. I had removed it from the article. -- Joshua Say "hi" to me! What I've done? 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A minor point. Draft card currently redirects here, but there is no reference to the document in question. Thoughts on perhaps creating a different article? Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit, changing the conscription info for the Philippines from "No" back to "Yes", as indicated by the supporting source cited in the Article. This is the second time I have done this.
Article II, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution reads, "The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service." I suspect that, though allowed, conscription for military service is currently not practiced by the RP Government; However, I have been unable to locate aciteable verifiable and reliable to support this. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The Philippines had mandatory military training for all high school seniors and male college freshmen and sophomores. The program, at least for college, is now called the National Service Training Program, for all college freshmen and sophomores (male and female) and therefore it could be said that the country has national service, but not conscription. Even if the NSTP did not exist, the Philippines did not require military service, only training, for its citizens. There have been no call-up of reserves since World War II. Will edit the article appropriately when I find references to support the things written above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskabobbins ( talk • contribs) 07:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No honorary mention of conscription 30 years ago in South Africa but no longer in effect? Invmog ( talk) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there any value to including the description of the government of the countries? Also, is there any standard to them? Why does Libya get a distinction between "theory" and "practice" while none of the other Communist states/despotisms do? Why is the US A "Constitution-based" country when none of the other ones (Like, say, France or Germany) are? What is the qualification for "emerging" ? 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This section sounds bizarre to me:
Those that showed special promise in fighting skills were trained in advanced and arcane warrior skills, put into the sultan's personal service, and turned into the ultimate fighting weapons known as the Janissaries
I propose that the sentence, "The former military dictatorships of Turkey, Greece, Spain, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia and Libya maintained draft systems throughout their reigns..." be edited, deleting "Indonesia. Indonesia does not have conscription. Toukairin 30-Nov-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toukairin ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be differentiated, that some nations abolished the conscription and others just have suspended it (like the US)? Thus, can't it be stated in parenthesis in the image comment "No conscription (abolished/suspended)? -- Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 ( talk) 10:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
From the qoutes that are available online it appears that Brandeis was talking specifically about freedom of speech in the context of war, and that he didn't mention conscription when he said that "all bets are off". It is possible that someone quoted Bradndeis out of context. The article needs the original qoute, not the third-hand source that is used now. Sjö ( talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Is outdate and duplicated to other articles, I would suggest point to Per capita GDP#Lists of countries by their GDP -- Jor70 ( talk) 10:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In the beginning of 2010 this article was a mess and rife with original research and unsupported statements. I and others have cleaned up most of it, and what the article needed was expansion with sourced facts, e.g. on the history of conscription. The recent edits have rewritten the article, removed citation and introduced unsourced text. The editor seems to have a clear anti-conscription bias as shown by e.g. the phrase "Conscription is the State’s slave labor". In other words, the article is heading back to being a mess of unsupported statements again. I urge Amp873 to add references to the statements, otherwise his/her edits risk being reverted per Wikipedia policy. Sjö ( talk) 10:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The article has been restored several times. Some of the objections to the changes by Amp873 are:
I'm sure that some of Amp873's edits and sources can be merged carefully into the current text. I intend to do that but I'd prefer consensus on the talk page first. Sjö ( talk) 06:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
most nations no longer conscript soldiers and sailors
I seem to be failing to be able to see that from the map. Added a [?] in the respective place.
-- 217.229.26.48 ( talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two things about Taiwan which need to be clarified:
1. Women are not conscripted to the military service. The sources given in the article did not list their original sources.
2. The Interpretation 490 did not state that "the male-only conscription does not violate the constitution". The problem is that the English translation and the original Chinese version are different. The responsibility should not totally fall on the translator. I have read the original version. The writing and punctuation are terrible. It's hard to believe that such poor writing was employed in a document like this. It has nothing to do with the style of legal document. A sentence runs between point to point and should roughly talk about the same topic. There is a sentence (from point to point) in the original document which reads,
"立法者鑒於男女生理上之差異及因此種差異所生之社會生活功能角色之不同,於兵役法第一條規定:中華民國男子依法皆有服兵役之義務,係為實踐國家目的及憲法上人民之基本義務而為之規定,原屬立法政策之考量,非為助長、促進或限制宗教而設,且無助長、促進或限制宗教之效果。"
If loyal to the original punctuation, that would read,
"Given the physical differences between males and females and the derived role differentiation in their respective social functions and lives, the Legislature enacted Article 1 of the Conscription Act indicating that, pursuant to laws, eligible male citizens have the duty of performing military service, the regulation was made in order to fulfill the national goals and constitutionally prescribed basic duties of the people, it is of legislative policy nature, it does not encourage, endorse, or prohibit any religion, nor does it have such effects."
At the beginning of the sentence it was talking about the differences of the both genders, and without any sign it changed to talk about the religion. The writing level was really astonishing. Qrfqr ( talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Military service is voluntary. I don't know why the map shows that Indonesia has conscription. Rad vsovereign ( talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Germn defense minister von Guttenberg plans to abolish conscription as part of an army reform program (see links at [4]), though it's not yet decided in parliament. So Germany could now be coloured orange in the map at the intro, depending on the exact meaning of "planning to abolish". -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
"Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" Should this really be mentioned? Why have the USA a stronger democratic tradition then other countries in the list? Nicob1984 ( talk) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The sexism and forced male-gender-role of male-only conscription is worth a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.100.194 ( talk) 15:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic according to the Lebanese Constitution ( http://www.presidency.gov.lb/English/ThenatureoftheLebanesesystem/Documents/Lebanese%20Constitution.pdf). A.h. king • Talk to me! 10:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't get it, if Switzerland it's suposse to be the neutrality country, they never go to war, why in the hell do they have conscription? they don't even need an army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.205.45.193 ( talk) 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The map shows Bangladesh doesn't conscript. But the Constitution of Bangladesh provides for conscription in the Name of the President when necessary (i.e. in wartime), although it never has been practiced.
Is this kind of conscription "No conscription" or "Conscription"?
Ratibgreat ( talk) 04:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In light of the above, I propose that the table presentation format be revised to the following:
Country | Land area (km2) [1] | GDP nominal (US$M) [2] | Per capita GDP (US$) [3] |
Population [4] | Government [5] | Conscription [6] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia | 7,617,930 | $1,220,000 | $44,474.51 | 21,766,711 | Federal Parliamentary Democracy | No (abolished by parliament in 1972) [7] |
Australia | 7,617,930 | $1,220,000 | $44,474.51 | 21,766,711 | Federal Parliamentary Democracy | No (abolished by parliament in 1972 [8]) |
The info presented agrees with Nationmaster info. The info in parenthases elaborates on the Nationmaster info. The linked footnote presents further elaboration and cites a supporting source. I've colored only the one column and have moved the footnote link inside the parens. | ||||||
Bermuda | 53.3 | $5,850 citation needed | $97,000 citation needed | 68,679 | parliamentary; self-governing territory | Yes citation needed |
Bermuda | 53.3 | $5,850 citation needed | $97,000 citation needed | 68,679 | parliamentary; self-governing territory | Yes citation needed |
Nationmaster doesn't have conscription (or some other) info on Bermuda. I've colored only the one column. | ||||||
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 51,197 | $16,320 | $3,246.78 | 4,622,163 | Emerging Federal Democratic Republic | Yes, [6] No (Abolished on January 1, 2006.) citation needed |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 51,197 | $16,320 | $3,246.78 | 4,622,163 | Emerging Federal Democratic Republic | Yes (WRI [9]) |
No (Abolished on January 1, 2006.) citation needed | ||||||
The "Yes" info is from Nationmaster. Since we present info which conflicts with this, I would add that Nationmaster info here. Nationmaster cites War Resisters International as their source. I would explain the "WRI" acronym in a footnote. I've split the conflicting info (in this case, unsupported) into a separate row. | ||||||
Burma | 657,740 | $35,650 | $285.60 | 53,999,804 | Military Junta | Yes but not enforced as of January 2011 [update]. [10] |
Burma | 657,740 | $35,650 | $285.60 | 53,999,804 | Military Junta | No (FWCC [15]) |
Yes but not enforced as of January 2011 [update]. [16] | ||||||
Nationmaster cites Friends World Committee for Consultation as their source. I would explain the acronym in a footnote and would probably provide a link their website there. |
Those are the only entries I've looked at so far. Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've started work on this. Note that the rowspans conflict with table sortability, and I've consequently made the table unsortable. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I've worked around the conflict between rowspans and sortability by eliminating rowspans. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Posted this on another wikipedia article, but I just want to reiterate that China DOES NOT practise conscription. It's constitution states that conscription is legal/can go ahead, but it has never ever been practised or put in place. This is mainly due to the fact that China already has enough volunteer soldiers from its 1.3 billion population. So yeah, just hope you guys could update it. 203.213.40.129 ( talk) 09:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
updated and transferred in current discussion page Gomoloko ( talk) 08:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The sources whether Germany has conscription or not differ?
Of course they do. The yes-source is from 1997, while the no-source is from 2010 and says it will end in 2011. Anyone noticing anything?
If you want a real source:
1. Learn German
2. Go at bundesgesetzblatt.de and click on kostenloser Bürgerzugang
3. Find Nr. 19 vom 02.05.2011, open it and then open number 5
Congratulations! You have found the Wehrrechtsänderungsgesetz 2011, an act passed by the Bundestag - on the last page you can even find the signatures of the President, the Chancellor, and the two responsible ministers ( defence and family).
Now look at point 2 (it's on the right side of the first page). If you speak German, read for yourself, if not, read what I have written down here:
Point 2 states how Section 2 (in German: §2) of the Wehrpflichtgesetz (Conscription Act) shall be changed. According to the new Section 2 (created by this act), the Sections 3-53 of the Conscription Act (which is nearly the entire act) are only valid during the state of defence.
That means that conscription in Germany has been abolished by federal legislature for peacetime.
Article 13 (on the last page) states that this law becomes effective on 1 July 2011, so the last day Germany had conscription will be 30 June 2011.
To summarize everything: Conscription in Germany will be abolished from 1 July 2011 on.
PS: You're wondering why the family minister signed an act dealing with conscription? That's because she was responsible for the alternative service.
-- Harald Meier ( talk) 20:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The new constitution being drafted in Iceland includes an article that explicitly prohibits the introduction of conscription in Iceland. I don't know of any other country with that kind of stance against conscription so I suppose it would be a notable fact to include in this article. Perhaps it is best to wait until the new constitution is formally in force. -- 157.157.69.51 ( talk) 11:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Removing the line "Who Claimed mandatory conscription to be unconstitutional." where it was inserted into a paragraph where it didn't belong.Obviously someone who believes in the draft is attempting to push they're beliefs on random people by inserting random nonsense lines inside of this article.Just warning people to watch out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.250.155 ( talk) 08:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Turkish AKP party(is the goverment), told that have plan to make the army proffesional.
Turkey need to become orange color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk) 21:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.berlingske.dk/leder:aid=449936/# http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=322948 http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=322885
Denmark need to become blue color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk • contribs) 06:08, September 5, 2011
Exist military service at Denmark, but is voluntary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk • contribs) 08:57, September 5, 2011
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav051404.shtml http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/centralasia/uzbek-army.htm
Need to become orange color at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk) 02:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2011/03/30/296630/Premier-sets.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.114.51 ( talk) 01:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Need to become orange color at the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.114.51 ( talk) 01:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This edit attracted my attention to this section. This section of the article currently says, without support, "In 1973, President Richard Nixon abandoned the draft and by 1975, President Gerald Ford abolished it. From then on registration was voluntary. ... In 1980 Jimmy Carter unsuccessfully tried to reinstitute the Selective Service Project." A quick look at http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm turns up "Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service." Assertions in this subsection need a verification check and, if confirmed, should cite supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The US most certainly DOES require registration for the selective service ( http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm . The article still shows the US as not mandating registration. President Carter restored the requirement by executive order in 1980 http://www.sss.gov/QA.HTM#quest8. There has been pressure to return to an active draft in 2005 ( http://www.cqpress.com/product/Researcher-Draft-Debates-v15-28.html), and the legislation currently does not prohibit use of conscripts. Further, as recently as 1987, judicial conscription of convicts was still present; in 1987, the Dept of the Army ceased accepting judicially ordered individuals, according to the Stars and Stries article in 1987, the other services had ceased accepting them about a decade earlier. One of the guys I went through basic with in 1987 joined under judicial mandate for a non-violent misdemeanor conviction, and the DI's made it public knowledge to the platoon. Wfh ( talk) 10:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The list of countries with conscription should be removed for a few reasons:
While I have no problem with the list being included in the article, I will say it is very inconsistant. for example it fails to mention that Jamaica and Australia are monarchies. It says that the UK is a Commonwealth Realm but does not say that Australia is. I think it could do with a cleanup. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 11:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Norway: http://www.wri-irg.org/node/13541
Venezuela: http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.247.79 ( talk) 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no link to the serious problems that arose in Canada for both WWI and WWII, e.g., the article Conscription_Crisis_of_1917 G. Robert Shiplett 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Medvedev told that after 5-7 years, Russia will have army 100% professional-voluntary.
At army will be 90% professionals, and 10% volunteers.
www.arms-expo.ru/049051124050053057054055.html www.aif.ru/society/news/101586 http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20111125/497704011.html http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=641678
Russia need to become orange color at the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.131.90.28 ( talk) 23:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how to go about changing things with all the intricate formatting, but says here China does have conscription, it just doesn't release data about which recruits are conscripted, as acquiring them by voluntary or compulsory means is a local responsibility:
Darkmusashi ( talk) 05:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Italy is not in the table.
I remember Italian-Canadian friends having issues in the 1970s when visiting Italy because they could suddenly become subject for their military service.
At that time, it made Italy sound like Switzerland, Israel, and so on. West Germany.
Varlaam (
talk)
17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is the American section so much larger than any of the others? Threadnecromancer ( talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
Nigeria not have obligatory military service. Have only obligatory "social service" for those who have diploma, to they have experience after their studies.
This is not obligatory military service, so Nigeria need to be blue color at the map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Service_Corps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.85.149 ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the issue of universal or partial conscription should be mentioned. For example, during the 1950's era in the USA and Australia, only a proportion of the eligible young men were actually recruited, based on some kind of lottery arrangement. On the other hand, in some countries basically ALL young males are supposedly conscripted, unless they have some medical excuse. This includes South Korea and Turkey and Switzerland, not sure about Russia these days. This seems to me to be a pretty important political distinction which should be mentioned for those less familiar with the issue. Eregli bob ( talk) 07:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It is never licit to conscript woman in any form or manner, therefore that term is not apt, and must make why for voluntary inscription. Conscription of woman is equitative to conscription of children & child labour, specifically for the purpose of their smaller size (ie: coal mining forced servitude). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 ( talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone having good English-language sources for arguments pro/con conscription, what becomes to army quality? Here [7] (1981) a Cato guy interestingly argues that in US conscription would lower the average quality of recruits. Or is there discussion of the subject in some other wiki-article? -- J. Sketter ( talk) 14:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it doesnt need a source. historically most conscipts did poorly in comparison to professional Military men. look at vietnam put kids right out of high school in a junjle with out proper training other than your basic drills + the fact they don't give a shit about said war. this all lowered their kill rate and many missed on purpose when confronted(not metally trained to kill) as well as frequent spray and pray(leading the AR serise to be burst to prevent wasted bullets). The civil war is another great examples of the poor army quality of conscription.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.191.20.2 ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The map in the info-box has Antarctica coloured as "no enforced conscription." Yet, there is a colour option of "no standing army." The fact that Antarctica was not classified as "no standing army" implies that it does have a standing army, it's just not a conscripted army. Since Antarctica isn't even a country, how can it have a standing army, especially as the Madrid Protocol designates it as a 'natural reserve devoted to peace and science' ( /info/en/?search=Antarctica#Politics)? -- Wertyu739 ( talk) 01:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Edit: Just found out there's a separate talk page for the picture. I'll post this there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wertyu739 ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Ukraine has conscription again [8] -- Львівське ( говорити) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Besides, the source about Ukraine plans to end conscription is outdated. It is from before the current pro-russian unrest, witch destroyed any plans by Ukraine to end conscription.
The map caption says orange is for "reinstates conscription" which a) doesn't make a lot of sense (is it "reinstated conscription" -- that's the same as "conscription"; is it "plans to reinstate conscription"?) and in any case, b) it doesn't match the caption on the image's page. -- Taejo| 대조 15:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The map has China colored blue ("No enforced conscription"), but the chart states that China does have conscription. So, which is it? Tad Lincoln ( talk) 04:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
it seems they do officially but in practice it is a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalbendini ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It meant China has conscription, but it's not enforced due to sufficiently large volunteer pool as a result of China's population size. Hence China's membership in the No enforced conscription club: it's there in the book, but enforcing it isn't necessary and probably will bankrupt the government. Unless WWIII happens, and it's a land ware, it's hard to see China ever enforcing conscription.
This article should make some reference to this "proto" conscription practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AB07:219:3401:3E8E:3117:7421 ( talk) 05:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Ukraine reinstates conscription. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27247428 Please update the information. -- Reprarina ( talk) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As of 2014_12 the map at this article shows that there is no forced conscription in Brazil, but Conscription_in_Brazil clearly states that there exists a forced conscription. Which of the articles is wrong?
Taiwan currently has conscription, but in the process of abolishing it, not reinstating it. Only men are drafted. - Szqecs ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The meaning of the word mandatory has been discussed in the section above on #Austria. In fact, the question of the meaning of this word appears to lie at the heart of that discussion. However, the impact of a consensus decision regarding the meaning of that word for purposes of this article would have impact beyond this article's assertions re Austria, so I have started this new discussion section.
As I said in the section above, the word Mandatory is defined here as "Required or commanded by authority; obligatory", with an example usage given as "Attendance at the meeting is mandatory." Also see here, defining the word mandate as "An authoritative command or instruction". This might be thought of as indicating by the use of the word mandataory that the section headed "Countries with and without mandatory military service differently" speaks of countries where military service is required by law for at least some persons. Perhaps introductory material clarifying this ought to be added ahead of table the section presents.
I believe that a section with this name ought to observe the usual meaning of the word mandatory in selecting and presenting content contained therein.
I note that this section came into being (prior to the addition of the table) with this 7 January 2004 edit, which merged material from a separate article titled Mandatory military service which had existed for just one day and which now redirects to this article.
The section could be re-headed something like "Countries with and without compelled military service", and could present content regarding countries where military service is compelled (with and/or without an underlying legal mandate). However, I suspect without having checked that (1) the two sets of countries are not identical and (2) some of the supporting sources currently cited in support of an assertion that conscription is mandated would not support an assertion that the conscription mandate is enforced.
More appropriate at this point, I think, might be the presentation of clarifying information about countries where supporting sources exist with information that conscription mandates are or were not enforced for particular periods, and citing those sources. Perhaps this might be in a subsection on "Countries where Mandatory Conscription is not enforced", or "... is not universally enforced", or "... is or has been sometimes not enforced".
Perhaps, on the other hand, the section and the table it presents ought to be eliminated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the text because it asserted that Israel was the only country that had universal conscription for women. North Korea does too. Some women might get exemptions in North Korea, but they also do in Israel, as the text admits.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that in the field of ancient military this article should include at least a reference to Structural history of the Roman military. Diegopiacc ( talk) 09:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Austria still has conscription
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20001612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.131.104 ( talk) 21:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
http://derstandard.at/2000012854620/Jenseits-der-Vor-Stellung-Will-nicht-gibts-nicht this article is in German and describes how a 17 year old views conscription in Austria today, http://www.bundesheer.at/adressen/pdf/stellung_vorarlberg_2015.pdf conscription does exist in Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.208.182.159 ( talk) 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Austria has been changed back to red. Roopeluhtala ( talk) 07:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Given it is a part of Denmark still I don't see why it is counted as lacking any sort of armed force. Looking at the wiki article on the topic Denmark has responsibility for defending Greenland and maintains military bases ther — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threadnecromancer ( talk • contribs) 18:45 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that Czech Republic is planning to reimplement conscription in 2016 or 2017, for both genders. [18] [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalNomad ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
We've been rolling this section around over at Talk:Sexism, and the consensus seems to be trending toward including a very scaled down version of the section and moving the full version over here, if those on this article are open to it. It seems like a great improvement over the sexism section currently in place. Take a look and see what you think. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 20:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Sexism
Conscription has been widely criticized as sexist. [21] [22]: 102 Historically, only men have been subjected to conscription, [23] [24] [25] [26] [22]: 255 and only in the late 20th century has this begun to change, though most countries still require only men to serve in the military. The integration of women into militaries, and especially into combat forces, did not begin on a large scale until late in the 20th century. In his book The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys (2012), philosopher David Benatar states that the theoretical arguments are immaterial to those who are pressed into service: "Some women are excluded from combat, but many more women are exempt. While some men are excluded from combat (because they fail the relevant tests), many more are pressured or forced into combat." According to Benatar, "[t]he prevailing assumption is that where conscription is necessary, it is only men who should be conscripted and, similarly, that only males should be forced into combat". This, he believes, "is a sexist assumption". [22]: 102
Currently, only nine countries conscript women into their armed forces: China, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Peru and Taiwan. [27] Other countries—such as Finland, Turkey, and Singapore—still use a system of conscription which requires military service from only men, although women are permitted to serve voluntarily. In 2014, Norway became the first NATO country to introduce obligatory military service for women as an act of gender equality. [28] [29] The gender selective draft has been challenged in Switzerland, [27] but the case was rejected by the Federal Supreme Court on the grounds that the specific law requiring service takes precedent over the general law forbidding sex discrimination. [30] [31] Chantal Galladé, former president of the Swiss Defence Committee calls the conscription of men a discrimination against both men and women, cementing the stereotypical gender roles of men and women. [32]
The practice of conscription has been criticized by various men's rights groups, such as the National Coalition for Men, which claims that "no gender oppression is comparable". [33] These groups have been joined on occasion by certain feminist activists. According to Joshua S. Goldstein, beginning in the 1970s "liberal feminists" have argued in favor of extending conscription to women, taking the position that "the best way to insure women's equal treatment with men is to render them equally vulnerable with men to the political will of the state". Others have disagreed, however, contending that "by integrating into existing power structures including military forces and the war system without changing them, women merely prop up a male-dominated world instead of transforming it". [34]
Anthropologist Ayse Gül Altinay has commented that "given equal suffrage rights, there is no other citizenship practice that differentiates as radically between men and women as compulsory male conscription" [35]: 34 and continues elsewhere, stating that "any attempt to de-gender nationalism and citizenship needs to incorporate a discussion of universal male conscription". [35]: 58 She goes on to quote feminist writer Cynthia Enloe, who argues that "there is a reason that so many states in the world have implemented military conscription laws for young men: most of those men would not join the state's military if it were left up to them to choose". [35]: 31–32
In the United States, all men must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. [36] Those who fail to register may be punished by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. They may also be ineligible for federal student financial aid, federal job training and federal employment. [37] As of 2014, transgender females who are born biologically male are required to register for selective service, but may file for a exemption in the event they are drafted. [38] Transgender males who are born female are not required to register but may face difficulties in receiving benefits which require registration. [39] Currently, women are exempted from the Selective Service System as only males are required to register; this cannot be changed without Congress amending the law. [40]
The selective service has been challenged in court in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, Elgin v. Department of Treasury in 2012, and a lawsuit is currently pending appeal in the case of National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. All have argued in small or large part on the grounds of equal protection and due process on the basis of gender. [41] Thus far all rulings have upheld the program, though on differing grounds. Professor Stephanie M. Wildman of Santa Clara Law called the decision in Rostker v. Goldberg "chilling to any advocate of full societal participation". [42] In the ensuing congressional debate, Senator Mark Hatfield argued that:
The paternalistic attitude inherent in exclusion of women from past draft registration requirements not only relieved women of the burden of military service, it also deprived them of one of the hallmarks of citizenship. Until women and men share both the rights and the obligations of citizenship, they will not be equal. [43]
References
- ^ "Nationmaster: Land area". source: "CIA World Factbooks". 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ "Nationmaster: GDP". source= "CIA World Factbooks". 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ "Nationmaster: Per capita GDP". source: "CIA World Factbooks". 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ "Nationmaster: Population". source: "World Development Indicators database". and "CIA World Factbook".
- ^ "Nationmaster: Government type". source: "CIA World Factbooks". 18 December 2003 to 18 December 2008.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
( help)- ^ a b "Nationmaster: Conscription". source: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997. Data collected from the nations concerned, or as otherwise indicated.
- ^ Conscription was abolished by law in 1973. But the Defence Act 1903 as amended retained a provision that it could be reintroduced by proclamation of the Governor-General. Potentially all Australian residents between the ages of 18 and 60 could be called up in this way. However, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1992 further provided that any such proclamation is of no effect until it is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Though actual legislation is not required, the effect of this provision is to make the introduction of conscription impossible without the approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, Gary Brown (October 12, 1999). "Current Issues Brief 7 1999–2000 — Military Conscription: Issues for Australia". Parliamentary library; Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group. Retrieved 2007-08-10.
- ^ Conscription was abolished by law in 1973. But the Defence Act 1903 as amended retained a provision that it could be reintroduced by proclamation of the Governor-General. Potentially all Australian residents between the ages of 18 and 60 could be called up in this way. However, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1992 further provided that any such proclamation is of no effect until it is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Though actual legislation is not required, the effect of this provision is to make the introduction of conscription impossible without the approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, Gary Brown (October 12, 1999). "Current Issues Brief 7 1999–2000 — Military Conscription: Issues for Australia". Parliamentary library; Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group. Retrieved 2007-08-10.
- ^ War Resisters International (WRI)
- ^ "Burma to bring in conscription". January 11, 2011. Retrieved January 13, 2011.
- ^ "Burma: World's Highest Number of Child Soldiers" (Document). Human rights Watch. October 15, 2002.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Six Youths Conscripted into Burmese Army" (Document). Narinjara News. August 4, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Arakanese Youth Arrested and Conscripted by Burmese Army" (Document). War Resisters' International. June 19, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Six Youths Conscripted into Burmese Army" (Document). Narinjara. August 4, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ explanatory footnote
- ^ "Burma to bring in conscription". January 11, 2011. Retrieved January 13, 2011.
- ^ "Burma: World's Highest Number of Child Soldiers" (Document). Human rights Watch. October 15, 2002.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Six Youths Conscripted into Burmese Army" (Document). Narinjara News. August 4, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Arakanese Youth Arrested and Conscripted by Burmese Army" (Document). War Resisters' International. June 19, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ "Six Youths Conscripted into Burmese Army" (Document). Narinjara. August 4, 2009.
{{ cite document}}
: Unknown parameter|url=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)- ^ Berlatsky, Noah (May 29, 2013). "When Men Experience Sexism". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on January 5, 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ a b c Benatar, David (May 15, 2012). The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-67451-2. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
- ^ Goldstein, Joshua S. (2003). "War and Gender: Men's War Roles – Boyhood and Coming of Age". In Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: Men and Women in the World's Cultures. Volume 1. Springer. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-306-47770-6. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
- ^ Kronsell, Anica (June 29, 2006). "Methods for studying silence: The 'silence' of Swedish conscription". In Ackerly, Brooke A.; Stern, Maria; True, Jacqui Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge University Press. p. 113. ISBN 978-1-139-45873-3. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
- ^ Selmeski, Brian R. (2007). Multicultural Citizens, Monocultural Men: Indigineity, Masculinity, and Conscription in Ecuador. Syracuse University: ProQuest. p. 149. ISBN 978-0-549-40315-9. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
- ^ Joenniemi, Pertti (2006). The Changing Face of European Conscription. Ashgate Publishing. pp. 142–149. ISBN 978-0-754-64410-1. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
- ^ a b "INDEPTH: FEMALE SOLDIERS – Women in the military — international". CBC News. May 30, 2006. Archived from the original on April 4, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Koranyi, Balazs; Fouche, Gwladys (June 14, 2014). Char, Pravin (ed.). "Norway becomes first NATO country to draft women into military". Oslo, Norway. Reuters. Archived from the original on January 28, 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
{{ cite news}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Women in the Armed Forces". Norwegian Armed Forces. October 27, 2014. Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (January 21, 2010). "Judgment of 21 January 2010" (in German). Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "General conscription does not discriminate against men according to federal court". Humanrights.ch (in German). Menschenrechte Schweiz (MERS). March 28, 2013. Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Bondolfi, Sibilla (March 15, 2013). "Abolition of conscription: Compulsory military service for men only is 'untenable'" (in German). Archived from the original on December 6, 2013. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
{{ cite news}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Selective Service (military conscription)". National Coalition for Men. Archived from the original on March 15, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Goldstein, Joshua S. (July 17, 2003). War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. Cambridge University Press. pp. 41–43. ISBN 978-0-521-00180-9.
- ^ a b c Altinay, Ayse Gül (December 10, 2004). The Myth of the Military-Nation: Militarism, Gender, and Education in Turkey. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-403-97936-0.
- ^ "Selective Service System: Welcome". Selective Service System. Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. February 12, 2015. Archived from the original on April 28, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Benefits and Programs Linked to Registration". Selective Service System. Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. December 21, 2010. Archived from the original on April 15, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions: Question #35". Selective Service System. Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. April 9, 2015. Archived from the original on March 30, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
How does the Military Selective Service Act apply to individuals who have had a sex change? Individuals who are born female and have a sex change are not required to register. U.S. citizens or immigrants who are born male and have a sex change are still required to register. In the event of a resumption of the draft, males who have had a sex change can file a claim for an exemption from military service if they receive an order to report for examination or induction.{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Selective Service and Transgender People". National Center for Transgender Equality. May 27, 2005. Archived from the original on March 16, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ "Women and the Draft: Women Aren't Required to Register". Selective Service System. February 25, 2014. Archived from the original on March 27, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Angelluci, Marc E. (April 13, 2013). "National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System" (PDF). National Coalition for Men. United States Government. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 21, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Wildman, Stephanie M. (January 1, 1984). "The Legitimation of Sex Discrimination: A Critical Response to Supreme Court Jurisprudence". Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. Santa Clara University School of Law. p. 294. Archived from the original on February 5, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
{{ cite web}}
:|archive-date=
/|archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; May 2, 2015 suggested ( help); Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help); line feed character in|title=
at position 51 ( help)- ^ MacDwyer, Sara (September 9, 2010). "Rostker v. Goldberg: The Uneven Development of the Equal Protection Doctrine in Military Affairs". Golden Gate University Law Review. Women's Law Forum. 12 (3). Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Once the combat issue is put in proper perspective and the evidence of women's recognized ability to perform military functions is assessed, it becomes apparent that an exclusion of women from a draft registration requirement would be the product of the archaic notion that women must remain 'as the center of home and family.' One court apparently recognized as much about the Congress which enacted the prior draft law. In upholding that law's exclusion of women, the court stated: 'In providing for involuntary service for men and voluntary service for women, Congress followed the teachings of history that if a nation is to survive, men must provide the first line of defense while women keep the home fires burning.' At one time judicially accepted, such romantically paternalistic underpinnings of sex-based classifications are intolerable under current equal protection doctrine. Overbroad generalizations concerning one sex or the other no longer can [ sic] used to substitute for a functional, gender-neutral means of distinguishing between the physically unfit and the able bodied. The paternalistic attitude inherent in exclusion of women from past draft registration requirements not only relieved women of the burden of military service, it also deprived them of one of the hallmarks of citizenship. Until women and men share both the rights and the obligations of citizenship, they will not be equal.{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) ( help); line feed character in|title=
at position 47 ( help)
I've done a bit of housekeeping, mostly rearranging things so that the sections follow some logical order, and so there isn't a gigantic list in the middle of the article. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I removed the following sentences from the "draft dodging" section under the US. It may be repurposed elsewhere so I don't want to throw it away, but I can't really see somewhere to stick it right now, and it's unsourced anyway. The entire section save this portion is about the US, so it seems better suited to a sub-section under the US than a general section on draft dodging that has 95% of it's coverage about the US. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 01:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The Central Asian Revolt started in the summer of 1916, when the Russian Empire government ended its exemption of Muslims from military service. The conscription also became unpopular in Grand Duchy of Finland during the reign of Nicholas II and was suspended; instead Finland paid a levy tax, "military millions" as compensation for abolition of conscription.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Timothyjosephwood (
talk) and here's the world fact book
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/er.html 07:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)The article claims No, although conscription exists legally, in practice total objectors have not been punished since 2011. The Norwegian Military claims they now have conscription for women. [20] How is that possible if Norway doesn't have conscription? Norway also has subscription for their Civil Defence forces. And they do get punished [21]. We do need to make a phrase that informs that many manage to avoid the service. But Norway has conscription, nevertheless. Please argue for keeping the text as it is. If no response, I will change it. Vbakke ( talk) 12:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Norway has conscription, according to this article ( http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2013/01/12/flere-ungdommer-soeker-fritak-fra-foerstegangstjeneste) 10 % of applications to be exempted from service were denied in 2013 (post removal of alternative service). Conscientious objection is not the only grounds for exemption, but it seems unlikely that none of the denied applications were for this reason. In any case, you have to apply to be exempted from service, which makes it conscription, and not all applications are accepted, which means that it is not de facto abolished. 85.166.127.45 ( talk) 20:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I removed this discussion from the third opinion noticeboard because it is a dispute between more than two editors. Consider the dispute resolution noticeboard. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope the current version is acceptable (If not, we should do it like for Burma and Indonesia.) Note that the earlier comments by other editors all disagreed with you. 85.166.25.161 ( talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This debate is going nowhere, you can't have arbitary numbers for total objectors as a mark of whether conscription "exists" or not, where would you set the limit? 100 objectors? A thousand? Ten thousand? The fact is that conscription is written in our constitution and still enforced to this day - and has even been expanded for women. During the selection process you can absolutely get forced to sign up for a year in the armed forces after high school, I stand as a proof to that, and as do many of my other friends who didn't want to but still had no other choice. It's not voluntarily, even if some gets to dodge it. This is parallel to C-papers in Finland, where also many other manage to dodge it. As long as people get forced to serve, and the conscription institution is protected by law - the country does have conscription. See here and here. EpsonNokidding ( talk) 10:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
As several of the previous editors have remarked, there seem to be a lot of errors or dubious decisions in the classification of individual countries in this article and its accompanying main graphic. Moreover, these errors seems to have a definite bias toward claiming, on any available pretext, that conscription is rare. Some of the many examples include:
At this point, for roughly 50% of the entries that I have checked in detail, the map is either misleading or definitely wrong!! -- 202.63.39.58 ( talk) 16:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Conscription. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)