
Ask HN: Would you participate if there were a draft in your country? - classicsnoot
This question is aimed largely at Americans, males, and tech folk, due to my country of residence, but i believe it has far reaching implications for all citizens of N. America and Europe.<p>The Story:
Pretend the world stands on the edge of massive conflict.It has been 100 years since the last time this situation occurred, and all the theorists and politicians and bankers say it is impossible, so you continue to focus on your job and&#x2F;or education when Boom! Another airliner is brought down, this time on camera. Gleeful partisans cheer and hold up abused teddy bears soaked in jet fuel. Every news agency starts spewing jingo like it is a game. Suddenly, the EU shuts down the Eastern flank of fortress Europe. The US shifts half of its Navy to either ocean. The 180000 plus soldiers in Central Europe go on to the frontline. bIn the US, roughly 2.5 million jobs need to be filled to balance the shift in forces after all reserves and Guards are called up. Europe&#x27;s long vacation is over; the US troops that have for so long enabled European governments to spend money on healthcare are now just a thin, semipermeable membrane between Russia and their safe, little garden. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Denmark, Germany, Holland, France, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Canada, the US: if you are in one of these countries, and you get a notice, would you serve or object?<p>If you are in the Rodina or any of the loyal slavic satellites, would you join, serve, or object?<p>I know this disregards a huge chunk of the human family. My apologies.<p>I would object in the US, and volunteer in either Ukraine, Denmark, or Germany. I would try to get a tech&#x2F;recon position. I would try to emigrate to Denmark when it was all said and done, if it ends and if there is a Denmark.
======
peteretep

        > the US troops that have for so long enabled European
        > governments to spend money on healthcare are now just a
        > thin, semipermeable membrane between Russia and their
        > safe, little garden
    

You realize Europeans spend _less_ on healthcare than Americans do, right?

Also:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#French_withdrawal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#French_withdrawal)
plus
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France)

Also: France, Germany, UK and Italy spend as much combined as China does,
ignoring the rest of the European countries.

Also: your fantasy that European healthcare can be afforded due to American
military spending is offensive, wrong, and appears to be a bewildered reaction
to "How are we the only rich country who have screwed up our healthcare
provision so badly?"

~~~
classicsnoot
very cute. your numbers are interesting. if you read your history, you will
see that a certain coal mining consortium in the '60s and '70s decided to
leverage an abiding presence of foreign troops into providing massive social
programs for their citizenry despite the crippling effects of a huge, costly
war. I said healthcare, but the reality is also roads, bridges, buried power
lines, etc. By not having to fund standing armies, the governments of Europe
were free to do a lot that i wish my country did for us.

I'd say sorry you were offended, but i find your frustration comical, so i
guess i will say thank you instead.

~~~
peteretep
I realize that Wikipedia is some kind of socialist conspiracy plot, but:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

And the standing army thing is ... odd. Related:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel)

~~~
classicsnoot
God i hope so. At least someone is winning on the intellectual team.

As i see it happening, if there was a land war it would be fast and
devastating in a very pointed way. Arguably suicidal incursions into city
centers by specops chaps and gung ho paramilitary types using drones and wire
cutters and wearing all manor of different uniform or guise. Then it is the
blitz. This advance must occur before and effective air assault can be made.

All this to say it would go from peace to war in a matter of minutes to hours
depending on your position. I don't see the Army of the Union responding very
well to that.

This is all off topic really though, because i am more interested on the
perspective of life through the war. That is why i asked. My answer changes
like the wind.

So, what would you do?

------
dragonwriter
> Europe's long vacation is over; the US troops that have for so long enabled
> European governments to spend money on healthcare

Every OECD country, and probably every country in Europe outside of the OECD,
as well, spends less -- and this is true whether in total, per capita, or per
GDP -- than the US on healthcare, because they have systems that are more
efficient than the system in the US.

------
bmelton
As I'm barely out of draft eligible age (over 35), I don't have to worry about
it.

That said, I very much believe that 1) the US would quickly fill its 2.5
million troops needed, but also that 2) we wouldn't ever really need them.

To point 1) our military force is already insanely large, to the point that
military recruiters turn away (or at least, don't rabidly pursue) recruits
that aren't supremely eligible. They could _probably_ get half of the 2.5
million needed just by calling back would-be recruits that are 'on ice',
meaning, they're passively being recruited, but there are more qualified
applicants ahead of them, so the US just keeps them in contract limbo.

To point 2) the US military is large. It would take China actively recruiting
(or secretly expanding) their eligible-for-service and rapidly training them
before there was even a real potential for being outmanned.

That said, if China were 'fully engaged' they've got ~600 million persons
eligible for service[1], and could likely overwhelm the US in a full on
assault, if that was their only objective.

This is a fun (though perhaps dated) military force comparison chart that
illustrates overall, potential and other types of manpower available to
nations: [1] - [http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-
comparison.asp](http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison.asp)

~~~
classicsnoot
oh, also, given the expanded capability of remote control warfare and
logistics, a government could conceivably push the edge of eligibility to at
least 50, maybe higher.

I would also make the argument that all humans are cousins, meaning we are all
one family, meaning a draft in any or all countries is a big deal, but i bet i
would be called crazy.

~~~
bmelton
You make a salient point with the invention of the remote drone, but if I'm
betting on it, I'd wager the bigger worry is them taking the draft age DOWN to
tap into that primo gamer demographic.

~~~
classicsnoot
Holy shit, hide the children, the government is after their thumbs.

So would you do your 2 years Social Service or hide/ignore or leave?

~~~
bmelton
It would depend on a rather lot. I hate to be "THAT GUY", where the answer to
a hypothetical is always more and more questions, but if it were right now,
I'd have a hard time supporting American imperialism more than I already do
with my taxes, especially as it currently seems hell bent on restricting,
removing and or curtailing my individual rights.

Our foreign policy has been, to put it gently, sloppy of late, and I have a
hard time imagining that the kind of response you're describing as necessary
isn't going to be seen historically as a "gross overreaction".

So, the best I can answer at this point is "unlikely".

------
lotsofmangos
No. I disagree with military draft for several reasons, not least that it
tends to produce a belligerent force of malcontents that are much more likely
to really fuck things up.

Also, is there really any point in being cannon fodder in a nuke fight?

Besides, I think your analysis is a bit mental.

 _US troops that have for so long enabled European governments to spend money
on healthcare_

The US government spent more on healthcare per citizen that the European
governments do, even during the Bush years. You then spend a shit-ton more
privately. It isn't the existence of US troops that enable European
governments to provide healthcare. Providing healthcare this way is just
cheaper overall.

~~~
classicsnoot
I see your point, but i am not so sure you understand how expensive force
maintenance really is. Healthcare is just one cost, as well as training,
logistics, etc. By not having to maintain a standing army, there is a huge
amount of available capital to spend on whatever.

I think it is a good thing, by the by, i just wish more Eurofolk were aware of
how intertwined our countries are. Often times, it feels as if all that ever
gets talked about is the 'bad' the US does, and the loudest tend to be the
biggest beneficiaries of the 'evil' empire.

~~~
lotsofmangos
You have no idea what you are talking about in the slightest. The EU maintains
several standing armies and has around 100,000 more active serving personnel
than the US does.

~~~
classicsnoot
Typed huge response. Thought better of it. You may be right, but i do not
think you are.

~~~
lotsofmangos
Here, I know it is from wikipedia which is a crap source, but the numbers are
referenced:

US active serving personnel - 1,369,532
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces)

EU active serving personnel - 1,453,028
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union)

edit - one thing to keep in mind is that although US expenditure is 2.5 times
larger than the EU, much of that historically was spent on weapons rather than
troops as it was directed towards trying to bankrupt the USSR by the meta-game
of convincing them to play the game of arsenal oneupmanship, while having
deeper pockets.

------
rudimk
You know, you could write a pretty decent novel with this train of thought.

~~~
classicsnoot
The Fourth World War: A Retrospective

or

Losing Humanity

or

我們贏了

------
sehr
_I would object in the US, and volunteer in either Ukraine, Denmark, or
Germany._

Why?

I feel like at that point, any objections to serving under the Evil Empire
would be supplanted by the greater possibility of winning, and thus surviving
under them.

~~~
classicsnoot
I do not believe in good and evil. I do believe that Denmark kicks ass, and i
believe that free* thought and liberal socialism is worth fighting for.

Also, Denmark.

------
classicsnoot
Edit: the 'healthcare' comment was asinine. I wish i had said shift the
majority of their budgets to conflict logistics. Sorry, emotional ameribro.

