It's very weird that a video on this topic fails to mention Israel, who despite what you might think of its actions, is a very interesting case of compulsory service.
I wonder if mandatory services make people more hawkish while voting because they were indoctrinated even further. Or if people would vote for more moderate parties because they are the ones who would end up fighting in a potential conflict.
@@chefnycOr it could be that they're surrounded by hostile forces? No matter what you think about the legitimacy of Israel as a state this is more than enough reason to have compulsory conscriptions without an ulterior motive.
Conscription works well in nations like Israel (Sweden, Switzerland). Many people talk a lot of nonsense about the intent of America's Second Amendment. Israel is the perfect modern example of what the founding fathers were addressing with that amendment. Their citizen militia mirrored exactly these modern examples.
I’m an Aussie and was conscripted back in 1967 and subsequently did a tour in Vietnam. Now whilst I have some issues as a result, I have always felt that it instilled a sense of self confidence and discipline in those that went through the program, inc myself. I have no regrets!
6:54 What a stupid take, especially what comes to Sweden and Finland. We only need to consider the security situation at the Baltic Sea for a second or two before realizing that Finland and Sweden do not have any other realistic option than the conscription for their security concerns. "Kasakka ottaa kaiken, mitkä lähtee irti". A Cossack will take everything that is loose. -Sauli Niinistö, ex president of Finland
@@fleshreap if the russians had this much trouble with poor, corrupt, dysfunctional Ukraine, how would they go against Finland or Sweden? countires that have been preparing since ww2. the western world loves your countries you would get so much support. my guess is that you wouldnt be catching finns every couple of weeks with 30-40 million in embezzled money from the ammo fund or foreign fighters finding out that half their pay has to go to their finnish officers. and now your in nato. although giving up your neutrality was a bad thing imo. i actually thought just a regional scandinavian/baltic alliance would have done the trick.
One acronym for you: N.A.T.O.. Geopolitical threats to Finlands interests in the Baltic are different than the nation being "in imidiate danger", which its not because of its N.A.T.O membership as of 2023.
@@harrisontull8377Finnish and Swedish accession to NATO strengthened the alliance, even so the threat in the east is real and existential, which requires ability to fully mobilise the local societies. What a dumb take to say no threat anymore because a piece of paper exists that says article 5 might be triggered.
As a person who spent almost ten years in the Canadian military, a volunteer force BTW, I can say that it was always comforting to know that the guy on my left or right wasn't forced to be there and when SHTF wouldn't run at the first opportunity.
Pretty weird video. China, Russia, Turkey and Israel also use conscription, these are among the largest militaries in the world but never mentioned in this video. And video never answered the question it asked: So is conscription a good idea or not?? Sorry but nobody cares if conscription damaging Syria's economy as country spent last decade in civil war. Its also pretty pointless to debate if DR Congo or Eritrea's economy is harmed by conscription or not, they are already failed states with failed economies even if they didn't have a standing army. Finally, some of your points were "ignorant" to say the least. Single most decisive factor in Russia's failures in Ukraine was the serious lack of manpower. And that was because Russia's laws prohibited use of conscripts outside of territory of Russia. Had Russia used its conscripts in day#1, they would have overwhelmed Ukraine like 3 to 1 in manpower, and Ukraine probably never would have saw any hope of resistance. Since Russia didn't, mobilised Ukraine outnumbered Russia like ~2.5 to 1 and made very successful counter offensives in the beginning, despite critically lacking in armor and airpower. When Russia also called partial mobilisation, troop ratio was like 1 to 1 and slowly shifting into Russia's favor every day; so does the movement of the front. All of this alone should have taken 5 minutes of this video. Because it proves a) yes manpower is still very, very important in modern battlefield. b) conscripts and mobilisations CAN provide serious manpower c) its difficult to legally and tactically utilize conscripts.
this video is actually pointless since right in beggining misses the fact that in war... numbers matter! people like to think that tech will replace people... its not the case... as a countrie gets destroyed... there goes the tech! we can look at ukraine with all the EU and USA support and see whats happening... even if suddently it gets all the equippement it needs... it will run out of people to use them.
You are completely wrong about Ukraine. Russia did not intend to overpower Ukraine because of family and cultural ties. Peace was already negotiated in February 2022 before Boris Johnson arrived and ended it. Ukraine had no successful counter offensive and no real victories. It has total control of Donbass and complete exhausted Ukrainian military. The only reason why the war continues because the West keeps sending mercenaries and equipment.
@@RICARDORIC-hz4rnuntil we build cheap, autonomous robots, we cannot replace people with tech alone. Drones are a great start, but ground tech still runs into problems due to terrain in general.
There are two big problems with comparing veteran with non-veteran households, at first blush: 1) Because the Armed Forces are over 80% male, so veteran households, by definition, have men in them. Not a lot of single mother veteran households, for example. 2) Armed Forces have recruitment standards. This means that people with severe handicaps are automatically excluded from your cohort. This also militates against conditions which are highly correlated with poverty.
And the people with limiting service is that in case of conventional war with a peer or neer peer is that high losses are inevitable and that means needing a large pool of recruits
Norway does not have mandatory conscription. We used to have it for men, but today they only takes about 1/3 of young people (of both genders). If you dont want to, you just say that you dont want to and they will not ask you to serve
Damn here in Sweden they are rapidly increasing how many they bring in each year, when I became 18 and was done with school at 19 they called around 1/3 of both genders as they wait until your done w school but as I said their goal seems to be around or close to 100% of men at least when women is much more voluntary. They don’t really give us a choice here if your a man while they do ask how much you wanna do it from 0 to 10 even if you pick 0 they can and will probably pick you and if you refuse then it’s a fat fine or serve time if sever enough. I have a couple of friends who didn’t wanna do it but didn’t have a choice but if you are willing to lie then you can quite easily say you used to be suicidal or have/ had stomach problems when talking to the mandatory psychiatrist and they will probably kick you out right away
0:25 technically Brazil has mandatory military service, it should be painted on that picture. All men when they reach 18 years old have to apply, just do the paperwork. And then it comes the day when you "swear on the flag", when 90+% of candidates are dismissed, so it usually ends here for everyone. If one is actually interested in joining the army (or if he's unlucky enough), the candidate goes to some rounds of medical checks when they dismiss more people, and only then the few that remain are accepted into the military. So it's kind of mandatory, but more of a rite of passage than actually military service.
@@Zaftrabuda It is true that not everyone serves, but the main reason for that is lack of resources. Military enlisting is mandatory for brazillian males above 18 years old. People who are dismissed fall into the category of "excessive contingent", which is just a fancy way of saying "we either don't need more people or it's too expensive to maintain more active duty personel". In times of war, however, there wouldn't be a need for new legislation in order to mobilise the country. Also, if you enlist and you are selected to serve, it's not like you can deny it. That would be desertion. So for all effects and purposes, yes, there is mandatory military service in Brazil.
Universal national service requirements make a great deal of sense, as long as they are not exclusively military, exclusively male, and don't make unnecessary and potentially controversial exceptions for special interest groups. Minimal defense-oriented training, along with other public service provision, and (hopefully benevolent) training in social responsibilities can be very valuable contributors to healthy societies. Public service and productivity are definitely _not_ mutually exclusive.
But that's too smart and beneficial to the individual and greater nation. Gotta remember we need the GDP line to go up and shareholders pockets to get deeper!!
Not if you're a volunteer Serviceman who has to deal with droves of unmotivated and incompetent slaves... errr.. I mean conscripts. No thanks. If you wanna give citizens training then do it. For free. When it's convenient for their schedules.
@@tnatstrat7495 Not sure why you would assume someone in charge of trainees, or the trainees themselves, would be unpaid. Perhaps they are in some nations that I haven't heard of, but I don't advocate for that. And service is compulsory because it is a duty, and essential training, not a life choice. People would be trained young, when they are less likely to have scheduling conflicts. I'm sure it would be integrated with schooling. And if you are a "ServiceMaster" you are paid for your ability to motivate people, pretty much exclusively, so if you find that distasteful, you probably should choose another career path.
@@tnatstrat7495 As I said it shouldn't be exclusively military, although in a small nation under military threat, some minimal military training for all may be necessary. But there would be service options to benefit the community in civilian capacities. And I would hope that the work involved would be directed toward addressing neglected yet important issues. Unless your nation has no neglected issues, in which case you can give it a pass.
In Israel our army trains future entrepreneurs in many cases: leadership, cyber security, engineering, programming, defense, etc. It becomes a hyper educational track. Weird it isn't mentioned one in the video
Finland and Sweden just joined nato because they have a threat and historically have had the same threat for the long haul. They maintain mandatory military service because that threat has never gone away.
+: pretty good deterrent. +: very democratic, the soldiers are the people. +: educational, large portions of population has basic first-aid, gun safety, out-doors skills. +: more informed public opinion on military matters. +: cheap for tax-payer, soldiers get payed very little. -: soldiers get payed very little. -: conscripts generally make worse soldiers. -: limited ROI on training / cutting corners on training to save money. -: opportunity cost, people could be doing something more useful. -: students who do military service before attending university, generally do worse academically than those who did not have a "gap year" (controversial)
Rich countries that practice conscription are often neutral, or share a border with a geopolitical advisory. Finland, up until recently, is a good example. Their militaries are fundamentally defensive and are structured to oppose an invasion. However, it isn't practical for them to maintain a standing military with that capability. The purpose of conscription in these countries is primarily training. It provides them with a large pool of military-trained civilians who can be mobilized virtually overnight in a scenario when they wouldn't have months necessary to train them to the same standard from scratch. Ukraine is a good example of this model being successful in practice. Regardless of the final outcome it was a crucial part of their ability to raise their forces in the first weeks.
The problem is that war has *_not changed in the slightest_* regarding what sort of military is better. A professional army gets wrecked in the industrial era, so you must conscript the population to shore up that shortfall. Basically, a decent conscript army is miles ahead of a decent professional army, primarily because they can replace their losses while a professional army *_CAN'T._*
I was in the military and have thought about this for a while. I think civil service should be compulsory, but not necessarily military service. I met and became friends with people who gave me a different perspective outside the bubble I grew up in and it gave me a broader perspective about my country and the issues facing different groups of people. I think that having the option to join a civil service that works on infrastructure or a branch of the military for 2 years would be sufficient, and the incentive (at least in the US) should be free education for the length of service since our government already massively subsidizes higher education. If you want a full free education, you could extend to 4 years (or 5 if you want to do a masters program). I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this.
Agree, in richer countries, the psychological and social benefits are a healthy boost that outweighs (or drives into irrelevance) the brief removal from "productive economic output". In poorer countries I doubt it has the same effect, possibly even entrenching corrupt tribal and political power.
This is an important insight to promote. Many aspects of compulsory military service which are cited as positives could also be said about compulsory civil service. As an American, I went through a phase of disagreeing with basically every major political decision about what to do with our military for a period of nearly 2 decades. It would have been difficult for me to ethically square my political opposition to the military's use with my forced direct participation in it. I think that really soured my outlook on compulsory service. However, not all forms of service to one's nation is military in nature. I can see how requiring compulsory civil service would assist in nation-building efforts without forcing conscientious objectors and other persons of that like to participate actively and directly in a system whose use they oppose.
As an American who was in the military I support some sort mandatory service. I do believe there should an alternative for contentious objectors, though.
Maybe suburbs and schools should be designed to reduce bubbles. Eg put public housing in the wealthy suburbs Eg2 force children in private schools to do one random year in a public (government funded school) Eg3 send kids in religious schools to spend at least 1 year in a school of a different religion and 1 year in a public school Eg4 make a visa condition of where immigrants can live so that ethnicities are spread out Etc…
That's how it works in Switzerland. You can either do military or some sort of public service where you help elderly people or maintain mountain roads etc. Knowing people with completely different backgrounds actually is really something we find contributes a lot to social stability and one of the positives of this system. I can't tell you if it's an optimal solution because it often feels like wasted time and it's a love hate relationship but it seems to work compartively well.
I think mandatory military service is a good idea for a small minority of countries. Basically those with a small active volunteer military (generally because of a small population but can be for other reasons) and a credible neighbouring threat to their sovereignty. In those cases you may need as many of your citizens as reservists as possible so you can basically mobilise your entire country at practically a moments notice to fight a defensive war. Somewhere like Finland, it makes sense, they check both boxes. South Korea does too to some extent.
Good to see that you guys have caught on that the sense of familiarity on the voice over is what's making these videos successful, similar to how Simon Whistler is now narrating for multiple, relatively successful channels
Ww1 proved that conscription was very dangerous. It got so bad that many conscripts were poorly trained and thrown into the front lines with out adequate preparation.
I think in America, obese youths would benefit from compulsory military service. I think it could have potential life-long benefits, improved life expectancy, decreased healthcare cost, increased productivity, on top of improved confidence, discipline, knowledge and skills.
A tax on unhealthy ingredients (eg white flour, white sugar) and unhealthy food items could have the same result. Especially if combined with higher minimum payments (be it aged pension, unemployment benefits or minimum wage), do people can afford better food. And then add a higher tax when someone works over x number of hours a week (so essentially force people to have time off to sleep and exercise). Then make gyms and exercise equipment tax deductible up to a maximum redemption value.
Military service would not fix that, maybe it would help some people who are not in best shape but it would not fix the issue with the obesity, you would have to completely rethink and redesign whole PE since kindergarten, into something like the program the USA had in 60's and 70's. There is some old video about that program uploaded on the youtube.
For a channel called “context matters” I was surprised Israel wasn’t mentioned. They have a 3 year conscription for men, while 2 years for women. I know they are trying to change that to make them equal, and would be interesting how that 1 year gap changes the workforce/economy
From the perspective of a Swiss guy going on 50, 15 years thereof as a reservist, 3 years active duty in the Balkan, today living in Canada: + conscription gives the military a mirror of society with preexisting skill sets, thus cheaper to train. - conscription takes younger men out of the work force, thus some compensation from the government to employers raises the cost. + comradery, in the old days, military service was considered an asset. - comradery, today, it's more of a nuisance, and international corporations, especially woke organizations, struggle with it, the absences for training, the mind set, the discipline, the top down approach etc + free training of life and survival skills - you can get dirty, mama is not there to help you, you may die on the job. + gets under performers up to speed - keeps them in the loop and lowers the overall score. Sadly, if you follow the discussion of Belgium e.g. who abandoned conscription to a large extent, it's often the bottom of the barrel that chooses the military. + Born and bred locally plus conscription is a strong motivation to defend your place. - with mass migration this motivation is gone. - with more and more specialized equipment, more training is required thus a tendency towards a smaller but full time pro army. Many of these finer points are sadly missing in this video. Personally, I learned a lot, don't regret my service, but feel awkward in today's geopolitical environment. The old school type days are gone...
Look, if you like the military environment, fine, go with it! But many people are not suited for that harsh environment, and that includes a lot of young men. I hope you aren't a kind of conservative person who wants men to be tough, but even if you are such a person, you shouldn't be stupid enough to ask for the government to force your ideology on other people!
@@amirhosseinhosseinzadeh7627 It's not like that at all. First of all in Switzerland this is decided throug popular votes... We have a half direct democracy. Second you can do civil service and help elderly people etc. or just pay as well. There's also a psychological assessment as well. Also if anything the environment is more stupid than it is toxic...
Most of the time spent in college is simply about “proving” youll perform obedience and busy work so potential employers can then justify hiring you. Most people remember little of what they learned in college, if they learned anything at all. Particularly in soft sciences, college doesnt “prepare” anyone in a way they couldnt have prepared on their own. So shifting people from college to the military would have negligible consequences economically IMO, and potentially a lot of benefits for young people and society in general.
I don't know man. I work in infrastructure and I routinely use knowledge from university and books. I don't think an uneducated person could do my job unless they were a foreman with years of experience in my industry.
@@willofdodge1 That is perhaps because he mentioned "soft science" and because arch is still arch, but then you have other fields that either go through rapid development, that can be case of IT where plenty of lectures given 10 years ago are already bit outdated, and some were outdated a decade ago already, but some are not, yet how many programmers will use knowledge of processor's inner workings on daily basis or at least once a year? (And it they perhaps have to study the chip they will be using in their system)
It makes a big difference if the student is a competent or hardcore learner or not. If you are talking about an engineering student, it depends on what kind of engineering student you have in mind. An automotive engineer might make it through easily enough with little of what they may have learned in college because of their vast hands on work they must work on. A biomedical engineer however must know their anatomy, biology, physics, chemistry, bio materials, statics, theoretical, etc etc before they are going to tackle something like tissue engineering, implants, inventing or improving surgical practices, etc etc. There must be a better layout for when someone wants to choose to become military and otherwise. Like, instead of the U.S. DoD overshadowing the National Guard units the recruiters could focus on promoting it as a bettering your nation by serving your nation kind of memo. Since National Guard deals with domestic emergencies, overseas combat missions, counterdrug efforts, reconstruction missions (taken from the Nat. Guard mission), etc from recovering places from gigantic national disasters to help setting up refugee or medical tents, it would be fitting to promote the National Guard as a conscientious custodian of the U.S.
College teaches critical thinking. Military service teaches blind obedience. I know which one I want more in people I interact with, and it's not the latter one.
As a person living in Switzerland, I wanted to add that Switzerland is a very neutral nation. And by that I mean, they are ready for a war to always break out. Hundreds of bunkers just waiting to be in service again, and the majority of the nation trained in military. This tradition is seen with national pride. And because we in relative peace, there is almost no danger. But most of the time, Switzerland wants to be as much of a hassle to invade as possible in order to stop people from trying.
I just want to say Eritrea as the worst example of conscription being used in a bad way for the economy is truly tragic. I'm American and have grown up with lots of Eritreans (technically their Eritrean American kids), who have had to flee to the US because of Isaias's terrible regime. I'm currently in college majoring in econ and one of my econ professors this year is Eritrean, he even fought in the war for Eritrea's independence against the Derg (communist government of Ethiopia), he truly loves his country. He is also a brilliant economist (while a PoW in Ethiopia, he scored the highest anyone has ever scored in a nationwide test, I think in high school, despite his education at the time literally being fighting a war and being in prison), and in a more free Eritrea he would be such an incredible resource to the country. But instead he's in the US, teaching American students, with no ability to do much to help Eritrea and instead having to watch his beloved country be so incredibly mismanaged. Eritreans are incredible people, under a better government they could make such a great country, and it's so sad to me that instead they have a government which is often compared to North Korea, but in reality that comparison is pretty generous to Eritrea's government. I admittedly only know ones who have moved to the US, but I have never met a single Eritrean who does not despise Isaias Afweki, other than children who don't know about him.
It is immoral to use force on someone. And none the less to force someone to fight for wars they don’t willingly want to. Which would basically make them a slave So no I wouldn’t say there is any perceivable amount of “good” here at all Who is John galt?
I'd say conscription works well in Finland. Its 6 months - 1 year and like 1/5th get some sort of leadership training and some get to go into reserve officer school. Many CEOs and even politicians have gone to reserve officer school as where else can you get to lead 30 people at the age of 20. Many tasks in military also give good training for a future job. You can get trucking license, heavy machinery repair experience, first aid experience and so on. Also it forges connections as you get to meet people your age from all flocks of life and often see them in the future too.
A benefit of mandatory military service is physical. Learning to eat right, exercise, and be fit and healthy is a new experience for many and has long-term societal benefits. This also provides an opportunity for discipline, as in how to take care of oneself, that is lacking in many areas of the world. And from my point of view, this also provides recruits the ability to step away from so many eye hours in front of a video screen. Honestly, I see so much benefit to mandatory service done right (emphasis there) that I think it should be thought of everywhere.
@@fleshreapWhere did you serve? Most people I know easily added 200-300m to their cooper score. Not to mention all the marching with full kit. If you're already an athlete the military wont make you that much more fit, unless you workout on free time, but for the average person it makes a huge difference.
@@cooly2165 just looked it up and according to the data they gather based on initial test vs test at the end of service, the avg cooper improvement is around 100m. Must say even that is slightly more than I expected it to be.
@@fleshreap I'd say the Finnish are already pretty fit on average. Now think of Americans... Then Mexicans, Hungarians, and more...(the 2nd and 3rd "chubbiest" countries according to my memory) Fitness is very good for youth!
Honestly this is most BS excuse for defending military service! The government has no right to forcely discipline people, especially if it is only being forced on men!
Where the hell is the obvious example of Israel? A country with three years compulsory service for man and woman and reserve until the age of 45 and even so, the 19th richest country per capita on earth.
Hi, I like listening to your videos guys. Much appreciated! Kind of surprised to hear Michael’s voice though. But since Michael’s voice is so charismatic I still enjoyed!
Men Men Men Men. It’s all men saving the world again. Women draft should be the same as men. And especially if you’re a feminist then you should be advocating not only for equal rights but also understand to face equal duties.
@@jaber5345 check what is the role and the duration of service for israelian women vs men. They are employed in backbone roles, not on the frontline. Men serve 3 years, women 2 years.
@theb1z0n It's face to say that Isreal does it better than most countries, but yeah it's still discriminatory against men. I'm a feminist and I don't support conscription, however if there is going to be forced military service, discriminating against men is horrible
Israeli here, I can say from experience that your take is very wrong. Our military wouldn't be as strong as it is today if it was made only by volunteers.
@@idaniluz652 If the Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be peace in the Middle East. If the Israelis laid down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.
Poor countries conscript because it’s a good way to maintain a force and some unity. Rich countries with good wealth distribution conscript because good paying jobs are plentiful and people are unlikely to choose service. Middling countries in terms of wealth distribution aren’t going to conscript because the military is an economically advantageous career for many people.
South Korea could conscript women too instead of complaining about not knowing how to level the playing field 🤷♀️ Or you know: making more uni spots, or military universities, better job markets...
Wow I have heard of South Korea's massive political gender divide, I had never considered that one possible explanatory factor could be that men are forced to serve in the military while women aren't. I wonder if the (presumably less extreme) effects that conscription has on society in other countries that employ it could have some tangible impact as well. Like maybe in societies that aren't so extreme for conscription-aged people, there might be some impact on the culture that conscription has whoch might actually be beneficial to the economy, helping to explain why a slightly disproportionate number of countries with conscription are rich
Because the military says conscription hurts overall readiness, I'm opposed to military conscription. Mandatory civil service, on the other hand, could provide great benefits to society. Mainly in the area of improving national esprit de corps.
not really it would probably just make the incidents of suidice by police go up and people going bezerk with both guns and knives go up as well! if your population is so shit millitary like conscription is required to staff a 7 elven im dying in a firefight with cops thanks!
Luckily my country abolished its conscription after the last war. Wish all countries would do so. Forcing people to do what they don't want to do is bad. If not enough people sign up voluntarily, then make better benefits and pay.
As a retired college professor, I can say I saw a marked difference in academic performance between those who did some military or community service and those who came straight from high school. Years ago the college did a study on the net effect of those with service on academic performance as measured by students’ grade point average and graduation rates and found a statistical difference. This may also be a comment on the relatively poor job high schools are doing preparing students for the "real" world.
Mandatory military service is its own double edged sword. However good it may be you really have to be cautious of the intent of making people work in the military. Most people won't join wars right now due to constant lying. Mandating people join in the state of a declining nation that hates it's people makes more resentment.
I figure that the reason extremely wealthy countries have conscription policies is because nobody would volunteer for it. That's probably also true for South Korea.
Other than Switzerland and Austria, what nations do you consider the general population (not merely the autocrats at the top while most of the population lives poor) both wealthier than South Korea, and has universal military service? Most nations at or above South Korea in terms of wealth among the general population (i.e., nations where your hypothesis might apply) do NOT have enforced mandatory service, even if they have universal conscription laws on the books. They generally rely on volunteer forces. South Korea ranks 22nd in median GDP per capita (a more accurate view of how wealthy the general population is than a straight per capita GDP), below the US, UK, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, France, Japan, Italy, Spain, Denmark, etc., all of whom don't actually have mandatory military service. The "super wealthy" nations with eye popping per capita GDP who are wealthier than South Korea who have mandatory military service tend to be oil states, where the very top of the population is mind boggling wealthy, but the general population is actually poor. The one exception is Qatar (whose median per capita GDP is significantly higher than South Korea's) - but Qatar has a TINY population when you discount guest workers (who aren't conscripted) and no geographical depth to trade space for time to build and train an army. Your idea that (in general) wealthy nations need to force universal military service vecause their populations wouldn't volunteer in adequate numbers isn't backed up by the data. Quite the opposite - wealthy nations can *afford* to make military service attractive enough to meet the needs the government forsees via volunteer service (entirely or primarily).
@@geodkyt I swore I heard him say that Lichtenstein had forced conscription, but it appears I misheard him. I did check online and it says both Denmark and Norway have policies, as well as many of the Nordic countries which I always figured were pretty wealthy, but you're right. I should probably have done deeper independent research before commenting.
This was a good video, but it felt like an Economics explained video. I was hoping to see some political science theory? I understand that economics is tied into everything we do, but still was hoping for a broader context that was not economic
I agree if I had any patriotism for country. I actually just finished reading the book yesterday and it actually seem like a pretty good system. The movie was communist propaganda.
Independently, no. The US armed forces has been an all-volunteer force since '75. There is a complete lack of tribal knowledge on how to handle mandatory service, in particular, with the current generation - of which there hasn't been another like it. Further, the US has a well-entrenched and distributed organized crime problem with deep roots both in the prison system and internationally. Failing to account for those considerations is likely to spark a splintering of the Union, accelerated by tone-deaf treatment of illegal immigration, social welfare and the deepening institutionalization of what was previously an entrepreneurial population.
0:14 Crimea is a part of Ukraine, not russia. If you do want to support genosidal russian regime, then you should indicate Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine as russian too. Why stop on Crimea?
Are people doing mandatory military service still civilians? Are people who have finished mandatory military service (but technically still a countries reserve military conscripts) still civilians?
I was subject to conscription when I joined the military, but opted to enlist to have my choice of which service I would join. My choice of the Air Force had less to do with my dislike of being in the infantry and more to do with my love of aviation and wanting to serve where I felt I fit best. Conscription at that time was not popular more due to an active war in Vietnam than not wanting to be part of the military, even though only about 25% of draftees were sent there. The rest were sent to other places like Germany, Japan, Korea or the numerous other places that had a military presence, or never even left the US mainland. Most of us that came out the other end were better for having served. It provided us with skills, discipline and a sense of teamwork that benefited most in life after our service. Military service is not for everyone and shear manpower is not a ideal solution to defense needs. Recent world events have caused many countries to rethink their stand on defense and military matters. Even powerful militaries like the US are stretched pretty thin and having trouble meeting recruitment goals for the "all volunteer" military. The country where I currently live, Spain, seems to be rethinking their abolition of conscription (around 2000) because they cannot staff their forces as needed. It is controversial and by some is seen as a partial answer to very high youth unemployment (for 18-30 year-olds, 28%). I don't know if it is a good idea, and judging by the confusion and differing statements, neither does the government. All I can say is that the way the world is going forward right now, having a weak military is not a good asset. One note: Although I very much like your EE and Context Matters videos, this one seemed fairly weak, inconclusive, incomplete and missing having a point. This deserved more time and a more nuanced story.
I would like to say as a man who served in a volunteer only force. This is what I believe the general consensus amongst most professional soldiers is: (i have had several convos about this specifically) We dont want them. When I'm in the shit and get my ass absolutely blasted. The only thing I can trust is myself. My gun and my boys. If any one of those things doesn't do their job, well, we all die. I can trust them because they've done exactly what I have done. Not a single one of them was forced to be there. Conscripts are not only notoriously lazy. They also notoriously don't give a fuck. And what's that super common worksite saying "complacency kills" If you're gonna implement this type of conscription, do it in some sort of like public service sector, or you're gonna make them build roads something like that. Leave the fight to the professionals.
Unfortunately, we here in Finland don't have economy/population base to leave the fight to the professionals. I completed my year of mandatory service and I have a good image of our training and my fellow servicemen.
Yesss! I absolutely want my country to have a strong military, and that's why I want strong tough and selfless people to defend me, not some random dude who just wants to finish his service!
OP is correct, in my opinion. You want well-motivated, professional military forces staffed by people who want to be there, not resentful conscripts. My father is ex-military, and he says almost exactly the same thing.
I am getting that conscription could be a good idea if there is close a threat outside the country that has the potential to break out into an all out war.
Real point: there probably is some benefit from the social mixing, experience, and formal assessment (e.g. health, ability) from national service Snippy point: as a uni lecturer embracing grumpy middle age, many Gen Z could do with being yelled at for a year.
@@randomsomeguy156 see, it's this chronically online hyper-sensitive "you're eating a bun in your profile, what about people who can't afford buns?" egotism and inability to detect irony or sarcasm that could do with being shouted out of you
One element of economic benefits is that the health of the male population is better. In Singapore, men are still required to report for reservist service for 2 weeks a year. And they still have to maintain their fitness for the purpose of being combat ready. This goes on till the age of 40. Can any country with non-mandatory military service claim the same benefit?
I can tell how conscription work in Ukraine before war. It is basically free labor for government, or more likely a slavery, because it was so common when conscripts build something, or guard objects without any pay, and probably in best scenario only 10-15% study something connect to military.
America would be far better off having all 18 year olds volunteer two to four years to America. That could be as a teacher aide, as part of the military, medical assistants, labor for rebuilding of infrastructure, the sky is the limit. They would be paid, and that would go towards licensure in their chosen industry.
I would be more easily convinced that there is some other reason for the correlation. Especially a third factor like a wealthy nation is more likely to view universal militia service as a desirable defense strategy. But if there is a direct connection I think it has to be that the military service instills values that lead the service member to have better outcomes in the future.
You should have mentioned that the money governments spend on conscription could instead be used for higher education or some other form of government stimulus.
they could even invest the money to improve the quality of the volunteer force. whats a better in a modern war, 6 highly trained highly equipped professionals vs 30 conscripts that dont even want to be there
@@g33zer30 conscripts defending their homeland. They will have the better gear, as in professional military larger portion of the budget goes to wages.
@@Pyhantaakka wrong look at south koreas body armor no throat protector there helmets are cut like shit and honestly id take a m38 stahlhelm if i had to take shrapnel over that thing no femoral artery protection.
12mths service at 18 in 1982 in Italy wasn't a waste of time. I don't believe society was improved by its removal. It didnt make society worst - but I'd be hard pressed to be in favour of bringing it back in such a corporate landscape. If called on, I'd have taken up arms then to defend the principles the West represented during the Cold War. Today - I'm keener to let it all unravel by itself
Why is there a stock photo of Penn State University at 0:27, under "that's a lot of countries that reserve the right to potentially put their people into armed conflicts." Like, I now how strong PSU pride is, but i don't think the alumni will literally go to war for the Nitany Lions.
Conscription is good because it innstils into people not only civic values, but patriotism and an idea of what waging war is. This in turn creates a potential critical mass to call upon yo defend a country if say russia invades you. Small countries can effectively change the balance by calling up large parts of the population. The smaller country you are the more it makes sense to have it also. Norway will increase conscription by 50 %, and establish two more battalions (from only one).
You call it "Instilling civic values and patriotism" I call it indoctrination, but people seen to only think that way when it's referring to North Korea, Russia, etc. Even tho what South Korea, Ukraine and others do is the exact same. I do believe in patriotism and dying for a cause but that should only apply when you believe in it. The last thing I want to do is the biding of my standing president.
The great and very famous book StarShip Troopers explains why conscription is bad. The bottom line is that you're forcing someone to serve, If your population believes the country is worth fighting for, then they themselves should join on free will
I would wager that military conscription in countries with low gdp usully leads to an abuse of said power as jobs after conscription would be things like guards that do notmactually add anything to the economy. This means that individuals or organazations that can afford it first meet this criteria. A. Can afford to hire said indivdual meaning pay enough for there livlihood of the indivdual where the only thing given back is protection B. Need that protection in the first place.
People in military service generally get good benefits. I have a theory that government jobs tend to be military and lucrative. It's probably a combination of training, recommendations, and being put on the short list of applicants. Atleast, in here in the usa.
It's not that complicated. A country needs to generate X military power. This can be represented by a formula - soldiers, equipment, facilities, C&C, training and so on. Now poor countries can optimize this formula by adding a lot of manpower, poorly trained and equipped. Thus compulsory military service is the best for them - even if it is used as a form of slavery. For rich countries, professional people are just limited, and very expensive. The military can't compete with private jobs even in the US, even in low education levels. They can add the most modern equipment, the most sophisticated C&C, the best food, and so on, and still might not be able to generate the force they need (or want in the US' case). So, they need to augment - and this is the case when conscription comes handy. In peacetime it is a relatively small increase in cost, while in wartime a huge boost of fighting power - on the cost of economic production and, well, lives of the citizens. They don't have another way - unless they want to use immigrants who are, well, not very loyal and harder to train. So, a conscription system might be the only way for some of the rich countries to generate the force they need, like South Korea or Russia.
Invites the Ministry of Defense to stand before a televised congressional/parliamentary session and list WHO they think they’ll be fighting in the next 5 years. Then vote for if there’d be conscription for next year - every year. Also, change the conscription age to 22, so that every 18 years old gets a chance to vote at least once before he’s drafted.
This is a good idea now. However, the military service should be fair and have a clear focus like in Israel or Switzerland. Otherwise the people will not accept it.
National compulsory service is a good idea. Not necessarily military service as most places don’t need that many folks. But, a civil corps and medical corps could be very valuable, give a lifetime skill and give some pride in self and country. I personally would restart the conversation corps for rural, park, forest, land and water conservation, infrastructure and firefighting.
Many of the rich countries are rather small. So the only way to get the number is subscription. The other thing is in rich countries you have to pay the soldier a lot because the salaries are high.
The poorer countries with conscription have the potential, through outside assistance, to transition their politics to a dominant party system, the job training to civilian education, and the economy to one more akin to State-Capitalism. Liberalization might not be possible, but I would see such a shift as a positive shift.
I think the draft was primarily a good thing. Service to our country breeds patriotism and an attitude of us instead of me. The problem is that people with money or political connections were able to avoid service, witch isn't fair. College bound young people could defer, defer, defer. If those issues could be addressed, I would support a draft. Maybe a draft reserve would be a good option.
Sweden tried a period with no conscription. However, the population base was too small to have an army without conscription. With Russia's attack on Ukraine Sweden felt it needed a bigger army. Only 5 percent of the 18th year olds are conscripted. It will go up. The main reason is insurance. Why do people pay for insurance? The risk of something bad will happen.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
"With all that being said now it's time to see how well mandatory military conscription stacks up on the Economics Explained economic Leaderboard"
🤣
It's very weird that a video on this topic fails to mention Israel, who despite what you might think of its actions, is a very interesting case of compulsory service.
yea, idk why they skipped it
I wonder if mandatory services make people more hawkish while voting because they were indoctrinated even further. Or if people would vote for more moderate parties because they are the ones who would end up fighting in a potential conflict.
@@chefnycOr it could be that they're surrounded by hostile forces?
No matter what you think about the legitimacy of Israel as a state this is more than enough reason to have compulsory conscriptions without an ulterior motive.
@chefnyc In my experience, servicemen and women are conservative when it comes to war, but they do answer the call to duty faster when required.
Conscription works well in nations like Israel (Sweden, Switzerland). Many people talk a lot of nonsense about the intent of America's Second Amendment. Israel is the perfect modern example of what the founding fathers were addressing with that amendment. Their citizen militia mirrored exactly these modern examples.
Why does this seem like an economics explained vid without the leaderboard to me?
It’s the same host
@@TBT0101 even then host or not the whole video centered around economics not geopolitics it fits WAY better in the other channel
It was prolly researched by context matters team, so thats why its on this channel @1isOneshot
And yet there is very little context. Here this is all economic on the wrong channel @Erty_
I’m an Aussie and was conscripted back in 1967 and subsequently did a tour in Vietnam. Now whilst I have some issues as a result, I have always felt that it instilled a sense of self confidence and discipline in those that went through the program, inc myself. I have no regrets!
1967- what are you doing here old man? get your backpack ready maybe?
It's not ok for the government to discipline the population by force, and even if they do such a thing, it shouldn't be just for men!
@@आवारा-ज8ण You answered your own question…. He is old now and have free time, so what are you doing here maybe go get some dough and or go to school
6:54 What a stupid take, especially what comes to Sweden and Finland. We only need to consider the security situation at the Baltic Sea for a second or two before realizing that Finland and Sweden do not have any other realistic option than the conscription for their security concerns.
"Kasakka ottaa kaiken, mitkä lähtee irti". A Cossack will take everything that is loose.
-Sauli Niinistö, ex president of Finland
Apparently us Finns aren't in any realistic danger of being attacked. LOL.
This video had some weird takes.
@@fleshreap if the russians had this much trouble with poor, corrupt, dysfunctional Ukraine, how would they go against Finland or Sweden? countires that have been preparing since ww2. the western world loves your countries you would get so much support. my guess is that you wouldnt be catching finns every couple of weeks with 30-40 million in embezzled money from the ammo fund or foreign fighters finding out that half their pay has to go to their finnish officers. and now your in nato. although giving up your neutrality was a bad thing imo. i actually thought just a regional scandinavian/baltic alliance would have done the trick.
One acronym for you: N.A.T.O.. Geopolitical threats to Finlands interests in the Baltic are different than the nation being "in imidiate danger", which its not because of its N.A.T.O membership as of 2023.
ah yes because russia is a mighty military power who could surely do what they failed to do 80 years back whilst fighting a separate war
@@harrisontull8377Finnish and Swedish accession to NATO strengthened the alliance, even so the threat in the east is real and existential, which requires ability to fully mobilise the local societies. What a dumb take to say no threat anymore because a piece of paper exists that says article 5 might be triggered.
As a person who spent almost ten years in the Canadian military, a volunteer force BTW, I can say that it was always comforting to know that the guy on my left or right wasn't forced to be there and when SHTF wouldn't run at the first opportunity.
Pretty weird video. China, Russia, Turkey and Israel also use conscription, these are among the largest militaries in the world but never mentioned in this video. And video never answered the question it asked: So is conscription a good idea or not?? Sorry but nobody cares if conscription damaging Syria's economy as country spent last decade in civil war. Its also pretty pointless to debate if DR Congo or Eritrea's economy is harmed by conscription or not, they are already failed states with failed economies even if they didn't have a standing army. Finally, some of your points were "ignorant" to say the least. Single most decisive factor in Russia's failures in Ukraine was the serious lack of manpower. And that was because Russia's laws prohibited use of conscripts outside of territory of Russia. Had Russia used its conscripts in day#1, they would have overwhelmed Ukraine like 3 to 1 in manpower, and Ukraine probably never would have saw any hope of resistance. Since Russia didn't, mobilised Ukraine outnumbered Russia like ~2.5 to 1 and made very successful counter offensives in the beginning, despite critically lacking in armor and airpower. When Russia also called partial mobilisation, troop ratio was like 1 to 1 and slowly shifting into Russia's favor every day; so does the movement of the front. All of this alone should have taken 5 minutes of this video. Because it proves a) yes manpower is still very, very important in modern battlefield. b) conscripts and mobilisations CAN provide serious manpower c) its difficult to legally and tactically utilize conscripts.
this video is actually pointless since right in beggining misses the fact that in war... numbers matter! people like to think that tech will replace people... its not the case... as a countrie gets destroyed... there goes the tech! we can look at ukraine with all the EU and USA support and see whats happening... even if suddently it gets all the equippement it needs... it will run out of people to use them.
Batuhancokmar i was going to disagree with you about a factor but then i realized i'm not educated enough to argue, so good day sir
You are completely wrong about Ukraine. Russia did not intend to overpower Ukraine because of family and cultural ties. Peace was already negotiated in February 2022 before Boris Johnson arrived and ended it. Ukraine had no successful counter offensive and no real victories. It has total control of Donbass and complete exhausted Ukrainian military. The only reason why the war continues because the West keeps sending mercenaries and equipment.
Thenks from saving 13 mins of my life instead of watching this video
@@RICARDORIC-hz4rnuntil we build cheap, autonomous robots, we cannot replace people with tech alone. Drones are a great start, but ground tech still runs into problems due to terrain in general.
There are two big problems with comparing veteran with non-veteran households, at first blush: 1) Because the Armed Forces are over 80% male, so veteran households, by definition, have men in them. Not a lot of single mother veteran households, for example. 2) Armed Forces have recruitment standards. This means that people with severe handicaps are automatically excluded from your cohort. This also militates against conditions which are highly correlated with poverty.
And the people with limiting service is that in case of conventional war with a peer or neer peer is that high losses are inevitable and that means needing a large pool of recruits
80% male + 20% female = all households have male service members as the head?
How does that work?
As a young American man I’m not letting them draft me.
@Neutronism7 why fight for a dying empire that doesn't care about me?
U must sacrifice for Biden
Norway does not have mandatory conscription. We used to have it for men, but today they only takes about 1/3 of young people (of both genders). If you dont want to, you just say that you dont want to and they will not ask you to serve
Damn here in Sweden they are rapidly increasing how many they bring in each year, when I became 18 and was done with school at 19 they called around 1/3 of both genders as they wait until your done w school but as I said their goal seems to be around or close to 100% of men at least when women is much more voluntary. They don’t really give us a choice here if your a man while they do ask how much you wanna do it from 0 to 10 even if you pick 0 they can and will probably pick you and if you refuse then it’s a fat fine or serve time if sever enough. I have a couple of friends who didn’t wanna do it but didn’t have a choice but if you are willing to lie then you can quite easily say you used to be suicidal or have/ had stomach problems when talking to the mandatory psychiatrist and they will probably kick you out right away
0:25 technically Brazil has mandatory military service, it should be painted on that picture.
All men when they reach 18 years old have to apply, just do the paperwork. And then it comes the day when you "swear on the flag", when 90+% of candidates are dismissed, so it usually ends here for everyone. If one is actually interested in joining the army (or if he's unlucky enough), the candidate goes to some rounds of medical checks when they dismiss more people, and only then the few that remain are accepted into the military.
So it's kind of mandatory, but more of a rite of passage than actually military service.
That’s not military *service* tho
That's not military service.That's kind of like what the u s does where they make you sign up on a piece of paper for the draft
@@Zaftrabuda It is true that not everyone serves, but the main reason for that is lack of resources. Military enlisting is mandatory for brazillian males above 18 years old. People who are dismissed fall into the category of "excessive contingent", which is just a fancy way of saying "we either don't need more people or it's too expensive to maintain more active duty personel". In times of war, however, there wouldn't be a need for new legislation in order to mobilise the country. Also, if you enlist and you are selected to serve, it's not like you can deny it. That would be desertion. So for all effects and purposes, yes, there is mandatory military service in Brazil.
Universal national service requirements make a great deal of sense, as long as they are not exclusively military, exclusively male, and don't make unnecessary and potentially controversial exceptions for special interest groups. Minimal defense-oriented training, along with other public service provision, and (hopefully benevolent) training in social responsibilities can be very valuable contributors to healthy societies. Public service and productivity are definitely _not_ mutually exclusive.
But that's too smart and beneficial to the individual and greater nation. Gotta remember we need the GDP line to go up and shareholders pockets to get deeper!!
Not if you're a volunteer Serviceman who has to deal with droves of unmotivated and incompetent slaves... errr.. I mean conscripts.
No thanks.
If you wanna give citizens training then do it. For free. When it's convenient for their schedules.
@randomsomeguy156 All of those benefits can be provided outside of military service.
@@tnatstrat7495 Not sure why you would assume someone in charge of trainees, or the trainees themselves, would be unpaid. Perhaps they are in some nations that I haven't heard of, but I don't advocate for that. And service is compulsory because it is a duty, and essential training, not a life choice. People would be trained young, when they are less likely to have scheduling conflicts. I'm sure it would be integrated with schooling. And if you are a "ServiceMaster" you are paid for your ability to motivate people, pretty much exclusively, so if you find that distasteful, you probably should choose another career path.
@@tnatstrat7495 As I said it shouldn't be exclusively military, although in a small nation under military threat, some minimal military training for all may be necessary. But there would be service options to benefit the community in civilian capacities. And I would hope that the work involved would be directed toward addressing neglected yet important issues. Unless your nation has no neglected issues, in which case you can give it a pass.
In Israel our army trains future entrepreneurs in many cases: leadership, cyber security, engineering, programming, defense, etc. It becomes a hyper educational track. Weird it isn't mentioned one in the video
FREE PALESTINE
@@Projekt1251Official From face of the Earth
People like Cherno here are likely the primary reason why he didn't
In Israel every soldier is forced to take the poke and some of them are dropping dead.
Why? Cuz they dont accept getting their homes taken. Youre inhuman@@MissionControlTet
Finland and Sweden just joined nato because they have a threat and historically have had the same threat for the long haul. They maintain mandatory military service because that threat has never gone away.
European vassal states have conscription so that American multi billionaires can have drug fueled sex parties.
+: pretty good deterrent.
+: very democratic, the soldiers are the people.
+: educational, large portions of population has basic first-aid, gun safety, out-doors skills.
+: more informed public opinion on military matters.
+: cheap for tax-payer, soldiers get payed very little.
-: soldiers get payed very little.
-: conscripts generally make worse soldiers.
-: limited ROI on training / cutting corners on training to save money.
-: opportunity cost, people could be doing something more useful.
-: students who do military service before attending university,
generally do worse academically than those who did not have a "gap year" (controversial)
is the last one true?
@@adamelouardmichy7691 it is an argument that gets used. not sure how factual or anectotal it is
Some are needed like, for example, Israel. But countries Brazil that has a large population really dont need it
Rich countries that practice conscription are often neutral, or share a border with a geopolitical advisory. Finland, up until recently, is a good example. Their militaries are fundamentally defensive and are structured to oppose an invasion. However, it isn't practical for them to maintain a standing military with that capability. The purpose of conscription in these countries is primarily training. It provides them with a large pool of military-trained civilians who can be mobilized virtually overnight in a scenario when they wouldn't have months necessary to train them to the same standard from scratch.
Ukraine is a good example of this model being successful in practice. Regardless of the final outcome it was a crucial part of their ability to raise their forces in the first weeks.
The problem is that war has *_not changed in the slightest_* regarding what sort of military is better.
A professional army gets wrecked in the industrial era, so you must conscript the population to shore up that shortfall. Basically, a decent conscript army is miles ahead of a decent professional army, primarily because they can replace their losses while a professional army *_CAN'T._*
I was in the military and have thought about this for a while. I think civil service should be compulsory, but not necessarily military service. I met and became friends with people who gave me a different perspective outside the bubble I grew up in and it gave me a broader perspective about my country and the issues facing different groups of people. I think that having the option to join a civil service that works on infrastructure or a branch of the military for 2 years would be sufficient, and the incentive (at least in the US) should be free education for the length of service since our government already massively subsidizes higher education. If you want a full free education, you could extend to 4 years (or 5 if you want to do a masters program). I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this.
Agree, in richer countries, the psychological and social benefits are a healthy boost that outweighs (or drives into irrelevance) the brief removal from "productive economic output". In poorer countries I doubt it has the same effect, possibly even entrenching corrupt tribal and political power.
This is an important insight to promote. Many aspects of compulsory military service which are cited as positives could also be said about compulsory civil service.
As an American, I went through a phase of disagreeing with basically every major political decision about what to do with our military for a period of nearly 2 decades. It would have been difficult for me to ethically square my political opposition to the military's use with my forced direct participation in it. I think that really soured my outlook on compulsory service.
However, not all forms of service to one's nation is military in nature. I can see how requiring compulsory civil service would assist in nation-building efforts without forcing conscientious objectors and other persons of that like to participate actively and directly in a system whose use they oppose.
As an American who was in the military I support some sort mandatory service. I do believe there should an alternative for contentious objectors, though.
Maybe suburbs and schools should be designed to reduce bubbles.
Eg put public housing in the wealthy suburbs
Eg2 force children in private schools to do one random year in a public (government funded school)
Eg3 send kids in religious schools to spend at least 1 year in a school of a different religion and 1 year in a public school
Eg4 make a visa condition of where immigrants can live so that ethnicities are spread out
Etc…
That's how it works in Switzerland. You can either do military or some sort of public service where you help elderly people or maintain mountain roads etc.
Knowing people with completely different backgrounds actually is really something we find contributes a lot to social stability and one of the positives of this system.
I can't tell you if it's an optimal solution because it often feels like wasted time and it's a love hate relationship but it seems to work compartively well.
I think mandatory military service is a good idea for a small minority of countries. Basically those with a small active volunteer military (generally because of a small population but can be for other reasons) and a credible neighbouring threat to their sovereignty. In those cases you may need as many of your citizens as reservists as possible so you can basically mobilise your entire country at practically a moments notice to fight a defensive war. Somewhere like Finland, it makes sense, they check both boxes. South Korea does too to some extent.
Good to see that you guys have caught on that the sense of familiarity on the voice over is what's making these videos successful, similar to how Simon Whistler is now narrating for multiple, relatively successful channels
I really dislike that guy tho
Simon Whistler is annoying, and has no character to his voice. He's the John Oliver of youtube
Ww1 proved that conscription was very dangerous. It got so bad that many conscripts were poorly trained and thrown into the front lines with out adequate preparation.
This feels like an Economics Explained video. Is this video not better suited to Economics Explained?
"Go full literary arts degree". LMFAO 😂
I think in America, obese youths would benefit from compulsory military service. I think it could have potential life-long benefits, improved life expectancy, decreased healthcare cost, increased productivity, on top of improved confidence, discipline, knowledge and skills.
A tax on unhealthy ingredients (eg white flour, white sugar) and unhealthy food items could have the same result.
Especially if combined with higher minimum payments (be it aged pension, unemployment benefits or minimum wage), do people can afford better food.
And then add a higher tax when someone works over x number of hours a week (so essentially force people to have time off to sleep and exercise).
Then make gyms and exercise equipment tax deductible up to a maximum redemption value.
Military service would not fix that, maybe it would help some people who are not in best shape but it would not fix the issue with the obesity, you would have to completely rethink and redesign whole PE since kindergarten, into something like the program the USA had in 60's and 70's. There is some old video about that program uploaded on the youtube.
Also weight is more about diet than exercise. Sure it helps but it’s not necessary.
Have you seen how fat a ton of former military guys get the second they get out? It would help a little but it’s not moving the needle
For a channel called “context matters” I was surprised Israel wasn’t mentioned. They have a 3 year conscription for men, while 2 years for women. I know they are trying to change that to make them equal, and would be interesting how that 1 year gap changes the workforce/economy
From the perspective of a Swiss guy going on 50, 15 years thereof as a reservist, 3 years active duty in the Balkan, today living in Canada:
+ conscription gives the military a mirror of society with preexisting skill sets, thus cheaper to train.
- conscription takes younger men out of the work force, thus some compensation from the government to employers raises the cost.
+ comradery, in the old days, military service was considered an asset.
- comradery, today, it's more of a nuisance, and international corporations, especially woke organizations, struggle with it, the absences for training, the mind set, the discipline, the top down approach etc
+ free training of life and survival skills
- you can get dirty, mama is not there to help you, you may die on the job.
+ gets under performers up to speed
- keeps them in the loop and lowers the overall score. Sadly, if you follow the discussion of Belgium e.g. who abandoned conscription to a large extent, it's often the bottom of the barrel that chooses the military.
+ Born and bred locally plus conscription is a strong motivation to defend your place.
- with mass migration this motivation is gone.
- with more and more specialized equipment, more training is required thus a tendency towards a smaller but full time pro army.
Many of these finer points are sadly missing in this video. Personally, I learned a lot, don't regret my service, but feel awkward in today's geopolitical environment. The old school type days are gone...
Look, if you like the military environment, fine, go with it! But many people are not suited for that harsh environment, and that includes a lot of young men. I hope you aren't a kind of conservative person who wants men to be tough, but even if you are such a person, you shouldn't be stupid enough to ask for the government to force your ideology on other people!
@@amirhosseinhosseinzadeh7627 It's not like that at all. First of all in Switzerland this is decided throug popular votes... We have a half direct democracy. Second you can do civil service and help elderly people etc. or just pay as well. There's also a psychological assessment as well. Also if anything the environment is more stupid than it is toxic...
Most of the time spent in college is simply about “proving” youll perform obedience and busy work so potential employers can then justify hiring you. Most people remember little of what they learned in college, if they learned anything at all. Particularly in soft sciences, college doesnt “prepare” anyone in a way they couldnt have prepared on their own. So shifting people from college to the military would have negligible consequences economically IMO, and potentially a lot of benefits for young people and society in general.
I don't know man. I work in infrastructure and I routinely use knowledge from university and books.
I don't think an uneducated person could do my job unless they were a foreman with years of experience in my industry.
@@willofdodge1 That is perhaps because he mentioned "soft science" and because arch is still arch, but then you have other fields that either go through rapid development, that can be case of IT where plenty of lectures given 10 years ago are already bit outdated, and some were outdated a decade ago already, but some are not, yet how many programmers will use knowledge of processor's inner workings on daily basis or at least once a year? (And it they perhaps have to study the chip they will be using in their system)
It makes a big difference if the student is a competent or hardcore learner or not. If you are talking about an engineering student, it depends on what kind of engineering student you have in mind. An automotive engineer might make it through easily enough with little of what they may have learned in college because of their vast hands on work they must work on. A biomedical engineer however must know their anatomy, biology, physics, chemistry, bio materials, statics, theoretical, etc etc before they are going to tackle something like tissue engineering, implants, inventing or improving surgical practices, etc etc.
There must be a better layout for when someone wants to choose to become military and otherwise. Like, instead of the U.S. DoD overshadowing the National Guard units the recruiters could focus on promoting it as a bettering your nation by serving your nation kind of memo. Since National Guard deals with domestic emergencies, overseas combat missions, counterdrug efforts, reconstruction missions (taken from the Nat. Guard mission), etc from recovering places from gigantic national disasters to help setting up refugee or medical tents, it would be fitting to promote the National Guard as a conscientious custodian of the U.S.
College teaches critical thinking. Military service teaches blind obedience. I know which one I want more in people I interact with, and it's not the latter one.
As a person living in Switzerland, I wanted to add that Switzerland is a very neutral nation. And by that I mean, they are ready for a war to always break out. Hundreds of bunkers just waiting to be in service again, and the majority of the nation trained in military.
This tradition is seen with national pride. And because we in relative peace, there is almost no danger.
But most of the time, Switzerland wants to be as much of a hassle to invade as possible in order to stop people from trying.
Great video, having the sources linked in the video itself or at least in the description would help your credibility a lot though
Depends on the country. If you have a small population and an aggressive neighbor, then "yes".
Otherwise, "no".
I’m surprised Israel isn’t mentioned once
its the middle east you can probably guess why they need it
@@ASlickNamedPimpback yea i know i live there
I just want to say Eritrea as the worst example of conscription being used in a bad way for the economy is truly tragic. I'm American and have grown up with lots of Eritreans (technically their Eritrean American kids), who have had to flee to the US because of Isaias's terrible regime. I'm currently in college majoring in econ and one of my econ professors this year is Eritrean, he even fought in the war for Eritrea's independence against the Derg (communist government of Ethiopia), he truly loves his country. He is also a brilliant economist (while a PoW in Ethiopia, he scored the highest anyone has ever scored in a nationwide test, I think in high school, despite his education at the time literally being fighting a war and being in prison), and in a more free Eritrea he would be such an incredible resource to the country. But instead he's in the US, teaching American students, with no ability to do much to help Eritrea and instead having to watch his beloved country be so incredibly mismanaged. Eritreans are incredible people, under a better government they could make such a great country, and it's so sad to me that instead they have a government which is often compared to North Korea, but in reality that comparison is pretty generous to Eritrea's government. I admittedly only know ones who have moved to the US, but I have never met a single Eritrean who does not despise Isaias Afweki, other than children who don't know about him.
Disappointed Finland was not looked at as an example. The different models of conscription were also not compared in depth.
It is immoral to use force on someone. And none the less to force someone to fight for wars they don’t willingly want to. Which would basically make them a slave
So no I wouldn’t say there is any perceivable amount of “good” here at all
Who is John galt?
But can economists predict the future??? I need to know!
Nobody can predict the future, least of all economists.😂
They cant. Thats why the economy is circling the drain
@user-yv4gg7jb2f dude, it wasn't a serious question
I'd say conscription works well in Finland. Its 6 months - 1 year and like 1/5th get some sort of leadership training and some get to go into reserve officer school. Many CEOs and even politicians have gone to reserve officer school as where else can you get to lead 30 people at the age of 20. Many tasks in military also give good training for a future job. You can get trucking license, heavy machinery repair experience, first aid experience and so on. Also it forges connections as you get to meet people your age from all flocks of life and often see them in the future too.
A benefit of mandatory military service is physical. Learning to eat right, exercise, and be fit and healthy is a new experience for many and has long-term societal benefits.
This also provides an opportunity for discipline, as in how to take care of oneself, that is lacking in many areas of the world. And from my point of view, this also provides recruits the ability to step away from so many eye hours in front of a video screen.
Honestly, I see so much benefit to mandatory service done right (emphasis there) that I think it should be thought of everywhere.
Don't really see any physical or learning to eat better kind of benefits with conscription in Finland at least.
@@fleshreapWhere did you serve? Most people I know easily added 200-300m to their cooper score. Not to mention all the marching with full kit.
If you're already an athlete the military wont make you that much more fit, unless you workout on free time, but for the average person it makes a huge difference.
@@cooly2165 just looked it up and according to the data they gather based on initial test vs test at the end of service, the avg cooper improvement is around 100m. Must say even that is slightly more than I expected it to be.
@@fleshreap I'd say the Finnish are already pretty fit on average. Now think of Americans... Then Mexicans, Hungarians, and more...(the 2nd and 3rd "chubbiest" countries according to my memory) Fitness is very good for youth!
Honestly this is most BS excuse for defending military service! The government has no right to forcely discipline people, especially if it is only being forced on men!
Where the hell is the obvious example of Israel?
A country with three years compulsory service for man and woman and reserve until the age of 45 and even so, the 19th richest country per capita on earth.
Hi, I like listening to your videos guys. Much appreciated! Kind of surprised to hear Michael’s voice though. But since Michael’s voice is so charismatic I still enjoyed!
Men Men Men Men. It’s all men saving the world again. Women draft should be the same as men. And especially if you’re a feminist then you should be advocating not only for equal rights but also understand to face equal duties.
Israel does this lol
@@jaber5345 check what is the role and the duration of service for israelian women vs men. They are employed in backbone roles, not on the frontline. Men serve 3 years, women 2 years.
@theb1z0n It's face to say that Isreal does it better than most countries, but yeah it's still discriminatory against men. I'm a feminist and I don't support conscription, however if there is going to be forced military service, discriminating against men is horrible
And that's 'Putin-it' optimistically. The new dad in me smiles at this pun.
Congratulations on the baby!
Discipline & purpose has huge improvement on people.
Putin is driving green transmission in eu. What a visionary 😂.
Economics Explained's voice?
Freedom is most important of all. Military service should not be mandatory anywhere.
Wrong
Israeli here, I can say from experience that your take is very wrong. Our military wouldn't be as strong as it is today if it was made only by volunteers.
@@idaniluz652 If the Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be peace in the Middle East. If the Israelis laid down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.
12:24 There's a complete failure here to demonstrate why government enterprise squeezing out private enterprise is economically a bad thing.
Poor countries conscript because it’s a good way to maintain a force and some unity. Rich countries with good wealth distribution conscript because good paying jobs are plentiful and people are unlikely to choose service. Middling countries in terms of wealth distribution aren’t going to conscript because the military is an economically advantageous career for many people.
Conscription is slavery. And sex discriminatory conscription is outrageous in liberal democracies with female enfranchisement.
South Korea could conscript women too instead of complaining about not knowing how to level the playing field 🤷♀️
Or you know: making more uni spots, or military universities, better job markets...
For being based in the United States, the narrator has a strong British accent.
I trust a citizen on active duty more than a mercenary on pay.
Wow I have heard of South Korea's massive political gender divide, I had never considered that one possible explanatory factor could be that men are forced to serve in the military while women aren't. I wonder if the (presumably less extreme) effects that conscription has on society in other countries that employ it could have some tangible impact as well. Like maybe in societies that aren't so extreme for conscription-aged people, there might be some impact on the culture that conscription has whoch might actually be beneficial to the economy, helping to explain why a slightly disproportionate number of countries with conscription are rich
Because the military says conscription hurts overall readiness, I'm opposed to military conscription. Mandatory civil service, on the other hand, could provide great benefits to society. Mainly in the area of improving national esprit de corps.
not really it would probably just make the incidents of suidice by police go up and people going bezerk with both guns and knives go up as well! if your population is so shit millitary like conscription is required to staff a 7 elven im dying in a firefight with cops thanks!
Luckily my country abolished its conscription after the last war. Wish all countries would do so. Forcing people to do what they don't want to do is bad. If not enough people sign up voluntarily, then make better benefits and pay.
As a retired college professor, I can say I saw a marked difference in academic performance between those who did some military or community service and those who came straight from high school. Years ago the college did a study on the net effect of those with service on academic performance as measured by students’ grade point average and graduation rates and found a statistical difference. This may also be a comment on the relatively poor job high schools are doing preparing students for the "real" world.
thank you!
The idea that young people are busy doing useful things is wrong.
Mandatory military service is its own double edged sword. However good it may be you really have to be cautious of the intent of making people work in the military. Most people won't join wars right now due to constant lying. Mandating people join in the state of a declining nation that hates it's people makes more resentment.
I figure that the reason extremely wealthy countries have conscription policies is because nobody would volunteer for it. That's probably also true for South Korea.
Other than Switzerland and Austria, what nations do you consider the general population (not merely the autocrats at the top while most of the population lives poor) both wealthier than South Korea, and has universal military service?
Most nations at or above South Korea in terms of wealth among the general population (i.e., nations where your hypothesis might apply) do NOT have enforced mandatory service, even if they have universal conscription laws on the books. They generally rely on volunteer forces. South Korea ranks 22nd in median GDP per capita (a more accurate view of how wealthy the general population is than a straight per capita GDP), below the US, UK, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, France, Japan, Italy, Spain, Denmark, etc., all of whom don't actually have mandatory military service.
The "super wealthy" nations with eye popping per capita GDP who are wealthier than South Korea who have mandatory military service tend to be oil states, where the very top of the population is mind boggling wealthy, but the general population is actually poor. The one exception is Qatar (whose median per capita GDP is significantly higher than South Korea's) - but Qatar has a TINY population when you discount guest workers (who aren't conscripted) and no geographical depth to trade space for time to build and train an army.
Your idea that (in general) wealthy nations need to force universal military service vecause their populations wouldn't volunteer in adequate numbers isn't backed up by the data. Quite the opposite - wealthy nations can *afford* to make military service attractive enough to meet the needs the government forsees via volunteer service (entirely or primarily).
@@geodkyt I swore I heard him say that Lichtenstein had forced conscription, but it appears I misheard him. I did check online and it says both Denmark and Norway have policies, as well as many of the Nordic countries which I always figured were pretty wealthy, but you're right. I should probably have done deeper independent research before commenting.
"that is putin it optimistically" I see what you did there
This was a good video, but it felt like an Economics explained video. I was hoping to see some political science theory? I understand that economics is tied into everything we do, but still was hoping for a broader context that was not economic
No.... You've never met a person with mental problems have you? Definitely not a good idea
Let's go full Starship Troopers.
I agree if I had any patriotism for country. I actually just finished reading the book yesterday and it actually seem like a pretty good system. The movie was communist propaganda.
Hey I didn't have time to watch the video, but the answer is "NO".
econmics explained second channel?!?! how did i get you on recommend???!
well, subbed anyways
Independently, no. The US armed forces has been an all-volunteer force since '75. There is a complete lack of tribal knowledge on how to handle mandatory service, in particular, with the current generation - of which there hasn't been another like it. Further, the US has a well-entrenched and distributed organized crime problem with deep roots both in the prison system and internationally. Failing to account for those considerations is likely to spark a splintering of the Union, accelerated by tone-deaf treatment of illegal immigration, social welfare and the deepening institutionalization of what was previously an entrepreneurial population.
makes sense for small countries, wasted on large countries. Taiwan, Finland, Israel makes sense
More to the point, small countries that are geopolitically and otherwise quite vulnerable, being right next to enemies.
@@yodorob well said
0:14 Crimea is a part of Ukraine, not russia. If you do want to support genosidal russian regime, then you should indicate Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine as russian too. Why stop on Crimea?
ya seriously... this channel clearly gets the b-level writers/animators from EE
Are people doing mandatory military service still civilians?
Are people who have finished mandatory military service (but technically still a countries reserve military conscripts) still civilians?
1: No
2: Yes, when not in uniform
I was subject to conscription when I joined the military, but opted to enlist to have my choice of which service I would join. My choice of the Air Force had less to do with my dislike of being in the infantry and more to do with my love of aviation and wanting to serve where I felt I fit best. Conscription at that time was not popular more due to an active war in Vietnam than not wanting to be part of the military, even though only about 25% of draftees were sent there. The rest were sent to other places like Germany, Japan, Korea or the numerous other places that had a military presence, or never even left the US mainland. Most of us that came out the other end were better for having served. It provided us with skills, discipline and a sense of teamwork that benefited most in life after our service. Military service is not for everyone and shear manpower is not a ideal solution to defense needs. Recent world events have caused many countries to rethink their stand on defense and military matters. Even powerful militaries like the US are stretched pretty thin and having trouble meeting recruitment goals for the "all volunteer" military. The country where I currently live, Spain, seems to be rethinking their abolition of conscription (around 2000) because they cannot staff their forces as needed. It is controversial and by some is seen as a partial answer to very high youth unemployment (for 18-30 year-olds, 28%). I don't know if it is a good idea, and judging by the confusion and differing statements, neither does the government. All I can say is that the way the world is going forward right now, having a weak military is not a good asset.
One note: Although I very much like your EE and Context Matters videos, this one seemed fairly weak, inconclusive, incomplete and missing having a point. This deserved more time and a more nuanced story.
I would like to say as a man who served in a volunteer only force. This is what I believe the general consensus amongst most professional soldiers is: (i have had several convos about this specifically)
We dont want them.
When I'm in the shit and get my ass absolutely blasted. The only thing I can trust is myself. My gun and my boys. If any one of those things doesn't do their job, well, we all die.
I can trust them because they've done exactly what I have done.
Not a single one of them was forced to be there.
Conscripts are not only notoriously lazy. They also notoriously don't give a fuck.
And what's that super common worksite saying "complacency kills"
If you're gonna implement this type of conscription, do it in some sort of like public service sector, or you're gonna make them build roads something like that.
Leave the fight to the professionals.
Unfortunately, we here in Finland don't have economy/population base to leave the fight to the professionals. I completed my year of mandatory service and I have a good image of our training and my fellow servicemen.
Yesss! I absolutely want my country to have a strong military, and that's why I want strong tough and selfless people to defend me, not some random dude who just wants to finish his service!
OP is correct, in my opinion. You want well-motivated, professional military forces staffed by people who want to be there, not resentful conscripts. My father is ex-military, and he says almost exactly the same thing.
Conscription should be universal - for equality reasons.
I am getting that conscription could be a good idea if there is close a threat outside the country that has the potential to break out into an all out war.
Real point: there probably is some benefit from the social mixing, experience, and formal assessment (e.g. health, ability) from national service
Snippy point: as a uni lecturer embracing grumpy middle age, many Gen Z could do with being yelled at for a year.
Being yelled at doesn't do much. Being stern and good role model, now that might do something
@@randomsomeguy156 see, it's this chronically online hyper-sensitive "you're eating a bun in your profile, what about people who can't afford buns?" egotism and inability to detect irony or sarcasm that could do with being shouted out of you
@@getnohappysounds like someone isn’t used to their authority being challenged. Perhaps you could use some yelling too
One element of economic benefits is that the health of the male population is better.
In Singapore, men are still required to report for reservist service for 2 weeks a year. And they still have to maintain their fitness for the purpose of being combat ready. This goes on till the age of 40.
Can any country with non-mandatory military service claim the same benefit?
I can tell how conscription work in Ukraine before war. It is basically free labor for government, or more likely a slavery, because it was so common when conscripts build something, or guard objects without any pay, and probably in best scenario only 10-15% study something connect to military.
America would be far better off having all 18 year olds volunteer two to four years to America. That could be as a teacher aide, as part of the military, medical assistants, labor for rebuilding of infrastructure, the sky is the limit. They would be paid, and that would go towards licensure in their chosen industry.
I personally would not like to work with conscripts
I would be more easily convinced that there is some other reason for the correlation. Especially a third factor like a wealthy nation is more likely to view universal militia service as a desirable defense strategy.
But if there is a direct connection I think it has to be that the military service instills values that lead the service member to have better outcomes in the future.
There is no way you said realistically Finland is in no immediate danger, they might be in NATO, but Putin is crazy enough to consider invading them.
Love it economics explain vibes
At no point were ethics brought up, surely that's part of the "context"? This was just an EE video put on the wrong channel.
Ethics are irrelevant in security
As an Iranian conscript soldier it sucks and really inefficient don't try it
You should have mentioned that the money governments spend on conscription could instead be used for higher education or some other form of government stimulus.
they could even invest the money to improve the quality of the volunteer force. whats a better in a modern war,
6 highly trained highly equipped professionals vs 30 conscripts that dont even want to be there
@@g33zer30 conscripts defending their homeland. They will have the better gear, as in professional military larger portion of the budget goes to wages.
@@Pyhantaakka wrong look at south koreas body armor no throat protector there helmets are cut like shit and honestly id take a m38 stahlhelm if i had to take shrapnel over that thing no femoral artery protection.
12mths service at 18 in 1982 in Italy wasn't a waste of time.
I don't believe society was improved by its removal. It didnt make society worst - but I'd be hard pressed to be in favour of bringing it back in such a corporate landscape.
If called on, I'd have taken up arms then to defend the principles the West represented during the Cold War.
Today - I'm keener to let it all unravel by itself
You can have a Peace Corp for non violent service.
Why is there a stock photo of Penn State University at 0:27, under "that's a lot of countries that reserve the right to potentially put their people into armed conflicts."
Like, I now how strong PSU pride is, but i don't think the alumni will literally go to war for the Nitany Lions.
Conscription is good because it innstils into people not only civic values, but patriotism and an idea of what waging war is. This in turn creates a potential critical mass to call upon yo defend a country if say russia invades you. Small countries can effectively change the balance by calling up large parts of the population.
The smaller country you are the more it makes sense to have it also. Norway will increase conscription by 50 %, and establish two more battalions (from only one).
You call it "Instilling civic values and patriotism" I call it indoctrination, but people seen to only think that way when it's referring to North Korea, Russia, etc.
Even tho what South Korea, Ukraine and others do is the exact same.
I do believe in patriotism and dying for a cause but that should only apply when you believe in it. The last thing I want to do is the biding of my standing president.
The great and very famous book StarShip Troopers explains why conscription is bad. The bottom line is that you're forcing someone to serve, If your population believes the country is worth fighting for, then they themselves should join on free will
Conscription is also forced income for young people and more importantly...it's forced purpose.
I would wager that military conscription in countries with low gdp usully leads to an abuse of said power as jobs after conscription would be things like guards that do notmactually add anything to the economy. This means that individuals or organazations that can afford it first meet this criteria.
A. Can afford to hire said indivdual meaning pay enough for there livlihood of the indivdual where the only thing given back is protection
B. Need that protection in the first place.
People in military service generally get good benefits. I have a theory that government jobs tend to be military and lucrative. It's probably a combination of training, recommendations, and being put on the short list of applicants. Atleast, in here in the usa.
It's not that complicated. A country needs to generate X military power. This can be represented by a formula - soldiers, equipment, facilities, C&C, training and so on.
Now poor countries can optimize this formula by adding a lot of manpower, poorly trained and equipped. Thus compulsory military service is the best for them - even if it is used as a form of slavery.
For rich countries, professional people are just limited, and very expensive. The military can't compete with private jobs even in the US, even in low education levels. They can add the most modern equipment, the most sophisticated C&C, the best food, and so on, and still might not be able to generate the force they need (or want in the US' case). So, they need to augment - and this is the case when conscription comes handy. In peacetime it is a relatively small increase in cost, while in wartime a huge boost of fighting power - on the cost of economic production and, well, lives of the citizens. They don't have another way - unless they want to use immigrants who are, well, not very loyal and harder to train. So, a conscription system might be the only way for some of the rich countries to generate the force they need, like South Korea or Russia.
Invites the Ministry of Defense to stand before a televised congressional/parliamentary session and list WHO they think they’ll be fighting in the next 5 years. Then vote for if there’d be conscription for next year - every year.
Also, change the conscription age to 22, so that every 18 years old gets a chance to vote at least once before he’s drafted.
This is a good idea now. However, the military service should be fair and have a clear focus like in Israel or Switzerland. Otherwise the people will not accept it.
National compulsory service is a good idea. Not necessarily military service as most places don’t need that many folks. But, a civil corps and medical corps could be very valuable, give a lifetime skill and give some pride in self and country.
I personally would restart the conversation corps for rural, park, forest, land and water conservation, infrastructure and firefighting.
Many of the rich countries are rather small.
So the only way to get the number is subscription.
The other thing is in rich countries you have to pay
the soldier a lot because the salaries are high.
The poorer countries with conscription have the potential, through outside assistance, to transition their politics to a dominant party system, the job training to civilian education, and the economy to one more akin to State-Capitalism. Liberalization might not be possible, but I would see such a shift as a positive shift.
I think the draft was primarily a good thing. Service to our country breeds patriotism and an attitude of us instead of me.
The problem is that people with money or political connections were able to avoid service, witch isn't fair. College bound young people could defer, defer, defer. If those issues could be addressed, I would support a draft. Maybe a draft reserve would be a good option.
Sweden tried a period with no conscription. However, the population base was too small to have an army without conscription. With Russia's attack on Ukraine Sweden felt it needed a bigger army. Only 5 percent of the 18th year olds are conscripted. It will go up. The main reason is insurance. Why do people pay for insurance? The risk of something bad will happen.