(November 20, 2018 at 7:11 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Sure, there's no such thing as the perfect army. The way we do this now is just a compromise between two different types of imperfect armies, itself imperfect, but significantly improved with respect to either of the other two.
In general, a nation at peace with a good reserve of relatively young adults will have a military either composed of volunteers or a military caste, but nations engaged in frequent wars or small and threaten will have armies composed mostly of conscript simply because they have no choice. They need those troops because they are at war or constantly under threat of war. A pacifist nation with few enemies and no credible threat can go with a militia, but that's only to save costs on having to maintain a standing military of professional, which, lets face it, have a very, very limited role outside of an armed conflict. Armies are there to respond a "defense" policy first and foremost. As a military historian, we live in a facinating time for armed forces as technology and social transformations are profoundly changing military culture and the very perception of war and national defense. Large professional armies made exclusively of male volunteers are disapearing. Fist women, after centuries of bad disguises and "one time exception", are starting to enter armed forces in almost all modern nations. The development of cyberwarfare and extansive occupation operation have seen a return of mercenaries. While international trade and alliances have reduced the need of a large military on paper as an intimidation and coersion tool. I don't think the army should move away from the volunteer model, but who can volunteer and for what should be expanded.
