To put it in perspective: the USA has it (but dormant as it was last used in the 60s) now, instead part of an automatic register. I’ve heard that last year Germany for example proposed to impose a mandatory, volunteer-focused military service model on boosting defense against threats like Russia but would you really enlist in the German Army (Bundeswehr) or refuse instead of adhereing to politicians interests?
I’ve heard a similar thing in France with them introducing a new voluntary 10-month military service program for 18-19 year olds starting this summer 2026, but would guys there be willing to enlist or outright refuse? What ever the case is, would guys in Europe either accept voluntary military service imposed by their nation or refuse to enlist as they know that politicians are the ones who instigate wars in the first place?
For EU nations that still have the draft enforced (mandatory conscription): what happens if guys refuse it? Do they end up in jail? In that case, would you rather be imprisoned for refusing or comply? I know that some countries have alternative service (civic) rather than conventional military service, but what happens if the individual refuses either? I mean, is it a criminal offense for simply refusing conscription?
I mean, yeah sure, but a lot of people in the world would also agree with me. Neither of those things make a point though.
It may be more cost-effective, but definitely not human-life-effective. I guess it depends on what you value more. Money and and materials or human life? Because I can guarantee asymmetric warfare costs a lot of lives. I mean just ask the Vietnamese if they would rather have had an army capable of fighting the US. Or the Iraqi. Or ask the Ukrainians if they prefer their army fighting Russia or having to fight civilian asymmetric warfare. You don’t want to have a civilian fighting force against a foe that has invested in a modern military with Anti Air, tanks, missiles, drones, trained personnel.
I personally prefer paying the price of war in money and materials than in the lives of my fellow citizens.
I don’t disagree but are you implying that this is not true for a standing army?
Plus whoever organises these resistances will end up as an Organisation akin to an army anyway. So you just end up with what you didn’t want but only weaker and less able to defend against an attacker.
It can be risked, with a fair degree of confidence, considering what is transpiring from the ongoing wars that what is considered conventional warfare is changing at a tremendous speed.
Air superiority, conventional artilery, mobile armour, highly sophisticated and expensive weapons systems are being rendered useless, powerless or at least less than superior, by cheaper, often disposable solutions.
This entire combat landscape change, in my view, is the early warning of a deeper trend where human resources will be much more valuable than machinery and conventional armies are a liability, not an asset.
Small, highly mobile, capable of underground, covert operation groups - guerrilla warfare - will be a game changer.