• jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well, depends.

      Note that US military history picks me from trusting them in this fashion, but if mandatory military service were: -severely limited term -purely domestic (prepare for defense from active attacks, relief, and rescue) -not used in any vaguely law enforcement capacity.

      Then I could see that as possibly reasonable.

      Of course I’d be skeptical that a nation would display that sort of restraint, but just saying I could imagine a hypothetical that included that

      • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        In Australia we had conscription in WW2 where the Citizen Military Force could only operate in Australia… but they changed it to include PNG so I guess your skepticism is justified. Then for Vietnam and Korea (why were we involved???) we had conscription for overseas.

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I think you just described most military services actually (from democratic nations at least)

        • TheControlled@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          HA! Sure, like countries that are protected by the US military? Like countries insulated on all sides by close allies? C’mon.

          Also, America is the superpower. Nobody comes close to their wealth and power and military technology, and superpowers don’t become or stay superpowers by being totally chill and getting cats out of trees. I would fucking love that alt-universe though. Sadly, it’s power by force or show-of-force. USA kinda straddles the line of both. But so does France, India, and Finland, to name a few.