Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Germany votes to bring in voluntary military service programme for 18-year-olds

    (www.bbc.com)
    126 points petermcneeley | 11 comments | 06 Dec 25 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.261s | source | bottom
    Show context
    mystraline ◴[06 Dec 25 23:40 UTC] No.46177661[source]▶
    The article is using "voluntary" in a very questionable fashion.

    > Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, has voted to introduce voluntary military service...

    > The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.

    > The government says military service will be voluntary for as long as possible, but from July 2027, all 18-year-old men will have to take a medical exam to assess their fitness for possible military service.

    > a form of compulsory military service could be considered by the Bundestag.

    Well, that escalated quickly. There's nothing here that could be really described as "voluntary".

    replies(5): >>46177699 #>>46177716 #>>46180828 #>>46181510 #>>46191378 #
    1. baal80spam ◴[06 Dec 25 23:48 UTC] No.46177699[source]▶
    > The form will be mandatory for men and voluntary for women.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal

    replies(3): >>46177818 #>>46177905 #>>46179625 #
    2. JumpCrisscross ◴[06 Dec 25 23:59 UTC] No.46177818[source]▶
    One, I'm not sure what American founding ideals have to do with Germany.

    Two, Germany, like most countries and frankly human populations, has a male surplus in its fighting-age population [1]. This is why, historically, large socities tended to wage war with men first. (Even those that e.g. held elite units in reserve, which undermines the usual biological argument.)

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#/media...

    replies(2): >>46177874 #>>46182969 #
    3. throw310822 ◴[07 Dec 25 00:05 UTC] No.46177874[source]▶
    The male surplus is a few tens of thousands, way to small to make up an army; and no, that is not the reason why men and not women go to war.
    replies(2): >>46177944 #>>46181975 #
    4. crooked-v ◴[07 Dec 25 00:08 UTC] No.46177905[source]▶
    Registration is compulsory, but actual military service is voluntary (for now).

    In other words, it's functionally the same as Selective Service forms in the US.

    5. JumpCrisscross ◴[07 Dec 25 00:14 UTC] No.46177944{3}[source]▶
    > make surplus is a few tens of thousands, way to small to make up an army

    ...why would you populate your army solely with the surplus? The point is you have a buffer that you can burn without immediately impacting your demographics for the long term.

    > that is not the reason why men and not women go to war

    It's a serious theory [1]. (It's more correct to say the surplus and it share a common cause.)

    [1] https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_931

    6. qball ◴[07 Dec 25 06:29 UTC] No.46179625[source]▶
    All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
    7. carlosjobim ◴[07 Dec 25 14:39 UTC] No.46181975{3}[source]▶
    The reason for war has always been to kill off young men, since they are disposable fertility wise and an internal threat to current holders of power. This has been the case since the stone age and will be the case until the end of time.
    replies(1): >>46183215 #
    8. throwawaypath ◴[07 Dec 25 16:37 UTC] No.46182969[source]▶
    >has a male surplus in its fighting-age population

    The "male surplus fighting-age population" in Germany will flee to the next European host or back to the MENA country they fled from if conscription begins.

    9. guenthert ◴[07 Dec 25 17:10 UTC] No.46183215{4}[source]▶
    That was the topic of T.H.E.M. by G.C. Edmonson (or so I remember -- I read the translation "Die A.N.D.E.R.E.N." many years ago).

    Made for a good story, reality is a bit more complex methinks. There's after all a lot of money to be made with war.

    replies(1): >>46185153 #
    10. carlosjobim ◴[07 Dec 25 21:07 UTC] No.46185153{5}[source]▶
    Money is nothing but a representation of power. If it was about money itself, rulers could just print limitless amounts (which they have tried a number of times).
    replies(1): >>46209531 #
    11. IAmBroom ◴[09 Dec 25 19:38 UTC] No.46209531{6}[source]▶
    You really don't understand a lot of things you are talking about.