←back to thread

126 points petermcneeley | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.465s | source
Show context
mystraline ◴[] 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 #
baal80spam ◴[] 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 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] 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 #
throw310822 ◴[] 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 #
carlosjobim ◴[] No.46181975[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 #
guenthert ◴[] No.46183215[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 #
1. carlosjobim ◴[] No.46185153[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 #
2. IAmBroom ◴[] No.46209531[source]
You really don't understand a lot of things you are talking about.