Russia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

How old are you?

I know for a fact that every single generation in history has said this about the youth that followed them, ha ha ha.

---

Lol, maybe they’re all on to something.

It seems they have started aiming at civilians more to demoralize and get a surrender.
https://twitter.com/ewaimis/status/1498855589652348930

https://twitter.com/PatriotOSINT/sta...84026063831044

and using the new thermobaric weapons from some of the images and launchers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60571395

But after National Socialist and Soviet genocides in the Ukraine.... they don't quit too easily. The video from facebook I posted earlier shows a molatov attack on an army vehicle and this grandma has seen enough and looks determined!
https://twitter.com/SanasCapital/sta...33733905965063

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Birdbuff

Geez woodsman everywhere I turn there’s people that just “don’t want to be there” it’s the latest reality. I get your point though. I just thought a basic 6 months in the military might go a long way in building positive characteristics in todays youth. At the same time it would be valuable to expose the general population to firearms to make them less taboo.

---

All a mandatory 6 months service would do is drain a large amount from our already small defense budget.
And where would the instructors come from?
From our under-strength units.
There would be no upside for our forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

All a mandatory 6 months service would do is drain a large amount from our already small defense budget.
And where would the instructors come from?
From our under-strength units.
There would be no upside for our forces.

---

Woodsman-Any chance to reply to "my "question?
#162 post

Lots of 1'st world countries do this., I have excluded the despot countries.

Austria — 6-9 months for males aged 18-50

Denmark — 4-12 months training for men at age 18, eligible for active conscription until age 50

Finland — 6-12 months for males at age 18, reserves until age 60

Greece — 9-12 months for males aged 19-45

Mexico — 12 months for lottery-selected males at age 18, eligible as reserves until 40

Norway — 19 months (12 months plus 4-5 refreshers) for males and females aged 19-35. However, more than 80% are released from service

Lithuania — 9 months for males aged 19-26

South Korea — 21-24 months for males aged 18-28 (scheduled to decrease to 18-22 months sometime in 2022)

Sweden — 7.5-15 months for males and females at age 18, eligible as reserves until age 47; however, only a portion of those who register are selected for service

Switzerland — 245 days (18 weeks training + six 19-day recalls) for males aged 18-30

Taiwan — 4 months for males aged 18-36 plus up to four 20-day training recalls

Israel — 24-48 months (9 years for pilots) for males and females at age 18

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

Woodsman-Any chance to reply to "my "question?
#162 post

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

In case of something-God forbid happens,and Canada is in a dire need to defend itself-what is the plan to fill up the ranks then?
With reasonable trained soldiers.

I mean-we do not have a large army-in any war, soldiers die or get wounded-little army lasts short time.
Not trying to be funny- i am asking seriously.

Not looking for some Top Secret answer.........

---

Sure I'll reply.
First off in 6 months you don't get much of a trained soldier.
As time passes from the 6 month training skills drop off quickly.
On top of that where is all the money to come from? Our defense budget isn't big to start with.
This 6 month conscription would at least double our total Forces personnel.
Don't forget the training & support staff required for this training phase.
Oh and the accruing of facilities to run these courses. We in no way have these resources to conduct training on this scale.
And how many would actually complete the very basic training scheduled?
Failure rates in the Forces are not low at times depending on the course. And this is with people who actually want to be there.
And let's face it not all will be acceptable to take military training? That adds an other layer to the situation, as pre-screening will be required.
And even if all goes completely correctly and everyone actually finishes during the 6 months what does the Forces get for the money spent.
Nothing.
Or actually a loss in readiness because the junior leadership has been withdrawn from their already understaffed units as you need these people to conduct this training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newbiehunter

Here are the results of our outrage culture:

https://sputniknews.com/20220301/ext...093471337.html
https://www.rugbyobserver.co.uk/news...aine-invasion/

Same thing going on in Canada as well, just has not hit the news yet.. If it ever gets there

---

The moment where public hysteria crossing the line of insanity:

https://montreal.eater.com/2022/2/28...ine-russia-saq

Poutine gets renamed.
Now Putin is really afraid of such sanctions [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]


Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

In case of something-God forbid happens,and Canada is in a dire need to defend itself-what is the plan to fill up the ranks then?
With reasonable trained soldiers.

I mean-we do not have a large army-in any war, soldiers die or get wounded-little army lasts short time.
Not trying to be funny- i am asking seriously.

Not looking for some Top Secret answer.........

---

I had two brothers-in-law who were both drafted into the US Army during Viet Nam. The oldest served two years as an MP in Turkey. The youngest did 4 combat tours and was one of the last out at the fall of Saigon. Remember the photos of the choppers plucking people from the roof of the US Embassy? He was one of the last off that roof. He stayed in the army,redeploying to Germany in an armored regiment staring down East German and Russian tanks across the border every day of the week until the collapse of the Soviet Union, retiring in 1996. They've both passed away,now,but,I sure remember the conversations and discussions we had about the benefits and the drawbacks of military conscription. Their general consensus was that conscripts will do only what they're required to do for only as long as they're required to do it,then,get out. Today's US military services are made up from volunteers being molded into a professional fighting force with the most high-tech equipment available,very patriotic and highly motivated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsman

Sure I'll reply.
First off in 6 months you don't get much of a trained soldier.
As time passes from the 6 month training skills drop off quickly.
On top of that where is all the money to come from? Our defense budget isn't big to start with.
This 6 month conscription would at least double our total Forces personnel.
Don't forget the training & support staff required for this training phase.
Oh and the accruing of facilities to run these courses. We in no way have these resources to conduct training on this scale.
And how many would actually complete the very basic training scheduled?
Failure rates in the Forces are not low at times depending on the course. And this is with people who actually want to be there.
And let's face it not all will be acceptable to take military training? That adds an other layer to the situation, as pre-screening will be required.
And even if all goes completely correctly and everyone actually finishes during the 6 months what does the Forces get for the money spent.
Nothing.
Or actually a loss in readiness because the junior leadership has been withdrawn from their already understaffed units as you need these people to conduct this training.

---

Thank You Woodsman-i appreciate the effort

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I had two brothers-in-law who were both drafted into the US Army during Viet Nam. The oldest served two years as an MP in Turkey. The youngest did 4 combat tours and was one of the last out at the fall of Saigon. Remember the photos of the choppers plucking people from the roof of the US Embassy? He was one of the last off that roof. He stayed in the army,redeploying to Germany in an armored regiment staring down East German and Russian tanks across the border every day of the week until the collapse of the Soviet Union, retiring in 1996. They've both passed away,now,but,I sure remember the conversations and discussions we had about the benefits and the drawbacks of military conscription. Their general consensus was that conscripts will do only what they're required to do for only as long as they're required to do it,then,get out. Today's US military services are made up from volunteers being molded into a professional fighting force with the most high-tech equipment available,very patriotic and highly motivated.

---

Thank You Trimmer.
I understand the situation .
I also, very respectfully need to mention-in a lengthy war ,the volunteer(professional army )will be thinned out.
Then -what is the next step?

I do realize, the modern era brought a serious low level(or no level at all)Patriotisms.
I also understand ,that the likelihood of a large scale war is highly unlikely.

I also know (based on what i have seen )that an attacking army does have a whole lot more of a "morale"issue fighting,then a defending army.Especially if the attackers are mainly conscripts.
Plus-the defending army "can"be made to "do the job" at a whole lot higher level,then an attacking army. Unless the attackers are having a really relentless structure(we have seen that in the history).
I am not thinking partisans ,guerillas and armed grandmothers-but an organized army.

Yet- in my belief(i can be wrong, or i can be "old"fashioned)a well prepared and organized populace ( in a form of an organized military force)can and will set up a whole lot more and succesfull resistance(with a wide "home grown"military base)then a narrow ,volunteer fighting force.

As mentioned -the thin red line lasts only so long.

One should look at Finland,Austria or even Switzerland.They can be great examples how a modern nation is capable of having a strong and quite capable "defensive"military .