Yes, lots of good points by everyone 8) . However, I would like to point out the following:

1. Registering eligible citizens for emergency contingencies is NOT the same thing as a peacetime draft to routinely fill a nation's armed forces (or social services either for conscientious objectors out there). One is for dire emergencies, the other is a potential tool of oppression and fundamentally inconsistent with a free society. Most citizens (and even resident non-citizens) will step up to defend their homes in an emergency or to otherwise serve in the nation's armed forces, but no one should be coerced during peacetime.

2. How likely is it that anyone would attack either Finland or Norway using conventional, or unconventional, military forces - as opposed to terrorist attacks? Not many I would submit, as:

a. Both have capable and very respectable, if small, armed forces.

b. Norway belongs to NATO, whose member nations would immediately act to support Norway in the event of any attack, which shows how effective diplomacy can be as a tool of the nation state.

c. Finland, although not a NATO member, would very likely be able to count on the support of most of NATO (certain affiliated and french speaking countries excluded) and the free world in the event of an attack.

d. Finland kicked the out of the last army to invade them - just ask the Russians . Yes, the Russians eventually won, but no one is going to forget the lessons of the Winter War any time soon.

e. How many real enemies does either nation really have right now? I define enemies as other nation states who wish to invade or do them serious harm, which excludes terrorists or internal rebels who wish to bring down or split off from the cntral government.

there wont be a draft unless there is a full scale war like the Civil War, World Wars, and Vietnam even. To so do would be unconstitutional because it violates the right to "pursue life, liberty, and happiness"

Originally Posted by Gunner13

b. Norway belongs to NATO, whose member nations would immediately act to support Norway in the event of any attack, which shows how effective diplomacy can be as a tool of the nation state.

This is something we actually have started to focus on a lot lately.
We have a small, but rather well trained armed force IMO.
But it's too small to defend all of Norway alone, that's why we have an increased focus on operations abroad, to help our Allies there.
In that way we try/hope to ensure that they would come to our aid if we ever should need them back here.

Originally Posted by Gunner13

[...] Most citizens (and even resident non-citizens) will step up to defend their homes in an emergency or to otherwise serve in the nation's armed forces, but no one should be coerced during peacetime. [...]

Yes. But as I said it will be too late to train these people to anything resembling a capable soldier after a threat has appeared in countries that lack the strategic depth of USA. There will simply be no time. We won't be getting eight months warning of a certain attack. At least one can't count on that.

To get a large enough reserve that has been at least once upon a time trained one must have conscription. Training on the other hand is more than necessary. Already in 1939-1940 the casualties among the "speed trained" units were horrendous. (Many times greater than in regular reservist units.) By conscription many lives of those that would not volunteer during peacetime but would in case of a war will be saved.

For the reasons I stated in my previous post. If one could afford to look at the issue in plain ideological terms I'd agree with you: no one should be coerced to serve in peace time, people should feel it as their obligation. Unfortunately we can't afford that since people love their comforts. A country of this size needs a trained army of a certain size and capability. Conscription is the only cost-effective method that we can achieve that.

Originally Posted by Gunner13

[...] 2. How likely is it that anyone would attack either Finland or Norway using conventional, or unconventional, military forces - as opposed to terrorist attacks? Not many I would submit, as:

a. Both have capable and very respectable, if small, armed forces.

b. Norway belongs to NATO, whose member nations would immediately act to support Norway in the event of any attack, which shows how effective diplomacy can be as a tool of the nation state.

c. Finland, although not a NATO member, would very likely be able to count on the support of most of NATO (certain affiliated and french speaking countries excluded) and the free world in the event of an attack.

d. Finland kicked the out of the last army to invade them - just ask the Russians . Yes, the Russians eventually won, but no one is going to forget the lessons of the Winter War any time soon.

e. How many real enemies does either nation really have right now? I define enemies as other nation states who wish to invade or do them serious harm, which excludes terrorists or internal rebels who wish to bring down or split off from the cntral government.

Well it is very unlikely that anyone should attack Finland (I'll leave Norway to Norvegians ) in the foreseeable future. However you never know what will happen and it takes a long time to train a effective armed forces. (A Decade or more they say.)

a.) Its nice to know that we are respected abroad.

c.) Do you honestly think that other nations would risk going to war against Russia, to help some Finland? I'm certain that We'd get a lot of sympathy and cheap equipment but thats about it. (Sympathy and equipment are always more than welcome.) If one makes a cool strategic assesment there is nothing in Finland that is valuable to anybody but us. What would the others fight for? I'd understand some members of the EU responding as we share their currency, but why should USA care enough? (Besides that would be risking a nuclear confrontation over Finland. Who wants that?)

In addition, if we get help, how long will it take for that help to arrive? How many months did it again take for US to deploy to Kuwait for OIF? By the time help got here we'd already be overrrun if we had only the token force that we'd have without conscription.


d.) Yes we did, but the price was very high indeed. They propably won't be forgetting attack we made in 1941 or the defense we put up in 1944 either. They know however that eventually they will get their way, if they have the political possibility of just wearing us out. (Something they lacked during WWII)

e.) NONE! we hope it will stay that way. Can we still say - with absolute certainty- that we will not be pulled into a conflict in the near future. I don't think such assurances can be given by anyone.

edited for spelling.

No argument about the time it takes to properly train indivduals and units - as you are indisputably correct! Once again, a free society should be defended by volunteers and if you can't convince enough citizens one way, they you have to find another. The US Armed Forces, active and reserve, struggled for years after the draft ended to keep up unit strength, improve morale, maintain unit identity and keep training up to requirements. Elite units suffered less, but all branches were strained terribly in the early years and the damage from Viet Nam made everything much worse.

In the end, the citizens of each country have to make decisions about the size, structure, role and costs they are willing to pay for their armed forces as well as how they will staff them. I admit that what works for the USA might not work in Soumi.

However, if you need help, just call - neither your neighbors to the west, nor the 82nd Airborne Division, need very long to arrive - ditto for B52s and aircraft carriers.

But you see, the choice is simpel. Dont want to serve your country? Find a diffrent one. Its a democracy, want to change the compulsary service? Elect someone that will....

I don't think you'll see a draft in the US soon. After all the toubles the military had with draftees during the Vietnam days who needs that? I know I'd hate to be in the crap with a bunch of guys that don't want to be there and are doing anything they can to get out. The only scenerio i can see for a draft is as a last resort.

Norway has a huge stockpile of US Military Supplies. IF Norway or any of europe for that matter got into a war, I have no doubt in my mind that the US would step in.

Right, those are prepositioned stocks in case of an attack (or threat thereof) in Northern Europe or along the Baltic coast. The whole point of NATO is a defensive alliance to keep the peace in Europe and, by extension, in North America and the rest of the world. Given some of the distances involved, postioning trained personnel and equipment in the right places is critical.

If your neighbor's house catches on fire, you don't want to start fighting the fire when it gets to your house, you put out the fire right away (ideally, you keep it from starting in the first place) .

In addition, if we get help, how long will it take for that help to arrive? How many months did it again take for US to deploy to Kuwait for OIF? By the time help got here we'd already be overrrun if we had only the token force that we'd have without conscription.

12 - 18 hours.

The US was in no rush to deploy to Kuwait for OIF, it was a build up in the event Hussein did not comply. The timeline allowed for slow deployment.