> At 11:43 AM 6/7/01, Nerd From Hell wrote:
>
> >If Conscription was declared illegal throughout the world,
> there would be
> >little chance for a major invasion of a significant country,
> because only
> >volunteers would be used. I tend to believe that volunteer
> armies do not
> >invade for imperialistic profit- they defend their country.
>
>
> Except: who would _enforce_ that law? And could they defend
> an innocent
> (OK, perhaps it's a relative term) country against a larger,
> more powerful
> aggressor without conscription?
I agree that the law could not be enforced. However, that does not say that
resources could be brought into play, like the Lend/Lease program at the
start of WWII. A strong show of force is no longer predicated with bodies,
but with wealth and technology.
For example, assume your law
> is in effect
> now, and mainland China invades Taiwan with a massive
> conscript army. Who
> acts to enforce the "no conscription" law and comes to
> Taiwan's defense, or
> do we all just throw up our hands and say "it's not our
> country, so it's
> not our problem"?
Its not our problem, but that does not mean we need to turn our back. In
this case, Taiwan has to assume responsibility for what is happening to it.
Voluntary armies are very demcratic. If enough people show up to "vote" or
rather volunteer, there will be defense and support. Although tragedies (war
crimes) do occur during occupation, the principal goal of the Chinese is
control, not killing. War crimes tend to get people enraged enough to
volunteer, or get involved.
So Taiwan falls, at least no one fought for its freedom involuntary. They
may lose some freedoms, and it may not be right in some peoples mind's, but
they are still alive - by choice.
>
> -- Ronn! :)
>
>
>
