Posted by Greg Wool from Abbotsford BC Canada on April 12, 2021 at 04:27:48:
In Reply to: I think I'm going to frame this response posted by Michael A. Dorosh on April 11, 2021 at 21:50:00:
Further to this, another problem with going on the plan
of conscripting a armed forces if we need 'em has a
weakness that is becoming more and more dangerous with
each passing year. Earlier in this century, a very
small percentage of people in Canada had never handled
a firearm. With the urbanization of Canada (Admit it,
everybody thought I was going to rant about gun control)
, the percentage of the population who have never touched
a gun is increasing. On top of that, the specialized
trades that are now vital on the modern battle field
can't be learned as quickly some think. Am I as a
civilian to realistically understand that I could be
trained as anything but cannon fodder with a C-7?
I'm not saying that I'm stupid, far from it. But one
would hope that, for example, the artillery gunner's
course is more complex than "Put the shell in there,
close the breech, pull the lanyard...nah don't worry
about aiming it...there are so many bombs flying, who
can tell if we're accurate?". I'm not saying that I
could never learn to fire a 155, but I really don't
think it's a skill I could acquire over the weekend.
At least not to the point where I'd like to take an
amazingly realistic final exam...
To summarize: As our society has changed, so has warfare.
The expectation that our civilians can be turned into
modern soldiers in time to have any effect on a modern
battle field is not realistic. The only way for the
plan of conscription in times of war to be workable is
as follows:
1)A regular force must be maintained in such numbers
that they could, if augmented by the reserves, fight a
holding action for at least 10 months.
2)In addition the regular force tasked to fight the
holding action, enough regular force members must be
available to assess and train the conscripts.
Just my uneducated and unqualifed opinion. As a
potential conscript.