My Plan to End Conscription in South Korea

Claire_Lovely

Active member
Messages
61
#1


I'm going to make a website which will highlight many reasons to end conscription including:

1. It's slavery.
2. It's sexist
3. It's based on unnecessary fear of others.

This site will list a strategy to follow, the first step is something that is allowed to be done already in South Korea, which is delaying entrance to the military until 28. The site will encourage everyone turning 18 to do this instead of the standard military entrance after 2 years of university, this means that for a span of 10 years it's possible for no one to join the military, meaning when the time comes further pressure to end conscription will be mounting.

Then for those who have to serve, the site will encourage them to simply not go and protest the system. I will have graphics made and postings and articles that can be distributed around South Korea social media outlets. The additional plan is to have people rally behind their favorite K-pop and eSports stars and stop them from being conscripted, beginning to allow new exemptions.

Also I live near Koreatown in Los Angeles and I will encourage anyone who knows Korean here to write letters to the consulate asking for conscription to come to an end.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#2
Your arguments against conscription are all invalid
1. It's slavery.
That's assuming that all slavery is bad which isn't the case. Forcing people to do stuff can be beneficial for society as a whole.
2. It's sexist
Treating people differently based on sex-characteristics can very much be justified.
3. It's based on unnecessary fear of others.
The fear of invasion is very much justified. Historically invasions have happened many times often unprovoked.

Until there is only one government left there will always be the invasion risk looming over you, especially if you are militarily weak.

The real issue with conscription is that it's inefficient. The people who are conscipted are individuals who at large would have otherwise contributed to the economy. Conscription wastes a lot of time of young males and it's generally not effective in strengthening the military since the limiting factors in wars tend to be what material you have rather than the number of people potentially able to defend your country.

Still subjecting everyone to basic military training as part of education does make sense.
 

Claire_Lovely

Active member
Messages
61
#3
That's assuming that all slavery is bad which isn't the case. Forcing people to do stuff can be beneficial for society as a whole.
When a whole society is made to be slaves that is not beneficial to society as a whole, nor the individual. Korea has some of the highest rates of depression and suicide.

Treating people differently based on sex-characteristics can very much be justified.
There isn't any justification for this, if women don't have to serve than neither should men.

The fear of invasion is very much justified. Historically invasions have happened many times often unprovoked.
In the modern era, what has pushed things closer to conflict and invasion is military upbuilding and the lack of understanding others. Also, South Korea's own government is invading them in this case by taking away their rights and restricting their internet, so that invasion into people's lives is what needs to be fought. Also, a single military jet can cost over 70 million dollars. 2 million used into teaching people to go onto Instagram and get to know others and spread messages of peace would be far more effective, as well as ending all sanctions against North Korea and the ending of censoring North Korea sites.

Until there is only one government left there will always be the invasion risk looming over you, especially if you are militarily weak.
This risk has always been decreasing and it's usually only push towards military that makes it more likely to happen. Almost all the terrorist acts committed against the United States were due to United States military intervention in the Middle East.

The real issue with conscription is that it's inefficient. The people who are conscipted are individuals who at large would have otherwise contributed to the economy. Conscription wastes a lot of time of young males and it's generally not effective in strengthening the military since the limiting factors in wars tend to be what material you have rather than the number of people potentially able to defend your country.

Still subjecting everyone to basic military training as part of education does make sense.
It is very inefficient and from the perspective of having a defense force it doesn't even make much sense as people forced to do something won't be well trained. Better defense would come from giving all citizens first amendment rights, but South Korea has very harsh gun laws as do most countries who practice conscription. Basic military training is unlikely to benefit many other aspects and most of the time just interferes with students trying to get careers or go to university. In the United States 1/3 of homeless are veterans.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#4
When a whole society is made to be slaves that is not beneficial to society as a whole, nor the individual. Korea has some of the highest rates of depression and suicide.
Very few states are using conscription to expand their borders. It's usually just a way to reduce official government spending and because young males are affected people at large don't care anyway.

Israel has even worse requirements for military service and of course they have at large failed to expand their borders



A big reason for why we see this is that wars become very costly politically when you have conscription. The US government can get away with having an aggtressive foreign policy since people are not forced to participate (other than paying taxes which are not generally higher than other countries).

There isn't any justification for this, if women don't have to serve than neither should men.
Why shouldn't we discriminate based on sex-characteristics?
In the modern era, what has pushed things closer to conflict and invasion is military upbuilding and the lack of understanding others.
The ukraine conflict is a clear exception, putin decided to invade to expand the borders of russia and he was willing to pay a very high price for that. This is a return to the historic norm.
Also, South Korea's own government is invading them in this case by taking away their rights and restricting their internet, so that invasion into people's lives is what needs to be fought.
It's a mistake to conflate what's good for the state with what's good for individuals who are governed by the state.

Also, a single military jet can cost over 70 million dollars.
That's actually cheap.
Medicare is the second largest program in the federal budget: 2022 Medicare expenditures, net of offsetting receipts, totalled $767 billion — representing 13 percent of total federal spending.
1% of that can buy you 100 fighter jets.

https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/medicare

Taxes are to a large extent wasted on the elderly (the least important members of society) military spending isn't the problem.
2 million used into teaching people to go onto Instagram and get to know others and spread messages of peace would be far more effective, as well as ending all sanctions against North Korea and the ending of censoring North Korea sites.
Appeasement has been tried in the past and it hasn't worked.

This risk has always been decreasing and it's usually only push towards military that makes it more likely to happen.
When there are 2 competing states war will happen at some point unless they agree to marge peacefully.
Almost all the terrorist acts committed against the United States were due to United States military intervention in the Middle East.
You didn't provide a citation for this.

The US became a lot more aggressive post 9/11 and the tragedy didn't repeat.
It is very inefficient and from the perspective of having a defense force it doesn't even make much sense as people forced to do something won't be well trained. Better defense would come from giving all citizens first amendment rights, but South Korea has very harsh gun laws as do most countries who practice conscription. Basic military training is unlikely to benefit many other aspects and most of the time just interferes with students trying to get careers or go to university. In the United States 1/3 of homeless are veterans.
For general weapon training to make sense people do need to be able to quickly get hold of the weapons needed to defend against some attack.

Just giving access to basic weapons like an AR15 probably isn't going to be very effective against an advanced military. For example you can attack with artillery (from a great distance) or bomb cities from the air.
 

Claire_Lovely

Active member
Messages
61
#5
Very few states are using conscription to expand their borders. It's usually just a way to reduce official government spending and because young males are affected people at large don't care anyway.

Israel has even worse requirements for military service and of course they have at large failed to expand their borders



A big reason for why we see this is that wars become very costly politically when you have conscription. The US government can get away with having an aggtressive foreign policy since people are not forced to participate (other than paying taxes which are not generally higher than other countries).
This is a good reason for not having conscription, in that it does not lead to an effective military force.

Why shouldn't we discriminate based on sex-characteristics?
By the basis of equality there shouldn't be a reason that men should fight if women shouldn't.

The ukraine conflict is a clear exception, putin decided to invade to expand the borders of russia and he was willing to pay a very high price for that. This is a return to the historic norm.
This conflict was largely due to NATO expansion and neither many Ukrainians nor many Russians want to fight in this war.

It's a mistake to conflate what's good for the state with what's good for individuals who are governed by the state.
A state is made up of many individuals, so if individuals have sadness or depression or are in slavery it is a failed state.

That's actually cheap.

1% of that can buy you 100 fighter jets.

https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/medicare

Taxes are to a large extent wasted on the elderly (the least important members of society) military spending isn't the problem.
Social security should also be abolished, but military spending is very wasteful and for 2 million USD a lot of work could be done on Instagram and social media to make peace happen, ads that could get hundreds of millions of views, all for 1/70th the cost of one jet.

Appeasement has been tried in the past and it hasn't worked.
Generally appeasement isn't the answer but an actual focus on ending sanctions and having real free trade and understanding.

When there are 2 competing states war will happen at some point unless they agree to marge peacefully.
This is why moving towards free trade is a better status, competition can also occur online through video games instead of the battlefield.

You didn't provide a citation for this.

The US became a lot more aggressive post 9/11 and the tragedy didn't repeat.
Not everything is easily puttable into citations, but looking at the motives that people attacked the United States it was often directly related to intervention. The United States is responsible for destabilizing much of the middle east, and weapons they once used to send there to fight Soviets ended up being used against them.

For general weapon training to make sense people do need to be able to quickly get hold of the weapons needed to defend against some attack.

Just giving access to basic weapons like an AR15 probably isn't going to be very effective against an advanced military. For example you can attack with artillery (from a great distance) or bomb cities from the air.
And the problem is countries that have conscription don't value actual first amendment rights, with countries like South Korea restricting firearms access. In fact you can be imprisoned for 15 years for attempting to get a gun for self-defense in South Korea, while the government can force you to train for the military for 2 years. Ukraine also had this issue where they prevented citizens from actually being able to defend themselves until they were actually invaded. If they had given them freedom both invasion and conscription could have been avoided.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#6
This conflict was largely due to NATO expansion and neither many Ukrainians nor many Russians want to fight in this war.
That's utter nonsense. Ukraine wasn't allowed to join NATO and both EU and the US tried having good relations with russia.

It's actually very rare for russian soldiers to defect. It does happen sometimes (which usually gets a lot of attention) but most russian soldiers keep on fighting and doing their war crimes.

A state is made up of many individuals, so if individuals have sadness or depression or are in slavery it is a failed state.
Being part of something greater (like a great expanding empire) is important for your happyness.

Generally appeasement isn't the answer but an actual focus on ending sanctions and having real free trade and understanding.
So what is the west supposed to do exactly?

What you advocate for was already tried and it failed utterly.

This is why moving towards free trade is a better status, competition can also occur online through video games instead of the battlefield.
You are very much mistaken if you think societal competition is just some status context. It's life or death, for your society to survive it has to crush other competiting societies.
 

Claire_Lovely

Active member
Messages
61
#7
That's utter nonsense. Ukraine wasn't allowed to join NATO and both EU and the US tried having good relations with russia.

It's actually very rare for russian soldiers to defect. It does happen sometimes (which usually gets a lot of attention) but most russian soldiers keep on fighting and doing their war crimes.
This has not really been the case, NATO bases have kept expanding eastwards at the cost of American taxpayer dollars when they would probably rather have more to spend on their families than causing problems with people in other nations.

Being part of something greater (like a great expanding empire) is important for your happyness.
Most military expenditures are counterpoint to building a strong empire, America example has 50-70% obesity rate, many health problems at home, depressed and suicidal veterans, a lot of poverty.

So what is the west supposed to do exactly?

What you advocate for was already tried and it failed utterly.
End all sanctions and open free trade.

You are very much mistaken if you think societal competition is just some status context. It's life or death, for your society to survive it has to crush other competiting societies.
Ending war is about ensuring the survival of many societies at large, warfare just ends up destroying many.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#8
This has not really been the case, NATO bases have kept expanding eastwards at the cost of American taxpayer dollars when they would probably rather have more to spend on their families than causing problems with people in other nations.
But russia isn't attacking any nato country or base. Russia is attacking Ukraine because they weren't allowed to joined NATO.

https://vintologi.com/threads/societal-survival-of-the-fittest.979/#post-6039

This illustrates the issue with your thinking, the west pretty much tried what you were in favor of and when appeasement failed you claim "it failed because we didn't appease putin hard enough" as they commit nerve gas attacks and other forms of aggression against NATO countries. The reality is the polar opposite of your beliefs, weakness and appeasement only encourages further aggression since they get away with it.

The main reason why russia doesn't like NATO is because it prevents them from expanding.

btw: thanks to the invasion both findland and sweden are about to join NATO (assuming turkey doesn't stop it).
Most military expenditures are counterpoint to building a strong empire, America example has 50-70% obesity rate, many health problems at home, depressed and suicidal veterans, a lot of poverty.
The obesity is not caused by military spending, it's caused by people consuming too many caliries (mostly due to highly processed plant-based foods).
End all sanctions and open free trade.
You are an utter moron if you think that would do anything else than encourage more russian agression (since there wouldn't be consequences) thanks to the sanctions the capability of the russian military is declining which makes Europe safer.

You should stick to injecting estrogen and be a good girl, not go into stuff you clearly have no competence in.
Ending war is about ensuring the survival of many societies at large, warfare just ends up destroying many.
Yes war will crush societies one by one until there are only one state/government left controlling the entire planet.

The only potential alternatives to this are sudden human extinction (such as due to a very large asteroid) and peaceful state-mergers.
 
Messages
61
#9
But russia isn't attacking any nato country or base. Russia is attacking Ukraine because they weren't allowed to joined NATO.

https://vintologi.com/threads/societal-survival-of-the-fittest.979/#post-6039

This illustrates the issue with your thinking, the west pretty much tried what you were in favor of and when appeasement failed you claim "it failed because we didn't appease putin hard enough" as they commit nerve gas attacks and other forms of aggression against NATO countries. The reality is the polar opposite of your beliefs, weakness and appeasement only encourages further aggression since they get away with it.
They have not tried to end military bases, NATO has been constantly expanding and costing Americans taxpayers lots of money while causing instability abroad.

The main reason why russia doesn't like NATO is because it prevents them from expanding.

btw: thanks to the invasion both findland and sweden are about to join NATO (assuming turkey doesn't stop it).
These countries would be better off remaining neutral instead of joining out of fear, many people are protesting it and they should be listened to.

The obesity is not caused by military spending, it's caused by people consuming too many caliries (mostly due to highly processed plant-based foods).
The obesity and poverty shows that military spending doesn't make a country strong as America has a lot of internal issues, we should address obesity and poverty in America instead of expanding NATO, and much of obesity is due to animal subsidies making animal products cheaper.

You are an utter moron if you think that would do anything else than encourage more russian agression (since there wouldn't be consequences) thanks to the sanctions the capability of the russian military is declining which makes Europe safer.
It's actually sanctions that make people more divided both globally and within countries, as people realize that others don't see them as humans even though many individuals from Russia and America would be friends on platforms like Discord easily if not listening to their government.

You should stick to injecting estrogen and be a good girl, not go into stuff you clearly have no competence in.

Yes war will crush societies one by one until there are only one state/government left controlling the entire planet.

The only potential alternatives to this are sudden human extinction (such as due to a very large asteroid) and peaceful state-mergers.
It would be better if more males injected estrogen all around as war is likely something that unnecessarily sacrifices most males.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#10
They have not tried to end military bases, NATO has been constantly expanding and costing Americans taxpayers lots of money while causing instability abroad.
This is a great example of "unfalsifiable reasoning". it's always "we didn't appease putin hard enough" when the reality is the polar opposite of that.
These countries would be better off remaining neutral instead of joining out of fear, many people are protesting it and they should be listened to.
No thanks. I want my country to do make decision that make the most strategic sense.

Article 5 does provide a great deterence. Russia so far has only invaded countries that are not members of NATO because putin know he cannot win a WWIII against NATO (or even USA alone).
The obesity and poverty shows that military spending doesn't make a country strong as America has a lot of internal issues, we should address obesity and poverty in America instead of expanding NATO
It is correct that merely maintaining a strong military isn't enough. You actually need to use it for territorial expansionism.
Much of obesity is due to animal subsidies making animal products cheaper.
Muscle meat isn't particularly dense in calories so i very much doubt that theory.
It's actually sanctions that make people more divided both globally and within countries, as people realize that others don't see them as humans
You are making the mistake of thinking of it as 2 populations against each other when reality it's a conflict between states.
even though many individuals from Russia and America would be friends on platforms like Discord easily if not listening to their government.
You are at a severe disadvantage trying to reach out to russian solders. In addition to being able to outright force people to participate in wars governments also have many other tools of their disposal they can use to push people into becoming cannon fodder in war.

You also do not even need a majority to fight. 1% of the russian population would be 1.44 million.

You can also invest into technology that allows you to cause massive damage with minimal casualties (such as drones), increasingly war is becoming typically one-siden where the causalties are almost exclusively on the losing side getting slaughtered while barely killing anyone back (due to not being able to), israel vs gaza is a great example of that.l
It would be better if more males injected estrogen all around as war is likely something that unnecessarily sacrifices most males.
It's not unnecessarily. We do need to expand our borders at some point (to eliminate competing states and become more powerful) if you remain passive as a country it will be just a question of time before you get invaded by someone much more powerful.
 
Top