this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
268 points (98.6% liked)

World News

58310 readers
1510 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] potter2010@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Maybe this is a bad take from someone with no military knowledge, but I never understand how "we need bodies for the meat grinder" so let's do conscription is often only mandatory for men?

You're either going to shove a gun in their hand and point them in the direction to shoot, have them run some equipment/weapon, or have them in a support role. Both men and women can do those things equally well.

Any very generalized physical differences between men and women would have minimal difference in the ability to carry out their tasks.

[–] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Procreation. Long term it's less worse if it's half the men that get shot

[–] stepan@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 week ago

In terms of reproductive organs: largely not

[–] magnue@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Of course not

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

When it comes to the needs of the elite, and needing workers, hell no. We never have been.

[–] BurnoutDV@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This assumes human women are some kind of breeding facility, which they Are not, few men won't impregnate many women if not for apocalyptic scenarios, there fore that argument doesn't work. A young mother needs a lot of support, a man that just gives his semen and disappears afterwards is not very helpful in that case. Children are a multiplayer experience for a long time, not just a moment

[–] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago

if not for apocalyptic scenarios

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kossa@feddit.org 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

One claim always has been, that "typical woman" is gonna have a hard time to carry wounded "typical man" to safety. But that's bullshit anyway, because a small guy is gonna have a hard time carrying big guy just as well, and that doesn't save them from conscription.

Another take I heard during duty was "you serve 9 months, a woman gives her body during pregnacy for 9 months for the fatherland" 😅. Like, ok, didn't know forced pregnancy was a common occurrence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

You're thinking of only the battle itself, but if I had to guess more importantly soldiers in any time period march heavy, which does require a lot of physical strength.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The german constitution's article 12a has a clause on drafting women for work in field hospitals, but also explicitly states they can't be forced into combat roles.

[–] potter2010@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sounds about time for a constitution change.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

With the current majorities it can only get worse.

[–] stepan@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

really fucking weird comments down here. people supporting forced military service. tf

[–] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well I guess some people know a bit of history. It's hard to stay a free country without a military

[–] isles@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago

Costa Rica's doing OK. They figured the US keeps starting military coups in the Americas, may as well remove that attack vector. Nobody's calling them a superpower though.

[–] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a demographic problem where the young feel fucked over by the old. The old are the electorate and the young always get the shit end of the stick.

They won't afford anything ever, please pay boomers pension oh and please die for your country.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago

Boomers were conscripted, too.

[–] Insekticus@aussie.zone 12 points 1 week ago

Some of the older, really damaged boomers I've known in my life are pro forced military service at 18. They think it will harden the youth because either they were forced into it ir they don't understand that their trauma damaged them, it made them compassionless, not stronger/better.

[–] chux@feddit.org 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Honestly, nowadays I think that conscription should be seen more like an education on how to defend yourself within the organized structures of the state, and maybe should also be implemented more in those lines. And such is necessary nowadays. I didn't have to go and since I had my plans made I also didn't but I have been considering to maybe look whether I can still at least learn a lite version of it. How many conscripted were forced to fight in the last decades? The first to go, and the only ones since probably the second world war (in germany), is the professional army, no conscripted is forced. Of course once we are in a true conflict to the point that the professional army isn't sufficient anymore this starts to change, but then it would change for you regardless of whether you have trained the basics or not, and then I would prefer knowing what I do and how to do it, whether I have to or want to defend the society, friends, family etc. in an organized structure or not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If anything, the Bundeswehr should simply copy the Finnish Reserve model. One better be prepared for the fucking Muscovites as a possible deterrence, because they are far from finished. As long as Vlad receives public support, he can continue to send troops into the meat grinder and that is how the Russians wear you down. They do not give a rat's ass about losses. Nobody with a sane mind would want to be occupied by the Russians.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

What aspect of that model do you mean?

German conscription was (technically still is but the draft is paused) mostly about training reserves.

[–] brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think people live in a fairy tale.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Or they understand the only realistic military threat they could face is a second-rate power unable to conquer its much smaller nextdoor neighbor.

[–] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's right Ukraine is just waving that off without a sweat

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Okay let me put it like this: Germany is spending more annually on its military than Ukraine ($84 billion vs $114 billion in 2025) despite only the latter being at war. The economic and technological ability to wage war isn't even comparable between those two countries. Now of course war is about more than just money, but in industrial warfare money does matter a lot. So does industrial capacity, which again Germany has much more of. And that's Germany alone, not even the whole EU. In the absence of competing evidence I'm very comfortable assuming that Germany would do much better than Ukraine if attacked.

[–] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How many troops does Germany have vs Ukraine?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

63 thousand, because Germany doesn't face serious threats to its territory that'd require a bigger force. It'd increase if that was necessary (which would be obvious from a mile away). The money necessary to pay and supply more troops would be much better spent helping Ukraine in any case.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What I can tell you is that Russia's best chance would still be to face a country one by one.

Even if you don't care or underestimate the capacity of them to wage war, being ready is your best deterrent.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

No, that's the third or so best deterrent. The best deterrent is to back Ukraine to the hilt so Russia doesn't get ideas ever again.

[–] carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›