How can I successfully establish a nationwide combat training program for a large country?












4












$begingroup$


I am the dictator of a nation with a population of 350 million people. In order to keep our nation strong and independent, I have decided to institute a nationwide combat preparation program in which citizens (men and women) would be taught some degree of military training in order to prepare for war or defense of the homeland. All people would go through this program before entering the workforce or going on to higher degree of education. Upon completion of the program, people invested in having a career in the military would go on to enlist, continuing to train their entire lives. All others would go back to being good and productive citizens.



There are some nations such as Israel that has mandatory conscription for all citizens over the age of 18. A much larger nation called the Soviet Union tried this and proved successful for a time, before collapsing.



An order like this has the potential to cause economic and political instability, such as reducing the workforce and preventing it from producing food, or people simply trying to get out of the service in some way. Is it feasible for me to successfulky institute this law for my nation, which has a much larger population? How can I make this happen successfully without causing unintended negative consequences for the nation?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Do you want mandatory service, or just training?
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    yesterday






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    All nations of continental Europe had universal military service (for men) roughly from the 19th to well past the middle of the 20th century. So, yes, we know it is possible, at least for one of the sexes. Trying to conscript women may have unwanted side effects, though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are also potentially training all of the home-grown opposition militia wannabes in your country as well. How homogeneous is the population? If it is a despot dictator, I can see a civil war or a revolution in the future.
    $endgroup$
    – Justin Thyme
    21 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is such a bizarre question: you have already answered it yourself. The Soviet Union did it. If you have any questions about how it worked, research them!
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel B
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AlexP that's why conscription tends to not be a very long period. Most of the same things you mention are the same for men, for them too there's limited time for the same things. About the only difference is that men aren't going to get pregnant, but if they get a woman pregnant will have to look after their wife and children.
    $endgroup$
    – jwenting
    12 hours ago
















4












$begingroup$


I am the dictator of a nation with a population of 350 million people. In order to keep our nation strong and independent, I have decided to institute a nationwide combat preparation program in which citizens (men and women) would be taught some degree of military training in order to prepare for war or defense of the homeland. All people would go through this program before entering the workforce or going on to higher degree of education. Upon completion of the program, people invested in having a career in the military would go on to enlist, continuing to train their entire lives. All others would go back to being good and productive citizens.



There are some nations such as Israel that has mandatory conscription for all citizens over the age of 18. A much larger nation called the Soviet Union tried this and proved successful for a time, before collapsing.



An order like this has the potential to cause economic and political instability, such as reducing the workforce and preventing it from producing food, or people simply trying to get out of the service in some way. Is it feasible for me to successfulky institute this law for my nation, which has a much larger population? How can I make this happen successfully without causing unintended negative consequences for the nation?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Do you want mandatory service, or just training?
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    yesterday






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    All nations of continental Europe had universal military service (for men) roughly from the 19th to well past the middle of the 20th century. So, yes, we know it is possible, at least for one of the sexes. Trying to conscript women may have unwanted side effects, though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are also potentially training all of the home-grown opposition militia wannabes in your country as well. How homogeneous is the population? If it is a despot dictator, I can see a civil war or a revolution in the future.
    $endgroup$
    – Justin Thyme
    21 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is such a bizarre question: you have already answered it yourself. The Soviet Union did it. If you have any questions about how it worked, research them!
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel B
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AlexP that's why conscription tends to not be a very long period. Most of the same things you mention are the same for men, for them too there's limited time for the same things. About the only difference is that men aren't going to get pregnant, but if they get a woman pregnant will have to look after their wife and children.
    $endgroup$
    – jwenting
    12 hours ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$


I am the dictator of a nation with a population of 350 million people. In order to keep our nation strong and independent, I have decided to institute a nationwide combat preparation program in which citizens (men and women) would be taught some degree of military training in order to prepare for war or defense of the homeland. All people would go through this program before entering the workforce or going on to higher degree of education. Upon completion of the program, people invested in having a career in the military would go on to enlist, continuing to train their entire lives. All others would go back to being good and productive citizens.



There are some nations such as Israel that has mandatory conscription for all citizens over the age of 18. A much larger nation called the Soviet Union tried this and proved successful for a time, before collapsing.



An order like this has the potential to cause economic and political instability, such as reducing the workforce and preventing it from producing food, or people simply trying to get out of the service in some way. Is it feasible for me to successfulky institute this law for my nation, which has a much larger population? How can I make this happen successfully without causing unintended negative consequences for the nation?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am the dictator of a nation with a population of 350 million people. In order to keep our nation strong and independent, I have decided to institute a nationwide combat preparation program in which citizens (men and women) would be taught some degree of military training in order to prepare for war or defense of the homeland. All people would go through this program before entering the workforce or going on to higher degree of education. Upon completion of the program, people invested in having a career in the military would go on to enlist, continuing to train their entire lives. All others would go back to being good and productive citizens.



There are some nations such as Israel that has mandatory conscription for all citizens over the age of 18. A much larger nation called the Soviet Union tried this and proved successful for a time, before collapsing.



An order like this has the potential to cause economic and political instability, such as reducing the workforce and preventing it from producing food, or people simply trying to get out of the service in some way. Is it feasible for me to successfulky institute this law for my nation, which has a much larger population? How can I make this happen successfully without causing unintended negative consequences for the nation?







society civilization combat






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 21 hours ago







Incognito

















asked yesterday









IncognitoIncognito

7,596767108




7,596767108












  • $begingroup$
    Do you want mandatory service, or just training?
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    yesterday






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    All nations of continental Europe had universal military service (for men) roughly from the 19th to well past the middle of the 20th century. So, yes, we know it is possible, at least for one of the sexes. Trying to conscript women may have unwanted side effects, though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are also potentially training all of the home-grown opposition militia wannabes in your country as well. How homogeneous is the population? If it is a despot dictator, I can see a civil war or a revolution in the future.
    $endgroup$
    – Justin Thyme
    21 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is such a bizarre question: you have already answered it yourself. The Soviet Union did it. If you have any questions about how it worked, research them!
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel B
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AlexP that's why conscription tends to not be a very long period. Most of the same things you mention are the same for men, for them too there's limited time for the same things. About the only difference is that men aren't going to get pregnant, but if they get a woman pregnant will have to look after their wife and children.
    $endgroup$
    – jwenting
    12 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Do you want mandatory service, or just training?
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    yesterday






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    All nations of continental Europe had universal military service (for men) roughly from the 19th to well past the middle of the 20th century. So, yes, we know it is possible, at least for one of the sexes. Trying to conscript women may have unwanted side effects, though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You are also potentially training all of the home-grown opposition militia wannabes in your country as well. How homogeneous is the population? If it is a despot dictator, I can see a civil war or a revolution in the future.
    $endgroup$
    – Justin Thyme
    21 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is such a bizarre question: you have already answered it yourself. The Soviet Union did it. If you have any questions about how it worked, research them!
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel B
    19 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AlexP that's why conscription tends to not be a very long period. Most of the same things you mention are the same for men, for them too there's limited time for the same things. About the only difference is that men aren't going to get pregnant, but if they get a woman pregnant will have to look after their wife and children.
    $endgroup$
    – jwenting
    12 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Do you want mandatory service, or just training?
$endgroup$
– Alexander
yesterday




$begingroup$
Do you want mandatory service, or just training?
$endgroup$
– Alexander
yesterday




7




7




$begingroup$
All nations of continental Europe had universal military service (for men) roughly from the 19th to well past the middle of the 20th century. So, yes, we know it is possible, at least for one of the sexes. Trying to conscript women may have unwanted side effects, though.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday






$begingroup$
All nations of continental Europe had universal military service (for men) roughly from the 19th to well past the middle of the 20th century. So, yes, we know it is possible, at least for one of the sexes. Trying to conscript women may have unwanted side effects, though.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
yesterday






1




1




$begingroup$
You are also potentially training all of the home-grown opposition militia wannabes in your country as well. How homogeneous is the population? If it is a despot dictator, I can see a civil war or a revolution in the future.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme
21 hours ago




$begingroup$
You are also potentially training all of the home-grown opposition militia wannabes in your country as well. How homogeneous is the population? If it is a despot dictator, I can see a civil war or a revolution in the future.
$endgroup$
– Justin Thyme
21 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
This is such a bizarre question: you have already answered it yourself. The Soviet Union did it. If you have any questions about how it worked, research them!
$endgroup$
– Daniel B
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
This is such a bizarre question: you have already answered it yourself. The Soviet Union did it. If you have any questions about how it worked, research them!
$endgroup$
– Daniel B
19 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@AlexP that's why conscription tends to not be a very long period. Most of the same things you mention are the same for men, for them too there's limited time for the same things. About the only difference is that men aren't going to get pregnant, but if they get a woman pregnant will have to look after their wife and children.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
12 hours ago




$begingroup$
@AlexP that's why conscription tends to not be a very long period. Most of the same things you mention are the same for men, for them too there's limited time for the same things. About the only difference is that men aren't going to get pregnant, but if they get a woman pregnant will have to look after their wife and children.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
12 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















20












$begingroup$

Sure, why not? The Soviet Union had mandatory military service pretty much EXACTLY like what you're describing with a population that size. The factors that would make it difficult to have nationwide combat training have everything to do with politics (your population refuses to participate) and economics (you can't afford to have all those people not producing food), and nothing at all to do with how big your country or population is.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    And of course the questionable quality of the people leaving the mandatory training program which for the economic reasons you hint at can't last very long so never impart more than the bare minimum of skills.
    $endgroup$
    – jwenting
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jwenting Well, the obligatory military service usually lasts a year or two. The quality is questionable but not because of the length.
    $endgroup$
    – Jakub Kania
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JakubKania the length has something to do with it, in that in that time there's not a lot of space to properly train people. The lack of motivation and incentive among the conscript recruits is also a major factor, but you can never gain a lot of experience in a few months training.
    $endgroup$
    – jwenting
    10 hours ago



















7












$begingroup$

In addition to the Israeli Defense Force, you have the Swiss Militia, which has mandatory conscription, and the United States, which has one of the largest volunteer forces in the world. (China and India have larger active duty numbers, because they are both one billion strong populations. Of those three, per capita total active duty U.S. Military forces is 4.2 persons per 1000 citizens, where as China is 1.5 persons per 1000 citizens and India is 1.1 per 1000). The United States also has a population just slight under your nation's, and aside from the active duty and reserves, has a highly armed civilian population, with more guns than citizens. Yamamoto famously cited this as one of the reasons Japan really really really should think twice about winning a war on the U.S (they didn't not that it got to that point... though it should be pointed out that the United States Civil War is still deadliest war in its nations history and remains the deadliest war fought in the Americas ever) and it did practice conscription in World War II, so it can be scaled up.



While I'm not familiar with the Israeli system, the Swiss system is basically founded on the belief that citizenship also entails some obligations to the community, so all citizens by law perform community services upon reaching age 18. This is most typically seen as military duties, but many community fire departments, EMS services, and other services are staffed by people performing this duty time. Conscientious objectors can either opt to a non-gun service or join the military in an unarmed role (usually a combat medic, which can't carry weapons per rules of warfare or chaplains, who cannot do this either). Typically this involves a 30-week duty period plus a period of time as reservist status if not choosing to be a career military (enlisted typically leave reserve status at age 30 and officers at 34). Reservist famously took their standard issue weapons home with them along with bullets for the weapon that were regularly checked to ensure they were not used without instruction, though this practice was abolished recently, and now the reservist will have to report to the near by ammunition depot for his ammo and, if choosing to not keep it in the house, his weapon. Switzerland is very mountainous and many of their defensive strategies involve forcing hostile forces into narrow passes which are basically shooting galleries. It was once joked that a Nazi General once met with a Swiss General and and asked "What would the Swiss do if I marched into Switzerland with an army a million Germans strong?" The Swiss General Responds "Well, then I would meet your army with an army of a million Swiss and we would each shoot once and then go home." The Nazi General smiles, and says, "Suppose I come with army of Two million men strong, what would you do then? (About a quarter of Switzerland's total modern population)" The Swiss General answered "Then we would shoot twice."



With any military, it's also not about shooting... but who helps you to shoot. An accepted rule of the military is that for every man on the front line, their are four men behind him in support tasks (food, supplies, logistics... a military marches on it's stomach), which is why the United States is such a formidable foe. The United States military invests a ton of money in getting supplies to the boys "Over There" as the World War 1 song calls the war front. World War Two implemented rationing when it wasn't needed so that supplies could go to front lines, and while the rest of the world was marching to the battle lines, the U.S. brought jeeps and drove... There's something to be said for troops that drove 35 miles fighting troops that marched the same distance. And while the U.S. has not done conscription since the Vietnam war, signing up for the Draft is still required by all male citizens, and again, their arsenal of civilian weapons knows no equal in the world. It has long been understood that an invasion of the United States would be damn near impossible by the huge territory alone, but the fact that the population is heavily armed. As one of my friends observed The Swiss' gun culture is strongly informed by fear of the threat of outside governments invading it, but the U.S. gun culture is informed by the fact their own government was once the enemy (and now we call it the UK)... so the people who own guns in the states, more often than not will be more than willing to admit that if the day comes when the government will turn against the people, they will shoot the government... and if they are willing to do that to their own government, what do you think the attitude to invading forces would be?



Where I see problems with your hypothetical nation though is something that the U.S., Swiss, and Israeli countries have, which is a strong sense of democratic self and the idea that it's up to the people to fight for the nation. This is an attitude not often found in a dictatorship in general, which may have to control for more descent in the ranks of the conscripts than the United States, Swiss, and Israeli forces have to put up with. The Swiss is very neutral and their military exists to ensure it doesn't go to war, the less I discuss Israel the better... But they've had a lot of wars in a very short history, most of which leave them surrounded but for the ocean, and citizens tend to be committed to defending themselves. In the United States, starting wars has been a rare recent affair, and they've only truly done it with the volunteers only... conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked and wish to defend the nations ideals. You'd most likely need to really work around how you can get your common man to understand the need for his conscription into service is good... or all you do is arm your rebellions.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    "conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked" OR when they fabricated being attacked to burn some rice fields.
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbamok
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Hobbamok: Hence the use of the word "tends" which is to prevent my statement from applying in all instances or being taken out of context as you have done.
    $endgroup$
    – hszmv
    8 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

Whilst it might not be quite what you’re looking for, Medieval England effectively trained conscripts to be longbow men. This was done through a law stating that all citizens between the ages of 15 to 60 should be armed. It was not formal training but it allowed for a stronger foundation so that, if they were conscripted, they could be trained faster due to not having to start from no experience at all. Its a similar idea to it being the law for all men to own a sword, it allowed for armies to be quickly equiped, trained and mobilised.



If you wanted to apply this to a more modern setting, you could make it law that all citizens between 20 to 50, for example, must own a firearm (similar to the American’s “Right to Bare Arms”). This would mean that you would still gain the advantages quickly equiping, training and mobilising your army of conscripts. Russia had problems with equipment during the first and second world wars due to being so large, men were sent to the front lines unarmed and instructed to pick up the gun of the man infront of you. However, if it is law in your country that every citizen must own a firearm, you essentially have a huge stockpile of weapons and a standing army to use them.



While not everyone will be a combat-ready soldier, most people will be at least familiar with firearms seeing as almost everyone in the country, inluding them, owns one. You also will have many who are informally trained to use a firearm, such as by older family members or even state education if you made it law that adolecents must be taught about using firearms safely.



You could even have policies that encourage first-person shooter games which, studies have shown, do increase aim with actual firearms and willingness to fire at other humans. I can’t remember the name of the documentary but that might be for the best, its not a subject for polite conversation.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The king passed a law saying that everyone had to practice with their bow regularly and they banned other social activities like football that would distract people. If you make the national sport something that translates easily into military skills then people will eagerly train in their free time
    $endgroup$
    – mgh42
    21 hours ago



















1












$begingroup$

While there have been a number of good answers, I will question the premise. Why do you believe that you need to provide combat training to the vast majority of the citizens of your nation?



Modern warfare has long ago left the age of mass combat and mass armies. As well, military activities take place across a wide variety of domains: land, sea, air, space, cyber and cognitive. Training people to be riflemen may be an "ideal", but a USMC fighter pilot in an F-35, a member of the Israeli Defense Force "Twitter Platoon", an engineer aboard an Indian Arihant-class submarine or a member of the United States Space Force at their console controlling a satellite in orbit have very limited need for "combat" training the way we normally think of it, but a great need for specialist training.



Going even farther, Russian Hybrid Warfare uses a multiplicity of tools which the commander can call upon in any order depending on the situation. Looking at the diagram, you can see only a small portion are dedicated ground combat troops:



enter image description here



Russian Hybrid War



What in the West is often referred to as "4GW" (Fourth Generation Warfare) encompasses "DIME" (Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Economic) tools also used as the situation suggests. Few people might suspect Fracking is a major tool in how America confronts Russia and Iran, for example.



So unless there is another reason which you believe that making everyone undergo mandatory military training serves, you might be far better off conserving your resources and applying them to the specialties that are needed in modern warfare.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    As mentioned already, most European nations had conscription well into the 20th century, demanding military service for all men "able of body and mind" for a period of usually 1-2 years during which they would receive basic training and some specialist skills depending on their aptitude.



    They could also be recalled for recurring training of a few weeks every couple of years.



    The main problem with such a system is morale. The conscripts tended to be poorly motivated, and didn't make very good soldiers as a result (in general). Their combat skills would often be questionable. Conscription during times of war (or the short term threat thereof) is usually more effective as people tend to be more motivated to serve their country in such times, plus the very real prospect of having to depend on the skills you're learning for personal survival within the next few weeks or months is a great motivator, far more than getting chewed out by a drill sergeant for not meeting the expected performance standards.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142347%2fhow-can-i-successfully-establish-a-nationwide-combat-training-program-for-a-larg%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      20












      $begingroup$

      Sure, why not? The Soviet Union had mandatory military service pretty much EXACTLY like what you're describing with a population that size. The factors that would make it difficult to have nationwide combat training have everything to do with politics (your population refuses to participate) and economics (you can't afford to have all those people not producing food), and nothing at all to do with how big your country or population is.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        And of course the questionable quality of the people leaving the mandatory training program which for the economic reasons you hint at can't last very long so never impart more than the bare minimum of skills.
        $endgroup$
        – jwenting
        14 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @jwenting Well, the obligatory military service usually lasts a year or two. The quality is questionable but not because of the length.
        $endgroup$
        – Jakub Kania
        10 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @JakubKania the length has something to do with it, in that in that time there's not a lot of space to properly train people. The lack of motivation and incentive among the conscript recruits is also a major factor, but you can never gain a lot of experience in a few months training.
        $endgroup$
        – jwenting
        10 hours ago
















      20












      $begingroup$

      Sure, why not? The Soviet Union had mandatory military service pretty much EXACTLY like what you're describing with a population that size. The factors that would make it difficult to have nationwide combat training have everything to do with politics (your population refuses to participate) and economics (you can't afford to have all those people not producing food), and nothing at all to do with how big your country or population is.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        And of course the questionable quality of the people leaving the mandatory training program which for the economic reasons you hint at can't last very long so never impart more than the bare minimum of skills.
        $endgroup$
        – jwenting
        14 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @jwenting Well, the obligatory military service usually lasts a year or two. The quality is questionable but not because of the length.
        $endgroup$
        – Jakub Kania
        10 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @JakubKania the length has something to do with it, in that in that time there's not a lot of space to properly train people. The lack of motivation and incentive among the conscript recruits is also a major factor, but you can never gain a lot of experience in a few months training.
        $endgroup$
        – jwenting
        10 hours ago














      20












      20








      20





      $begingroup$

      Sure, why not? The Soviet Union had mandatory military service pretty much EXACTLY like what you're describing with a population that size. The factors that would make it difficult to have nationwide combat training have everything to do with politics (your population refuses to participate) and economics (you can't afford to have all those people not producing food), and nothing at all to do with how big your country or population is.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      Sure, why not? The Soviet Union had mandatory military service pretty much EXACTLY like what you're describing with a population that size. The factors that would make it difficult to have nationwide combat training have everything to do with politics (your population refuses to participate) and economics (you can't afford to have all those people not producing food), and nothing at all to do with how big your country or population is.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited yesterday

























      answered yesterday









      Morris The CatMorris The Cat

      3,175519




      3,175519












      • $begingroup$
        And of course the questionable quality of the people leaving the mandatory training program which for the economic reasons you hint at can't last very long so never impart more than the bare minimum of skills.
        $endgroup$
        – jwenting
        14 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @jwenting Well, the obligatory military service usually lasts a year or two. The quality is questionable but not because of the length.
        $endgroup$
        – Jakub Kania
        10 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @JakubKania the length has something to do with it, in that in that time there's not a lot of space to properly train people. The lack of motivation and incentive among the conscript recruits is also a major factor, but you can never gain a lot of experience in a few months training.
        $endgroup$
        – jwenting
        10 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        And of course the questionable quality of the people leaving the mandatory training program which for the economic reasons you hint at can't last very long so never impart more than the bare minimum of skills.
        $endgroup$
        – jwenting
        14 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @jwenting Well, the obligatory military service usually lasts a year or two. The quality is questionable but not because of the length.
        $endgroup$
        – Jakub Kania
        10 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @JakubKania the length has something to do with it, in that in that time there's not a lot of space to properly train people. The lack of motivation and incentive among the conscript recruits is also a major factor, but you can never gain a lot of experience in a few months training.
        $endgroup$
        – jwenting
        10 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      And of course the questionable quality of the people leaving the mandatory training program which for the economic reasons you hint at can't last very long so never impart more than the bare minimum of skills.
      $endgroup$
      – jwenting
      14 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      And of course the questionable quality of the people leaving the mandatory training program which for the economic reasons you hint at can't last very long so never impart more than the bare minimum of skills.
      $endgroup$
      – jwenting
      14 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      @jwenting Well, the obligatory military service usually lasts a year or two. The quality is questionable but not because of the length.
      $endgroup$
      – Jakub Kania
      10 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @jwenting Well, the obligatory military service usually lasts a year or two. The quality is questionable but not because of the length.
      $endgroup$
      – Jakub Kania
      10 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      @JakubKania the length has something to do with it, in that in that time there's not a lot of space to properly train people. The lack of motivation and incentive among the conscript recruits is also a major factor, but you can never gain a lot of experience in a few months training.
      $endgroup$
      – jwenting
      10 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @JakubKania the length has something to do with it, in that in that time there's not a lot of space to properly train people. The lack of motivation and incentive among the conscript recruits is also a major factor, but you can never gain a lot of experience in a few months training.
      $endgroup$
      – jwenting
      10 hours ago











      7












      $begingroup$

      In addition to the Israeli Defense Force, you have the Swiss Militia, which has mandatory conscription, and the United States, which has one of the largest volunteer forces in the world. (China and India have larger active duty numbers, because they are both one billion strong populations. Of those three, per capita total active duty U.S. Military forces is 4.2 persons per 1000 citizens, where as China is 1.5 persons per 1000 citizens and India is 1.1 per 1000). The United States also has a population just slight under your nation's, and aside from the active duty and reserves, has a highly armed civilian population, with more guns than citizens. Yamamoto famously cited this as one of the reasons Japan really really really should think twice about winning a war on the U.S (they didn't not that it got to that point... though it should be pointed out that the United States Civil War is still deadliest war in its nations history and remains the deadliest war fought in the Americas ever) and it did practice conscription in World War II, so it can be scaled up.



      While I'm not familiar with the Israeli system, the Swiss system is basically founded on the belief that citizenship also entails some obligations to the community, so all citizens by law perform community services upon reaching age 18. This is most typically seen as military duties, but many community fire departments, EMS services, and other services are staffed by people performing this duty time. Conscientious objectors can either opt to a non-gun service or join the military in an unarmed role (usually a combat medic, which can't carry weapons per rules of warfare or chaplains, who cannot do this either). Typically this involves a 30-week duty period plus a period of time as reservist status if not choosing to be a career military (enlisted typically leave reserve status at age 30 and officers at 34). Reservist famously took their standard issue weapons home with them along with bullets for the weapon that were regularly checked to ensure they were not used without instruction, though this practice was abolished recently, and now the reservist will have to report to the near by ammunition depot for his ammo and, if choosing to not keep it in the house, his weapon. Switzerland is very mountainous and many of their defensive strategies involve forcing hostile forces into narrow passes which are basically shooting galleries. It was once joked that a Nazi General once met with a Swiss General and and asked "What would the Swiss do if I marched into Switzerland with an army a million Germans strong?" The Swiss General Responds "Well, then I would meet your army with an army of a million Swiss and we would each shoot once and then go home." The Nazi General smiles, and says, "Suppose I come with army of Two million men strong, what would you do then? (About a quarter of Switzerland's total modern population)" The Swiss General answered "Then we would shoot twice."



      With any military, it's also not about shooting... but who helps you to shoot. An accepted rule of the military is that for every man on the front line, their are four men behind him in support tasks (food, supplies, logistics... a military marches on it's stomach), which is why the United States is such a formidable foe. The United States military invests a ton of money in getting supplies to the boys "Over There" as the World War 1 song calls the war front. World War Two implemented rationing when it wasn't needed so that supplies could go to front lines, and while the rest of the world was marching to the battle lines, the U.S. brought jeeps and drove... There's something to be said for troops that drove 35 miles fighting troops that marched the same distance. And while the U.S. has not done conscription since the Vietnam war, signing up for the Draft is still required by all male citizens, and again, their arsenal of civilian weapons knows no equal in the world. It has long been understood that an invasion of the United States would be damn near impossible by the huge territory alone, but the fact that the population is heavily armed. As one of my friends observed The Swiss' gun culture is strongly informed by fear of the threat of outside governments invading it, but the U.S. gun culture is informed by the fact their own government was once the enemy (and now we call it the UK)... so the people who own guns in the states, more often than not will be more than willing to admit that if the day comes when the government will turn against the people, they will shoot the government... and if they are willing to do that to their own government, what do you think the attitude to invading forces would be?



      Where I see problems with your hypothetical nation though is something that the U.S., Swiss, and Israeli countries have, which is a strong sense of democratic self and the idea that it's up to the people to fight for the nation. This is an attitude not often found in a dictatorship in general, which may have to control for more descent in the ranks of the conscripts than the United States, Swiss, and Israeli forces have to put up with. The Swiss is very neutral and their military exists to ensure it doesn't go to war, the less I discuss Israel the better... But they've had a lot of wars in a very short history, most of which leave them surrounded but for the ocean, and citizens tend to be committed to defending themselves. In the United States, starting wars has been a rare recent affair, and they've only truly done it with the volunteers only... conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked and wish to defend the nations ideals. You'd most likely need to really work around how you can get your common man to understand the need for his conscription into service is good... or all you do is arm your rebellions.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        "conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked" OR when they fabricated being attacked to burn some rice fields.
        $endgroup$
        – Hobbamok
        10 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Hobbamok: Hence the use of the word "tends" which is to prevent my statement from applying in all instances or being taken out of context as you have done.
        $endgroup$
        – hszmv
        8 hours ago
















      7












      $begingroup$

      In addition to the Israeli Defense Force, you have the Swiss Militia, which has mandatory conscription, and the United States, which has one of the largest volunteer forces in the world. (China and India have larger active duty numbers, because they are both one billion strong populations. Of those three, per capita total active duty U.S. Military forces is 4.2 persons per 1000 citizens, where as China is 1.5 persons per 1000 citizens and India is 1.1 per 1000). The United States also has a population just slight under your nation's, and aside from the active duty and reserves, has a highly armed civilian population, with more guns than citizens. Yamamoto famously cited this as one of the reasons Japan really really really should think twice about winning a war on the U.S (they didn't not that it got to that point... though it should be pointed out that the United States Civil War is still deadliest war in its nations history and remains the deadliest war fought in the Americas ever) and it did practice conscription in World War II, so it can be scaled up.



      While I'm not familiar with the Israeli system, the Swiss system is basically founded on the belief that citizenship also entails some obligations to the community, so all citizens by law perform community services upon reaching age 18. This is most typically seen as military duties, but many community fire departments, EMS services, and other services are staffed by people performing this duty time. Conscientious objectors can either opt to a non-gun service or join the military in an unarmed role (usually a combat medic, which can't carry weapons per rules of warfare or chaplains, who cannot do this either). Typically this involves a 30-week duty period plus a period of time as reservist status if not choosing to be a career military (enlisted typically leave reserve status at age 30 and officers at 34). Reservist famously took their standard issue weapons home with them along with bullets for the weapon that were regularly checked to ensure they were not used without instruction, though this practice was abolished recently, and now the reservist will have to report to the near by ammunition depot for his ammo and, if choosing to not keep it in the house, his weapon. Switzerland is very mountainous and many of their defensive strategies involve forcing hostile forces into narrow passes which are basically shooting galleries. It was once joked that a Nazi General once met with a Swiss General and and asked "What would the Swiss do if I marched into Switzerland with an army a million Germans strong?" The Swiss General Responds "Well, then I would meet your army with an army of a million Swiss and we would each shoot once and then go home." The Nazi General smiles, and says, "Suppose I come with army of Two million men strong, what would you do then? (About a quarter of Switzerland's total modern population)" The Swiss General answered "Then we would shoot twice."



      With any military, it's also not about shooting... but who helps you to shoot. An accepted rule of the military is that for every man on the front line, their are four men behind him in support tasks (food, supplies, logistics... a military marches on it's stomach), which is why the United States is such a formidable foe. The United States military invests a ton of money in getting supplies to the boys "Over There" as the World War 1 song calls the war front. World War Two implemented rationing when it wasn't needed so that supplies could go to front lines, and while the rest of the world was marching to the battle lines, the U.S. brought jeeps and drove... There's something to be said for troops that drove 35 miles fighting troops that marched the same distance. And while the U.S. has not done conscription since the Vietnam war, signing up for the Draft is still required by all male citizens, and again, their arsenal of civilian weapons knows no equal in the world. It has long been understood that an invasion of the United States would be damn near impossible by the huge territory alone, but the fact that the population is heavily armed. As one of my friends observed The Swiss' gun culture is strongly informed by fear of the threat of outside governments invading it, but the U.S. gun culture is informed by the fact their own government was once the enemy (and now we call it the UK)... so the people who own guns in the states, more often than not will be more than willing to admit that if the day comes when the government will turn against the people, they will shoot the government... and if they are willing to do that to their own government, what do you think the attitude to invading forces would be?



      Where I see problems with your hypothetical nation though is something that the U.S., Swiss, and Israeli countries have, which is a strong sense of democratic self and the idea that it's up to the people to fight for the nation. This is an attitude not often found in a dictatorship in general, which may have to control for more descent in the ranks of the conscripts than the United States, Swiss, and Israeli forces have to put up with. The Swiss is very neutral and their military exists to ensure it doesn't go to war, the less I discuss Israel the better... But they've had a lot of wars in a very short history, most of which leave them surrounded but for the ocean, and citizens tend to be committed to defending themselves. In the United States, starting wars has been a rare recent affair, and they've only truly done it with the volunteers only... conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked and wish to defend the nations ideals. You'd most likely need to really work around how you can get your common man to understand the need for his conscription into service is good... or all you do is arm your rebellions.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        "conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked" OR when they fabricated being attacked to burn some rice fields.
        $endgroup$
        – Hobbamok
        10 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Hobbamok: Hence the use of the word "tends" which is to prevent my statement from applying in all instances or being taken out of context as you have done.
        $endgroup$
        – hszmv
        8 hours ago














      7












      7








      7





      $begingroup$

      In addition to the Israeli Defense Force, you have the Swiss Militia, which has mandatory conscription, and the United States, which has one of the largest volunteer forces in the world. (China and India have larger active duty numbers, because they are both one billion strong populations. Of those three, per capita total active duty U.S. Military forces is 4.2 persons per 1000 citizens, where as China is 1.5 persons per 1000 citizens and India is 1.1 per 1000). The United States also has a population just slight under your nation's, and aside from the active duty and reserves, has a highly armed civilian population, with more guns than citizens. Yamamoto famously cited this as one of the reasons Japan really really really should think twice about winning a war on the U.S (they didn't not that it got to that point... though it should be pointed out that the United States Civil War is still deadliest war in its nations history and remains the deadliest war fought in the Americas ever) and it did practice conscription in World War II, so it can be scaled up.



      While I'm not familiar with the Israeli system, the Swiss system is basically founded on the belief that citizenship also entails some obligations to the community, so all citizens by law perform community services upon reaching age 18. This is most typically seen as military duties, but many community fire departments, EMS services, and other services are staffed by people performing this duty time. Conscientious objectors can either opt to a non-gun service or join the military in an unarmed role (usually a combat medic, which can't carry weapons per rules of warfare or chaplains, who cannot do this either). Typically this involves a 30-week duty period plus a period of time as reservist status if not choosing to be a career military (enlisted typically leave reserve status at age 30 and officers at 34). Reservist famously took their standard issue weapons home with them along with bullets for the weapon that were regularly checked to ensure they were not used without instruction, though this practice was abolished recently, and now the reservist will have to report to the near by ammunition depot for his ammo and, if choosing to not keep it in the house, his weapon. Switzerland is very mountainous and many of their defensive strategies involve forcing hostile forces into narrow passes which are basically shooting galleries. It was once joked that a Nazi General once met with a Swiss General and and asked "What would the Swiss do if I marched into Switzerland with an army a million Germans strong?" The Swiss General Responds "Well, then I would meet your army with an army of a million Swiss and we would each shoot once and then go home." The Nazi General smiles, and says, "Suppose I come with army of Two million men strong, what would you do then? (About a quarter of Switzerland's total modern population)" The Swiss General answered "Then we would shoot twice."



      With any military, it's also not about shooting... but who helps you to shoot. An accepted rule of the military is that for every man on the front line, their are four men behind him in support tasks (food, supplies, logistics... a military marches on it's stomach), which is why the United States is such a formidable foe. The United States military invests a ton of money in getting supplies to the boys "Over There" as the World War 1 song calls the war front. World War Two implemented rationing when it wasn't needed so that supplies could go to front lines, and while the rest of the world was marching to the battle lines, the U.S. brought jeeps and drove... There's something to be said for troops that drove 35 miles fighting troops that marched the same distance. And while the U.S. has not done conscription since the Vietnam war, signing up for the Draft is still required by all male citizens, and again, their arsenal of civilian weapons knows no equal in the world. It has long been understood that an invasion of the United States would be damn near impossible by the huge territory alone, but the fact that the population is heavily armed. As one of my friends observed The Swiss' gun culture is strongly informed by fear of the threat of outside governments invading it, but the U.S. gun culture is informed by the fact their own government was once the enemy (and now we call it the UK)... so the people who own guns in the states, more often than not will be more than willing to admit that if the day comes when the government will turn against the people, they will shoot the government... and if they are willing to do that to their own government, what do you think the attitude to invading forces would be?



      Where I see problems with your hypothetical nation though is something that the U.S., Swiss, and Israeli countries have, which is a strong sense of democratic self and the idea that it's up to the people to fight for the nation. This is an attitude not often found in a dictatorship in general, which may have to control for more descent in the ranks of the conscripts than the United States, Swiss, and Israeli forces have to put up with. The Swiss is very neutral and their military exists to ensure it doesn't go to war, the less I discuss Israel the better... But they've had a lot of wars in a very short history, most of which leave them surrounded but for the ocean, and citizens tend to be committed to defending themselves. In the United States, starting wars has been a rare recent affair, and they've only truly done it with the volunteers only... conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked and wish to defend the nations ideals. You'd most likely need to really work around how you can get your common man to understand the need for his conscription into service is good... or all you do is arm your rebellions.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      In addition to the Israeli Defense Force, you have the Swiss Militia, which has mandatory conscription, and the United States, which has one of the largest volunteer forces in the world. (China and India have larger active duty numbers, because they are both one billion strong populations. Of those three, per capita total active duty U.S. Military forces is 4.2 persons per 1000 citizens, where as China is 1.5 persons per 1000 citizens and India is 1.1 per 1000). The United States also has a population just slight under your nation's, and aside from the active duty and reserves, has a highly armed civilian population, with more guns than citizens. Yamamoto famously cited this as one of the reasons Japan really really really should think twice about winning a war on the U.S (they didn't not that it got to that point... though it should be pointed out that the United States Civil War is still deadliest war in its nations history and remains the deadliest war fought in the Americas ever) and it did practice conscription in World War II, so it can be scaled up.



      While I'm not familiar with the Israeli system, the Swiss system is basically founded on the belief that citizenship also entails some obligations to the community, so all citizens by law perform community services upon reaching age 18. This is most typically seen as military duties, but many community fire departments, EMS services, and other services are staffed by people performing this duty time. Conscientious objectors can either opt to a non-gun service or join the military in an unarmed role (usually a combat medic, which can't carry weapons per rules of warfare or chaplains, who cannot do this either). Typically this involves a 30-week duty period plus a period of time as reservist status if not choosing to be a career military (enlisted typically leave reserve status at age 30 and officers at 34). Reservist famously took their standard issue weapons home with them along with bullets for the weapon that were regularly checked to ensure they were not used without instruction, though this practice was abolished recently, and now the reservist will have to report to the near by ammunition depot for his ammo and, if choosing to not keep it in the house, his weapon. Switzerland is very mountainous and many of their defensive strategies involve forcing hostile forces into narrow passes which are basically shooting galleries. It was once joked that a Nazi General once met with a Swiss General and and asked "What would the Swiss do if I marched into Switzerland with an army a million Germans strong?" The Swiss General Responds "Well, then I would meet your army with an army of a million Swiss and we would each shoot once and then go home." The Nazi General smiles, and says, "Suppose I come with army of Two million men strong, what would you do then? (About a quarter of Switzerland's total modern population)" The Swiss General answered "Then we would shoot twice."



      With any military, it's also not about shooting... but who helps you to shoot. An accepted rule of the military is that for every man on the front line, their are four men behind him in support tasks (food, supplies, logistics... a military marches on it's stomach), which is why the United States is such a formidable foe. The United States military invests a ton of money in getting supplies to the boys "Over There" as the World War 1 song calls the war front. World War Two implemented rationing when it wasn't needed so that supplies could go to front lines, and while the rest of the world was marching to the battle lines, the U.S. brought jeeps and drove... There's something to be said for troops that drove 35 miles fighting troops that marched the same distance. And while the U.S. has not done conscription since the Vietnam war, signing up for the Draft is still required by all male citizens, and again, their arsenal of civilian weapons knows no equal in the world. It has long been understood that an invasion of the United States would be damn near impossible by the huge territory alone, but the fact that the population is heavily armed. As one of my friends observed The Swiss' gun culture is strongly informed by fear of the threat of outside governments invading it, but the U.S. gun culture is informed by the fact their own government was once the enemy (and now we call it the UK)... so the people who own guns in the states, more often than not will be more than willing to admit that if the day comes when the government will turn against the people, they will shoot the government... and if they are willing to do that to their own government, what do you think the attitude to invading forces would be?



      Where I see problems with your hypothetical nation though is something that the U.S., Swiss, and Israeli countries have, which is a strong sense of democratic self and the idea that it's up to the people to fight for the nation. This is an attitude not often found in a dictatorship in general, which may have to control for more descent in the ranks of the conscripts than the United States, Swiss, and Israeli forces have to put up with. The Swiss is very neutral and their military exists to ensure it doesn't go to war, the less I discuss Israel the better... But they've had a lot of wars in a very short history, most of which leave them surrounded but for the ocean, and citizens tend to be committed to defending themselves. In the United States, starting wars has been a rare recent affair, and they've only truly done it with the volunteers only... conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked and wish to defend the nations ideals. You'd most likely need to really work around how you can get your common man to understand the need for his conscription into service is good... or all you do is arm your rebellions.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 21 hours ago









      Jasper

      3,1771029




      3,1771029










      answered yesterday









      hszmvhszmv

      4,988517




      4,988517












      • $begingroup$
        "conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked" OR when they fabricated being attacked to burn some rice fields.
        $endgroup$
        – Hobbamok
        10 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Hobbamok: Hence the use of the word "tends" which is to prevent my statement from applying in all instances or being taken out of context as you have done.
        $endgroup$
        – hszmv
        8 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        "conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked" OR when they fabricated being attacked to burn some rice fields.
        $endgroup$
        – Hobbamok
        10 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Hobbamok: Hence the use of the word "tends" which is to prevent my statement from applying in all instances or being taken out of context as you have done.
        $endgroup$
        – hszmv
        8 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      "conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked" OR when they fabricated being attacked to burn some rice fields.
      $endgroup$
      – Hobbamok
      10 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      "conscription tends to happen when they've been attacked" OR when they fabricated being attacked to burn some rice fields.
      $endgroup$
      – Hobbamok
      10 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      @Hobbamok: Hence the use of the word "tends" which is to prevent my statement from applying in all instances or being taken out of context as you have done.
      $endgroup$
      – hszmv
      8 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @Hobbamok: Hence the use of the word "tends" which is to prevent my statement from applying in all instances or being taken out of context as you have done.
      $endgroup$
      – hszmv
      8 hours ago











      3












      $begingroup$

      Whilst it might not be quite what you’re looking for, Medieval England effectively trained conscripts to be longbow men. This was done through a law stating that all citizens between the ages of 15 to 60 should be armed. It was not formal training but it allowed for a stronger foundation so that, if they were conscripted, they could be trained faster due to not having to start from no experience at all. Its a similar idea to it being the law for all men to own a sword, it allowed for armies to be quickly equiped, trained and mobilised.



      If you wanted to apply this to a more modern setting, you could make it law that all citizens between 20 to 50, for example, must own a firearm (similar to the American’s “Right to Bare Arms”). This would mean that you would still gain the advantages quickly equiping, training and mobilising your army of conscripts. Russia had problems with equipment during the first and second world wars due to being so large, men were sent to the front lines unarmed and instructed to pick up the gun of the man infront of you. However, if it is law in your country that every citizen must own a firearm, you essentially have a huge stockpile of weapons and a standing army to use them.



      While not everyone will be a combat-ready soldier, most people will be at least familiar with firearms seeing as almost everyone in the country, inluding them, owns one. You also will have many who are informally trained to use a firearm, such as by older family members or even state education if you made it law that adolecents must be taught about using firearms safely.



      You could even have policies that encourage first-person shooter games which, studies have shown, do increase aim with actual firearms and willingness to fire at other humans. I can’t remember the name of the documentary but that might be for the best, its not a subject for polite conversation.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$









      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The king passed a law saying that everyone had to practice with their bow regularly and they banned other social activities like football that would distract people. If you make the national sport something that translates easily into military skills then people will eagerly train in their free time
        $endgroup$
        – mgh42
        21 hours ago
















      3












      $begingroup$

      Whilst it might not be quite what you’re looking for, Medieval England effectively trained conscripts to be longbow men. This was done through a law stating that all citizens between the ages of 15 to 60 should be armed. It was not formal training but it allowed for a stronger foundation so that, if they were conscripted, they could be trained faster due to not having to start from no experience at all. Its a similar idea to it being the law for all men to own a sword, it allowed for armies to be quickly equiped, trained and mobilised.



      If you wanted to apply this to a more modern setting, you could make it law that all citizens between 20 to 50, for example, must own a firearm (similar to the American’s “Right to Bare Arms”). This would mean that you would still gain the advantages quickly equiping, training and mobilising your army of conscripts. Russia had problems with equipment during the first and second world wars due to being so large, men were sent to the front lines unarmed and instructed to pick up the gun of the man infront of you. However, if it is law in your country that every citizen must own a firearm, you essentially have a huge stockpile of weapons and a standing army to use them.



      While not everyone will be a combat-ready soldier, most people will be at least familiar with firearms seeing as almost everyone in the country, inluding them, owns one. You also will have many who are informally trained to use a firearm, such as by older family members or even state education if you made it law that adolecents must be taught about using firearms safely.



      You could even have policies that encourage first-person shooter games which, studies have shown, do increase aim with actual firearms and willingness to fire at other humans. I can’t remember the name of the documentary but that might be for the best, its not a subject for polite conversation.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$









      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The king passed a law saying that everyone had to practice with their bow regularly and they banned other social activities like football that would distract people. If you make the national sport something that translates easily into military skills then people will eagerly train in their free time
        $endgroup$
        – mgh42
        21 hours ago














      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$

      Whilst it might not be quite what you’re looking for, Medieval England effectively trained conscripts to be longbow men. This was done through a law stating that all citizens between the ages of 15 to 60 should be armed. It was not formal training but it allowed for a stronger foundation so that, if they were conscripted, they could be trained faster due to not having to start from no experience at all. Its a similar idea to it being the law for all men to own a sword, it allowed for armies to be quickly equiped, trained and mobilised.



      If you wanted to apply this to a more modern setting, you could make it law that all citizens between 20 to 50, for example, must own a firearm (similar to the American’s “Right to Bare Arms”). This would mean that you would still gain the advantages quickly equiping, training and mobilising your army of conscripts. Russia had problems with equipment during the first and second world wars due to being so large, men were sent to the front lines unarmed and instructed to pick up the gun of the man infront of you. However, if it is law in your country that every citizen must own a firearm, you essentially have a huge stockpile of weapons and a standing army to use them.



      While not everyone will be a combat-ready soldier, most people will be at least familiar with firearms seeing as almost everyone in the country, inluding them, owns one. You also will have many who are informally trained to use a firearm, such as by older family members or even state education if you made it law that adolecents must be taught about using firearms safely.



      You could even have policies that encourage first-person shooter games which, studies have shown, do increase aim with actual firearms and willingness to fire at other humans. I can’t remember the name of the documentary but that might be for the best, its not a subject for polite conversation.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      Whilst it might not be quite what you’re looking for, Medieval England effectively trained conscripts to be longbow men. This was done through a law stating that all citizens between the ages of 15 to 60 should be armed. It was not formal training but it allowed for a stronger foundation so that, if they were conscripted, they could be trained faster due to not having to start from no experience at all. Its a similar idea to it being the law for all men to own a sword, it allowed for armies to be quickly equiped, trained and mobilised.



      If you wanted to apply this to a more modern setting, you could make it law that all citizens between 20 to 50, for example, must own a firearm (similar to the American’s “Right to Bare Arms”). This would mean that you would still gain the advantages quickly equiping, training and mobilising your army of conscripts. Russia had problems with equipment during the first and second world wars due to being so large, men were sent to the front lines unarmed and instructed to pick up the gun of the man infront of you. However, if it is law in your country that every citizen must own a firearm, you essentially have a huge stockpile of weapons and a standing army to use them.



      While not everyone will be a combat-ready soldier, most people will be at least familiar with firearms seeing as almost everyone in the country, inluding them, owns one. You also will have many who are informally trained to use a firearm, such as by older family members or even state education if you made it law that adolecents must be taught about using firearms safely.



      You could even have policies that encourage first-person shooter games which, studies have shown, do increase aim with actual firearms and willingness to fire at other humans. I can’t remember the name of the documentary but that might be for the best, its not a subject for polite conversation.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      Liam MorrisLiam Morris

      445212




      445212








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The king passed a law saying that everyone had to practice with their bow regularly and they banned other social activities like football that would distract people. If you make the national sport something that translates easily into military skills then people will eagerly train in their free time
        $endgroup$
        – mgh42
        21 hours ago














      • 1




        $begingroup$
        The king passed a law saying that everyone had to practice with their bow regularly and they banned other social activities like football that would distract people. If you make the national sport something that translates easily into military skills then people will eagerly train in their free time
        $endgroup$
        – mgh42
        21 hours ago








      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      The king passed a law saying that everyone had to practice with their bow regularly and they banned other social activities like football that would distract people. If you make the national sport something that translates easily into military skills then people will eagerly train in their free time
      $endgroup$
      – mgh42
      21 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      The king passed a law saying that everyone had to practice with their bow regularly and they banned other social activities like football that would distract people. If you make the national sport something that translates easily into military skills then people will eagerly train in their free time
      $endgroup$
      – mgh42
      21 hours ago











      1












      $begingroup$

      While there have been a number of good answers, I will question the premise. Why do you believe that you need to provide combat training to the vast majority of the citizens of your nation?



      Modern warfare has long ago left the age of mass combat and mass armies. As well, military activities take place across a wide variety of domains: land, sea, air, space, cyber and cognitive. Training people to be riflemen may be an "ideal", but a USMC fighter pilot in an F-35, a member of the Israeli Defense Force "Twitter Platoon", an engineer aboard an Indian Arihant-class submarine or a member of the United States Space Force at their console controlling a satellite in orbit have very limited need for "combat" training the way we normally think of it, but a great need for specialist training.



      Going even farther, Russian Hybrid Warfare uses a multiplicity of tools which the commander can call upon in any order depending on the situation. Looking at the diagram, you can see only a small portion are dedicated ground combat troops:



      enter image description here



      Russian Hybrid War



      What in the West is often referred to as "4GW" (Fourth Generation Warfare) encompasses "DIME" (Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Economic) tools also used as the situation suggests. Few people might suspect Fracking is a major tool in how America confronts Russia and Iran, for example.



      So unless there is another reason which you believe that making everyone undergo mandatory military training serves, you might be far better off conserving your resources and applying them to the specialties that are needed in modern warfare.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        1












        $begingroup$

        While there have been a number of good answers, I will question the premise. Why do you believe that you need to provide combat training to the vast majority of the citizens of your nation?



        Modern warfare has long ago left the age of mass combat and mass armies. As well, military activities take place across a wide variety of domains: land, sea, air, space, cyber and cognitive. Training people to be riflemen may be an "ideal", but a USMC fighter pilot in an F-35, a member of the Israeli Defense Force "Twitter Platoon", an engineer aboard an Indian Arihant-class submarine or a member of the United States Space Force at their console controlling a satellite in orbit have very limited need for "combat" training the way we normally think of it, but a great need for specialist training.



        Going even farther, Russian Hybrid Warfare uses a multiplicity of tools which the commander can call upon in any order depending on the situation. Looking at the diagram, you can see only a small portion are dedicated ground combat troops:



        enter image description here



        Russian Hybrid War



        What in the West is often referred to as "4GW" (Fourth Generation Warfare) encompasses "DIME" (Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Economic) tools also used as the situation suggests. Few people might suspect Fracking is a major tool in how America confronts Russia and Iran, for example.



        So unless there is another reason which you believe that making everyone undergo mandatory military training serves, you might be far better off conserving your resources and applying them to the specialties that are needed in modern warfare.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          While there have been a number of good answers, I will question the premise. Why do you believe that you need to provide combat training to the vast majority of the citizens of your nation?



          Modern warfare has long ago left the age of mass combat and mass armies. As well, military activities take place across a wide variety of domains: land, sea, air, space, cyber and cognitive. Training people to be riflemen may be an "ideal", but a USMC fighter pilot in an F-35, a member of the Israeli Defense Force "Twitter Platoon", an engineer aboard an Indian Arihant-class submarine or a member of the United States Space Force at their console controlling a satellite in orbit have very limited need for "combat" training the way we normally think of it, but a great need for specialist training.



          Going even farther, Russian Hybrid Warfare uses a multiplicity of tools which the commander can call upon in any order depending on the situation. Looking at the diagram, you can see only a small portion are dedicated ground combat troops:



          enter image description here



          Russian Hybrid War



          What in the West is often referred to as "4GW" (Fourth Generation Warfare) encompasses "DIME" (Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Economic) tools also used as the situation suggests. Few people might suspect Fracking is a major tool in how America confronts Russia and Iran, for example.



          So unless there is another reason which you believe that making everyone undergo mandatory military training serves, you might be far better off conserving your resources and applying them to the specialties that are needed in modern warfare.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          While there have been a number of good answers, I will question the premise. Why do you believe that you need to provide combat training to the vast majority of the citizens of your nation?



          Modern warfare has long ago left the age of mass combat and mass armies. As well, military activities take place across a wide variety of domains: land, sea, air, space, cyber and cognitive. Training people to be riflemen may be an "ideal", but a USMC fighter pilot in an F-35, a member of the Israeli Defense Force "Twitter Platoon", an engineer aboard an Indian Arihant-class submarine or a member of the United States Space Force at their console controlling a satellite in orbit have very limited need for "combat" training the way we normally think of it, but a great need for specialist training.



          Going even farther, Russian Hybrid Warfare uses a multiplicity of tools which the commander can call upon in any order depending on the situation. Looking at the diagram, you can see only a small portion are dedicated ground combat troops:



          enter image description here



          Russian Hybrid War



          What in the West is often referred to as "4GW" (Fourth Generation Warfare) encompasses "DIME" (Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Economic) tools also used as the situation suggests. Few people might suspect Fracking is a major tool in how America confronts Russia and Iran, for example.



          So unless there is another reason which you believe that making everyone undergo mandatory military training serves, you might be far better off conserving your resources and applying them to the specialties that are needed in modern warfare.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 19 hours ago









          ThucydidesThucydides

          82.4k679246




          82.4k679246























              0












              $begingroup$

              As mentioned already, most European nations had conscription well into the 20th century, demanding military service for all men "able of body and mind" for a period of usually 1-2 years during which they would receive basic training and some specialist skills depending on their aptitude.



              They could also be recalled for recurring training of a few weeks every couple of years.



              The main problem with such a system is morale. The conscripts tended to be poorly motivated, and didn't make very good soldiers as a result (in general). Their combat skills would often be questionable. Conscription during times of war (or the short term threat thereof) is usually more effective as people tend to be more motivated to serve their country in such times, plus the very real prospect of having to depend on the skills you're learning for personal survival within the next few weeks or months is a great motivator, far more than getting chewed out by a drill sergeant for not meeting the expected performance standards.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                As mentioned already, most European nations had conscription well into the 20th century, demanding military service for all men "able of body and mind" for a period of usually 1-2 years during which they would receive basic training and some specialist skills depending on their aptitude.



                They could also be recalled for recurring training of a few weeks every couple of years.



                The main problem with such a system is morale. The conscripts tended to be poorly motivated, and didn't make very good soldiers as a result (in general). Their combat skills would often be questionable. Conscription during times of war (or the short term threat thereof) is usually more effective as people tend to be more motivated to serve their country in such times, plus the very real prospect of having to depend on the skills you're learning for personal survival within the next few weeks or months is a great motivator, far more than getting chewed out by a drill sergeant for not meeting the expected performance standards.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  As mentioned already, most European nations had conscription well into the 20th century, demanding military service for all men "able of body and mind" for a period of usually 1-2 years during which they would receive basic training and some specialist skills depending on their aptitude.



                  They could also be recalled for recurring training of a few weeks every couple of years.



                  The main problem with such a system is morale. The conscripts tended to be poorly motivated, and didn't make very good soldiers as a result (in general). Their combat skills would often be questionable. Conscription during times of war (or the short term threat thereof) is usually more effective as people tend to be more motivated to serve their country in such times, plus the very real prospect of having to depend on the skills you're learning for personal survival within the next few weeks or months is a great motivator, far more than getting chewed out by a drill sergeant for not meeting the expected performance standards.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  As mentioned already, most European nations had conscription well into the 20th century, demanding military service for all men "able of body and mind" for a period of usually 1-2 years during which they would receive basic training and some specialist skills depending on their aptitude.



                  They could also be recalled for recurring training of a few weeks every couple of years.



                  The main problem with such a system is morale. The conscripts tended to be poorly motivated, and didn't make very good soldiers as a result (in general). Their combat skills would often be questionable. Conscription during times of war (or the short term threat thereof) is usually more effective as people tend to be more motivated to serve their country in such times, plus the very real prospect of having to depend on the skills you're learning for personal survival within the next few weeks or months is a great motivator, far more than getting chewed out by a drill sergeant for not meeting the expected performance standards.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 14 hours ago









                  jwentingjwenting

                  1,83458




                  1,83458






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142347%2fhow-can-i-successfully-establish-a-nationwide-combat-training-program-for-a-larg%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029