News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
Norway did it in 2015, and it seems to have been a success.
There has been surprisingly little debate about it here in Denmark. I haven't heard a single argument against it.
It should be noted that the draft is for training only, and that it's possible for pacifists to opt out of the military training by doing work for other institutions.
Personally I think it might be a great help for modernizing the military, because they'll need to rethink the old "one size fits all" procedures.
Conscription per se is a healthy thing for a country and individuals alike, as long there is the option of opting for non-military training, that I think most in Europe have that option. But these new policies are not been set in place with that rational in mind!!! The rational, is that there is a drive for war and, due to Europeans not having appetite for it, they need to force people into the service (of course, pairing it with strong policies against any anti-war dissidence!)
How northern Europeans are falling into this scheme is perplexing! A decade ago I would never though Sweden and Finland would have given up on their military neutrality when they have benefit so much from even when the USSR was indeed aggressive an invaded Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary but now that Russia partially only invaded neighbor Ukraine and because it was about to become a de-facto NATO country and Russia had set that up as a red line for more than a decade (not to mention the 14000 deaths of completely disfranchised 5 million Russian speakers in Ukraine since 2014.)
Even if you believe that Moscow really wanted to invade European Union members, Sweden and Finland would had simply be left alone so it could concentrate in the large powers… short like Germany did in 1930s… now, a hypothetical aggressive Russia would have no other chance than getting rid of Scandinavian posts first to set their fleet free into the Atlantic.
Finland, after promising Moscow a non-NATO alliance, enjoyed a formidable peace and developed a amazing democratic that became the envy of the world… but now considers Moscow far more dangerous than the Moscow of the 1950s… but of course, Israel’s aggressiveness and genocide in Gaza is not enough for the Scandinavians to even bother the Israeli ambassador. Are you really that blind to what is happening today?! The level of propaganda today in the north of Europe must be out of this world!? Nothing is left of the cold-thinking and the right combination of pragmatism + idealism from what Scandinavians used to be known for, nothing!
It's funny that this post is spreading such a distorted image of Finland during WWII, but it comes out being more reasonable than others because you're not an armchair warhawk. These countries are bourgeois democracies beholden to the international ruling class, and therefore the USA. People are being made to fall into the scheme, and quelled.
You should read the Tuomas Tepora book on the Finnish Civil War.
Well, I was referring to Post-WWII USSR. Finland did loose 1/3 of its land to Moscow's ambitions earlier on. However, unlike Ukraine today, Finland discovered what the Soviets wanted from them was to cover a security hole more than just grab plain land mass. Finland gave them that security and no more confrontation ever since and Finland was able to prosper immensely... even during the most expansionary moments and power of the Soviets. All that lesson from the Finnish elders is forgotten now, and instead of neutrality, they choose now to follow Kyiv's path and head to NATO.
I'll check that book.
It covers the whole historical debate over fascism and the USSR in Finland. If you enjoy it I've got more recommendations regarding how western academia has turned the humanities into propaganda departments, fascism in Ukraine, you name it. Just get it off of Anna's Archive if you need to, I must have everyone read it 😁
Pilot women for combat jets are very requested, because women due less body density, support greater G-forces than men.
That's not true. With no controls, there is no significant difference in tolerance by sex. When controlled for height, females have lower tolerance than males. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3753357/
Well, anyway
The military seeks female fighter pilots for three key strategic reasons:
First, diversity in the cockpit enhances combat effectiveness. Different perspectives and approaches to problem-solving reduce groupthink and improve threat assessment. "Having people who have reached the exact same standards, but from a completely different origin, makes finding solutions a lot more efficient as a team," according to military aviation experts[^1].
Second, the military needs to expand its talent pool amid pilot shortages. Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper explained: "When you're a country that's going to face a country with a population that's four times your own...if we begin with a recruitment population that we've artificially halved because of how we design our cockpits and workstations, we've just doubled our work"[^2].
Third, cognitive diversity strengthens risk assessment and decision-making in high-stakes situations. Research shows diverse teams spot different threats in the same situation and communicate more effectively in safety-critical environments[^1].
[^1]: Breaking Barriers: The Rise of Women Fighter Pilots
[^2]: To get more female pilots, the Air Force is changing the way it designs weapons
"Well anyway"? Been caught in a lie, Why should we care anymore in whatever you write?
Not a lie, wrong informations I got some years ago why womans are requested as jet pilots. There are no significant differences and more related to the stature of the person (distance heart-brain) and physical condition than with the gender.