Conscription: a graveyard of the innocent.

We have had three conflicts in the last 3 years: Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran (2023, 2025, and 2026). I don’t believe that in human history we’ve ever had three wars start so quickly. Not even during the Cold War was there such a strong desire to destroy things and annihilate people. But I get it: after decades of monotony, we needed something to spice things up. In short, let’s just say it: peace is such a bore! It’s such a tedious, mainstream concept! It’s time for war to become a cool topic to talk about... besides, the arms industries needed money, and it would have been strange to spend billions on weaponry without an ongoing war... or without injecting into the population the need to protect themselves from the danger of a war that will never happen.

We haven't seen this much excitement for war on television probably since the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Vietnam decade. I don't know whether to feel almost honored to finally taste this macabre and disgusting flavor of death, or terrified by the fact that the world is going mad and we are governed by psychotic old men who see the enemy even in their morning latte and are ready to bomb and kill political leaders just out of pure whim and psychosis.

Although war reporting itself is a fascinating topic, it won't be the subject of this post. There would be a lot to say, but my focus is not on denouncing war itself (an utterly useless thing, as in the end, it changes nothing), but on how war is fought and on those who are pushing it forward in the first place.

I’m referring to good old Europe, which always tries to stick its nose into conflicts that don’t belong to it, trying uselessly to be relevant. Specifically, I’d like to start with Germany, the country where I live. Why talk about Germany? Because it is the glaring example of how incompetent old men, with a backward 19th-century mentality, can ruin an entire generation of young people for years to come.

The German government, from the height of its incredible incompetence and pointlessness, has pulled out a gem of incredible foresight: reintroducing mandatory conscription. A draft that was removed decades ago to make room for a professional army, as it should be. Instead, at the first slight threat—which doesn't even exist—they eat their words and prepare young men to die by the thousands at the front.

It’s not just Germany where mandatory conscription has already come back into force: countries like Croatia have already restored it, while France, Denmark, and the UK are accelerating toward this madness, fueling that general excitement for death that feels very early 21st century.

Can we talk about the fact that this draft is a bullshit move on levels never seen before?

What is mandatory conscription?

The concept of the draft is actually very simple: all boys who reach the age of majority are forced by law to donate a certain period of their precious and short lives (about a year) to the army. During these months, they get a nice indoctrination into the art of killing, learning the use of weapons, military tactics, the use of million-dollar/euro equipment, moving on to the psychology of the model soldier and life in the barracks. At the end of this training period (which almost no boy asked for), the boy can decide whether to stay in the army or return home as a civilian.

If he stays in the army, his career begins. What happens if he decides to leave the army? Well, the army tells you: "Sure, you can go, but until your 45th year, your buttocks belong to us!" In what sense do a young man's buttocks belong to the army, even if he isn't enlisted? The detail is that the boys become reservists, meaning sleeping cells (forgive the term "sleeping cells") that, in case of attack or defense, can immediately return to the military ranks.

In this new draft, there are various models that tie the boy until the age of 45 through drills or recall periods, with the aim of keeping the "little soldier born in every boy" fresh!

The educational path of these months is very specific. The keyword is just one: Learning a bit of everything. It ranges from the use of drones to cybersecurity, the mechanical maintenance of drones and targeting systems, as well as first aid, orientation, and the use of weapons. Furthermore, there are courses on psychology, teamwork, and leadership.

This is the perfect recipe for adding a lot of headstones to military cemeteries. Now I’ll explain why, in my opinion, this draft is useless and equally harmful.

Technology.

Technology is complicated. In the 21st century, there are incredibly powerful software, extremely delicate hardware, and technological processes to understand, internalize, and know by heart, as if they were one's mother tongue.

It’s no coincidence that in every nation in the world, a person spends five years of their life and thousands of dollars/euros JUST to learn how software and hardware work. Not to mention all the experience this person then gains in the field to refine and develop that knowledge. These same people are then hired by the army or defense industries to create drones, planes, and automatic targeting software used at the front or in specific vehicles. Not to mention all the artificial intelligence applied to war that is making war itself something automatic, where machines control other machines. The business of war is becoming a highly technological matter that requires highly specialized personnel.

Now, various European governments want to make me believe that an eighteen-year-old, fresh out of school, after one year of conscription is capable of understanding and internalizing drone technology and mastering it as if it were an extension of his own arm? Maybe if he had nothing else to do, he could manage it in three years. The problem is that the poor kid only knows "a bit of everything." I doubt he will know exactly what he is doing. The problem is that in war, "almost" doesn't exist, because almost is a failure. Think of Iran and the killing of the Iranian leader and much of the government cabinet. If the target had been "almost" hit—so I imagine the missile falling twenty meters from the target—there would have been massive repercussions (forget the tanker crisis). In war, there is no almost: there is only perfectly centered.

If you don't know how to use something perfectly, the target might not be hit; thus, you waste not only a missile but a unique opportunity, not to mention potentially disastrous consequences.

Do we want to talk about Cybersecurity? Great. There are hackers and computer scientists out there working around the clock every day. They have a knowledge of the internet and computers like few in the world. Government agencies and multinationals spend millions of dollars and hire dozens of people to fight cybercrime. Even the government is investing millions, if not billions, in network security and protecting themselves from attacks. Now, the government itself thinks that a few thousand ignoramuses in the subject—because in just one year you learn nothing—can block a group of hackers who have been doing this all day for years. It’s just stupid to even think about. At the first hacker attack, the army collapses, because the attackers find no defenses. What terrifies me is that these draft rookies are "the ones who must protect the army's data." Just think about how much sensitive data the army possesses: from missile sites to software-controlled drones. Or all the classified files on the servers. I can't even imagine the drama that could unfold if some incompetents set their minds to saving the barracks from a hacker attack.

Mechanics and maintenance is the other incredible aspect that makes me die of laughter. Nowadays, tanks, planes, and drones have technology in every square inch. If before everything was made of gears, screws, and bolts controlled by a crank or steering wheel, now all control is centralized by a computer. You need specialists in sensors and microelectronics. Not to mention the alloys and assembly techniques of the various parts. Maintaining a drone, a sighting system, or a fighter jet means knowing which systems to diagnose and which cables to repair. A single mistake and that military vehicle, worth millions (if not billions of euros/dollars), could malfunction, crash, and not only go up in smoke but kill people with it. Do we really want to put maintenance in the hands of eighteen-year-olds who know nothing about complex military systems? Those vehicles must be maintained by engineers, not by rookies. An uncalibrated sighting system can kill innocents or even the soldiers themselves. Are we joking?

There is another big problem. Let’s say that after this year, the young man knows everything about everything because the draft was a spectacle, and he returns home safe and ready to serve the country. Imagine that for years nothing happens. This guy does his regular "refresher courses" and everything goes smoothly. Then war breaks out and he has to return to the army. We all know that technology develops at a breakneck pace. Now, if even only two years pass between one refresher course and another, that poor man won't have the slightest idea of what he is doing. Maybe he’ll know how to move the crank to guide the drone or aim, but to win wars you need precision, and therefore quality... something that poor innocent soul cannot offer because he is not specialized.

Survival.

Survival, apparently, is a fundamental element of the draft. According to the evil geniuses who came up with this idea of mandatory conscription, every boy who does the draft must learn everything he needs to survive during a war. So he must know how to save a human life if a man is wounded, how to orient himself in the open field or forest in case of a ground mission, and how to keep his weapon clean and ready in case he has to use it.

If you think about it, in the event of a march toward the objective, the last thing you want is not knowing how to treat a wound, getting lost at the first intersection, or having a rifle explode in your face because it was dirty.

It’s a basic concept... if it weren't totally useless today. Look at the war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are dying at the front, thinking that war is still fought on land while Russia destroys all infrastructure with drones. Think of Gaza, where Israel, before sending men into the Gaza Strip, simply razed everything to the ground. Armies like Hamas and the Ukrainian one, still tied to ancient warfare, were decimated; the Israeli and Russian armies had almost minimal or negligible losses.

I wonder what this survival is for. Imagine the scene: a platoon of 100 men moves in a compact block toward the objective. They are all experts in survival in desert areas. They think they are prepared, until the enemy army fires 10 missiles at those 100 men. I don't think I need to tell you how the story ends. Do you really think a clean weapon ready to fire, orientation, and first aid are useful for anything while you’re being blown into a thousand pieces?

Even European forests would offer no protection against the thermal sensors of a modern drone, making orientation in the woods a purely academic exercise.

This is the biggest paradox. With a draft of this kind, you are potentially sending thousands of men to the slaughter, fighting an old and dated style of warfare, while wars are fought with drones and cyber attacks. Furthermore, I wonder what the use is in firing a carbine at a drone flying beyond that carbine's range.

One could say "well, but survival is only in case of an attack on the barracks, since the soldiers will be at their stations to control the drones." Then explain to me what first aid and orientation are for if you don't have to move from the barracks?

Even the use of weapons I find stupid. All it takes is a short or long-range missile against the barracks and the barracks blows up with all the men inside. I’m sure with a Beretta you can intercept a missile on a collision course.

Psychology.

In the draft, psychology is also taught. It’s not a psychology that makes you feel good. Practically, military psychology is brainwashing to convert civilians into walking machines of death. They teach how to kill as efficiently as possible, how to accept death, and how to live without the remorse of having taken an innocent life (because every soldier is innocent; the politicians are the executioners).

A soldier must have no emotions or remorse. He must only use instinct to complete the mission and shed the blood of his enemy. Just writing these lines made my blood run cold. How can you even teach an 18-year-old boy that it’s right to invade other countries and kill his fellow man, just because politicians are unable to solve problems with diplomacy? Because of bloody cutthroats in suits and ties, we cannot accept that innocent boys be psychologically destroyed.

As if that weren't enough, they teach how to be able to work in a team and respect the hierarchy. This is the biggest lie that can be taught during the draft. There is absolutely no utility in it.

Let's start with respecting the hierarchy. Blind obedience in a war leads to death. Take Vietnam, for example. How many boys died in those forests just because they were indoctrinated into almost total devotion toward their superiors? Too many. Deaths that could still be alive today if they had said "no." We all knew it was an absolutely meaningless war, and yet no soldier ever said no to generals and politicians who saw those boys only as cannon fodder. Honestly, better jail and the dishonor of desertion than almost certain death in Vietnam.

Do you think things have changed today? Absolutely not. In fact, maybe even worse, given the asymmetrical warfare fought today. The risk of accepting a stupid order, forwarded by stupid generals and politicians, is too big.

Teamwork is the other big problem of the modern draft. Take the US army. Teams in the army function like Swiss watches and are almost scary in how prepared and coordinated they are. They seem like a group of people connected to a central brain that coordinates them. How was this level of excellence achieved? Because the teams are always the same for years. Every team has a stable command hierarchy, an affinity, and speed that is the result of years of working together all day, every day, both on missions and in the barracks. They are PROFESSIONALS who decided to enter the army to serve their country.

With the European draft, you see each other for a year, then maybe in 20. How can you even think of creating a good army if there isn't a shred of familiarity among the soldiers? On missions you work on instinct, and if you don't understand each other instantly, you risk death. Correction: you definitely die. Without that instinctive chemistry, you end up being Sir Daniel Fortesque in Medievil.

Final Thoughts.

War is no longer a matter of numbers. The idea of "taking whoever comes along, arming them, and winning the war" no longer works. It worked until World War II, where war was still fought in an analog way.

Now war is pure technology. A single missile, a single drone, and a single vehicle are works of high-level military engineering. A single missile is capable of blowing buildings to pieces within a fifty-meter radius. The military business has evolved. Now you don't need a thousand soldiers, but a thousand servers that feed the software that analyzes data, proposes strategies, and controls billion-dollar vehicles.

War is specialization. Military conscription, understood as enlisting everyone just to have reservists, is the stupidest thing one could think of. Military conscription should only be a way to introduce all men to the army. In the end, those who stay become professional soldiers, highly specialized and well-paid, while those who choose to leave must never be called to fight again, because they are too dangerous at the front due to their inexperience. Their task would be to protect the territory, both in case of invasion—when the army will be struggling—and in case of natural disasters.

Because that is how you win a war: with people who are prepared, trained, well-funded, and who know what they are doing. The accountant who is drafted for an emergency after 10 years is not an asset, but a problem... and the last thing you want in war are soldiers who create problems for their own army due to lack of preparation, competence, and knowledge.

Let the army become a matter of profession and stop being a civic obligation.

M.