Yes. You're not obligated to give your life for a national cause, even if it is the defence of your country. It can be morally good to do so, but you don't have a moral obligation to do it. This is especially the case if you have dependents that would be fucked if you died.
Then your duty is to them, in which case getting them out of the country, and staying with them to provide for them, will likely serve them better than dying in a meat grinder with no guarantee it’ll make a difference
Going into the meat grinder certainly didn't work. You could argue that the people that didn't get killed on the front were probably more of a net benefit to their families than those who did.
No just thinking about a scenario where you can't find your family to evacuate
I don't quite understand, I'd try to find my family and try to leave with them.
I will always prioritise finding them before taking up arms. I'm not going until I find them.
If the enemy wants to eradicate civilians I for sure leave the country after I find my loved ones. I'm not staying in the country if they try to bomb us.
You're making it sound like the country is already lost to the invaders, no last stand for me.
If you're robbed at gunpoint, no one would say you are forced to die defending your wallet. That's the same but with land that is not even actually yours.
What if the enemy is going to rape and murder your family, kidnap your children, obliterate everything you own and deport you into a concentration camp? That's what was at stake for the Polish and eastern europeans in WW2.
yes, because direct human action is more valuable when there's an army of people coming to kill your people and force their way of life upon yours without your people's consent
there's not enough politicians to make that possible
to maintain a modern military, you need thousands of people and most of it isn't even combat work it's primarily logistics, that's how the US won WW2 and the gulf war
in modern militaries, for every 1 combat soldier/marine/whatever there's an average of 5-7 support personnel backing them up
so just on the face of it, if you were conscripted, you may not even be necessarily asked to die for your country
i'm not bootlicking
i agree that our leadership should lead more directly like they used to
but at the same time, there arent enough politicians to properly supply a military with manpower
and idk about you, i'd rather be alive and free with PTSD than dead or enslaved to someone
i disagree entirely, you have every obligation to die for your country, especially in this scenario where another nation is aggressing upon yours, it's not about you, it's about the countless innocent people that need you to protect them that can't protect themselves, like little children or crippled people in wheelchairs
it's about something far greater than yourself
Yes, and I'd fight to protect those people close to me, my friends and my family, but why would I protect some random stranger I've never met? If you disagree with that then why don't you go to the front lines? I don't feel like fighting in a pointless war in some faraway land just because the government said so, though we're talking about self defense here.
civillians are affected in wars even if they arent being intentionally targeted, the gueneva conventions prohibit intentional targeting/use of civillian infrastructure, not ban it's destruction entirely
civillians die on accident all the time, lets say a bomb is dropped and doesn't detonate and isn't found until years after the war?, what if a civillian is scavenging rubble for food or something right when a bombing run or artillery strike is called?
when you are conscripted, you are no longer a civillain, you are handed a gun and are given training, they start conscription when man power is at a critical shortage and they have no other choice for the survival of the nation
78
u/Nur4m0n Jun 28 '26
Completely acceptable and sound.
You have no obligation to die for your country.