This is an excellent response, but I'm going to push back a little on some of the points. The first is that you've seen your conscription as a benevolent action for protecting the innocent. This may be true... but is it always? German soldiers were also conscripted across the 1930s and boys as young as 12 were volunteering in 1945, Russian soldiers are currently being conscripted now, arguably to 'defend the innocent'. At what point does morality override the law? The morality of conscription is somewhat separate from the morality of an individual war and I'm not convinced you've made a distinction here. We have a tendency over simplify war into 'goodies' and 'baddies', fairly easy to do with WWII, but a lot less simple in most conflicts. If you are going to be conscripted are you always going to be conscripted to a just cause, or does that not matter?
Secondly, Paul has raised this point. If you line up 100 men and 100 women in a Medieval or even Napoleonic Battlefield then you're likely correct in your assertion that women and men aren't equally matched. However, modern warfare is more multi-faceted than this. Masculine skills as you've outlined aren't always advantageous in the situation room, on a nuclear submarine, as a fighter pilot etc. The two sexes have both overlapping skills and differing skills. In mechanised warfare, I think I would prefer a mixed sex military. See Star Trek NG, NASA recruitment and Ripley from the Alien franchise for more.
'Equality means respecting everyone’s contribution equally. Some give more, some give less, but all give according to their ability to give.' - this is what you've said, and I'm going to counter it with the question. How do we know what ability female combatants have to give? We have some insights, Lyudmila Mikhailovna, Lilya Litvak are good examples. We have our own casualties as well, Corporal Sarah Bryant was the first servicewoman killed in the frontline of the British army, though we did also lose a bunch of spies in WWII. We can also see that some women are capable of great cruelty too, Lynndie England was one of those soldiers at Abu Gharib.
Your argument for conscription is fair, it does take the choice away from the individual, but that's also the point I'm making. You may be able to tell your wife that you've got no choice in the matter. That might be advantageous in your interpersonal relationship but not necessarily a net benefit for society overall. How would you feel if your wife were conscripted for 'pregnancy duty', because of the falling birth rate and the need for new, young and trainable soldiers.
Your views may not be PC or woke, but that's neither here nor there and I don't mind that in the slightest. I get attacked for not being PC or woke all the time. However, I am still a liberal at heart and forced conscription doesn't sit well with my politics or person. I think you've put up a good rebuttal here, spoke your truth and put your money where your mouth is - but I'm argumentative by name and by nature. I don't think I'll be able to change your mind, but that's not the point, the point of Medium is to wobble the views of other people and make the marketplace of ideas interesting.
You've certainly done that. Thanks for dropping by and thanks for your comment :o)
