When people say all men should fight in the war...

It is a tough call. To fight when you have a chance to win is one thing. To die for a lost cause is another. Ukraine cannot defeat Russia, it's just not possible. NATO would have to engage in the war directly. So you're asking people to go and fight just to hold off the inevitable, hoping that some kind of deal might come into place to keep some of the territory that you've been fighting over. It's really a big ask and certainly nobody who has never had to fight in a war should be forceful in their opinions about others who choose not to.

Modern warfare is fought with drones, not men.

Terrorist campaigns do not follow any military rules.

Money spent on counterterrorist activities and defence shields is well spent.

In England we have an excellent counterterrorist organisation, but no defence shield. Far more drones are needed.

Make up your own mind about nuclear weapons. Personally I think they are needed as a defence mechanism.

Warfare involving troops belongs to another age.

I think a lot of people who want others to go fight, would not be willing to go themselves.

I do not blame anyone for not wanting to put their own life at risk for really anything, especially some war that will never end anyways.

The d3ad do not get to benefit from whatever it is that they volunteered their lives for.
Even if the person is seen as a "chicken", well it is better to be a live chicken than a d3ad duck.

Well they probably mean all men should join the military, go through training, then fight in the war. Though it would be a bad idea for literally all men to do this, you should only join the military if you're healthy enough for it. And I don't know why it should be limited to men.

It needs something that humanity as a whole has to agree upon. So long as you have countries where conscription is tolerated and others where it's rejected or even abolished, the former will always try to wage war on the latter. If the average Russian told Putin "fk off, go to the front line yourself" the war would've ended before starting.

Another option is having a nuclear deterrence but I fear that if back in 1991 Ukraine decided to keep those warheads it would've been simply invaded before, I guess.

As for voluntary personnel, that's never sufficient, maybe only the US could defend itself with only professional forces and no conscription, and even there I wouldn't be too sure.

There's a lot more to war than fighting on the front anyways. The rest of life still needs to continue at home or else what is left when the fighters come back? If all the male doctors go become medics who is going to treat the child who gets cancer? If all the electricians and plumbers and carpenters leave to die on the front who rebuilds the homes and businesses destroyed by missile fire?

[@nightwings ] it is human nature really that necessity to want to fight to survive under any circumstance

Unwilling soldiers or those that just aren't suited for combat could arguably be a greater danger to a unit. But at the same time...there needs to actually be a unit.

We haven't been the good guys in a war since 1945.

They're brainwashed by Hollywood depictions of war.