In what scenario is conscription acceptable? (if any)

When you're being invaded.

When everyone is being drafted. Including the children of the oligarchs and political class.

Otherwise it's never right. It's just feeding the poor to the war machine.

So if for example every person's name goes in the hat, and then conscripts are drawn at random? I only clarify because in a situation where every able body is fighting you've already lost, there needs to be logistics, maintaining utilities, growing food, etc
- Drafts usually are of young men for the logistic reasons you mentioned.
  
  So, if all men ages 18-24 are being drafted, the President's kids should be first on the list.
  
  In other words, if you're going to send my son to war and you are president you need to send your's first. Otherwise I'm telling my kid to dodge because his life isn't worth less than some rich assholes.
- I only clarify because in a situation where every able body is fighting you’ve already lost, there needs to be logistics, maintaining utilities, growing food, etc
  
  Conscription is actually a way to ensure that. In the Ukrainian War, as well as at least the US during WW2 (I'm less familiar with other countries' conscription systems during WW2), conscription is used to prioritize those with skills which are not economically vital during wartime - during WW2, even, some skilled workers weren't even allowed to volunteer, much less be conscripted, for military service.

When the existence of your countries sovereignty is threatened.

I used to be against the draft or conscription, but someone made the argument that people are far less war hungry when they or their loved ones might end up on the front lines. In that case, I'm all for it as long as the rich, politically connected, and otherwise privileged are treated like the rest of us. Otherwise the next best option is an all volunteer military.

Absolutely none whatsoever. Governmyth criminals have no right to tell me to go die for them. Go fuck yourselves.

It's only okay when the alternative is "your entire population is killed." If you're not fighting a defensive war with high stakes, then it's just a way to kill poor people and political dissidents.

None, if the people won't voluntarily defend a nation, then they have decided it isn't worth defending.

None. It is never acceptable imho.

We do not choose where we are born or the social class we are born into. Forcing someone to sacrifice their life in the name of an entity they did not choose, likely have no/limited loyalty for, or might even be actively oppressed by - is wrong.

Like others have said defensive wars. But I also don't take issues with a countries that have a brief compulsory service system in times of peace as a means of ensuring a large pool of qualified fighters without a large standing army.

None. If you weren't willing to fight for your country, then it's just the powerful forcing you to keep them in power.

I guess when the people being drafted have a higher likelihood of being killed by an invading army without the draft than with it. Tough to assess though.

Thanks for your thought. What about a situation where you know everyone won't be killed, but the defeated country will no longer be democratic/open? In other words, you'll live, but the quality of life will be much worse for the foreseeable future
- That’s a tough one. There’s no obvious moral calculus to translate between lives lost and quality of life.
  
  I tend to think drafting is similar to slavery—it’s a grave violation of basic human rights and should only be considered under the most extreme circumstances where the alternative is clearly worse.
  
  It might depend on the exact nature of the authoritarian regime. Or maybe I’m just not comfortable with either outcome and so I don’t want to answer the question.

I didn't see it yet, so I'll say in a humanitarian crisis.

Defense of a country in the case of direct attack, or more complicatedly in the defense of an allied country in cases like NATO where all members consider an attack on any member as though it were an attack on them.

I will add the caveat though that not having a well funded, trained, and staffed military prior to hitting the conscription button is certainly a point in the column of incompetence if not unacceptable behavior.

Conscription, at least if you ask me, is acceptable if you benefit from the nation. If you live in a nation with a legal/healthcare system you cannot rely on, a social system that's not equal opportunity, etc. then you could argue it's wrong for them to draft you, but to those people who have their public sector serve them with high accommodations, yeah, go return the favor.

That's an interesting take. What about a scenario where the nation as it stands doesn't meet the requirements you outlined, but there's clear indication the invading country would be worse?
- If the country is invading you, doesn’t that make them de-facto worse?
  
  Conscription is a necessary tool for a defense effort. There are countries (Sweden, Norway) where conscription serves more as a mandatory civil service period. Those programs give citizens a much greater understanding of their government and society.
- I would still fight injustice but make it clear through my expression of doing so that I don't support the current regime anymore than I otherwise would. Countries should consider themselves gratefully lucky the world accepts their existence and I'm not joining a collective just to be in a one-way relationship.

None.

I think that the exact measure of whether or not a war is justified is whether or not people are willing to fight it.

It's very rare for a war to be a direct threat to the people. That's generally only the case in a situation like Gaza, in which the invaders explicitly intend to not only take control of the land, but to kill or drive off the current inhabitants.

As a general rule, the goal is simply to assume control over the government, as is the case in Ukraine.

So the war is generally not fought to protect and/or serve the interests of the people directly, but to protect and/or serve the interests of the ruling class. And rather obviously, the ruling class has a vested interest in the people fighting to protect them and/or serve their interests. But the thing is that the people do not necessarily share that interest.

And that, IMO, is exactly why conscription is always wrong. If the people do not feel a need to protect and/or serve the interests of the rulers, then that's just the way it is. That choice rightly belongs to the people - not to the rulers.

As a general rule, the goal is simply to assume control over the government, as is the case in Ukraine.

Yeah no, that's just plain wrong. Russia, at the very least, is committing cultural genocide if not much worse. Ukrainian families get broken up so their kids can be better indoctrinated.

Since no one has mentioned it, I think the draft is okay if it allows for conscientious objection. Realistically, most people aren't against the draft because they're against killing, they're against dying (which is fair). The thing is, almost no one wants to die, and sometimes war is inevitable (or at least out of your hands). So if people are against killing, that shouldn't be a problem. There are plenty of positions on the front lines, in forward positions, and in secure positions that need to be fulfilled where killing is neither necessary nor likely. So let them be cooks, clerks, maintenance, medics, etc.

Of course, conscripting should be fair and logistically beneficial for the country, like others mentioned. Sending teachers to war does more harm to the next generation than it helps the current one, for instance, and if you're at the point where even the teachers are needed you're looking at taking generations to recover even if your country survives.

When the enemy is worse (in the people's eye) than your current master I suppose.