> So it's okay to give people who will never be forced to step onto a battlefield and die the power to decide who to fight and when to do it?

That is literally the only sane and stable way to run a country. Otherwise you are describing a military dictatorship.

It may be a sane and stable way to run a civilian society but in times of war they're not gonna be the ones who get killed. It will be young men.

And if you were pointing out that leaders should treat the responsiblity with care and respect I would agree.

Advocating for military dictatorship is quite different.

>>>> So it's okay to give people who will never be forced to step onto a battlefield and die the power to decide who to fight and when to do it?

> Advocating for military dictatorship is quite different.

It sounds like they're arguing more for something like a military oligarchy a la Starship Troopers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers#Setting), which is somewhat different but still not good.

I don't know about starship troppers. I'm just saying it's not at all fair when 50% of the population can elect leaders who have the power to order the other 50% to die on their behalf. That is the current situation with men and women in the vast majority of countries today, including mine: men and women can vote but only men are conscripted into military service.

> I'm just saying it's not at all fair when 50% of the population can elect leaders who have the power to order the other 50% to die on their behalf.

They wouldn't be ordered to die, they'd be ordered to fight.