Basically, yeah.

apologies for the word salad there btw

In the end it boils down to merceneries being paid with citizenship for military services. There is no real reason why those people would abandon their former loyalities / identify with the host population / not fractionize from the society after millitary service. That plus the mechnizm creates a gender disbalance and that alone would cause conflict later on.

Given the payment of citizenship is only meaningful if they actually want to integrate into the host society it seems irrational that those who don’t seek to do so would make use of such an offer. Nor need military service be restricted to men.

The former is largely self selecting and self discriminating as candidates might easily be expected to serve or train under conditions that would simply not be worth the pay packet alone. Certainly there’s parallels here with the French foreign legion, marines, special forces and arguably most military employment

As for the latter quotas could be implemented if it’s a concern

Grammar just all over the place today

Well.. depending on the country of origin obtaining a paper that allows you to legally work in the host country and/or use its social services could already be a form of payment.

I would argue that the bigger material disproportion between the country of origin and the host country the bigger the incentive.

Right but if your willing to go through the grinder for 6 years in order to do so it’s difficult to argue they don’t identify strongly with the opportunity that nation offers

Very few would accuse the legion of being disloyal to France or the Gurkhas un-British for example

Neither have a reputation for poor integration upon ceasing their period of service and accepting citizenship of their respective country, despite Nepal being much poorer than the uk

"identify with the opportunity" that is a wordplay used to mask the simple buisness nature of the arrangement. For some reason workers on the market do no identify with the "opportunity" that their employers gave em and on average pick the more attractive offer when given the chance.

Many do not find military service an attractive offer however especially as money is very hard to enjoy when dead

Typically foreign services are subjected to more, not less dangerous positions than their domestically sourced counterparts

The reason being very simple, no one at home will miss them

Being prepared to put up with that and traditionally being underpaid compared to their counterparts demonstrates at least for the period of service that those members who serve their time must find their achievement more valuable to justify that difference and have achieved more with less. The past being the best indicator of the future, it’s realistic to expect that behaviour of excellence to continue

Lets be honest here... in the modern times military serive in a developped country is not that harsh in comparition to what it used to be. Most of the wars nowdays do not happen between equals and the casualites on the side of the modern country are very limited in such confrontations.

Please do some research on the French foreign legion, Gurkhas or similar groups and then get back to me with how cushy their position is

Exp since such offer would attract people who already have some military exp. For them it could even be an opportunity to get in a less risky position that they alreay are.

That does not map to how these units are utilised and experienced military personnel would be aware of that

What of I said do you disagree exactly?

That those units would not be harsh and that they would represent less risk then they may already be subjected to

That is preety obv...you can just google how many US casulaites were there in the Iraq war and compare it to the number of casualites on the side of Iraqis.

It is a reality denial if you think the risk they take is comparable.

Your making a generalisation that every units experience is the same which is incorrect

I am making a preety reasonable assumption... but if you disagree you can prove me wrong by showing appropriate statistics, risk analysis etc.

As I’ve mentioned, foreign units are treated much differently than units from home as they are not subjected to the same political pressure to return soldiers to their families

No one is going to use those people as a cannon fodder... not in the current political climate.

I can chase up some stats if you’d like but I do not have them immediately available.
It’s unclear how you believe the current political climate would effect foreign soldiers in the same way that it would when boys from home die

Foreign soldiers have no families in that country nor do they have representatives

FIrst of all it is politically poblematic and such incidents can be used against you by the opposition.

Second of all modern wars aren't thought like that.

There is no footsoldiers charge on the enemy hidden in bunkers

There is no political incentive for advocating them and those that are the most ardent supporters of care for refugees and international empathy are the most callous and ardent critics towards the military

Not when it can prove discriminatory treatment.

What would be the political benefit in doing so. Who’s vote does it win?

The soldiers? They can’t vote

The minority vote for example. The liberal vote for exmaple.

Some of them will pass the citizenship sooner or later.

and then they will be able to vote.