The reaction to National Service on here

Do you honestly believe they would send teenagers to the front line?”

You do realise that teenagers are already junior officers? Good friends’ son recently passed out from Sandhurst before his 20th birthday. Very bright lad, a year ahead in school. Going into intelligence, will be making life and death decisions. Pretty much frontline, wouldn’t you say.

Most people seem to be ignoring this rather important fact.

MaryMaryVeryContrary · Today 11:25
And they certainly wouldn’t be front line troops, I’m amazed you’re all jumping to such wild conclusions without any evidence at all”

So Lord Dannat is jumping to wild conclusions? How is it that you are so more clued up about this scheme than he is?

At the very least, it will divert funds from an already struggling professional military.

SoreAndTired1 · Today 11:20
From speaking to others over the last hour about this, including one who currently serves, it seems only smart alecs who have never served a day in uniform thinks it's a 'good' idea. Anyone who has served or is serving shudders and thinks it's the worst idea ever, and the most dangerous one. It's an ignorant idea from those who consider themselves 'hard' but have no fucking idea that all it does is put serving members lives in danger and civilians lives in danger. It's a recipe for disaster”

Yep, step father ex-military, completely agrees. As does Lord Dannat. I think I’ll take their opinions over Sunak’s.

From speaking to others over the last hour about this, including one who currently serves, it seems only smart alecs who have never served a day in uniform thinks it's a 'good' idea. Anyone who has served or is serving shudders and thinks it's the worst idea ever, and the most dangerous one. It's an ignorant idea from those who consider themselves 'hard' but have no fucking idea that all it does is put serving members lives in danger and civilians lives in danger. It's a recipe for disaster.

Yes, it won't just have a negative impact on 18 year olds. It will cost money which could be better spent elsewhere. No doubt somebody dodgy will be given a contract to organise it though and they will be laughing all the way to the bank.

@UnimaginableWindBird
I don't think it's ok to place a burden on an 18 year old that I wouldn't be prepared to carry myself.

Absolutely spot on. Why only 18 year olds? My husband is 65, I’m 60. We have never been required to “volunteer”, like most people on this thread, I suspect. Very easy to expect others to do so.

"If I was asked to contribute in some way I would."

And if you were told?

This will require money spent on it and that money could be better spent elsewhere.

Well said @Zwicky.

When I went to uni in 1997 (thanks to Blair!), I was able to have a bursary and a loan as a child of parents who lived solely on benefits. I still had paid employment to live. At one point I was teaching in the day and working in a pub evenings and weekends. Every spare hour I had, I used for paid employment. I don’t how I would have survived if I had to do unpaid work.

There's Eritrea. Definitely a model to emulate there!

I don't think the military in the UK are deeply naive regarding the best way to defend the UK. They think it is a terrible idea and they will know more than you or rishi sunak. Our needs are different to countries that are next door to Russia. National Service in the uk was abolished in the 1960s as for the UK large armies were seen as less effective than weapons. Do you think that has changed?

I also can't see any other country where military service is only for 18 years and must be done that year with no exceptions.

I so remember when my husband was served at lunch times and break times by wrvs and my husband loved them but then again these were all run by volunteers but we can't keep relying on them .Those women knew what they signed up for but we can't keep relying on these volunteers to keep signing on for this .

People are being deeply naive if they think only countries like Switzerland or Finland or even Israel are the only ones who need to think about having a population with an ability to step up in a military conflict. The chances of a global conflict in the next decades are really significant and many western countries are deeply unprepared

This proposal does absolutely nothing to address that, though. It would be actively detrimental to defence, because its expensive and the people with actual military expertise think its a bad idea.

Quite

It's generally mainly military service, and it's a bit like a job, where people get some training and also their living expenses and such are paid. They work for a period of time and when they are done they go on to their further education and work with the skills they have gained. Which they carry through their adult lives.

It's a model that could be extended to some other kinds of work quite easily, and even within a military model, there are a lot of different types of work - medical, builders, clerks, etc.

It's a good foundation for how to work effectively in a group and take a leadership role, much more so than many young people will have had before.

People are being deeply naive if they think only countries like Switzerland or Finland or even Israel are the only ones who need to think about having a population with an ability to step up in a military conflict. The chances of a global conflict in the next decades are really significant and many western countries are deeply unprepared. I suspect the UK would be full of people like the men who have run away from Ukraine, unwilling to fight for their country but expecting others to take them in, and no doubt hoping to go back if it's later possible. All based on the sacrifice of others.

I went on a date once with a deputy head master. Was chatting for a couple of weeks before hand and seemed great.

God knows how but we got on the subject of war and he said he’d never join the army if there was a war on. Why should he put him self in the firing line for other people?

I have 2 cousins in the RAF and another was in the PARAS. He is happy to kick back and expect other people to step up - like my family.

I went off him instantly.

In light of world events we absolutely should be thinking about what potentially could happen and be prepared. If I was asked to contribute in some way I would. I happen to rather like the life the uk has to offer

You're quite right.

Unfortunately, OP and the people who agree with her haven't been willing to pay much attention to the views of people with relevant experience in the areas all these NEETs would be fobbed off on.

From day one, by definition. Under international human rights norms there are certain exemptions when it's nonetheless permissible - chiefly military conscription as well as associated (e.g. medical) service in wartime. Also certain traditional obligations such as citizens firefighting services or flood defense. I very much doubt this could be extended to cover a scheme where under 5 percent do military service and the remainder of the population are press-ganged into doing what the USSR called a "subbotnik" - Saturday shifts helping with the harvest or doing street cleanup. Modern Eurooean systems do have alternative service but it's either for volunteers or for conscientious objectors who have already been selected for the military. It's also paid.

When I lived in Greece, male Greek friends (they were under 30 and it was last decade) told me that once they'd done the 6 weeks basic training, there was nothing for them to do on their compulsory military service. Some of their colleagues were apparently sent home for months at a time and a couple of the ones I knew had got jobs near their barracks, working in cafés, etc.