Military conscription

The difference is that they don’t have any money or direct combat allies. The west does.

When there is a war either you stick out your chin and fight for your country or you are a problem to your country

Anyone who isn't working towards the war effort is a drain on resources. Rather puts the contributions of anyone who was under 16 in 1945 into context doesn't it ?

@Didimum

Well no – warfare has completely transform in last few decades. Wars are not fought on the ground anymore, and they aren't fought with numbers anymore.

This seems to be a common stated belief on MN but has nobody been following in any detail at all the Ukraine/Russian conflict?

When there is a war either you stick out your chin and fight for your country or you are a problem to your country - although in WWI I think the conscientious objectors actually found a very elegant solution in which they helped humans not the war.

However, I see that Macron’s recruitment of volunteers was oversubscribed on the first day, so maybe the French will stand between us and The Worst. Vive la revolution ahem.

It is not hypocritical to call people out for shitty attitudes and behaviour and ask them to fight if it was necessary, and yes, it is a good idea to sent them to the front line first, a few less scum to feed.

You have projected the toxic right onto the left. Stop it now. It is the toxic bile from the likes of Reform and the right wing owned media which have caused so much hatred and conflict in the UK.

Well no – warfare has completely transform in last few decades. Wars are not fought on the ground anymore, and they aren't fought with numbers anymore. The army will not want anyone not willing to join them.

Any whatsthe relevence of that to the comment ireplied to which wss " A good example of this would be certain women of ww1 who gave men flowers as a sign of cowardice....but those same women would not put themselves in danger"

The first step to any conscription would be calling up people on reserve.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4grjxl4w06o

My mum's side of the family are all from Scotland and I believe you!

Women couldn't vote in World War 1. The world moves on.......

I'm in Scotland and if any other country invades us I will be the first to take up arms and would fight to the death to protect it and our people. I'm a 52yr old female btw.

Women were not allowed to be in combat in the first world war. There were plenty of women serving in auxillary roles though

Overall the support from women - who had no vote and no say in what they were expected to endure - was phenomenal.

It's what earned us the vote.

They weren't allowed to put themselves in danger. Women haven't been allowed on the front line (in combat roles) until 2016 although have obviously served in adjacent roles for decades

Ultimately there's unlikely to actually be conscription as the forces don't really, in the most part, struggle to recruit but do to retain. People will sign up for various reasons if there was a call out. There will be people who don't because they can't or just don't want to. It's really not that deep.

Thinking conscription is a good idea in the event of a world war is completely different to wanting to be in the armed forces during peacetime. Infact I am almost certain the volume of personnel joining the military is organically higher in the lead up to & during conflict. Interestingly it seems like it becomes more appealing to a lot of people.

No-one on this thread is "keen" to wave the young off to conflict as far as I can see, so all this talk of "stepping up first" is just unnecessary.

It’s just a thread, and I find the yes let others go whilst they are immune far more terrifying tbf.

I think it’s good to point out that anyone who is keen for others to go should step up first. That’s the op’s main message and I agree with that. Old people relying on the young shouldn’t.

As for what will happen, nothing is guaranteed which was the spokesperson’s point. Don’t do it as a posturing gig, be aware that ceasefire could end and that means actual commitment. I hope if Starmer can’t see that some MPs do and ask him to clarify what direct conflict looks like.

You are talking as if it is a done deal EasternStandard. We don't know what is going to happen. I actually generally err on the side of pacifism. But at the same time I think we should support the Ukranian people. It is a conundrum.

What I don't like is threads like this scaring people into thinking their children are about to be sent off to war. The same thing happened last year on here when the subject of peace-keeping in Ukraine came up. It is unkind and unnecessary.

Because he’s already signed the agreement to send troops, and the frustration from military experts exists around that. So he hasn’t listened.

@EasternStandard you suggested he wouldn’t listen to experts. I simply said I think he would. Nothing to do with general performance. If you don’t think he would, why is that?

In your view yes but you still think he’s doing a good job. On this the military speaker sounded frustrated the troops are billed to be sent without the necessary capability, so perhaps not. A few have said the same.

He seems to me to be the most likely of PMs in the last 15 years or so to listen to expert advice.

I don’t need to do anything. If you listen military heads have said the same. They can brief Starmer if he’ll listen.