How do you feel about this for National Service/Conscription?

[monrymeadows73]

A lot of European countries, most notably Germany are moving towards the reintroduction of conscription. Right now, Germany has introduced a volunteer system, whereby all men born in 2008, who will turn 18 in 2026, have to undergo an assessment to test for their fitness for military service with the intention of incentivising German men to join the German military. However, if there are not enough recruits, then Germany may mandate conscription. But, this is just for men; not women.

In some other European countries, conscription is mandatory for only men; while in others like the Scandinavian countries, women are also obligated to take part in military service.

I know that some may oppose conscription/military service in the UK outright; but if, for whatever reason, it was re-introduced, how would you feel about the following points:

1. Should British women aged 18 and above be forcibly conscripted along with British men; or just British men?
2. Should women have to undergo the same processes in the military like have to have their heads shaved like men do?

I wonder how this fits into feminists' views of equality. Again, before some people start suggesting that they are opposed to conscription for everyone, what I'm asking about is if somehow it was implemented, regardless of how you feel about it, how do you think it should be promoted i.e. for both sexes and both having to undergo the same processes or just for men?

Sure, and as I can drive my car on to the channel tunnel that means exactly the same as staging a successful military invasion of France.

I thought my point was obvious - that preventing anyone from entering a small island country is all but impossible. Operation Sealion nearly became a reality.

Conscription is wrong for anyone. People should want to fight for their country by choice. However, countries should be promoting a sense of community and culture that young people feel like they want to protect. At the moment we are giving the younger generation very little reason to fight for their country given they can’t get housing or well paid jobs etc. Also we have better educated generations now - most of us know that politics cause wars and that most of us have little say in the events running up to those decisions.

Operation sealion was nowhere near becoming a reality.

there is a reason it took the allies 2 years to find the solution that resulted in the successful d day landings.

The incentive is not to be invaded by the Russians. Stagnant wages will be the least of their concerns if this happens.

Love this!

HOW will they invade?

Just how? Paddle up? We are an island. That’s why Germany couldn’t get to us.

How could they possible invade the entire coast of England, Scotland and Wales? I mean come on!

And of course our defences wouldn’t pick up all these Russians in the channel😂

How old are you?

30s. You?

You sound either sarcastic or just a bit dim and I can’t work out which.

There are many options other than a land invasion via the sea. Cyber warfare, nuclear warfare, disrupting supply chains (which we are heavily reliant on due to our overpopulation and resulting food insecurity).

Russia has ALREADY attacked on home soil - is anyone forgetting Salisbury?!

You were talking about a land invasion.

Ive already said a cyberwar is a possibility. But it wouldn’t need conscripts. Neither would a nuclear war.

So we don’t need to send our young people off to do anything. We don’t need conscription.

Conscription is mainly needed for hand to hand combat. And that ain’t happening.

I don’t think she sounds dim. You literally said “the aim is not to be invaded by Russia”

so you weren’t referring to cyber warfare or supply chain interference, and presumably you don’t think we are currently under invasion by Russia, post Salisbury?…….

60s. So I don’t suppose I would be required to fight. But yes, of course, I would do whatever I could.

In response to yours, that changes things. You may well be required to. Every respect for your willingness.

I would much rather my 30 and 22 year olds didn’t have to, though.

With a long family history of losses in WWs 1 and 2, it’s so depressing that this is even a debate. I wonder whether because as a nation we’re pretty detached from war, we’ve lost touch with the reality of it.

Nobody should have to do it. There are no circumstances under which I'd ever agree with conscripting women. I don't agree with conscripting men. That would always be my position.

I also get pretty hacked off at the way people speak about women in these circumstances as if it was women who made the decision to conscript men and exempt women in the first place. It's a favourite of incels.

I don't agree with national service either. Wherever there is or will be a multi-tier system where disadvantaged young men will mainly bear the brunt of whatever is cooked up for them, I will oppose it.

I agree. People are laughing at it being a possibility because of, I don’t know, some kind of British exceptionalism where the possibility of living anything other than a sheltered comfortable life is ludicrous.

I think if people had real knowledge or experience of the disgrace that was constipation in ww2 they’d be ashamed to suggest such a thing.

young working class men thrown on the beaches to be blown up in there thousands. 1944. That anyone would covet it with 80 years of hindsight later is shameful.

Rules should be the same regardless of sex/ gender etc so if men are conscripted into national service women should be too.

Men don’t have to shave their heads in the UK military so that’s not an issue but the rules for hair and permitted hairstyles/ lengths etc should again be the same regardless of sex/ gender etc.

WW1 was even worse.

We’re talking about war not a Monty Python sketch. They’ll do whatever produces the results, not what fulfils a diversity quota or pleases the incels.

Men won’t fight if their wives and girlfriends are put at risk and there is no family or potential family back home to protect. It would kill morale stone dead.

Young people have been tricked into taking out large loans to pay for university educations after which the promised well paid graduate jobs were not available.
These are not people who will be lured into being cannon fodder, pawns in the games of the wealthy & powerful.

Prison it is then.

I wasn’t assuming war, I thought the OP was talking about mandatory national service which usually takes place in late teens or early twenties so before most people are married or have children. I don’t think you could force young men fresh out of school to join the military if their female peers were all exempt.

Womem and men are equal in value, not equal in abilities.

Id be appalled at conscription for my son, but even more appalled by conscription for my daughters, who will be physically weaker, and have periods and hormonal cycles, which mean they are more in need of care and consideration for a time every month.

To say otherwise is the opposite of feminism. And pig ignorant.

This feels like a bit of a false dichotomy. The biggest difference in those serving, particularly somewhere like the US, is between rich and poor, not just men and women (I mean the enlisted, as in the UK, officers may have gone to Eton/Sandhurst/be princes/who knows). So the real question is, why should rich politicians (and if you’re getting an MP salary, you’re rich) of any gender, in any party, be allowed to send the poor to fight their wars? Sending only the children of a group that doesn’t include yours to be cannon fodder is very “A Modest Proposal.” It’s always worked like this, and it’s still working like this. I don’t agree with conscription but I do think national service could be a good idea; if it just became part of life, we’d probably get on with it like the Swiss do with their national service.# It also gave the Swiss a huge advantage during Covid; everything that didn’t require a medical professional, such as taking people’s information and “checking them in” for Covid tests or medical care, was triaged by young men and women doing national service in their fatigues. If we had compulsory national service, it could be used to support the NHS and over-stretched councils, as opposed to just military service.

In Switzerland, national service is required for men and voluntary for women, with recent campaigns to try to increase the amount of women volunteering. A few years ago, there was a referendum to make national service compulsory for women too, but it did not pass. I doubt it would pass here either. I suspect that even if the UK designed national service, it would probably be like this - compulsory for men, voluntary for women.

No no they aren’t.

It’s nothing to do with exceptionalism.

Which of the following needs conscripts?

A nuclear war. Over in seconds. Everyone dead.
Cyberwar- needs specialists
Invasion- possibly. But they aren’t going to invade.

Its sense not exceptionalism.

You still haven’t defined how Putin is going to rock up in an invasion.