If there was a war and conscription was mandatory would you go?

[visitingagain]

Do people think the government has the right to conscript people? Should people who won't comply get punished?

'CheeseMmmm I think it's less that the level of destruction of nuclear weapons that's the issue more that it's also self destructive to use them as they impact thousands of miles from blast radius and impossible to truly predict the impact long term even now so not seen as a sensible option.'

• Why is it self destructive to nuke a place 1000s of miles away? As happened in ww2. When you talk about affected area do you mean due to the weather moving particles etc? Because the actual bombs don't impact 1000s miles away due to initial blast it's a few miles. I can't see that anyone with nukes and a hatred of 'the West' would think nah won't nuke London/ NY because don't want them irradiated...?!

• The idea that the main problem isn't to do with the destructive impact on target I find unpalatable. I'm sure you've seen the videos, pics of scene after. They're scientifically incredible but using them? Just fuck no. An atrocity. Hopefully won't happen but the nuclear proliferation treaty is obv essentially a fantasy.

'Whereas a bio weapon that is engineered to wipe out everyone without eg green eyes can be fairly predictable and designed to not be harmful to the majority of the aggressor who HAS green eyes or the genes for them.'

I think this is a reference to Jewish people? I can't see that such a weapon would be possible for a long long time. And I don't think it would be wanted. Those who want rid of certain groups want to fight them and win. It's about scapegoating, getting followers, propaganda for hate. If could click fingers and all dead... That misses the whole point imo. And of course like I say.. How? If you wipe out all green eyed or with the gene. There's all sorts of recessive genes and etc around. I mean the green eye haters likely end up with loads of supports dead.

'I have a theory that COVID was developed originally as a potential bio weapon but somebody cocked up and it leaked into the world.'

Really? That's interesting. It's a shit bio weapon though. Why not something really nasty. A weapon that impacts the young and healthy least? Strange strategy.

'Technical warfare can be even more precise, drones or attacking the enemy's infrastructure (eg poisoning the water for all of Thames area via a computer virus in the water treatment system)'.

Often in news about drones (and bombs etc) hitting wrong targets.

The water is tested very carefully.. we have great water in London! And I doubt there is one treatment facility. I also suspect security is v good. Additionally. You would need to put a fuckton of whatever it is in... Like barrels and barrels and barrels... Tricky...

'Various methods are considered, developed even tested.'

You mean here, porton down type thing? Use of bio or chemical warfare is banned.. yes still used obv eg Saddam Hussein. Smaller scale though. Distribution is tricky. And if all dead it comes back to.. misses the point. Plus those would likely get into environment widely and thus same issue as the one you raised for nukes.

'I think it's fairly widely known that not all Germans supported Hitler and that there were various plans put in place that either failed or weren't attempted to

A prevent his rise to power initially

Or

B limit the damage he did once in power''

Earlier cnp contained some info. I haven't read the book but-
Network in Germany working to get rid asked for our support we ignored
20 assassination attempts can't be said to be not trying!

@CheeseMmmm

Nuclear is self destructive as we know now it's not only the target site that's affected, literally the whole world is. But also, it means destruction of useful resources that the enemy would like to nab.

The green eyes thing wasn't a reference to Jews, it was a reference to the fact the majority of wars if not all are tribal in nature. Many countries/factions absolutely would have an interest in developing a weapon that killed everyone except their people!

A weapon that impacts the young and healthy least? Strange strategy.

Not really. There are arguments possible for targeting different sectors of society. One possible argument for this could be that young minds are more malleable. That older people are the ones in power and that is who an enemy wants rid of. Most politicians, business and community leaders are older people. Wiping out older generations of an enemies population could create a handy power vacuum.

Plus I didn't say I thought it was FULLY developed. I do think it wasn't yet honed and some numpty cocked up leading to the leak.

Often in news about drones (and bombs etc) hitting wrong targets.

Not that often when you consider how often they are used. For one thing govts/organisations don't really like to advertise their failures, for another I'm betting most are right on target! If they were that bad they wouldn't keep using them!

Water - you did see the recent news on sewage dumping? Terrifying! Not only from an environmental/basic cleanliness perspective but I felt a very stupid decision based on advertising a vulnerability! Plus NO system is perfect, not all germs or chemicals can be screened for that's impossible. There are some germs for which this is of course their perfect environment and they're mostly screened for but who's to say someone couldn't develop a germ that isn't usually suited to this environment and altering it so it thrives? Or using a chemical that they wouldn't need to use loads for that isn't screened for?

Use of bio or chemical warfare is banned

If you really believe that I've a bridge for sale!

If we DIDN'T research bio or chemical warfare - which includes creating our own - we'd be very vulnerable to the advances of other countries/factions. At the very least we need to stay abreast of ALL developments, we also need to be able to defend ourselves!

I agree I don't think we didn't try with hitler but I think it likely we didn't necessarily or always communicate with or inc high ranking officials working with him

We don't overly trust our stated enemies, we barely trust our allies!

We have always employed intelligence techniques in spying on our allies and enemies, nothing new there.

Even during wwii we didn't totally trust USA and certainly not USSR!

Interesting graphista thanks for looking reply. We both know I'm sure we're going to disagree on a lot! Interesting though.

---

Nuclear weapons have only been used twice in combat. USA dropped them on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Certainly while contamination can be moved to other areas including long way away by weather systems.. Certainly the whole world did not experience damage due to that. And certainly globally nabbable resources weren't destroyed. We would have noticed a bit more if that had happened!

---

'Many countries/factions absolutely would have an interest in developing a weapon that killed everyone except their people!'

I don't agree, even the most bonkers would baulk at exterminating everyone on the planet except their group/ town/ community/ country/religion/ political belief etc. If those to live are across different countries. They would be in a situation with a sudden stop of supply chains (food etc). No electricity gas etc. Millions of dead all over the place. Very high risk of disease. Dead children babies everywhere including people they knew and liked. Etc. Terrible idea. And despots me extremists want power, to win, to get more people and areas they control. All enemies dead suddenly? Not satisfying.

---

Covid created as bio weapon that leaked?

'. That older people are the ones in power and that is who an enemy wants rid of. Most politicians, business and community leaders are older people. Wiping out older generations of an enemies population could create a handy power vacuum.'

Not older. Elderly. Elderly people around the globe are not running everything! And the few who are in powerful positions have people/ structures in place for succession. The vast majority of them for sure.

Nope. It's a terrible strategy. Plus covid theories like this are not my thing. It's not the first pandemic and won't be the last. These things come around. Spanish flu, hiv. From labs?

---

'If we DIDN'T research bio or chemical warfare - which includes creating our own - we'd be very vulnerable to the advances of other countries/factions'

These are illegal and rightly so. No of course it's not adhered to. But recent years used afaik against large populations.
Issues-
Delivery massive issues. Really tricky.
If manage to do it on large scale then as mentioned before. Collapsed infrastructure. Bodies everywhere risk of disease, pollution disease etc. Resources you might want to nab are fucked.

Got a link to the sewage thing?

To be honest, I don't suit green so the army's out. I look good in blue but I get airsick and seasick and I'm claustrophobic. So, on the whole, I'd probably have to come down against conscription.

Even during wwii we didn't totally trust USA and certainly not USSR!

And yet despite the popular British narrative that WWII was won by GB and GB alone, without Russia you'd have been fucked.

Just because you need someone, it doesnt mean you have to like or trust them.
I don't know anyone who thinks GB could have won without the US. But equally the US couldn't have won without its allies too.

Whole narrative exemplifies history written by Victor. So much is just not mention mentioned. Or hardly ever. Also impact on women has only been talked about s bit in mainstream recently..eg rape of Berlin.

@madisonbridges

Just because you need someone, it doesnt mean you have to like or trust them. I don't know anyone who thinks GB could have won without the US. But equally the US couldn't have won without its allies too.

Russia.

It was Russia who helped win the war in the end.

But you never hear that in the endless UK WWII commentary. Your average UK citizen is most likely oblivious to that fact.

Yeah I'd go. I'd figure at least I would be doing something interesting. And even if I die, at least history will wrote about me - not me personally, but us. Assuming peace would come again, I wouldn't be able to bear the idea that I hadn't helped make it that way. Some of my friends would inevitably die and I wouldn't be able to bear the idea that they had died and i had ducked out.

I would probably need to take a lot of cocaine to get me through it though.

Just looked Russia lost 26 million in ww2.

Fucking hell.

Conditions appalling. I mean I'm not great on history tbh but that scale of loss and the way they were treated.

More should be known about all sides.

Including the atrocities committed.

Imo dropping nukes was an atrocity. Yes reasons I'm sure but like I say not great on history.

Nukes though are just... Incomprehensibly awful.

USA only country to have done it.

As somebody who has been through a war as a child and saw first hand rich people sending their kids to western countries to study so they do not have to go to war, I am 100 per cent sure that if another war comes I'll do everything in my power to protect my family from going to army.

My mother during the 1991. - 1995. war worked in a restaurant, cooking for an army. One wall of that restaurant was looking at a harbour with many yachts. She had to work every day if she didn't want to end in prison or withoout her job and look all those rich people run with their yachts to Italy to be safe. Usually, they were the biggest warmongers in our community.

They had zero intention of risking the lives of their children and their own, but had zero trouble sending other people's children to risk their lives.

So, if there is any way I can help it, no.

I believe that a form of National Service (military or civilian) should be required, before access to the right to vote, benefits, and healthcare is allowed.

@WhatHoMarjorie
I did history o level in the 1970s. I spent 2 years doing nothing but studying WW2. I know about flipping Mussolini, and Hitler and Russia and Hitler breaking the pact and invading Russia and making the same mistake as Napoleon. Blah, blah, blah. Of course you hear about Russia in the war. There's tons of programmes about that on TV.

The allies might still have won without Russia, but without the commonwealth countries, we might not even have lasted long enough to see the USA enter the war. Still, it's good that Hitler betrayed Stalin because I'm not sure how many western countries could have withstood the loss of life that Russia did and not have collapsed under public opinion.

I would think the power of social media could convince a fair number of young people to sign up for some wokeypokey something they have been convinced is a deserving cause.

Thinking about it I can see the glorifying of killing and defeating (ISIS ?) some BAAad people (according to the social media trope/nutter on tiktok) would be a cause very many, considering it's global reach, would risk death for.

@greenpolkadot55

im too old but if i was young enough if join the Wrens,,,,nice uniform

Doesnt exist anymore! Sorry. Youd have to join the Navy

I'd go if I had to but I'd just hide at the back making soup or something.

If there is another world war conscription would probably come back and yes I would do my bit. Although most wars are about religion and or political ww2 was about far more than that not to mention the thousands of innocent people killed it was above the ravings of a maniac who wanted to control the world. If brave men and women hadn’t gone to fight Jews, travellers, homosexuals to name a few would have been eliminated.

I think the Russian winter was pretty devastating for Axis.

@CheeseMmmm
Russian soldiers were notorious for rape.

@WhatHoMarjorie

Even during wwii we didn't totally trust USA and certainly not USSR!

And yet despite the popular British narrative that WWII was won by GB and GB alone, without Russia you'd have been fucked.

Quite.

The success of WW2 was almost entirely due to the Americans and the Russians. British Troops were withdrawn during the Dunkirk Evacuation and were losing spectacularly until the Americans arrived in 1942.

Following the D-Day Landings it was the war on two fronts that eventually overpowered Hitler, led by Russia and mainly the Americans. British Contribution whilst invaluable was not the driving force.

I’m a pacifist. I’d be a nurse or something similar but I’m fundamentally opposed to killing my fellow man - no matter what the political leanings of his commanding officer. I would intervene to try to stop violence happening right in front of me but couldn’t train to go out and shoot people.

[quote BlueFlavour]@CheeseMmmm
Russian soldiers were notorious for rape.[/quote]
There’s a new series on Netflix about life in Berlin in the immediate months after WW2. It’s really quite harrowing.

The treatment of German citizens especially women and children by the forces of all fronts, mainly Russians but also America, French, British etc, was indefensible.

I’d go if conscripted, but think I’d be too old. I’d be happy to help in another capacity, and would be happy to volunteer for that. Every male in my family has been in the Armed Forces, so the idea doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.