Ready yourself for the Citizen's Army

[ChedderGorgeous]

Is the head of the army being sensationalist to highlight lack of army funding or is the reality of a citizen's army in the UK a step towards a new era of conscription? Both parties would play anything like this down in an election year.

NATO means we might need to join in somewhere else but it’s interesting when the island thing comes up

On another thread a pp said ‘shitty island’ in some post Covid / Brexit auto post but then realised yes we are less likely to be invaded by foot as Ukraine is experiencing

Geography and proximity come in to play and the UK isn’t so badly placed

But you are aware that Ukraine has never joined NATO, and the idea was never even entertained by NATO members?

No its not ive heard worse.

I find it bizarre how people can simultaneously think "We are in NATO and under the full NATO protection, Article 5, so we are untouchable and an attack on us is impossible" and "No way we will be fighting a war in Baltics / Poland, that's too far away and why don't they fix the housing market and the NHS first".

Hey, Britain! You are NATO. The US can feel exactly the same about a potential attack on the UK, by the way - articles, shmarticles, let's build a wall first.

Cant we use AI to produce soldiers to fight on the battlefield. In this day and age I'm surprised we don't already have an army of robots

My discharge papers from the MOD say 6 years if that helps to clarify.

Thar doesn't make it not stupid and cruel.

Everyone is gonna have an opinion so do i and my opinion is i dont care.

I don't think it will come to the full conscript army with long mandatory service, but something similar to the likes of Denmark, Switzerland or Norway is quite possible: everyone aged 18-?? is obliged to come to a 5-day "muster" to undergo fitness assessment and undergo the most basic training, then volunteers sign up and most fit individuals are drafted for 3-5 months, longer for special forces.
I am not pro-military, but considering the worsening overall circumstances, the muster part would be beneficial - people have to learn how to take shelter, how to act during air raids, etc, and have to pass on that knowledge to their families.

Remember the other year when we all stayed home and didn’t see our loved ones? Frightening what people will accept.

You do know that women are now able to join the army in fighting roles? While they aren't joining in huge numbers they are able to and they are expected to carry the same kit as men.

@1dayatatime - just because the UK refuses to fight, does not mean there won't be a global war. Nor does it mean that war will not come to the UK, whether we want it or not.

I love that you have typed this on SM while fantasising about SM users being killed in a war.

Thank you for the feedback i only have mumsnet call text or email nothing else.

You're an absolute embarrassment. What on earth is wrong with you?

who is the embarrassment.

So does Sweden. My DD had the letter and had to fill it in a few years ago, thankfully she wasn’t selected and forced to do it.

@C152

"@1dayatatime - just because the UK refuses to fight, does not mean there won't be a global war. Nor does it mean that war will not come to the UK, whether we want it or not."

+++

True it's doesn't mean there won't be a war global or otherwise.

But there will be a choice against the opposing power to either surrender and accept whatever they want or fight. For example Ukraine could have chosen to surrender the entire country to Russia on whatever terms the Russians wanted (and can still do so now) but instead chose to fight the invasion.

How would that work in the UK where most people seem to refuse to work unless it’s wfh, or open the door if anyone would knock on it. Or can’t work because of mh issues.

I don't think many young straight white men will be keen to fight for a system that openly discriminates against them.

I am not wholly against military service but it is not a cheap/easy way of filling the army rank and file.

My granddad volunteered at age 16 in ww1 and then managed to serve again in ww2. He died young, but he did consider he had defended his family against the threat of invasion and Nazism. He was no apologist for the ruling classes - he was a died-in-the-wool socialist. It is possible to want to serve and fight a common enemy, whilst still feeling that your country and its government is flawed. For all our problems, I’d take British democracy over Purim’s regime any day.

My dc is interested in an army career but in my area the under 18 cadets are full, in a wait list!

I cannot see conscription becoming a real issue at an election

This is ridiculous because we've spent decades moving in the opposite direction from being a country where a "citizen army" could realistically exist, or where an entire generation of young men could be conscripted into the military with barely a whimper.

To go back, society would need to become much more hard-nosed and would have to care far less about human rights, equality, and "touchy-feely" values.

None of this mental health or caring about feelings. If your MH is really bad, perhaps we'll put you in an asylum - otherwise you'll need your stiff upper lip as you keep calm and carry on all the way to the trenches.

We would have to become comfortable with the idea of citizens keeping and carrying weapons from age 16 upwards - not just knives but firearms - and being fully trained in how to use them.

And we'd have to go back to the idea of national pride and fighting for King and Country, so all the woke dogma and anti-Britain sentiment would be out of the window - indeed we'd probably have to imprison people for disseminating such dangerous ideas. To talk the country down in the way that people routinely do on here would be considered disloyal or even treasonous.

With an armed population, the risk of e.g. rogue militias staging an armed coup would be vastly greater so we'd have to get comfortable with having far less freedom to express political opinions and to organise politically.

Finally, if you want a world where men are conscripted but women are not, you'd have to erase decades of equality legislation and shift the compass back towards traditional gender roles.

None of this is realistic.

My reading of the situation:

1. He's using fear of Russia to further the argument that the British army/ military might is not enough. He wants extra resources, as does pretty much every government owned institution/ service right now.

1. He's right. If we were dragged into a world war tomorrow, we wouldn't have enough military might. But that's what NATO is for, the theory being that we provide protection for one another by mutual agreement.

1. Putin isn't, though, about to start a war with a NATO member state. He's not stupid. He may of course be a bit unhinged and unpredictable, but see point 6.

1. Putin may, accidentally, draw in NATO through perceived act of aggression towards another NATO member state. A missile fired at a NATO country bordering Ukraine.

1. If the above happened, there are lots of very clever people who know far more than the average Joe, who would work day and night to avoid escalation, which would be in nobody's interests. We saw how careful and diplomatic world leaders became when a missile entered Polish territory.

1. Supposing it did escalate, it's not a case of Putin simply reaching for the red button. Weapons would need to be manoeuvred into place (which our surveillance would pick up), and there's a chain of command and procedures that needs to be followed - yes, even in Russia. Oligarchs would do anything to avoid nuclear conflict in protection of their wealth and power, so expect to see Putin overthrown/ assassinated from within. Nobody wants a nuclear war. Nobody.

1. While the world is obsessed with Putin, it would do better not to take its eye off the bigger possibility - that lots of regional wars (including Gaza/ Israel) create big divides in the world's political ecosystem - Iran, Pakistan, Israel, US, Syria, China, N Korea etc. That's the biggest risk to world stability. But once again, nobody wants a nuclear war.

Which brings me full circle: this is all posturing and fear mongering to drive investment in the military. We'd be better investing in diplomatic relations so that those very clever people can continue to keep us all out of all out war in the first place.

While conscription is, theoretically, possible if all of the above fails, it remains a very tiny likelihood.

And all in order to protect the sections of society who would have the most to worry about under say a Putin puppet dictatorship restricting freedom of speech, tolerance etc.

Um I think you'll find there's rather more experience of discrimination amongst gay white men?