To wonder why people aren’t worried about this??

[Mummytotwonow]

https://news.sky.com/story/time-to-think-the-unthinkable-and-consider-uk-conscription-says-britains-former-top-nato-commander-13056148

Sorry if I’ve missed any threads on this.

It’s not just sky news reporting this but for days now in the media this is being raised.

AIBU - to be extremely worried and concerned about this?

Is anyone else not worried?? Are we being prepared ready as “the higher up” know more and the threat is bigger than we’re told.

what age would it be from and to??

l‘m so scared for the world our children are growing up in 😢

Given the present world situation, and having now discovered that the UNRWA in Gaza is involved with Hamas, if you don't think conscription is the answer when we have to defend this country and our allies, what alternative defence would you prefer to conscription?

Since so many young people and adults are into violent video games and knife crime is on the increase, do you think that some sort of training to give young people some responsibility, not just for protection of the nation, but for a grounding in discipline which would hopefully channel their energy into something more productive?

Who were all the women who were conscripted to take over 'men's jobs' during the world wars? Likely the same ones who raised their daughters to demand equality. An achievement that is still ongoing, but advanced to a great extent, since conscription/national service was last used.
Why does being a child bearer now nullify this equality? Women were not allowed to fly jets or work on oil rigs as late as the 1970s, and even today, spurned from many other jobs, because they have a uterus.
If we women go down the 'because I have a uterus' road too, we will never be be truly equal.

Why should mothers with male children 'do their bit' when mothers who have solely female children, shouldnt?
If we become expected to conscript sons, we should be expected to conscript daughters too.

⬆ An object lesson in how to misunderstand what I wrote.

The problem is one of biology and time.

It takes a man nine minutes to start a baby and a woman nine months to finish it. A man can impregnate a woman and die the next day, he'll still be a father. If a woman gets pregnant and dies the next day, she and the baby are both lost. A man can sire multiple babies with multiple women and can even do so with several women at the same time. A woman can usually only have one baby at a time. The limiting factor on birth rate is the number of women, not the number of men.

Without uteruses to gestate children in, you have no children, no future citizens to replace your population. No government sends the uterus bearers to war en masse, they destroy their country's future by doing so.

Rights and equality don't come into this decision at all. It's purely pragmatic.

It becomes an exercise in damage limitation. Like, if we'd not resisted the Nazis how much more ethnic cleansing would've taken place?

And yet ever worsening overpopulation is one of our biggest issues. Not the opposite.

How closely have you been following events in Gaza?

Globally, yes. In terms of national survival, not so much. You are aware of the pensions crisis? And if you advocate anyone fighting for this country, you must want it to survive as a country, and that means protecting our ability to create new citizens because a country, to exist, must have land that it controls and people living on the land. No people = no country.

The Russians are mass raping Ukrainian women with the explicitly stated intent of stopping them from birthing future Ukrainian citizens. This is rape as genocide. Murdering the enemy's entire population is a long-attested means of not only winning the current war but preventing future ones because there's no enemy to fight you in the future. Preventing future births has the same effect. A government would have to be certifiably insane to make the enemy's job of wiping us out easier by sending women to the enemy as soldiers.

Why would you want women/girls to be conscripted?
It may make biological sense but even so, it's bad enough when half the population is being forced away to war.

As long as women don't wave white feathers again at the men who refuse to be cannon fodder.

1. It doesn't make biological sense to conscript women to combat roles.
2. Ideally, no one would be conscripted, but if you must conscript, don't conscript women to combat roles.
3. The possibility of a shooting war with Russia, with conscription a likely aspect of that, has been on the cards since Russia first marched into Crimea in, what, 2014? Yet no one has said a peep about it until this week.

The only reason why some old guy with a chestful of medals is all over the news about it right now is to stop you from looking at something else more immediately important, like the Coalition government's involvement in covering up the Horizon bug and hanging over 700 sub-postmasters out to dry to do so. We are talking about the govt and Post Office perverting the course of justice over 700 times. If they can do this to sub-postmasters, they can do it to any of us.

Nobody wants to send their own or other peoples children to war.
However, if conscription happens, we should not backtrack on equality and refrain from sending females just because they have a uterus.

Did you misread my post?

Biology doesn't care about civil rights. As I already explained, dead women bear no children.

No. You definitely wrote "It may make biological sense" about female conscription. Female conscription really really doesn't make biological sense.

Did you omit a "not"?

Ah, I get where you're coming from now.

No, what I was trying to say was "it may make biological sense [to send the men], but it's bad enough...."

In essence it's an anti-conscription sentiment.

@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia

Also agreed that it absolutely does not make biological sense to send the women.

You wouldn't have any choice in the matter

Any war would go nuclear and we’d all be fucked anyway

There are many wars ongoing now, none of them involve nuclear weapons.

Do they involve Putin’s attempt to subjugate the west ?

And don’t forget access to a large nuclear arsenal

Some do, some don't. Its kinda how deterrence works. And also why several wars are proxies for nuclear powers. Which is the whole point I was making that 'going nuclear' is not inevitable just because people have nuclear weapons. Hence why armies are still important.

Well, one of the main ones is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I think you know this? He doesn't have the capacity to subjugate the whole west but is making sure he is supporting anti-western nations across the world. Not sure what your point is really?

And yet ever worsening overpopulation is one of your biggest issues. Not the opposite

Yep, and past wars have kept that population down. Not a comforting thought.

I think someone needs to tell Putin that !!