Which of your children would take up arms if need be to defend their country

[Lardychops]

Ive been thinking about this a lot lately in a thought experiment/abstract way since Ukraine invasion and having lived years ago in Israel where young people do national service from 17 as a matter of course with frequent refreshers- obviously now for them being put to the test .
So, my question is -
In terms of the ‘barbarians at the gates scenario which of your children/neices /nephews /siblings parents would drop everything to defend their country/ city/town/ village and family if they needed to ? And do you think their lifestyle/career path impacts on this?

I have 1DD single mother of 3 - she would have been first in the queue pre kids and if I looked after them she would be first to front line

3x DS - all tradesmen- without hesitation- 1 has a child but a partner - he would be first on the front line after his sister. One of them would be terrified but his pride would make him follow his brothers to protect his family rather than any bigger picture

1xDSD - works in retail -No doubt she would pick up arms and fight to the death.

1xDSD- left Uni-just got back from travelling - nothing in hospitality- no chance.

I think a fair share will have thought they made the right decision.

I mean, this is just pathetic. The whole premise of the question was if the country was invaded and overrun. Obviously anyone who isn’t solely focused on scoring points would take it as read that the armed forces would be the first port of call, but if there weren't enough of them and conscription was needed - what then? Sit there and say "no way" or expect someone else to defend you? It's hardly an unreasonable question.

I would try to leave the country.

Enterusername111333 "That's what I don't understand about all the men coming over on boats. Why are they not staying and fighting for their country"

Now add those up and see if you make 4 .....

Both my step-children are in reserved occupations. So am I. We wouldn't get called up, although I can see one of them volunteering to go into the forces medical branch if it came to it. If they did, I would be worried sick and simultaneously proud as anything of them.
I don't think my brother would have volunteered when he was younger. He spent his 20s clubbing and having a good time. Although maybe something like volunteering for his country might have been the making of him.

I think part of the problem is that Putin is so unpredictable that it's very hard to evaluate what is a real threat and what is just warmongering rhetoric from western heads of state intent on distracting us from their own awful record in.government. I don't think the UK has much to fear imminently, but I appreciate that the picture looks very different from the Baltic/Scandinavian countries.

Some have gone back due to homesickness but most of the Ukrainians I've met have stayed in continental Europe. The difference between them and other refugee populations local to me is that the Ukrainians tend to be more educated and career-focused, which pulls them towards big cities and/or Switzerland. DD1 has one Ukrainian mate left, who is about to go to a local university. DS used to volunteer with them and says that they have mostly moved away.

It's not that hard to evaluate, Russia under Putin is a threat. The UK is already under attack via hybrid warfare, as is the rest of West. Disinformation, cyber attacks, weaponising refugees (this was happening in Finland until we closed the borders), sabotage (communication cables keep getting "accidentally" cut between Finland and Europe), GPS jamming (bad enough here that its having an impact on aviation with planes not being able to land), air space violations etc. Putin is constantly seeing how far he can push us, if he believes we won't retaliate strongly enough then eventually that push will be military.

I think you'll find the biggest difference between and other refugee populations is actually freedom of movement.

I replied to that earlier, I completely understand that perspective and would do the same in their position.
Obviously not everyone would, but I wouldn't be staying in a dangerous, low quality life if there was an alternative option.
Personally I don't know if I would risk the channel, but the men making that choice probably aren't making a fully informed choice by knowing the actual level of risk in many cases.

When I was about 17, I was in the audience of some afternoon TV show where they were debating the question 'would the youth of today fight for their country?' (I think they called my school and said, 'Send us an articulate hippy.')

When asked the question on telly, I said that I didn't think I would, but then I didn't suppose that many teenagers in 1935 thought they would either. But if I did, I wouldn't be fighting for my country. I'd be fighting for my family and my friends and my bit of South London. It'd be a complete historical accident that was in the front line next to a squaddie from Newcastle and a nurse from Plymouth who were fighting for their family and their street.

Still applies. I have plenty of family and friends in my bit of the UK. But I have more friends in Barcelona, Amsterdam, Budapest and New Jersey than I have in Basingstoke, Amersham, Burnley or Newport. And I feel more European than British.

If my kids decide to fight, I hope it's for people, not for a flag.

I have no children so none of them

If I would take up arms defends on whether I
thought my country was in the right.

That may well be true. I'm counting the months until I can get an EU passport and get into a better paid job market elsewhere.

That said, there really are limited opportunities for some nationalities based on very limited formal education in their countries of origin, plus a degree of colour prejudice. I'm not sure that having free movement would solve the problems of these least advantaged populations.

What is the social contract?

*depends on whether I thought my country was in the right.

I enjoy history podcasts (it's like the news, but in costume). Only a couple of days ago, I caught a discussion about WW2 in which the US War Department approach to propaganda and motivating the US troops.

One guest then asked : "Was there anything similar in the Russian military ?" to which the rather tart answer was "Well, they didn't feel the need for it, what with having actual Nazis actually invading their actual country."

Says quite a bit really.

Britain has always been a little bit of an odd case when it comes to invasion compared to the rest of Europe (and that is the basis for an entire political movement). And that speaks of the fact that to the military invasion and occupation are two distinct operations. Ask anyone from Yorkshire who knows their own history.

@Natsku The level of risk from Russia certainly is impossible to evaluate and always has been, which is why experts disagree among themselves and have little success in predicting the Kremlin's next move. Whatever your instincts, it's important to evaluate critically some of the shriller speeches coming from jingoistic western governments and their cheerleaders in the press. This point has been made repeatedly by people who know much more about Russia than I do:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/13/russia-adviser-fiona-hill-alarming-conclusion

What an ignorant post

The level of risk cannot be evaluated, sure, or what will happen next, but the fact that there is risk, and we are already under attack, isn't debatable, its evident.

If the country was invaded and successfully occupied, what are everyone’s views on collaboration?
It’s easy to say oh I’d never do that, but if one’s family is starving or it could lead to a means of escaping or whatever, then the waters are muddied.
From what I’ve read French collaborators were severely punished (though Coco Chanel seemed to escape censure).

It's evident, but it's also true that governments do nefarious stuff on foreign soil all the time and it doesn't get the same level of scrutiny. Just because a situation is worrying doesn't mean it can't be exaggerated for clicks or political gain - and while we're all.fretting about Putin (who's already bitten off more than he can chew in Ukraine) who is holding our governments to account?

That's true that many governments do this kind of thing and don't get enough scrutiny, Russia didn't get enough scrutiny prior to the invasion. But it is quite different when its a government that is already at war with one European country and has expressed their intentions to go further - you definitely have to pay more attention to their hybrid warfare acts, and they are definitely more worrying. We can hold our governments to account and keep an eye on Russia at the same time. And if anything, the British government is underreacting, so ought to be held to account for that.

If collaborators had been punished in any systematic way there would have been far fewer people left. There were quite a few lynchings, with collaboration as a convenient cover for what were presumably local feuds. To listen to French people born after the war, you'd think that 90% of the population had been in.the resistance (which, as every schoolboy knows, stood alone against the Germans. I don't know what they think the allies did.)

Older French people tell a more nuanced story. They tend to be (understandably) very preoccupied with their own lived experience and that of their families. Some had a good war, some didn't.

@Charlottejbt thank you for your interesting post. I must read up more on occupied France.

FREAKING TALK is what I suggest suites no-one to have another war which will only destroy our society, the most vulnerable with suffer the worst.

However, I have neighbours who are Christadelphians & of the opinion that the end of the world is nigh & welcoming the current conflict. They quote scripture which upholds their views.

As a Christian I counter their augments. They are creationists - I accept that in itself, the bible is correct in the time-line in that the earth separated from the heavens, sea & land etc , but remember also bible says every day for God is 1000 years which could well be as much as the early bible transcribers could imagine so lengthen that to 10,000 or 1m years. I have also challenged them that there are 2 creation of human stories. One where God as the King James bible puts it: 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them' - a bit later in Genesis we have this thing about God taking one of Adam's ribs. which one do they believe?

They coming back to me on that one. 😂

DD2 would take up arms for a pop tart, never mind her country. 😂