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.

And hopefully they won't introduce such a rule, or indeed a general 'show your papers' rule in the event of war nearby, for national security reasons.

Respectfully, I would fight to defend my country. As would my kids, I think.

I do not think of the UK as my country. I am a citizen, I live here, but my home and my love is NZ. We pays our taxes, we live as good and contributing citizens, and that will have to be enough.

I don't think Rishi Sunak thought any more than about scoring political points. He certainly wasn't serious about defence.

I'm guessing that if the conflict arose that involved civilians having to take up arms, then private healthcare would long since have collapsed.

In the countries involved yeah but the pp was talking about going to a country at peace. Though if there's a war in the UK then I doubt there will be much of Europe that's not involved so finding such a country, with a functioning private healthcare system and without strict border controls might be a tad difficult...

I have thought about this after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I was initially surprised to read that Ukrainians aren't called up to fight until they are 25, but then thought that while traditionally warfare was very hand to hand, and involved having to carry your heavy equipment with you, these days most isn't like that. So it's no longer necessary for armies to consist of young men at their peak strength and fitness (and frankly, peak testosterone and aggression levels).

I'm in my fifties, and in a Ukraine like situation, I'd much rather it was me risking my life than young family members in their twenties.

I am perpetually amused by the (alleged) hard core preppers who point to their 3 weeks worth of water as if it counts for anything. Yes, they are a sensible precaution against bad weather, strikes, localised unrest or a marathon on the town.

But in a situation where the balloon really went up then the idea things will be up & running in 3 weeks is a little bit optimistic.

(Also why prep, if you and a gun can relieve preppers of their stuff ?).

Yup. I keep food and water on hand for things like extended power cuts and very bad winter storms but hoping to prep for a shit hits the fan situation? No point.

It's not just children who will need to fight in the next war, the whole country will need to fight. Would you fight? I like to think I wouldn't, but it would depend on the circumstances really. If it meant I could have a gun and some ammunition at home as a standby to fight invaders and enemies of the state already here I probably would (depending on whether the enemies seemed worse than the government at the time). I'm not going to go to Ukraine or Israel or France to fight though.

That's the point really, assuming places like Spain, Germany and France don't turn back the clock and decide to have another crack at invading Britain, they'd need to be overrun first and hopefully their own citizens would have weakened the enemy forces.

Of course Russia, North Korea and China are more likely just to nuke Britain altogether rather than invade, in which case there would be no fighting anyway. I always used to think North Korea was a long way away until someone pointed out that their missiles could easily reach us by heading over Russia and the Arctic, it's only about 5000 miles.

That's the point really, assuming places like Spain, Germany and France don't turn back the clock and decide to have another crack at invading Britain,

As pointed out previously, invading and occupying are completely different things. The only thing that connects them is invasion typically has to precede occupation.

Vichy France is probably more what we would see. The invading force would overwhelm our defences and rock up at Westminster where the government of the day would be invited to run the UK on their behalf. That is "invited" in the same way you are "invited" to pay your tax.

Do they though?!