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.

Well ignoring the goady posts, could we even believe what we're being told by the government? I'm thinking of the weapons of mass destruction lie...

I suspect that poster is a Farage fan.

As another poster has said, you’ve obviously never had the threat of an invading force taking away your citizenship, raping your children, and murdering your family members as you watch. You might wish to find a safe place too.

I think my boys would fight to defend their families/loved ones. They wouldn't fight to defend "their country". Far too many young men have died for the egos of rich white men - my sons will not join them. I'd encourage them to escape to their other home country if at all possible.

Hear hear @ChillOutMate

Is France really that bad?

This. My DS wanted to sign up when he was younger but I discouraged it and thankfully he took a different path. My DD would be more helpful on the nursing side rather than fighting (not in her nature).

If we were governed by an authoritarian regime sending the police and death squads to pick up people from the streets for torture and murder because they were from the wrong family/ wrong politics/wrong colour. You would just tell your children to pick up a stick and fight?

I suspect both of mine would. They are too young at 10 & 7 but I can definitely see ds following through on his plans to join up. He's currently at Cub camp in the pouring rain having a fabulous time.

Both of mine would DD and DS

I think my angry 5 year old would have a good crack at it.

I agree with this entirely. I would not encourage any of my family to needlessly throw their life away in conflict that is generally pointless.
I'd far prefer they engaged their time in more strategic effective measures like diplomacy.

There are many way to defend yourself and country and they do not have to involve fighting or 'bravery'.

How about volunteering their engineering, technical or software skills to work on new defence systems that could protect our country from incoming missiles.

I'd be encouraging that sort of input, not mindless fighting and getting themselves killed.

To defend our shores in an actual invasion I would think all of my younger relatives and even though I’m older and my registration is long gone as I retrained in the early nineties I could do basic nursing still if allowed to.

Interesting thread, thank you op.
I doubt that nowadays civilians will be called up to fight in conflicts overseas (though never say never).

However hostilities may break out here, not because of an invasion but Civil War. It could be the have-nots v. the haves, or racial or religious.
I wonder where is the best place in our house or garden to hide/bury jewellery and other things of value if we manage to flee.

reading these posts about non combatant roles and leaving for safer pastures is a very British centric view where we’ve grown up watching dramas about WWII where we weren’t actually invaded and these were rational and available choices.

if an ugly regime invaded Britain or threatened too and started taking your DH’s out in the street to shoot in the head and asking if you want to be raped before or after your daughter then becoming a land girl isn’t the choice - you won’t get the choice to go to Canada or Australia

the choice is fight back or try to survive whatever, live under the regime (which is what most people do) or resist.

Far too many young men have died for the egos of rich white men - my sons will not join them.

@Digdongdoo that is true, but I think fighting against Hitler was a just cause.

Yes, most of the comments come from a place of privilege and total lack of awareness of what it's like to be genuinely under the jackboot where you don't have the luxury of choice, or at least not the kind of choices anyone would ever want to make.

I’m probably an age where they’d try to recruit.

A nation is an imagined political community. Why would I fight for it?

I might choose to fight against a far right regime that was intent on expansion.

If, for example, I was 25 in 1939 then I likely would have put my hand up before conscription to fight against the Nazi’s. But I certainly wouldn’t blindly fight for this country.

This country has been the aggressor. The Opium wars, Zulu and Boer wars. It’s fought stupid wars - Iraq spring to mind.

Any person blindly following the country they live in to any conflict lacks critical thinking skills.

Yes, but there have been, and are, lots of awful people with lots of power doing awful things. I don't buy into it being my responsibility to give my life (or my DC) to stop them all. There's plenty of awful shit that we all just sit by and watch. It's always been very selective. There's a vast difference between fighting to defend yourself/loved ones against an immediate threat and fighting for the arbitrary notion of "your country", or fighting just because someone else thinks you ought to.

Yes hopefully. This country and the way we live is not more important than my babies lives. There are no ideals or morals that are worth more than my children staying alive and safe.

I really feel as this is mumsnet so mainly mums answering probably a good proportion would say none .Who would want there child .especially if it was not britian that was attacked .thankfully all that my children would be considered fir would be home guard. They all wear glasses and are to short sighted

My kids are 13 and 9 but the younger one isn’t afraid of anything so she’d probably be all we need as a nation.

If it was against our family specifically me and DH are whooping ass.

You’ve invented an unlikely hypothetical situation that you feel very strongly is an important moral measure… and then you’ve ranked your children by how likely they are to meet it?

They're not fools, it's admirable and someone has to do it.

People will claim it's hypocritical but seeing as normal citizens have relatively fuck all say in the geopolitical going on of nations I don't think it is and I'm not going to willingly see my family risk their lives for something the leaders who are involved won't even risk a sprained ankle for.

Essentially my family living longer is more important to me than my moral consistency

If our country was the aggressor- no. To protect our country, families, freedom, way of life from an aggressor- yes absolutely, my whole family would without a doubt. I’d be genuinely surprised if there were people who wouldn’t in those circumstances.