Military conscription

[Donotpanicoknowpanic]

There is lots of talk about if ww3 happens then military conscription will happen

This is basically people who sit in an office safely saying we need to either send ourselves or out children to fight and die in horrible conditions

Am I unreasonable to think that anyone who thinks this is a good idea

They should be the first ones to sign up and to lead by example

Any politicians who think this is a good idea, there children should be the first to go

Russia is literally sending troops in wheel chairs and crunches to the front line

So age, disability and gender will not be a problem for anyone who supports any conscription policy's, they can go first

Also the UK will not be invaded, we are not Ukrainian, If we were more like Ukraine I would be more in favour of this as the country itself is under threat

Unwilling is the key. Motivation means more than anyone wants to admit.

Yes I was watching something on YT about this earlier - it's insane! Which 65 yr old ex-Veteran is going to want to go back to war, or let's face it, even be fit enough to do so? Keir Starmer is just nuts. Every day it gets worse.

Soldier rich because conscription makes sense in North Korea for reasons that are almost the opposite of why it doesn’t make sense in the UK or US. Strip away the ideology and it comes down to geography, regime survival and control.

For North Korea, war isn’t hypothetical, it’s the organising principle of the state. It faces a technologically superior enemies, it has no strategic depth, and losing a war would likely means total regime collapse, not just defeat.

When the alternative is extinction, efficiency matters less than sheer capacity to resist. They must rely on man numbers due to their other weaknesses.

Also, crucially for North Korea, conscription doubles as political control. Military service is not just about defence, it isolates young people from civilian society, it Indoctrinates them, breaks independent social networks and reinforces loyalty to the regime.

I’ll go even further to say that military service in North Korea also substitutes for their weak economy - cheap labour and a way to keep unemployment invisible.

Regardless, they have contributed thousands of troops to the fight against Ukraine.

This simply isn’t true…

No one said they are doing it with sticks and stones, but they are very much doing it without any direct military allies. As are Russia. It’s simply true.

If you see my original comment I refer to military allies of the calibre of the west - rich, democratic and technologically advanced.

The above, of course, aren’t the only criteria for where conscription makes sense and is used.

But why are they willing in my country? Perhaps because there is a culture of national service, and a knowledge that the country can only be defended if everyone plays their part.

They aren't soldiers on the whole, they are cannon fodder sent to die.

Which country are you referring to?

Finland

Hopefully he will be dead soon

I’d say Finland’s use of conscription is rooted in its geography and history.

Firstly it borders with Russia, so favours immediate self-defence with little expectation of help in a first phase of an attack.

It has vast, harsh terrain, limited road networks and bad winters – more suited to large numbers. You can’t cover that kind of space with a small force, no matter how well equipped.

I’d also say social legitimacy is unusually strong, culturally. Conscription is seen as fair and necessary, service is relatively short, conditions are decent, training is serious and competence-based. There’s also strong public trust in institutions. That combination makes coercion minimal and compliance high.

Finland is wealthy, but not wealthy enough to maintain a large professional army and cover its entire border permanently.

I know it sounds odd but if we were constricting obviously they would now recruit men and women. Would they allow one parent to stay home with dependants?

Last time, married women with children were exempt so it’s possible a choice of parent would be given. Somebody has to look after the children.

Yeah as I said, conscription is necessary, not possible to defend without it but I wouldn't go assuming the UK can manage with just a professional army either, especially one that has been weakened so much since the end of the cold war.

Does strong public trust in institutions come by itself or by the population at large being part of those institutions? When everyone has skin in the game the game is more important and respected more.

Trust in institutions built over time through consistent performance, fairness, transparency and shared social norms. Something the UK doesn’t have.

Trust in institutions aside, despite the current climate, conscription in the UK is very unlikely, unless multiple things dramatically change – there’s no political mandate for it, public support is so low that it’s political suicide to mention it. The UK’s current threat perception doesn’t justify it, the British army couldn’t absorb conscripts, even if it wanted to – it has neither the resources or infrastructure to. A sudden draft would degrade its readiness for years. Economic and social resistance would be intense.

Agree that the British army couldn't just absorb conscripts, conscription would have to be done separately to the main military structure but that doesn't mean its impossible, Britain has had National Service before so it can have it again, but it would take a lot of work and convincing of the general public. Unless of course war does break out, in which case it doesn't matter a jot what the general public thinks, they will have to do what they are told to do, whatever that may be. I suspect many that are currently against conscription would change their minds if the situation gets that dire anyway.

Few things are ‘impossible’ – no one is arguing that. It’s the likelihood, and it remains extremely unlikely. Britain having had national service in the past is irrelevant now – it was a different time, different politics, different social structure, different economy and a different technological era. A different country.

Infrastructure for conscription separate to the main army would take years and years to implement well. And wouldn’t work for all the original reasons I gave. It would weaken Britain’s military response, not strengthen it.

Multiple levels of advanced defence systems would have to completely fail for a mass draft to ever be on the cards.

Exactly this . We will try to be persuaded to be cannon fodder for the powerful and elite. We have woken up . If you want to fight do but do not ask the rest of us to.

Why would it weaken British military response? If its done separately to the actual military so doesn't affect their resources? Why do you think some countries are reintroducing conscription or considering it? Will it weaken their militaries too or is it just British specialness that makes it unable to adapt?

Again – because modern warfare is system-heavy, not man-power heavy, especially when you are defending by sea and air and not dealing with a large and complex land-locked terrain.

You can’t shortcut training for modern combat. A a separately conscripted army would create command chaos – parallel chains of command and conflicting priorities. Morale and legitimacy problems are fatal in combat. A second conscript army would be inferior in skill, take higher casualties, be seen as second class and create huge political risk as casualties mount, as the second army is ‘expendable’. This undermining on so many levels.

Britain’s geography and a small island absolutely plays into its ‘specialness’. It does not need to defend land immediately or absorb a slow invasion. It needs rapid, deployable, coalition-integrated forces for air and sea control.

In a nutshell, second army weakens response because it fractures focus, people and systems at the exact moment war demands unity.

A second conscripted army would work better (but still not well) as a home-defence and national service system with limited role, that is not combat related. This option only really works when it has a clear purpose, is visibly fair and delivers value even in peacetime.

If you want to talk about other countries currently considering conscription then sure, but you need to be specific because each has specific requirements to its current political, economical and geographical situation.

Agree you can't shortcut training but why would you? Conscript training wouldn't be a shortcut, the training can be exactly the same as normal military training (or adjusting it for a home defence force makes more sense for Britain, with an additional focus on dealing with infrastructure failings due to hybrid warfare - in peacetime can deal with the aftermath of things like major storms causing mass power outages or areas being cut off due to extreme weather)

adjusting it for a home defence force makes more sense for Britain,

Lots of thoughts on that idea here:

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/lessons-uk-strategic-defence-review-home-guard

Thing is it would need to properly,....

Interesting read, thanks.

Again – because modern warfare is system-heavy, not man-power heavy,

British military strategy for over 500 years has been machines over men. (The Royal Navy being the exemplar). Britain is not a country that keeps or fields a continental army. One of the reasons why the world wars are so exceptional, given the martial nature of the British Empire.

Of course the ultimate machine is a nuclear weapon. And you have to yourself why we are all wailing over conscription when the UK possesses a tool that makes killing soldiers in battles irrelevant. Not just that, but a tool which has cost the country untold hundreds of billions over the years. Now is not the best time to discover it was a waste of money.

Fair point on considering geography. That’s if we talking about defending here rather than being asked to go elsewhere, which almost goes without saying hopefully won’t happen.