Conscription fears for teen son

[Hazlenuts2016]

Anyone else with a teenage son getting more and more worried about conscription? Just saw this article and found the language scary. It's as if they want us to accept our sons and daughters dying as a sacrifice worth making! I know politicians wouldn't be talking this way because it would cost them votes, but maybe this is what is being explored. Posted this on another recent thread by the way, but then thought it would be better to start a new one.
https://news.sky.com/story/uks-sons-and-daughters-need-to-be-ready-to-fight-amid-growing-russian-threat-says-head-of-armed-forces-13483860?fbclid=IwdGRjcAOtTyBjbGNrA61PBGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHkoNStuMIR_04jEkekyh8IWQLQSQ2u3II0v-yEkA24TkmjZQF0fjeZ5art6J_aem_obDX_-el5u0dybYW31A3RQ

That is precisely the principle the Russian army is fighting on right now - war has not changed as much as you think it has.

@Hazlenuts2016- I had this conversation with a friend recently who’s really worried about conscription, and as they are entitled to apply for another country’s passport, are going to go for that as a last resort send their son fast to family there.

However, he’s in year 11 and applying for post GCSE colleges/KS5. She said her dh was encouraging their DS to apply for things that would mean by 18 he was in what they hoped would be a “reserved occupation” and not called up. He’s not going to be the sort of young person who gets great GCSE’s and then A levels/uni, so they’ve suggested practical courses /apprenticeships that would mean he’s highly unlikely to be called up.

Not sure we’ll go that far with our DS, but if you are worried, worth nudging your DS towards careers that would mean he’s highly unlikely to become “cannon fodder”.

DS has joint British/Irish nationality so you can bank on it that I'd be sending him to family in (neutral) Ireland if conscription looked anywhere near possible.
We are not pro British politically , especially given the context of Britain's history and actions in Ireland. I am British born if not bred, (brought up abroad) DH not so much.
BTW, my DM, born 1924, was definitely not conscripted during ww2, neither were any of her sisters. Her two brothers were, or may have joined up beforehand.

you are not being at all unreasonable to be anti conscription. more than a few friends of mine move outside of the country we live in to raise their boys for this reason, although to be honest lots of the kids would be moving anyway for unrelated reasons.

Many are still welded to the view common a handful of years back that if worse comes to the worst it will be cyber or drones with a handful of specialists mostly fighting the war from their back bedrooms or at worse from somewhere like GCHQ...anyone who has followed events in Ukraine in detail like you have know that war has reverted to large amounts of infantry and trench warfare...

Given Russian countermeasures even many of the Ukranian drone operators have had to deploy forwards and have found themselves in range of Russian artillery or Russian counter drones.

My son served 15 years in the armed forces, he has reserve liability, he and a fair chunk of his old forces mates wil likely be jumping out of windows to break a limb, rendering them unfit to serve. Who would want to serve under this government anyway?
They treat the citizen like shit.
There are however, 1000s of young fit middle Eastern men of fighting age who they can call upon, since they seem to love them so much!!

I also have teen kids and have thought about this. Yes, it's scary, but there's no use borrowing worry from the future for something that hasn't happened yet.

TBH, I can accept at least that if we must have a war of defence there is a moral case for fighting it. It's not like being made to go to war for reasons of revenge or greed or someone's political ambitions. I also agree with @LoudSnoringDog and others that it's not going to be like wars of the past with people sent en masse to hot fronts for face to face war, it will be much more technological.

My mum grew up in country under totalitarian Russian occupation - it is something worth fighting against or against it happening to any of our neighbours (NB, I am very fond of Russia in general and Russians, it's just they have awful taste in leaders)

@Echobelly

that it's not going to be like wars of the past with people sent en masse to hot fronts for face to face war, it will be much more technological.

Have you actually looked at how the war is being fought in Ukraine recently?

It's turned into mainly infantry/artillery/some assistance from air/drones operated at short range (so similar to the use of artillery observers in WW1 and 2 )....lots of troops basically slogging it out just like many wars in the past.

Not saying there's not going to be any such fighting, but it will be different on some levels.

Why do you think it will be different from the war that's currently happening in Europe?

I think part of the problem is generally (and for reasons various) a lot of the western media has been concentrating on the politicians and the continuing missile/UAV assault on Ukrainian cities and the civpop.

It's not really covering the actual ground war and events on the battlefield to any great degree.....you have to go hunting for coverage of that, either through specialist internet sites and/or the analysis coming out of places like the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) to get a handle on the what the armies are actually going through...

Unfortunately, Ukraine has shown us that mass is still very much essential

Just one more thing that hasn’t been mentioned (unless I’ve missed it, in which case apologies!) but a drive towards army recruitment (not conscription at the moment but suggested voluntary service) is actually part of a deterrence strategy. It demonstrates willingness, mass and an ability to free up the professional army if necessary. So at the moment try to think of the conscription/national service debate as part of a deterrence debate / drive. It helps!

I fully appreciate why people don't want their children to fight. I'd imagine a lot of young women who'd just had kids/got married weren't keen on their husbands going off to WW1/WW2.

However, it's also kinda hard not to roll one's eyes at all the women who previously said they'd fight tooth and claw to prevent us becoming like some other countries. The ones who said trans issues were the hill they'd die on etc.

Do they really think women's rights will be a priority under Russian occupation? Especially with Russia being so friendly with Iran and China. I'm amazed how many now seem to be saying they'd be needed as breeders to repopulate the West! These are the same women who always claimed they 'weren't defined by their biology'.

Hopefully, now they'll at least stop with all the rhetoric about 'men are obselete nowadays' because it's clear that many are going to suddenly play the helpless woman card when the shit hits the fan and you know the men will be the ones expected to step up, even if it's less men than it might've been in generations past.

Eurgh these debates always turn into ideological craziness about immigrants/feminism/trans people. Just derails from the central issue.

Talk about misunderstanding everything I wrote.

Not sending women into combat en masse is not and never has been "helpless woman card". It's about ensuring the future viability of the nation state.

• It takes a woman nine months to make one baby. It takes a man nine minutes to spunk into a test tube, and his semen can start multiple babies off concurrently. He can even freeze his sperm before he goes off to war and sire children posthumously. Result: men are more expendable than women, because they don't and can't perform reproductive labour. That's just biology.
• The only difference between a country and terra nullis is that people live in a country. No population = no country. You want a country to govern, you need to maintain a population. For that, you need women's reproductive labour.
• Women are defined by their biology. What we aren't, is limited by it. The Land Army girls, female shipbuilders, munitions workers, Air Transport Auxilliary, and dozens of other "men's jobs" that women suddenly magically became able to do during WW2 demonstrate this. Women could do these jobs to support the war effort without significantly risking their ability to perform reproductive labour. Sending them to the front would have substantially risked their ability to perform reproductive labour, so the Govt sensibly didn't send them there.

The ones who said trans issues were the hill they'd die on etc.

If you think Russia are nasty to women, you should see how they treat trans people and LGB people. It's in everyone's interest to keep the Russians out.

Politics is inherently ideological.

Interestingly, thinking about this, one of my dads family signed up for the merchant navy in WWII purely because it was seen as a safer option than the army for someone with no valuable (to the army) skills, and so someone who’d be sent to the frontline. While many boats were sunk on the Atlantic run, generally that family member had a much easier war experience than the other young men in that family who all waited to be called up. For those who really don’t want to take the risk, the idea of looking at what would rule you out of being called up, or if you were called up, mean you didn’t get sent to a front line, is worth considering.

Well it’s like people saying they wouldn’t fight for the Country isn’t it?
That’s all very very well but if we got to the extremely unlikely scenario of Russia landing on our beaches, they aren’t just going to March to Westminster & just take over running the Country are they? Leaving the rest of us to it.
Paying peoples benefits & pensions & running the NHS & all we’d have to do was learn Russian!

But this is a bit like people panic buying. It doesn't work if everybody does it. It only works on the assumption that somebody else will take the fall.

That said, as somebody who can drive trucks and heavy plant (e.g. loading equipment and basic excavation) I'd have a good chance of ending up in the logistics core.

Username doesn't check out. I've now got a vision of Cate Blanchett in long white robes driving a Caterpillar tractor.

It won't be teenagers - well, not to start with.

The government would likely start with the 25-40 age group, only going lower if needs be. So, if you're between 25-40, either gender, and not in an essential occupation (farming, power/utilities, teaching, nursing/health), and not a sole carer for a child, then you might be called up in some capacity.

WW2 first conscriptions were 20-21
then shortly after expanded to 18-41

so I doubt they’d start with 25 -40

Perhaps. My general point was that it's unlikely to start with 17-18 year olds. If they were being sensible they would tap into the under-employed 21-23 postgraduate/post-college cohort, and invite those under 40 to apply.

Expectations are different today, obviously.

There used to be an expectation you'd serve your country in some capacity. Adolescence seems to be a lot 'longer' these days, too. Plus, all the modern complexities of ND, MH etc., which were not considered back then.

So there will be a lot of political battles to be had, and some clever policy-making will be needed to minimise the capacity of middle-class parents using their social capital to sharp-elbow their offspring out of national service.

Either way, there's not a lot we can do about this. If conscription arrives then there will be a level of compulsion but not necessarily going to 'the front line'. Factories will need to be built, land will need to be farmed, and so on.

For context, before retirement I worked in lots of public sector roles. I too would be useful in a voluntary capacity, and I would expect to be asked to serve in some way, e.g. classroom assistant, helping out in a care home, etc.