You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hang on, are you saying that the response from every hero in every action film (running, ducking a bit and firing from the hip while enemy rounds explode all around you, miraculously missing any vital organs) is not the correct way?
OPSEC. I could tell you, but then I'd have to bore you to death with shit dits.
Do people genuinely think we're at risk of a war on our doorstep because of a failed attempt to invade the Ukraine? I'd say Russia's failure is as good an argument as any to cut military funding at spend it on the more present and imminent threats of climate change and biodiversity decline.
If it's taken two years to not even get through Ukraine, how many years is it going to take to get through Poland, Germany and the Netherlands? Unless there's something happening on our doorstep there's no need for the UK to get involved. We seem pretty good at sticking our beaks in where we're not needed, wanted or relevant which seems as good a way as reducing the number of trained people to defend the UK when the threat actually arrives as not getting involved and reducing military spend.
If there were a real threat of war at our gates, I would just leave.
**** conscription I would volunteer, but only if I got to lead the charge with a supped up armour vehicle with a muzzled Jacob Rees Mog strapped to the front (mad max thunder road style) straight towards the ruski front. Some sacrifices are worth making.
Do people genuinely think we’re at risk of a war on our doorstep because of a failed attempt to invade the Ukraine?
I'm taking this as more of a hypothetical discussion. More of a discussion about where we are as a society today than anything particularly practical about an imminent threat.
MSP
Full Member
also, given the lack of resources our military apparently has, how much damage do you think we could inflict launching bojo at the enemy with a trebuchet?
I'm willing to find out.
Though we could send them Truss first to crash their economy?
munrobiker
Do people genuinely think we’re at risk of a war on our doorstep
Reminds me of the milkman turf war of '87.
Do people genuinely think we’re at risk of a war on our doorstep because of a failed attempt to invade the Ukraine?
Ask us that question again after the US Presidential election...😕
Do people genuinely think we’re at risk of a war on our doorstep because of a failed attempt to invade the Ukraine?
No. In fact having seen said failed attempt I think we're less at risk than I did before. But it's still an interesting discussion.
**** conscription I would volunteer, but only if I got to lead the charge with a supped up armour vehicle with a muzzled Jacob Rees Mog strapped to the front (mad max thunder road style) straight towards the ruski front. Some sacrifices are worth making.
@Kryton57
Source please for the following:The current prediction is a world war will occur within 5-8 years
Happy to fill in the gaps: it was actually Madame Sosostris, a famous clairvoyante with a bad cold, known to be the wisest woman in Europe - other than Liz Truss obvz - anyway, she dealt out the drowned Phoenician Sailor, Belladonna, the Lady of the Rocks and some other shite. Clearly points to the Chinese launching a seaborne, land invasion of Wales shortly.
If it’s taken two years to not even get through Ukraine, how many years is it going to take to get through Poland, Germany and the Netherlands?
This ^^^
It will be 10 times harder to fight the Polish and Germans.
Unless there’s something happening on our doorstep there’s no need for the UK to get involved. We seem pretty good at sticking our beaks in where we’re not needed, wanted or relevant which seems as good a way as reducing the number of trained people to defend the UK when the threat actually arrives as not getting involved and reducing military spend.
Invade UK? LOL! There is practically "nothing" worthwhile in the UK to go for apart from grief and plenty of whinging lot. All they need to do to wind up the Brits Govt is to stick to inflation, and let the politicians have the circus. Job done. Nobody dies and no resources wasted.
If there were a real threat of war at our gates, I would just leave.
I am not bothered even if the bombs drop left, right and centre to me so long as I can still drink my coffee and bbq, if they are still available that is. I ain't high value target nor bother about whoever is in govt. I am sure the victor will have a "good" time governing the whinging lot. LOL!
What would conscription look like nowadays?
What age group? 18-->?
All genders?
What would constitute a protected profession? I'm NHS but work in the background in a lab which potentially could operate on a skeleton crew in an emergency I guess, but wouldn't be sustainable though.
And yesterday, our LIMs (the system we use to report all the results) encountered a problem and the supplier had to perform some background tasks and restart in order to prevent it totally crashing. If the LIMs goes down, that would shut the hospital. So what would happen if all the IT bods that work for the supplier had been conscripted? Where, in the "modern" world do you draw the line at who can be spared?
What would constitute a protected profession?
Probably doctors and nurses only.
Energy sector? I doubt there will be an energy sector if there is a real fight coz that's the first to disappear.
No. In fact having seen said failed attempt I think we’re less at risk than I did before. But it’s still an interesting discussion.
It's about as interesting as asking if people would be prepared to jump in front of a speeding steam locomotive to save a puppy from certain death since it's about as likely to actually happen.
Moreover, 'would you fight for this country if conscripted?' You wouldn't have a choice, that's how conscription works. You're in the army now etc.
Belladonna
Yeah, I can see how someone's going to get ****ed if she's in play...
It's a really interesting question and for me, as many others have mentioned in the thread, I think it would depend on the context of the war and whether the war was realistically going to result in fighting in/over the UK if nothing was done. WW2 at the time where there was genuine fear over a German invasion and Britain was being bombed, or a cold war gone hot situation where soviet tanks were steaming west and the soviets were launching missiles and bombs our way.
Conscription for something like Vietnam again? Almost certain to never fly.
And what about Trident? If a threat is so severe as to directly risk the freedom of the country then where does the line draw in increasing nuclear rhetoric that will either settle the situation down via the threat of MAD, or result in the end of the UK, vs conscripting the country into a devastating war on our home turf?
Thankfully since the fall of the berlin wall, there's no realistic situation where either question would come into question imo.
also, given the lack of resources our military apparently has, how much damage do you think we could inflict launching bojo at the enemy with a trebuchet?
As with a lot of modern munitions, it's not so much the intitial impact that causes the most damage, it's the shock wave and exponential release of super heated gasses (or hot air, if you will) that does the real damage.
So with that in mind, I would hypothesise that Boris Johnson being launched via trebuchet could be a highly effective anti-personel weapon.
The main consideration would be whether the trebuchet is positioned at a safe enough distance from the target to avoid the initial blast radius of super heated hot air upon impact.
What would conscription look like nowadays?
neither of my grandfathers were called up in 2nd world war - one was a miner the other a manufacturing joiner (windows, doors, big timber stuff).
I’m sure major IT jobs related to national security would be protected - web designers not so much.
I’m of the option it won’t happen though - what countries realistically are going to back Russia if they escalate things?
I’m of the option it won’t happen though – what countries realistically are going to back Russia if they escalate things?
North Korea.
Iran
And - if Trump is back in the White House - the USA.
The latter one being the most terrifying possibility.
Russia can't even take Ukraine so no chance for them to make it further into Europe, they simply haven't got the forces nor equipment to do so.
They may use a nuclear bomb, but France and the UK also have them.
I bet the NATO countries have learned a lot from Russia's invasion of Ukraine - they are actually weaker than I thought.
Because wasting a year of everyone’s life on stupid make-work, when we have a labour shortage already, is a completely idiotic affectation that only a terminally dim or paranoid country would think a sensible use of resources
I don’t disagree with this view of national service. But it gave my dad, and two of his 5 brothers, a chance to get a skill, travel the world, and then build careers rather than being trapped in dead end factory jobs or declining coal and shipyard industries.
That may say more about them making the most of an opportunity rather than any higher worth of the national service scheme though.
I would if it meant a younger family member would be exempt. <br /><br />
that said it's massively unlikely and we would most likely be called up for home defence purposes.
Maybe the TA needs a new recruitment drive instead?
If this guy knew his arse from his elbow, the first thing he should be arguing about is not shutting down the capacity to make steel in Britain.
We'll be ****ed anyway when all these conscripts have to launch at the oncoming Russians are turnips and old yoghurt pots that had been made from Ineos plastic with a burberry branded ****hat on a stick doubling up as a trebuchet.
If it’s taken two years to not even get through Ukraine, how many years is it going to take to get through Poland, Germany and the Netherlands? Unless there’s something happening on our doorstep there’s no need for the UK to get involved.
If war came to Poland, Germany and the Netherlands, the UK WOULD be involved courtesy of NATO. Not that it would be grounds for conscription.
Right now, Putin is menacing Europe, a far right dictator with no regard for human rights or democracy.
No, he really isn’t. What’s happening in Ukraine is horrendous but it seems to have shown everyone that Russia isn’t the power it once was. As for those stating Trump will side with Russia if re-elected, it’s not down to just him to make these decisions. If it was, then the world wouldn’t have survived his previous term, he wouldn’t be in and out of court like a ****ing yo-yo and we’d all have fake tans by his decree.
Some of you are proper doom mongers.
We’ve never had a massive standing army, ever. Our armed forces has also never been smaller than now, is that safe?<br /><br />
Wow Britain achieved a massive empire with no massive armed forces.
Yes perfectly safe.
Yeah..if anything, the Russian invasion of ukraine has demonstrated that you can't simply 'conquer' another country in this day and age.
Ukriane isn't even a NATO country, yet is getting a lot of support for hopefully obvious reasons.
If russia picked a fight with a NATO counrty, that would release a lot more funds and support, and it's a line that russia is treading very tentatively around,it's also the reason russia is very anti-NATO for very obvious reasons..we are stronger together...
I'm sure countries such as Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are itching for some pay-back asgainst the russians whilst also being worried about thier own borders.
If russia touches one of them, it will all kick off 'proper style', very very quickly, and Putin Knows this.
I’m of the option it won’t happen though – what countries realistically are going to back Russia if they escalate things?
North Korea.
Iran
And – if Trump is back in the White House – the USA.The latter one being the most terrifying possibility.
The entire Muslim world (recent incident has make it almost unavoidable), 3rd world, developing countries, South America, Asia right to Turkey and SE Asia. If not all it will be majority bar one or two insignificant small countries.
Once they figure out how to get rid of US$ and world currency that will be the beginning of the end.
The "West" will only be US, EU, UK, Aus, NZ and some insignificant sit on the fence small countries from non-EU.
Wow Britain achieved a massive empire with no massive armed forces.
Yes perfectly safe.
https://daysackmedia.co.uk/resources/the-size-of-the-british-army/
Obviously doesn't count the Senior Service or the RAF in later years.
Lol! No. I wouldnt.
I also can't stand the whole "We" thing when talking about a team or country. If the UK army went to war with Russia, I didn't go to war. They did. I am not them and they are not me. They do not represent me and I do not represent them. We are different people who should not share credit.
As Pearl Jam said, "I am mine"
Wow Britain achieved a massive empire with no massive armed forces.
Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one — ten thousand Watusi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle, instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad.
also can’t stand the whole “We” thing when talkng about a team or country. If the UK army went to war with Russia, I didnt go to war. They did. I am not them and they are not me. They do not represent me and I do not represent them. We are different people who should not share credit.
I respect that pov.
Desperate Tories and an election likely this year, they want people thinking war is a possibility.
Obviously doesn’t count the Senior Service or the RAF in later years.
Nor does it detail the sizes of other countries’ armed forces to give some comparisons of size, numbers of “private forces”/ colonial forces available to the crown or the available population.
Regardless I still feel safe though, indeed would probably preferred a better funded NHS, police forces, council housing, community mental health care or social services over a larger armed forces
Desperate Tories and an election likely this year, they want people thinking war is a possibility.
Desperate politico floundering to make a point.
But Downing Street has ruled out any implementation of a conscription model for the British army, saying service would remain voluntary.
Asked if Rishi Sunak could rule out conscription in future, the PM's official spokesman told reporters: "There is no suggestion of that. The government has no intention to follow through with that.
"The British military has a proud tradition of being a voluntary force. There are no plans to change that."
The official added that "hypothetical scenarios" about potential future conflicts were "not helpful".
Regardless I still feel safe though, indeed would probably preferred a better funded NHS, police forces, council housing, community mental health care or social services over a larger armed forces
Me too. I also wouldn't give an extra penny to defence until they sort the conditions out for the existing forces, especially the army. Morale is on its arse, no need to grow that and make more people miserable. 😂
Also all the fresh volunteers would be utterly dejected when they realise the sheer volume of block jobs and sweeping over war fighting that goes on. 😂
Lol! No. I wouldnt.
Wouldn't what?
In a theoretical sense where every kind of armageddon or end of days as we know it is possible, I think everyone has a 'would' point. Yours just might be a good bit further down the track than jumping to a polite letter asking you to report for duty because someone's landed some marines on a distant rock we 'owned' from back in the colonial and whale hunting days.
Wow Britain achieved a massive empire with no massive armed forces.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "standing army".
Around 1750 the British army was 40k strong and whilst it crept up to 100k by the end of that century and then increased to over 200k at the height of the Napoleonic war it soon dropped again.
The main force conquering the empire were mostly semi private organisations. For example the East India company had a military which was 200k strong which only came under direct government control after the Indian mutiny.
The British South Africa company didnt have quite the same number but was pretty much a semi private army with confused links back to the UK government.
Getting back to conscription. Maybe they need to get back to press gangs if the reports of the navy not having enough sailors for all its ships are true (since the aircraft carriers need so many of the few available).
The General was basically making a case for an expanded army. All the stuff about civilian reservists is part of an argument that goes - if you don't have a big enough professional army you'd better have a big enough partially training and willing reserve to fill the gaps if we end up in a war. He ruled put conscription as an option. I think this is just the military teaching breaking point after years of being short changed.
The only real risk we'd have in NATO would be if the US didn't meet their commitments to protect members and us Europeans had to sort out our own European war. The US military is so overwhelmingly powerful we are at zero risk whilst they are fully active and committed to all NATO agreements. Pre-Trump it was unimaginable that US wouldn't respond of a NATO member was attacked but with a Trump Presidency looking very likely then Putin will be emboldened and Trump potentially reticent to intervene if eg Russia tried to reclaim the Baltic states.
That is the real risk
My musings while reading the thread...
No if it's some distant war of choice that had no plausible path of coming over hear.
Yes if I can be a fighter pilot.
No because a lot of people including government haven't done what they should do for years to keep the country safe and prepared.
Yes because no one really needs me, single no kids.
No because I'm a middle class STWer and fighting is for other people and their children.
Yes because I'm grateful to those that were mad enough (or forced) to fight in the past so we can have the lives we have now. Peace is a recurring payment not a one-off charge.
No because I feel the country is too divided, lots of groups of people who aren't on the same team, working against each other and not pulling their weight.
Yes because whatever the other arguments are, it is what it is, and I don't want people I care about to be at the hands of a barbaric/horny invading army.
No because I'd be much better used designing weapons for other people to fight with.
Yes because it's easy to say yes to a hypothetical question while sat behind my keyboard.
No because I don't think I'd be a good warrior and be a liability.
Yes because I've watched films and war seems cool.
No because I had relatives who were conscripted and others who did national service, and they were all treated like utter crap by the army, perhaps largely because they were British but not English.
Yes because I'd feel shame for letting the other men do the job.
No because maybe I can deal with shame, like the Ukrainian middle class professionals who fled.
Yes because I might survive and get treated like a hero veteran with great benefits and rehab, oh wait.
No because war is hell.
Yes because the enemy is monitoring this thread and it might make them think twice if we all say we're up for a fight.
No because the enemy will treat me well as a POW and treat everyone according to their human rights and by the Geneva convention, oh wait it's just us that does that (most of the time anyway).
We're all (?) assuming that Russia would be the invading force but what happens if a "better" country actually invaded?
If France invaded the UK, would everyone get European citizenship back? 😄
vlad_the_invader
Full Member
**** - looks who's turned up.
On your best behaviour chaps - nothing to see here!
Haven't read the whole thread. Have we had "no because I'm not fighting for all the overweight lazy sods who will sit at home and learn nothing from the experience and bugger that if I'm risking my life for them"?
Edit: but yes, in the right role and not just cannon fodder.
Yeah..if anything, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated that you can’t simply ‘conquer’ another country in this day and age.
I suppose it depends on how you go about it. Russian style - target infrastructure for the most part, or Israeli style -target civilians en masse.
The question is " is this a just war?"
A very slippery concept mind you. I think we can agree that the defense of Ukraine is a just cause. I doubt many would think the Russian Invasion is just. Various middle east conflicts? Now we are in dodgy territory
You can even have unjust things in a just war. WW2. I think most would say the allied invasion of Normandy was just. But the bombing of Dresden?
I'm a pacifist at heart but would I take up arms to protect my loved ones?
The question is ” is this a just war?”
Nailed it. And whatever side you're on, you will be sold a line aimed to garner support.
Something ironic in debating what is 'just' in a scenario that involves the taking of human life in some of the most lethal and technologically barbaric means ever.
Never understood why we stopped National Service – seems to work well in other Countries
I haven't followed the thread closely, does anyone know in which other countries it seems to work well?
Btw I don't think that national service is the same as conscription - couldn't you do national service working in the coals mines or a government laboratory?
For the record I was conscripted by the country of my birth. It was only for a year but it was definitely the longest year of my life.
IMO/IME conscription has one redeeming quality, although presumably not one which the general who trotted out the idea today would appreciate - it brings a massive dose of sanity into the armed forces.
There is something reassuringly healthy about an armed forces in which the majority of the personnel think that military life is a load of bollocks and are hugely unimpressed about being forced to wear a uniform, and genuinely have a contemptuous attitude towards those who treat the whole bollocks seriously.
Speaking to other conscripts there was widespread opposition at the thought of going overseas to kill people, although fighting to defend your country from foreign attack was a totally different ballgame.
Imagine that - armed forces full of lefties and anti-nuclear weapons supporters! It makes politicians think very seriously about committing themselves to fight foreign wars and significantly reduces the risk of military coups.
I think France last used conscripts in combat during the Algerian war, and conscripts played an important role in making that war unpopular back home (as happened in the United States during the Vietnam war) In contrast French Foreign Legionnaires, brutalised as they are, probably mostly relish killing people, all the more so when they are paid large amounts of money for doing so.
France of course no longer has conscription, in keeping with almost all other Western countries.
On your best behaviour chaps – nothing to see here!
Yup....names of thread contributors have been noted
Someone want to remind me who the enemy actually is ?. Is it the guys who are currently asset stripping the country, or the up and coming economies 😕
Or are we just sticking to the rinse and repeat cycle.
Yeah, I can see how someone’s going to get **** if she’s in play…
There's a blast from the past!
Btw I don’t think that national service is the same as conscription
Very true. Making this a bit of an aside....but I wonder if the concept of 'service' has become increasingly less well regarded. Both as a career (nurse, firefighter) and a voluntary thing (charity, scout group). And by regarded I guess I mean as something you'd actively look to give yourself or admire/appreciate in others. My hunch is that despite the temptation to be all rose tinted glasses about the good old days, we were just as reluctant and unappreciative back then as now.
Where I see the correlation to this topic is I think there is a strong link between those that value service and those that would find themselves putting themselves in harm's way in time of crisis despite them being different things.
All of the above?
Rinse and repeat it is then.
Never mind, I'm sure someone will pen something stirring and romantic about the futility of war.
Nope.
If France invaded the UK, would everyone get European citizenship back
Well. I for one, would defect/ go AWOL immediately if it meant regaining my EU citizenship that was, in my opinion, illegally taken away from me by the UK government.
tourismo
Full Member
Surely the big question is, if you had to go war would you be “at the tip of the spear (where) all you care about is operating.” ; )
I pretty much know what I'd end up doing and id absolutely deserve it I'm sure.
Somewhere in the country there’ll be fast jet training too.<br /><br />
Lakenheath - they’re training on simulators to fly the F-16’s being donated by other NATO countries; the Americans don’t have F-16’s stationed in the U.K., only F-15 Strike Eagles and F-35 Lightnings.
With the state of my knees, I’d be immediately turned down for any sort of infantry, although I’d be quite happy to wear a ghilly suit and train up as a sniper.
Better blaaady not happen yet before I get to ride the shitter out of my new mini DH build.
This is something I have thought about, as like others, I have a reserve commitment. Would they really want me back? I can't possibly think of a scenario where it would do the slightest bit of good for either party.
conscription would be assembling cheap drones in a factory
We aint' got no drone factories in the uk, they be imported from china, or at least the raw materieals and chips are.
And there's the little problem with the suez canal being a no go zone for trade ATM 😉
I think that the Geneva Convention forbids priests from taking up arms, so that would be my excuse. But I would encourage my children to become conscientious objectors, so no… no conscription here, thanks.
I for one welcome the chance to be a back office middle managment jobsworth *in uniform*
In my 60s now so I don't suppose that they'd want me. I'll quite happily teach people to drive lorries and buses; six drivers a week is more useful than one old bloke
We aint’ got no drone factories in the uk
No, none at all 🙂 https://www.aero-mag.com/elbit-systems-drone-swarm-08042022
the type of war exemplified by kellys heroes
Distracting attention so you can steal a whole pile of money? I think our Tory government is already fighting that war...
Anybody willing to fight for this feudal scumhole needs to have their head examined.
Theres plenty round here who’d fight someone from the next town over 11 millionaires chasing a football, so I don’t think it’d be too hard to convince a fair chunk into the idea of slaying some foreigners.
My careers advisor at school tried to push me into the military, I also remember the Marines giving out free stuff and taking over PE.
I was surprisingly good at the obstacle course, I can barely climb out of bed these days.
Being as I’m still on the tools and trained in Electrical/Mechanical engineering, I’m sure there’s some things I could hit with hammers in the incredibly unlikely event I was required to wear green and be shouted at.
A no for me. On the list of countries I would fight for the UK wouldn't even be in the top ten.
Wow Britain achieved a massive empire with no massive armed forces.
Whatever happens, we have got.
The Maxim gun, and they do not.
Not a student of history, then? As R_M points out, our guard dog is quite small, and hasn't got very big teeth.
You can even have unjust things in a just war. WW2. I think most would say the allied invasion of Normandy was just. But the bombing of Dresden?
I could, at a push, make a pretty convincing case for bombing Dresden (it being Nazi Germany, after all). Some villages in Normandy and especially in Italy were raised to the ground in the name of Liberation, and are unoccupied to this day. We (the Allies) made a pretty good mess of countries that were "on our side" in Europe.
but whatever, I think if nothing else, threads like reveal the lack of folks reading their history.
vlad_the_invaderFull Member
We’re all (?) assuming that Russia would be the invading force but what happens if a “better” country actually invaded?If France invaded the UK, would everyone get European citizenship back?
If the EU invaded I’d probably sign up with them.
Nobody is going to invade this country.Who would be that stupid?
You say that, but Vlad might think that an already corrupt, rudderless semi fascist outpost on the Northwest of Europe might be quite an attractive idea to occupy and annoy the neighbours. After it, its occupants are too polite to kick off a nuclear war, have a small army with old failing kit, and is already funded / infiltrated by Russia.