United Kingdom

4109 readers

222 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

125

Britons should prepare for conscription if Russia hits Nato, warns ex-Army chief (inews.co.uk)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

That will be down to the UK government not NATO.

It is certainly possible. But our current military leaders have made it clear in the past,

1 career milatary volunteer is worth 100s of untrained forced fighters.

The cost of training huge numbers of conscripted fighters. When fighting a modern battle. Is not going to be the first choice of our military by any means. Moving from a total voluntary army to conscription would take a huge change in our forces. More so then the US that at least still keeps records suitable for drafting young fighters.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't know about you guys but anyone close to Russia probably understands the usefulness of conscription.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Given russia has taken 2 years to fail to win a war it expected to win overnight. And it conscription draws from a population 3 x the size of the Ukraine. Most would be less then impressed with the effectiveness of forced labour fighting in a nation they do not care about. Vs people defending their own home.

And that has been the point the UK military leaders have argued in the past. Conscription is only effective when folks need to defend their family. Not fight for political/ politicians gain.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think this was about defensive use?

The British people must be prepared for military conscription and making other sacrifices to defend the UK if Russia attacks, a former senior army commander has warned.

He said the country needs to snap out of thinking war is always an “away game”.

“You’re not mobilising because you’re going to invade somebody else’s country. You’re mobilising because someone is threatening yours – and your family and your livelihood.

“If we were to go to war with a power like Russia, we would have to secure the homeland, guarding things. We would have to play a bigger part in deterrence – and fighting on continental Europe.

Ukraine probably wouldn't exist today without conscription. Their manpower reserves is one of the huge assets they have.

You can have professional troops for overseas service and conscripts for defense. And you'd have more ability to send those professionals abroad when you have capable soldiers at home. I think that's what they're talking about in the article anyway.