this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
97 points (96.2% liked)

United Kingdom

4135 readers
143 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It is a bad idea, which is why nearly everywhere has stopped doing it and hardly anywhere has started again.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's certainly a bad idea to rely on conscripts to make up the bulk of your fighting force. It's not a totally bad idea to have a population of fighting age citizens have had some basic military training and know which way to hold a gun. Countries like Finland or Switzerland have a more realistic view of what they may need to do if things ever got bad on their eastern front.

For the UK we'd have probably resorted to our nuclear deterrent before we consider putting conscripts on the front line.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

In a war, the bulk of Finland's force will be made up of conscripts. Or more accurately, people who were conscripts.

The career military men will be the officers. If you look at their officer to non officer ratio in peacetime it will be absolutely bananas compared to the UK's. Because if they do get invaded by Russia, they'll immediately call up their reserves (which due to conscription is their entire eligible population) and the ratios will make more sense.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Because their long term military strategy changed.

Conscription makes perfect sense if you're setting yourself up to fight a defensive war. E.g., Finland's entire military is more or less built for a defensive war against Russia, so they conscript.

Because they built it into their long term strategy, like I said in my original comment.

Germany used to conscript, because there was this thing called the USSR that represented a very real and existential threat right next door. Then that stopped being the case, so their long term doctrine changed from defensive to expeditionary, so they stopped conscripting.

Given that expeditionary wars in the middle east are becoming a bit faux pas, and "being invaded by your neighbour" is back in fashion, I imagine more places will shift doctrine again and conscription will start seeing a return. Then again it might not because of how fundamentally unpopular it is with the population.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And when there's any chance of us having to fight a defensive land war against Russia, I will admit I was wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Don't worry, you don't need to admit you were wrong for you to be wrong.

Other countries considering a bad idea doesn’t make it a good idea.

"Conscription is always a bad idea" is an objectively incorrect sentiment.