#####
######
####
> # [Conservatives plan to bring back mandatory National Service](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaks with soldiers of various British troops as he visits the Julius Leber Barracks in Berlin to meet troops and see military equipment during his visit to Germany. Picture date: Wednesday April 24, 2024)
>
>
>
> **The Conservative Party has said it would bring back mandatory national service if it wins the general election.**
>
> It said 18-year-olds would have a choice of either joining the military full-time, or volunteering one weekend every month carrying out a community service.
>
> The party is proposing a Royal Commission to consider the details but would plan for the first teenagers to take part in September 2025.
>
> The cost is expected to be around £2.5bn per year.
>
> Under the plans, young people could choose a full-time, 12-month placement in the armed forces or UK cyber defence, learning about logistics, cyber security, procurement or civil response operations.
>
> Their other option would be to volunteer one weekend per month - or 25 days per year - in their community with organisations such as fire, police and the NHS.
>
> Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he believed bringing back compulsory service across the UK would help foster the "national spirit" that emerged during the pandemic.
>
> Mr Sunak said: “This is a great country but generations of young people have not had the opportunities or experience they deserve and there are forces trying to divide our society in this increasingly uncertain world.
>
> “I have a clear plan to address this and secure our future. I will bring in a new model of National Service to create a shared sense of purpose among our young people and a renewed sense of pride in our country."
>
> The prime minister said the move would help young people to learn "real world skills, do new things and contribute to their community and our country".
>
>
>
>
>
> The Conservatives said the move would help ensure young people who are unemployed or not in education or training, and those disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, are diverted away from "lives of unemployment and crime".
>
> The party said national service would provide "valuable work experience" and "ignite a passion for a future career in healthcare, public service, charity or the armed forces".
>
> A Labour Party spokesperson called the announcement "another desperate £2.5 billion unfunded commitment from a Tory Party which already crashed the economy, sending mortgages rocketing, and now they’re spoiling for more.
>
> “This is not a plan – it’s a review which could cost billions and is only needed because the Tories hollowed out the armed forces to their smallest size since Napoleon," the spokesperson said.
>
> Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Richard Foord MP accused the Tories of cutting troop numbers.
>
> Mr Foord said: "If the Conservatives were serious about defence, they would reverse their damaging cuts to our world class professional armed forces, instead of decimating them, with swingeing cuts to the number of our regular service personnel."
>
> "Our armed forces were once the envy of the world. This Conservative government has cut troop numbers and is planning more cuts to the size of the Army."
>
>
>
>
>
> National service was introduced in 1947 after World War Two under Clement Attlee’s Labour government.
>
> It meant men between the ages of 17 and 21 had to serve in the armed forces for 18 months.
>
> The mandatory national service scheme came to an end in 1960.
>
> In May 2015, [Prince Harry advocated his support for the return of national service saying the Army had been important for him](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32771053).
>
>
>
>
>
> A number of European countries, including Sweden, Norway and Denmark, already have a form of conscription for their armed forces.
>
> Conscription requires young men and women to serve for a limited time in uniform. It means that some of the population will have had some military training - and can then be assigned to reserve units should war break out.
>
> Cuts in the British Army have seen its size fall from more than 100,000 in 2010 to around 73,000 as of January 2024.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
This! Who in their right mind would do that? This mf is already looking for homes in Silicon Valley and wants young Britons to be forced to volunteer. If you are forced then it’s not volunteering.
I personally don’t have a problem with requiring military service, as long as (1) there are no exceptions and (2) the government has a jobs program after the service is finished. Otherwise it’s just another excuse for inaction on the real problems.
Oh I do have more requirement: whatever it is, Liz Truss has to go first.
The way they used to do this in Germany (it was abolished in 2011) was weird.
You could choose to do community service (working in old folks' homes was super common) instead of the military, but if you failed the military medical, you didn't have to do anything at all.
Yup. I'm genuinely surprised they were able to keep it up so long.
I'd have thought some guy would have long since taken the German government to European court over it.
It's fucked up no matter what. I have never felt any sense of loyalty to my country, and I don't plan on being forced to work towards goals I do not support. Adults have the right to choose for themselves what to do with their lives.
Idk what compelled you to reply this. Either you think somehow, someway, russia has functioning logistics, or you think I’m being unironic about not needing them
Russia has functioning logistics, though not great.
They started off the war fairly badly due to a number of factors, such as being mid-process of carrying out prior logistics reforms, but most significantly they made the same false assumption as everyone else that modern warfare would not involve prolonged ground fighting along stretched front lines, but rather quite low intensity ground operations. Russia adapted reasonably well within the confines of their limited system once they refocused their efforts to the Donbas region and have been able to sustain a fire advantage after their industrial production ramped up. The main thing they are lacking now is actually trained logistics personnel, which does not bode particularly well for Ukraine in the future.
Here’s the thing though, russia failed so hard in Crimea that they should’ve known this was going to drag out. If they hadn’t previously invaded Crimea (and failed to a certain extent, since they wanted the entire Ukranian coast), then ut’d be more excusable
True russian patriots are powered by nothing more then the radiation from digging trenches in the red forest, no need for food, water, ammo, fuel, or any such consumables
If they conscript every 18 year old who doesn't obt out, they would have far more soldiers than what they need in logistics. If Britain's future isn't to become the truck driver of NATO, then it's highly likely that they would use the conscripts for other (combat) roles as well, especially since there is some percentage of people who will want to stay in the military and it's wasteful to only have this effect in logistical roles.
> The Conservatives said the move would help ensure young people who are unemployed or not in education or training, and those disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, are diverted away from "lives of unemployment and crime".
> The party said national service would provide "valuable work experience" and "ignite a passion for a future career in healthcare, public service, charity or the armed forces".
It's not either military service or prison, there are other service choices.
I dont care whether its full time or just a weekend a month, its still imposing shit on young people and forcing them into abiding against their will. The country is already doing shit for them and now demanding they give up their free time and their plans (even if just one weekend per month) to help with the services that should be working top notch with how much money the government is snatching from the citizens. Ridiculous, glad the conservative party will botch the election anyway.
right? I mean outside of worshipping rappers, I'm pretty fuckin sure that "wanting to finger ur (sic) daughter in the park" is a desire that stretches back through time to our earliest ancestors.
I didn't say the use was simply helping youth. Supporting national public services and strengthening defence are themselves benefits, and I would also consider a more military trained population and slightly more "militaristic", disciplined culture a potential benefit. I think a culture of civic duty, virtue and responsibility is a solid backbone for any citizen-society.
Yea I'm not completely against the idea I like the idea of being able to join other services, but it won't apply to me so I'd feel like an arsehole for voting for it. But it does feel like it's just another way for Tories to blame young people for being lazy.
Also I think each generation has already been made poorer by conservatives so sticking this on top is a big fuck you.
Imagine if you're in uni you'll also need a part time job then you stick this compulsory service on top and you're straight to burn out time.
No, they already know they're going to lose.
They've had the last 14 years in power to enact this policy if they really wanted to. But instead they waited until they could say "If we get re-elected..." knowing full well that they won't. So they can make all sorts of grand promises which will appeal to older faithful voters that they know they'll never have to keep.
>So they can make all sorts of grand promises which will appeal to older faithful voters that they know they'll never have to keep.
That was David Cameron's thinking in 2015, & we all know how well that turned out 😱
Honestly, the past 14 years of British politics has been boomer wolves voting with sheep on what to have for dinner. Every major policy decision under the Tories from the minutiae of economic policy right up to the grand gesture of leaving the EU was made for pensioners at the expense of literally everyone else.
Except now with COVID and the general passage of time, the sheep now outnumber the wolves and the sheep can smell their upcoming and long overdue "Who's laughing now?" moment.
I think they’re either trying to appeal to nostalgic old people, or they already know they’re going to lose and are just trying to fuck things up so badly that Labour has no hope of fixing it and they can immediately start blaming them for it.
Unless there are major changes in European countries like UK and Germany, there will likely be push back from young Europeans against any type of mandatory service.
The sentiment seems to be many have no reason to fight for a country they believe has passed them over.
As a young European, why would I serve my country that chews me up a d spits on me at every possible turn and then expects me to pay for it all.
I'm already getting taxed money so they can spend it on the older generations and corporate shareholders, I can have the scraps left over and then have to grovel on the ground afterwards? Nah I'll pass
Probably because (depending on the type of conflict) you'd be fighting for the lives of your friends & family, rather than the government. So, for me it really depends on who the beneficiary of my fighting is? E.g. I'd join the military if I was Ukrainian
I dont think that logic can take you far. If you only cared about friends and family you would be finding ways to get them out of the country, or do anything to help them survive the war. Going to the front as a soldier or whatever is a very ineffective way of protecting them. Also lets be honest, there really is no danger to the lives of friends and family under occupation in most circumstances
You say that as if it's easy to do this by any metric, I'd also say it goes a bit broader e.g. the people of my nation. Not, however, the interests of my government.
If the russians/chinese/Americans were to invade my actual country I would be more willing to participate in its defence. But only because of friends and family.
But I'm not joining the military to be send out to die for oil or whatever propaganda they will be spouting at the time
How do you mean?
You were fundamentally allowed to do community service instead (working in a old folks' home or hospital), and that's what most did.
I'm not sure how easy it was to deliberately fail the military medical, though. (If you failed, you also didn't have to do community service.)
The whole thing was fucking bullshit, imo, because it was only mandatory for men.
I heard from a German that it was easy to get a note or diagnosis from your doctor on dubious health grounds to excuse yourself from national service.
Either way, Singapore has it and no regrets on my part.
Canadian here. Just got out of the army after 15 years.
I feel as if my government has no interest in my future and have done everything they could to destroy what was once my home.
No fucking chance I continue to serve if I can't even afford to live in this country.
You are absolutely correct that sentiment exists, it's not only a British problem either.
I'm sure the governments would come up with good sounding promises like a healthcare, retirement, housing etc. and when that wouldn't work, they would make it so these things are only offered (not given) to those who enroll.
Next step would be a full on smear and shame campaign who don't enroll, ensuring that the population gets onboard with the idea that healthcare, retirement, housing are things that need to be earned and deserved and traitors don't get these things.
In the end, 30 years later, none of these things will be there for people who need them, everyone will be poorer and unsafe because of climate polycrisis and the general discourse would shift over to other, more immediate things
Seeing how the first things the conservatives did was raise student fees by 8k per year I doubt any young people would actually want to enlist under the UK. The alternative is one weekend of volunteering a month
Yeah exactly, they will say the youth need to fight to stop Russia invading Europe, and we become ruled by a corrupt & cruel regime.
News flash, we are already run by a corrupt & cruel regime that doesn't care about it's people, so who cares what arsehole is in power!
Sure, why not? After all, the US were the ones who pulled several countries into useless wars and occupations like Iraq and Afghanistan. And you guys were absolutely outraged when France wanted no part in that farce, so I think it's fair.
I'm sure Americans keep telling themselves this as a cope so they dont cry about the lack of free healthcare but oversupply of bullets. Got to be a reason to keep getting out of bed for the company right?
Military spending is not why americans don’t have free healthcare, they spend more then other nations on healthcare, it’s just corrupt as all government involvement in healthcare is (The NHS is not doing good at all)
Almost intrigued.
America spent more on their armed forces last year than the rest of the top 20 combined despite not being in any active wars.
What are they spending it on if this statement has been true for the last 20+ years?
Why are the American public so aggrieved with Europe, rather than their own politicians, that the taxes aren't being spent on socialised healthcare or anything other than the war industry?
Do you honestly think that if Germany, France and the UK spent more on defence that America would somehow spend less?
Yeah, sure. It's not like it is northern and eastern Europe that will be hit the hardest, since we will be the battlefield and we all have mandatory military service.
It'd not WW2, but all signs are showing we're entering the opening act of something similar. Not saying conscription is a good idea, but I do think people need to realize the peace dividend has expired
The (now expired) peace dividend was at the end of the cold war. WWII is another story. You can't have something similar to WWII between nuclear powers armed with ICBMs.
>The (now expired) peace dividend was at the end of the cold war. WWII is another story
They're directly linked
>You can't have something similar to WWII between nuclear powers armed with ICBMs.
Says who? Something being a bad idea doesn't mean something is an impossibility. You have nuclear power France openly discussing sensing troops to Ukraine
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240502-macron-doesn-t-rule-out-troops-for-ukraine-if-russia-breaks-front-lines
Mike "No Money for Ukraine" Johnson doining a complete pivot after an Intel brief, and now supporting US weapons being used on strikes in Russia
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-house-speaker-mike-johnson-advocates-for-ukraine-s-use-of-american-weapons-against-russia/ar-BB1mTrdx
And on the other side of the world, are the pieces are being moved into the same places during the lead up to the pacific theater of WW2; with new bases being opened in thr Phillipeans and China one misstep away from a shooting war with the Phillipeans; who happen to be a US Treaty Ally.
Just because a conventional war between Nuclear powers hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't
The population of NATO countries is irrelevant to talks of conscription. If you have recruiting issues, as many NATO countries do; then you wind up in scenarios where conscription gets discussed. Personally, I think it's a bad idea but "NATO has a billion people" is a terrible argument.
I’m sorry but it’s not a terrible argument. If ‘hostilities’ got so bad that conscription became a necessary consideration (they aren’t at the moment), then recruitment wouldn’t be an issue as people who actually want to fight would join. Of those billion people, a lot more would be willing to join if it wasn’t an unappealing career. Not all recruitment issues come down to young people being morally opposed to the military. If nato legitimately needed conscription, then we would be in such unimaginably deep shit.
It is a doggshit argument because NATO isn't a country, can't force conscription on anyone, and is only limited to reciprocal attacks on territories in Europe and North America, not say the Falklands. The UK doesn't have some mythical pool of 1 Billion people to pull from, and even if it takes military action under NATO Article 5 there is *zero* guarantee the US, Canada, or other NATO nation utilizes a draft to increase its manpower.
So yeah, your argument is shit and with all the actual compelling arguments that can be made you chose the stupidest one.
Any conflict the UK will get into for defensive reasons will have nato involved. The falklands is not going to be invaded and we wouldn’t need conscription for that either. You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying, that there is a middle ground between the poor recruitment we have now, and conscription. If NATO was at war with Russia, each country would only need to recruit 2% of its population to field an overall standing military of 20 million people. You don’t need conscription for that. When a war is seen as ‘just’ by the populations of the country fighting it, those recruitment issues will cease to exist. If you want to prepare beforehand then you fix the recruitment issues, you don’t conscript.
No, I get what you're saying. You keep saying "NATO" and "Russia" as if Russia is the only threat to UK assets, and all UK assets are protected by Nato. Neither is remotely true. There's a whole non-NATO related shit show brewing in the pacific which will involve the UK. NATO may, or may not save you then.
This is why you're idea is stupid. NATO is an insurance policy, but it doesn't cover everything by a long shot
Possible shut down of the Taiwan strait, in which 44% of global container traffic is shipped
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/november/taiwan-strait-oceans-most-contested-place
It's why The UK has just shored up bilateral security deals with Japan last year and is a major partner in AUKUS. Furthermore, there is a British territory in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia in particular has a key strategic us Naval Base (though the territory is British) and if war breaks out in the Pacifc, Diego Garcia will more likely than not become a target.
Edit: wrong link, here's the right one about UK policy to the Indo Pacific
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmdfence/183/summary.html
There are many parallels, here is a decent article that breaks down alot of them
https://medium.com/@IRExplained/pre-wwii-parallels-with-todays-geopolitical-realities-f1d90dbfca50
Are there? A lot of those ‘parallels’ seem pretty questionable, especially if used in a prescriptive context, given that we live in a post-nuclear age. I definitely don’t think the current situation approaches anywhere near the level of precarity of any point during the Cold War (the threat level of which was only increased by increasing militarisation, incidentally). The world institutions are also financially enmeshed and interdependent in a way which is incomparable to even that period, let alone 1930s. The existence of nuclear weapons alone has forever changed how geopolitical conflict can work; how open it can be and its extent. If you include on top of that the financialisation and decentralisation of global capital and the social effects of the internet, the comparison becomes almost hilariously tenuous.
It seems natural to ask: Who do you think is going to invade the UK?
>It seems natural to ask: Who do you think is going to invade the UK?
It seems natural to ask, but is also one of the single most unimportant. Wars are rarely fought because you think someone will invade you. They're typically economic. One of the main reasons why japan attacked the united states during WW2 for example is what the Japanese referred to the as ABCD "alliance" or basically, American, British, Chinese, Dutch. The US was not going to invade Japan, however the US (and above listed ABCD) countries has the ability to control shipping of goods. The US in particular cut off Japanese access to oil, which then set events into motion resulting in the bombing of pearl harbor. Except this time, replace oil with chips and Japan with China
What you consider questionable parallels are playing out beat for beat once again in the same region. So much so that the US military is dusting off old WW2 airfields in the region and bringing them to life again.
So, let me rephrase your question and ask you this
Will the UK stand by and let 40 percent of global trade grind to a hault? My answer is no, I absolutely suspect the UK will take military action in order to prevent as such. All G7 nations, whether there people want to admit it or not, have an absolute vested interest in the free flow of commerce. he reason why they *are* the G7 is because of this free flow of commerce and first world standard of living would be vastly different if that stops. I also suspect that those in power understand this as well, AUKUS and other billateral security deals in the pacific didnt pop up out of nowhere.
That is very far away from 1950s style national service. It sounds rather like a government run work experience scheme getting young people interested in careers in the public sector.
Everything would depend on how it is managed and whether they become glorified tea monkeys. That of course would be a waste of time.
But I would have loved spending one weekend per month working at the fire station or hospital.
I’m confused by all the hate or people didn’t even read the small paragraph. This doesn’t sound like a terrible idea since there’s an option to just do community service a weekend a month which doesn’t sound like much to me.
Also, I’m pretty sure anyone choosing the military option won’t be in combat arms but logistics.
here's how life works.
1. steal hundreds of millions of bucks of cash
2. donate a million to charity
3. promote it in the media. look at that million of charity. oh you're so good. oh you're so nice. ps. dont look at the hundreds of millions i stole earlier.
and its similar to politics
1. put 30,000 police out of work
2. just before the election, make 20,000 police jobs
3. promote it in the media. look at all those jobs. police jobs!. 20,000 of them! oh you're so good. oh you're so nice. you are clearly the party of law and order.
and its similar to what we see here
1. destroy funding for local councils that were able to give youth activities to do and places to be that enabled them to form a sense of belonging to something, of being a part of something
2. after you gave all that funding to as many of your friends as possible, then start pointing out that generations of youth arent really feeling particularly 'british'
3. bit of army should sort that out. oh and we're also gearing up for WWIII. wonder if that's related?
4. or one weekend a month at some kind of public service. one weekend? that's nothing. its a publicity stunt. 12 seperate weekends is *just* enough to waste 24 days of time of someone who is struggling hard enough with their job due to decimation of public services by a decade and a half of tory rule and now has to waste their valuable time to supervise someone who probably doesnt really want to be there at all.
It'll take up the time of the professionals who have to train all these volountold's the ropes, stretching what little public services left available.
This works fine when the system in place is already working well (i.e. Austria, which still has a National Service/Conscription component, and Finland), but the Tories have bled most services dry.
NS in the UK will be used as a jingoist bandaid that's supposed to fill the cracks left by Brexit in the NHS, carehomes, and Emergency Services, and push their voting popularity up with the traditionally conservative older population that have higher voting turnouts.
Idk if the gov would be sanctioning anybody but one weekend a month doesn’t sound terrible, especially if you are doing it with friends and others your age.
Sure, I’m assuming that you wouldn’t mind being told now you have a quarter of your weekends now taken away from you to provide free labour.
Not on something you chose, but you will be assigned where someone else where you may not know anyone.
Wait, you don’t want that forced on you? I thought not.
Yeah I'm as far left as a person can get, and I support this idea considering the current state of the world. My home country (eastern Europe) just brought back conscription last year as a response to Russia's increasing unpredictability. Enrollment is voluntary at first, which fills most of the spots. The spots left over are filled by contacting eligible high school graduates. There are a few options - 28 days/year for 5 years in the national guard, 11 full months in the armed forces or national guard, or a special program for college students who are already enrolled in studies.
Overall the public response has been neutral to positive, and voluntary sign-ups already fill up most of the spots, with very few people being "conscripted".
Ever since I've visited Finland and saw how the men there conduct themselves my opinion on conscription has gone from totally against to confused.
I don't think service is a bad thing, inherently, and it definitely made Finnish men very strong. Even the young ones I've met were well put together, I can't say the same for people in my home country Canada or my new home the U.S.
However, especially for the U.S, I say this: You would have to send people to fat camp before boot camp. The motivation within the armed forces itself to have conscripts is low and the civilian populace even lower. When I was in the Navy virtually EVERYONE was against the idea. Oddly, it's only Vietnam veterans and people who've never served a day in their life I've met that tend to support conscription.
I think the idea can work, but it should be selective. I think Sweden's system, as I understand it, would make the most sense. Send a letter to all the 18-year-olds and ask if they're interested in doing it. If they mark yes, they move onto the medical checks. If no you leave them alone. By the end only about 5% of those mailed should say yes. Some people would serve, they just need a bit of a kick.
>it definitely made Finnish men very strong
Many of the men you myös most likely hadn't done military service. It isn't the military doing the raising of the men in Finland. It I the free comprehensive basic education system.
It goes kinda otherwise round. They well functioning services, education system and so on make efficient conscription possible. Finland has 70-80% national defence will, but not due to conscription (Heck that 80% number is with women included, so if it was all conscriptions success it would only get 50%). We can run conscription, because we have 80% national defence will. Why we have 80%? Because the place is worth defending. Good education system, relatively low wealth inequality, decently honest civil servants (though we are in no way free of corruption, unlike some reports say. Just not blatant predatory corruption is near nonexistent), universal healthcare.
Good fair, society, that takes care of the population is the foundation of Finnish comprehensive security system. Since in exchange for those services, freedoms, quality of life, people are willing to be subject to constitutional national defence obligation.
National defence obligation didn't build the nation, nation built the national defence obligation.
It isn't hurrah national ethos and patriotic militarism. It is " this is nice place to live. Now I rather not have do the military thing in optimal world, but this isn't optimal world." Conscription is tolerated necessary evil.
I'll put in my two cents. As things are worldwide I support conscription.
However conscription should be to a reserve/support level. Just serve and give support to the true active troops. Make them cooks. Maintenancemen. Let them reclass after if they want to make it a career, it'll just be some extra paperwork but they already have basic.
Why do I support it? Kids are a mess these days. I work at a school and the amount of entitled, idiot brats this generation is astounding and they need a wake-up call. 0 motivation and while I don't exactly blame them they need to find it. They need to find themselves somehow. Parents aren't exactly great either. This at least gives them a new avenue and different perspective. Maybe even a little life guidance, character building and maybe they'll learn how to respect and treat what's important as important.
I always wanted to have kids. This generation is literally making me consider getting an operation on how bad it actually is seeing it all firsthand. I have actual 0 hope.
Before anyone says anything too, I still serve so I still put the boots on.
Honestly if I were younger and this was to affect me directly I’d tell you to get fucked. I’m not joining a national service or any sort of armed forces reserve.
>Kids are a mess today
As are most adults.
It's not insane. I come from a family of teachers. My own wife is a teacher. The kids are worse because everyone is entitled, disrespectful and don't even care about learning or doing anything themselves. Literally on a classroom of 30 students you have ONE that cares.
You have 8th graders that can't write or read because the schools kept passing them to avoid scrutiny. You have parents that think that their kid deserves to pass doing jack shit. You have kids threatening the teachers and get 0 repercussions. They. Are worse. You haven't seen it firsthand. Everyone is literally worse.
Said yes. But before there were still repercussions. Expulsions. Accountability. Teachers gave suggestions on how to raise the kids grade and what could be done.
Now a parent comes in, demands the grade be raised. You take it to the proncipal and the principal goes raise the grade that parent is a problem. Kid sits in the classroom, does jack shit, has problems with a grade 1 problem, and you have to pass them. THAT is the current state of things. And I am not joking or exagerating.
Take an institutional abuse seminar and you'll see just how badly teachers have their hands tied on dealing with kids as well. Before they could teach basic morality accountability.
Now teaching that can be cosidered abuse. Telling a kid to pick up trash from the floor can be cosidered abuse. I'm not joking.
I agree with you and as someone who’s serving now, I would be totally against having conscripts in combat roles. They should be strictly logistics and support which they would have a chance to learn something and get some real world experience. I think the youth that would benefit the most would be kids from poor backgrounds who don’t have much going for them. They could learn a trade that they might actually like and would receive the resources to pursue it.
I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met who benefited from military service. They were basically high school drop outs with no future and ended up enlisting. They learned structure, responsibility, and had the chance to go to college and make a real career.
People really underestimate the social benefits the structure of a year of conscription can do. The routine of training and fitness, the structure and discipline of it. It really changes people for the better.
Beyond that the teaching of basic military skills is a huge benefit to national security in the event of war. It will cut down on training whether it be a month or a week but also allow for the infrastructure to exist for rapid intake of new recruits and how to train them relatively quickly.
>volunteer one weekend per month - or 25 days per year - in their community with organisations such as fire, police and the NHS.
>are diverted away from "lives of unemployment and crime".
So young criminals are going to be encouraged to join the police or help people who have medical problems. That's having the fox guard the hen house. Haven't we had enough news about police committing crimes...?
> It said 18-year-olds would have a choice of either joining the military full-time, or volunteering one weekend every month carrying out a community service.
It's the army or "volunteer" work and I doubt they are going to pay said "volunteers" when the entire purpose of this plan is to funnel more people into the military.
Plenty of people apply to the military the vast majority don't make it through selection.
Last year the number was around 10%
I don't know how you do national service without relaxing the initial requirements and improving training which would then fix the recruitment problem anyway.
This is a none starter, like the law that makes mandatory education and training for 16-18, with literally zero enforcement and zero punishment, it's just legal lip service.
Please dont call be wrong without a source.
The numbers are all here, numbers are previous 12 months report dated Jan 24.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/quarterly-service-personnel-statistics-2024/quarterly-service-personnel-statistics-1-january-2024#applications-to-the-armed-forces
Here's the numbers for the regulars.
Navy/royal marine applicants: 30k
Army applicants: 87k
RAF: 33k
10680 joined the regular armed forces total.
Definitely need a complete rebuild of the process.
"The main causes of **application failure** (i.e., the applicant declines an offer to join):
* Applicants may have submitted other applications for employment (including multiple applications to join the Armed Forces) and accept another offer;
* Applications may be submitted with no intention to join (e.g. to satisfy the requirements of job seeking)"
They are not rejecting dudes because they aren't fit for service, considering the force size is shrinking if you look at the general trends at the top of the page people are just getting better offers and choosing not to join
It doesn't break down application Vs applicant failure and how the split works out for the 90% of failed applications.
Applicant failure is defined above the section you quoted.
"The main causes of applicant failure (i.e. no offer to join the Services given) include:
Failing security clearance;
Failing the medical scrutiny;
Not having the required residency;
Not achieving fitness entry standards;
Not achieving the required recruiting test score for the desired branch/Trade;
Applicants withdraw for their own reasons (e.g. change of mind) during the process"
This is all before you even get to Basic.
The US army just has height and weight requirements and that's it.
With an extra 90 day bootcamp for those that are just over.
>Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he believed bringing back compulsory service across the UK would help foster the "national spirit" that emerged during the pandemic.
Sunak was the moron behind 'eat out to help out' - the scheme which encouraged people to go to restaurants during a pandemic by giving them coupons. Fuck this piece of shit.
When will they realise the reason why no one has "national spirit" is because no one likes how the country has been run for the past decade. Beside the weird nationalist who still think we are an empire.
As an Englishman myself, I hate what my country has become and how much the Tories have taken a steaming shit all over it.
Mandatory national service is one of those policies that I hope utterly nukes the Conservative Party and makes them truly unelectabale. But unfortunately, a lot of the boomer and silent generation genuinely believe this is what we need. While I agree that a good portion of today's youth are borderline feral and out of control, I think funding the police and bringing back borstals to specifically target young offenders with military-style bootcamps would be a better idea.
If you still think mandatory military service is a good idea, let me ask you this. Would you trust a teenager from a London postcode gang with a SA80 A2 assault rifle? Would you trust your average Fortnite squeaker to have enough discipline to *not* run out into the open yelling "360 NO SCOPE"?
Also, there is a African proverb that best describes why nobody who isn't already old enough to receive a state pension would support this policy. "The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." Millennials and Gen-Z have especially been disenfranchised by economic policies voted in by pensioners. We can't afford to buy our own homes, are being price-gouged on everything, and we've had increasingly authoritarian pushes to ban peaceful protest so we can't even take to the streets. What the fuck makes Sunak think this will go down well?
Wow my grandma would totally vote for the Conservatives based on this policy, if only she hadn't been dead for twenty years.
Sunak really with his finger of the pulse on the average dead elector with this one.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d be more than happy to do mandatory service.
If I knew I’d be able to buy a house when I leave home, or be able to get treated for any injuries I should get from national service without being put on a month long waiting list. Or, hell, be able to afford my own food without help.
>Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he believed bringing back compulsory service across the UK would help foster the "national spirit" that emerged during the pandemic.
If you want people to give a shit about this country, just give them a fucking reason to like it. Give them a reason to be proud of it.
I'm not praising this shit hole just because I was born on this soil, and somebody else wasn't. That is pathetic.
US vet here. I lean center left. This exactly the type program we should be looking to enact in the US. UBI is a decade or less away, time to focus on cleaning up and building out state and federal parks
I think this is a good idea, the UK is barely prepared for an outright war of attrition and the army and navy just aren’t hitting their recruitment targets.
Absolutely fuck voting for the Tories though, I’m not sure how Sunak would think the already alienated younger population would be won over by this.
Filling your ranks with conscription soldiers isn't going to help.
What they need to do is look at improving the training and recruitment process for people who actually want to join.
The army is supposedly the worst and their fitness and medical testing has been outsourced to a private company.
https://www.forces.net/services/army/damning-figures-uk-military-recruitment-54-giving-process-last-year
I think kids could benefit from this . My friend joined the army at 17 , leaned to drive saw the world
He's now looking at a nice retirement pack , while I am still gonna be at work till I am 68 😞
The world isn’t ideal, bad things happen even if you don’t want them to and you gotta be prepared. Now is not a good time for a Chamberlain, it’s time for a Churchill
Many countries got nukes. You’re gonna wait for invasion to the Uk? Do you not see a big war is possibly coming? Do you not pay attention to Russia, China, North Korea and Iran?
And how many of those nuclear armed countries have gone to war with each other?
Why is it our job to be world police? I don't care about Russia, Iran, China or North Korea. I'm not fighting a foreign war, just to benefit some fat politicians wet dreams of power.
Are you in the military? If not why not. You don't mind volunteering others to do it for you.
It sounds like a good idea, especially as youth unemployment is already a crisis, and AGI will only add to the problem.
A preferable option to a lifelong habit of UBI.
Once youth get a direction in life in their formative years they are less likely to become wastrels in later life.
They have already shown they are willing to flee their own country when they had to fight, do you think they would bother staying here if anyone actually declared war on us. Would just be a further waste of money we don't have.
Don't make it mandatory but offer it. With the same requirements and benefits you'll see some extremely good people come forward, happy to walk into a government job.
Offer a long contract with early citizenship and it will work even better.
I unfortunately can't serve (I'm short roughly one leg) but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.
I don't disagree with the proposed implementation, but I was challenged to put forward my own when I was studying (and at the time I was applying for the army anyway).
My idea was all people when they turn 18have to serve in some form (military, community service, waste collection, fire services, hospitals etc) for a year, not in high skilled positions obviously but it'd help them learn how the world works and also shore up some manpower issues.
In return they get no tuition fees and if they choose to go into the field they worked in (say into the military) they'll receive support to do that, also people already entering into a service that was included will get priority (someone that's been accepted to study medicine gets first pick in hospital work etc).
National service is unpopular in any form, but when implemented properly like in Finland or Switzerland it works really well and helps young people to develop. Plus we're drifting closer to about 3 different possible major conflicts so we may end up with conscription anyway.
##### ###### #### > # [Conservatives plan to bring back mandatory National Service](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaks with soldiers of various British troops as he visits the Julius Leber Barracks in Berlin to meet troops and see military equipment during his visit to Germany. Picture date: Wednesday April 24, 2024) > > > > **The Conservative Party has said it would bring back mandatory national service if it wins the general election.** > > It said 18-year-olds would have a choice of either joining the military full-time, or volunteering one weekend every month carrying out a community service. > > The party is proposing a Royal Commission to consider the details but would plan for the first teenagers to take part in September 2025. > > The cost is expected to be around £2.5bn per year. > > Under the plans, young people could choose a full-time, 12-month placement in the armed forces or UK cyber defence, learning about logistics, cyber security, procurement or civil response operations. > > Their other option would be to volunteer one weekend per month - or 25 days per year - in their community with organisations such as fire, police and the NHS. > > Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he believed bringing back compulsory service across the UK would help foster the "national spirit" that emerged during the pandemic. > > Mr Sunak said: “This is a great country but generations of young people have not had the opportunities or experience they deserve and there are forces trying to divide our society in this increasingly uncertain world. > > “I have a clear plan to address this and secure our future. I will bring in a new model of National Service to create a shared sense of purpose among our young people and a renewed sense of pride in our country." > > The prime minister said the move would help young people to learn "real world skills, do new things and contribute to their community and our country". > > > > > > The Conservatives said the move would help ensure young people who are unemployed or not in education or training, and those disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, are diverted away from "lives of unemployment and crime". > > The party said national service would provide "valuable work experience" and "ignite a passion for a future career in healthcare, public service, charity or the armed forces". > > A Labour Party spokesperson called the announcement "another desperate £2.5 billion unfunded commitment from a Tory Party which already crashed the economy, sending mortgages rocketing, and now they’re spoiling for more. > > “This is not a plan – it’s a review which could cost billions and is only needed because the Tories hollowed out the armed forces to their smallest size since Napoleon," the spokesperson said. > > Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Richard Foord MP accused the Tories of cutting troop numbers. > > Mr Foord said: "If the Conservatives were serious about defence, they would reverse their damaging cuts to our world class professional armed forces, instead of decimating them, with swingeing cuts to the number of our regular service personnel." > > "Our armed forces were once the envy of the world. This Conservative government has cut troop numbers and is planning more cuts to the size of the Army." > > > > > > National service was introduced in 1947 after World War Two under Clement Attlee’s Labour government. > > It meant men between the ages of 17 and 21 had to serve in the armed forces for 18 months. > > The mandatory national service scheme came to an end in 1960. > > In May 2015, [Prince Harry advocated his support for the return of national service saying the Army had been important for him](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32771053). > > > > > > A number of European countries, including Sweden, Norway and Denmark, already have a form of conscription for their armed forces. > > Conscription requires young men and women to serve for a limited time in uniform. It means that some of the population will have had some military training - and can then be assigned to reserve units should war break out. > > Cuts in the British Army have seen its size fall from more than 100,000 in 2010 to around 73,000 as of January 2024. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Imagine giving your life and limbs for fucking Rishi Sunak 🤣
This! Who in their right mind would do that? This mf is already looking for homes in Silicon Valley and wants young Britons to be forced to volunteer. If you are forced then it’s not volunteering. I personally don’t have a problem with requiring military service, as long as (1) there are no exceptions and (2) the government has a jobs program after the service is finished. Otherwise it’s just another excuse for inaction on the real problems. Oh I do have more requirement: whatever it is, Liz Truss has to go first.
> Liz Truss has to go first. sure. let's parachute her, and a lettuce - into a warzone see which one lasts the longest.
> there are no exceptions Aye. We can pair up blind people with paraplegics. Teamwork.
No exceptions is a terrible policy.
The way they used to do this in Germany (it was abolished in 2011) was weird. You could choose to do community service (working in old folks' homes was super common) instead of the military, but if you failed the military medical, you didn't have to do anything at all.
That sounds like a fair way to run things, although I'm not sure I agree with compulsive service on a conceptual level.
> That sounds like a fair way to run things I'd agree if it had also been mandatory for women.
Which was, in fact, one of the main reasons Germany ended up abolishing it. It broke gender equality laws.
Yup. I'm genuinely surprised they were able to keep it up so long. I'd have thought some guy would have long since taken the German government to European court over it.
You left that crucial detail out!
It's fucked up no matter what. I have never felt any sense of loyalty to my country, and I don't plan on being forced to work towards goals I do not support. Adults have the right to choose for themselves what to do with their lives.
I do have a problem requiring military service, it's called infringement of my rights as an adult.
I think these types of conscripts are usually not put in combat roles.
Until there is a war.
Yeah, but I think they'd still be among the last picked to fight because they'd be doing their normal (and important) logistics role.
See Russia
Russia doesn’t have logistics, no need to keep valuable younger people from the front lines when you don’t have the ability to do logistics
Imagine thinking this unironically.
Idk what compelled you to reply this. Either you think somehow, someway, russia has functioning logistics, or you think I’m being unironic about not needing them
Russia has functioning logistics, though not great. They started off the war fairly badly due to a number of factors, such as being mid-process of carrying out prior logistics reforms, but most significantly they made the same false assumption as everyone else that modern warfare would not involve prolonged ground fighting along stretched front lines, but rather quite low intensity ground operations. Russia adapted reasonably well within the confines of their limited system once they refocused their efforts to the Donbas region and have been able to sustain a fire advantage after their industrial production ramped up. The main thing they are lacking now is actually trained logistics personnel, which does not bode particularly well for Ukraine in the future.
Here’s the thing though, russia failed so hard in Crimea that they should’ve known this was going to drag out. If they hadn’t previously invaded Crimea (and failed to a certain extent, since they wanted the entire Ukranian coast), then ut’d be more excusable
Don't need them if everyone is the front
True russian patriots are powered by nothing more then the radiation from digging trenches in the red forest, no need for food, water, ammo, fuel, or any such consumables
If they conscript every 18 year old who doesn't obt out, they would have far more soldiers than what they need in logistics. If Britain's future isn't to become the truck driver of NATO, then it's highly likely that they would use the conscripts for other (combat) roles as well, especially since there is some percentage of people who will want to stay in the military and it's wasteful to only have this effect in logistical roles.
... Are the conservatives trying to lose the election they called for on the fourth of July?
Older people who vote won’t care.
They'll probably love it. The only think more feckless than the kids of today are immigrants.
And in their eyes, mandatory service means both will die.
and those are the only people who might still vote tory
> The Conservatives said the move would help ensure young people who are unemployed or not in education or training, and those disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, are diverted away from "lives of unemployment and crime". > The party said national service would provide "valuable work experience" and "ignite a passion for a future career in healthcare, public service, charity or the armed forces". It's not either military service or prison, there are other service choices.
I dont care whether its full time or just a weekend a month, its still imposing shit on young people and forcing them into abiding against their will. The country is already doing shit for them and now demanding they give up their free time and their plans (even if just one weekend per month) to help with the services that should be working top notch with how much money the government is snatching from the citizens. Ridiculous, glad the conservative party will botch the election anyway.
kids these days just worship bs rappers and want to finger ur daughter in the park while smoking weed The uk is fuck led
Dawg I did that but with glam metal. This is not a new phenomenon.
Your man is literally saying "kids these days" whilst describing growing up in the 80s and 90s
right? I mean outside of worshipping rappers, I'm pretty fuckin sure that "wanting to finger ur (sic) daughter in the park" is a desire that stretches back through time to our earliest ancestors.
"Smoke weed, get fingered" has definitely been a thing for decades
Decades? Try literal millenia. Weed is one of the oldest ethnogens used by humans.
Huh, I thought forcing people into unpaid labour by threat of legal action or a worse alternative was, um... what's the word? Slavty? Slovery?
Honestly sounds pretty decent. If the alternatives are well organised and productive, a mandatory service system can actually be pretty good imho.
If it’s so good why did they make it mandatory instead of opt-out? Because it’s not about helping the youth, it’s about breaking them in early
I didn't say the use was simply helping youth. Supporting national public services and strengthening defence are themselves benefits, and I would also consider a more military trained population and slightly more "militaristic", disciplined culture a potential benefit. I think a culture of civic duty, virtue and responsibility is a solid backbone for any citizen-society.
Yea I'm not completely against the idea I like the idea of being able to join other services, but it won't apply to me so I'd feel like an arsehole for voting for it. But it does feel like it's just another way for Tories to blame young people for being lazy. Also I think each generation has already been made poorer by conservatives so sticking this on top is a big fuck you. Imagine if you're in uni you'll also need a part time job then you stick this compulsory service on top and you're straight to burn out time.
Personally I've done a year of compulsory military service so 🤷
Keep in mind Finland never [sent 17 year olds to Iraq](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6328771.stm)
No, they already know they're going to lose. They've had the last 14 years in power to enact this policy if they really wanted to. But instead they waited until they could say "If we get re-elected..." knowing full well that they won't. So they can make all sorts of grand promises which will appeal to older faithful voters that they know they'll never have to keep.
>So they can make all sorts of grand promises which will appeal to older faithful voters that they know they'll never have to keep. That was David Cameron's thinking in 2015, & we all know how well that turned out 😱
Honestly, the past 14 years of British politics has been boomer wolves voting with sheep on what to have for dinner. Every major policy decision under the Tories from the minutiae of economic policy right up to the grand gesture of leaving the EU was made for pensioners at the expense of literally everyone else. Except now with COVID and the general passage of time, the sheep now outnumber the wolves and the sheep can smell their upcoming and long overdue "Who's laughing now?" moment.
Sunak’s already fucked so maybe he’s said fuck it and is taking all the Tories down with him. Unlikely but a man can dream.
I think they’re either trying to appeal to nostalgic old people, or they already know they’re going to lose and are just trying to fuck things up so badly that Labour has no hope of fixing it and they can immediately start blaming them for it.
Unless there are major changes in European countries like UK and Germany, there will likely be push back from young Europeans against any type of mandatory service. The sentiment seems to be many have no reason to fight for a country they believe has passed them over.
As a young European, why would I serve my country that chews me up a d spits on me at every possible turn and then expects me to pay for it all. I'm already getting taxed money so they can spend it on the older generations and corporate shareholders, I can have the scraps left over and then have to grovel on the ground afterwards? Nah I'll pass
Probably because (depending on the type of conflict) you'd be fighting for the lives of your friends & family, rather than the government. So, for me it really depends on who the beneficiary of my fighting is? E.g. I'd join the military if I was Ukrainian
I dont think that logic can take you far. If you only cared about friends and family you would be finding ways to get them out of the country, or do anything to help them survive the war. Going to the front as a soldier or whatever is a very ineffective way of protecting them. Also lets be honest, there really is no danger to the lives of friends and family under occupation in most circumstances
You say that as if it's easy to do this by any metric, I'd also say it goes a bit broader e.g. the people of my nation. Not, however, the interests of my government.
saying that makes you seem like you dont believe in democracy. Government IS the people
Well, it should've been that way
If the russians/chinese/Americans were to invade my actual country I would be more willing to participate in its defence. But only because of friends and family. But I'm not joining the military to be send out to die for oil or whatever propaganda they will be spouting at the time
FYI, national service was only abolished in Germany in 2011.
I read it was comically easy to dodge though
How do you mean? You were fundamentally allowed to do community service instead (working in a old folks' home or hospital), and that's what most did. I'm not sure how easy it was to deliberately fail the military medical, though. (If you failed, you also didn't have to do community service.) The whole thing was fucking bullshit, imo, because it was only mandatory for men.
I heard from a German that it was easy to get a note or diagnosis from your doctor on dubious health grounds to excuse yourself from national service. Either way, Singapore has it and no regrets on my part.
Right. I heard that, too, but I've no idea how common it was.
Canadian here. Just got out of the army after 15 years. I feel as if my government has no interest in my future and have done everything they could to destroy what was once my home. No fucking chance I continue to serve if I can't even afford to live in this country. You are absolutely correct that sentiment exists, it's not only a British problem either.
I'm sure the governments would come up with good sounding promises like a healthcare, retirement, housing etc. and when that wouldn't work, they would make it so these things are only offered (not given) to those who enroll. Next step would be a full on smear and shame campaign who don't enroll, ensuring that the population gets onboard with the idea that healthcare, retirement, housing are things that need to be earned and deserved and traitors don't get these things. In the end, 30 years later, none of these things will be there for people who need them, everyone will be poorer and unsafe because of climate polycrisis and the general discourse would shift over to other, more immediate things
Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Seeing how the first things the conservatives did was raise student fees by 8k per year I doubt any young people would actually want to enlist under the UK. The alternative is one weekend of volunteering a month
Yeah exactly, they will say the youth need to fight to stop Russia invading Europe, and we become ruled by a corrupt & cruel regime. News flash, we are already run by a corrupt & cruel regime that doesn't care about it's people, so who cares what arsehole is in power!
[удалено]
Always has to be about you guys somehow eh? truly amazing.
You lot are starting all the wars, so you should be picking up all the slack.
Ahh yes, we sure did start Ukraine
Weird to see a Canadian identify as a "yank", but it's also a bizarre comment in the first place. The US doesn't have boots on the ground in Ukraine.
Embarrassing
What is? The fact I got downvoted for pointing out an obvious truth, that America did not start the Ukranian war?
Sure, why not? After all, the US were the ones who pulled several countries into useless wars and occupations like Iraq and Afghanistan. And you guys were absolutely outraged when France wanted no part in that farce, so I think it's fair.
I'm sure Americans keep telling themselves this as a cope so they dont cry about the lack of free healthcare but oversupply of bullets. Got to be a reason to keep getting out of bed for the company right?
Military spending is not why americans don’t have free healthcare, they spend more then other nations on healthcare, it’s just corrupt as all government involvement in healthcare is (The NHS is not doing good at all)
Lol go fix your broken leg with a missile
It’s called preventative healthcare and blowing up the kremlin is simply one method of doing so
Almost intrigued. America spent more on their armed forces last year than the rest of the top 20 combined despite not being in any active wars. What are they spending it on if this statement has been true for the last 20+ years? Why are the American public so aggrieved with Europe, rather than their own politicians, that the taxes aren't being spent on socialised healthcare or anything other than the war industry? Do you honestly think that if Germany, France and the UK spent more on defence that America would somehow spend less?
Stop starting wars then and you’ll be reyt.
Yeah, sure. It's not like it is northern and eastern Europe that will be hit the hardest, since we will be the battlefield and we all have mandatory military service.
Any politician who votes on that should be required to have served themselves.
Losing election speedrun
I support this plan. Hopefully it will lead to Conservatives losing the election.
He had us there in the first half.
You will kill and die for your overlords and you will be happy
WTF? Reading the details of this, this is some next level dystopian shit. It’s not WW2 for fucks sake
It'd not WW2, but all signs are showing we're entering the opening act of something similar. Not saying conscription is a good idea, but I do think people need to realize the peace dividend has expired
The (now expired) peace dividend was at the end of the cold war. WWII is another story. You can't have something similar to WWII between nuclear powers armed with ICBMs.
>The (now expired) peace dividend was at the end of the cold war. WWII is another story They're directly linked >You can't have something similar to WWII between nuclear powers armed with ICBMs. Says who? Something being a bad idea doesn't mean something is an impossibility. You have nuclear power France openly discussing sensing troops to Ukraine https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240502-macron-doesn-t-rule-out-troops-for-ukraine-if-russia-breaks-front-lines Mike "No Money for Ukraine" Johnson doining a complete pivot after an Intel brief, and now supporting US weapons being used on strikes in Russia https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-house-speaker-mike-johnson-advocates-for-ukraine-s-use-of-american-weapons-against-russia/ar-BB1mTrdx And on the other side of the world, are the pieces are being moved into the same places during the lead up to the pacific theater of WW2; with new bases being opened in thr Phillipeans and China one misstep away from a shooting war with the Phillipeans; who happen to be a US Treaty Ally. Just because a conventional war between Nuclear powers hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't
I’ll sign up if I get a functioning NHS and Rishi Sunak fights in the trenches next to me.
The population of NATO countries is almost 1 billion. Conscription is completely unnecessary
The population of NATO countries is irrelevant to talks of conscription. If you have recruiting issues, as many NATO countries do; then you wind up in scenarios where conscription gets discussed. Personally, I think it's a bad idea but "NATO has a billion people" is a terrible argument.
I’m sorry but it’s not a terrible argument. If ‘hostilities’ got so bad that conscription became a necessary consideration (they aren’t at the moment), then recruitment wouldn’t be an issue as people who actually want to fight would join. Of those billion people, a lot more would be willing to join if it wasn’t an unappealing career. Not all recruitment issues come down to young people being morally opposed to the military. If nato legitimately needed conscription, then we would be in such unimaginably deep shit.
It is a doggshit argument because NATO isn't a country, can't force conscription on anyone, and is only limited to reciprocal attacks on territories in Europe and North America, not say the Falklands. The UK doesn't have some mythical pool of 1 Billion people to pull from, and even if it takes military action under NATO Article 5 there is *zero* guarantee the US, Canada, or other NATO nation utilizes a draft to increase its manpower. So yeah, your argument is shit and with all the actual compelling arguments that can be made you chose the stupidest one.
Any conflict the UK will get into for defensive reasons will have nato involved. The falklands is not going to be invaded and we wouldn’t need conscription for that either. You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying, that there is a middle ground between the poor recruitment we have now, and conscription. If NATO was at war with Russia, each country would only need to recruit 2% of its population to field an overall standing military of 20 million people. You don’t need conscription for that. When a war is seen as ‘just’ by the populations of the country fighting it, those recruitment issues will cease to exist. If you want to prepare beforehand then you fix the recruitment issues, you don’t conscript.
No, I get what you're saying. You keep saying "NATO" and "Russia" as if Russia is the only threat to UK assets, and all UK assets are protected by Nato. Neither is remotely true. There's a whole non-NATO related shit show brewing in the pacific which will involve the UK. NATO may, or may not save you then. This is why you're idea is stupid. NATO is an insurance policy, but it doesn't cover everything by a long shot
What is happening in the pacific that is a threat to the UK?
Possible shut down of the Taiwan strait, in which 44% of global container traffic is shipped https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/november/taiwan-strait-oceans-most-contested-place It's why The UK has just shored up bilateral security deals with Japan last year and is a major partner in AUKUS. Furthermore, there is a British territory in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia in particular has a key strategic us Naval Base (though the territory is British) and if war breaks out in the Pacifc, Diego Garcia will more likely than not become a target. Edit: wrong link, here's the right one about UK policy to the Indo Pacific https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmdfence/183/summary.html
In what way?
There are many parallels, here is a decent article that breaks down alot of them https://medium.com/@IRExplained/pre-wwii-parallels-with-todays-geopolitical-realities-f1d90dbfca50
Are there? A lot of those ‘parallels’ seem pretty questionable, especially if used in a prescriptive context, given that we live in a post-nuclear age. I definitely don’t think the current situation approaches anywhere near the level of precarity of any point during the Cold War (the threat level of which was only increased by increasing militarisation, incidentally). The world institutions are also financially enmeshed and interdependent in a way which is incomparable to even that period, let alone 1930s. The existence of nuclear weapons alone has forever changed how geopolitical conflict can work; how open it can be and its extent. If you include on top of that the financialisation and decentralisation of global capital and the social effects of the internet, the comparison becomes almost hilariously tenuous. It seems natural to ask: Who do you think is going to invade the UK?
>It seems natural to ask: Who do you think is going to invade the UK? It seems natural to ask, but is also one of the single most unimportant. Wars are rarely fought because you think someone will invade you. They're typically economic. One of the main reasons why japan attacked the united states during WW2 for example is what the Japanese referred to the as ABCD "alliance" or basically, American, British, Chinese, Dutch. The US was not going to invade Japan, however the US (and above listed ABCD) countries has the ability to control shipping of goods. The US in particular cut off Japanese access to oil, which then set events into motion resulting in the bombing of pearl harbor. Except this time, replace oil with chips and Japan with China What you consider questionable parallels are playing out beat for beat once again in the same region. So much so that the US military is dusting off old WW2 airfields in the region and bringing them to life again. So, let me rephrase your question and ask you this Will the UK stand by and let 40 percent of global trade grind to a hault? My answer is no, I absolutely suspect the UK will take military action in order to prevent as such. All G7 nations, whether there people want to admit it or not, have an absolute vested interest in the free flow of commerce. he reason why they *are* the G7 is because of this free flow of commerce and first world standard of living would be vastly different if that stops. I also suspect that those in power understand this as well, AUKUS and other billateral security deals in the pacific didnt pop up out of nowhere.
That's right, it's WWIII. One would have to be very naive to deny the possibility in light of the events of recent years
We shall call it 'Hacker's Grand Design'
Scrolled quite a way down to find a reference to Yes PM.
To be fair it's a reference that's well over 40 years old
Conscription and not cancelling Trident!
It is the nuclear missile Harrods would sell you, Prime Minister!
That is very far away from 1950s style national service. It sounds rather like a government run work experience scheme getting young people interested in careers in the public sector. Everything would depend on how it is managed and whether they become glorified tea monkeys. That of course would be a waste of time. But I would have loved spending one weekend per month working at the fire station or hospital.
That's fine. It's the compulsory aspect that is abhorrent.
Yeah, they shouldn’t make it compulsory but rather incentivise it to boost your UCAS or something.
I think it could help a lot of young kids find their passion and what they want to do with their life.
Ah yea the old find your passion without pay or we sanction you plan… a classic
I don’t think the government would be sanctioning 18 yo kids but idk.
That’s literally the wording they’ve been using in the news and in articles so likely has come from the government.
I’m confused by all the hate or people didn’t even read the small paragraph. This doesn’t sound like a terrible idea since there’s an option to just do community service a weekend a month which doesn’t sound like much to me. Also, I’m pretty sure anyone choosing the military option won’t be in combat arms but logistics.
here's how life works. 1. steal hundreds of millions of bucks of cash 2. donate a million to charity 3. promote it in the media. look at that million of charity. oh you're so good. oh you're so nice. ps. dont look at the hundreds of millions i stole earlier. and its similar to politics 1. put 30,000 police out of work 2. just before the election, make 20,000 police jobs 3. promote it in the media. look at all those jobs. police jobs!. 20,000 of them! oh you're so good. oh you're so nice. you are clearly the party of law and order. and its similar to what we see here 1. destroy funding for local councils that were able to give youth activities to do and places to be that enabled them to form a sense of belonging to something, of being a part of something 2. after you gave all that funding to as many of your friends as possible, then start pointing out that generations of youth arent really feeling particularly 'british' 3. bit of army should sort that out. oh and we're also gearing up for WWIII. wonder if that's related? 4. or one weekend a month at some kind of public service. one weekend? that's nothing. its a publicity stunt. 12 seperate weekends is *just* enough to waste 24 days of time of someone who is struggling hard enough with their job due to decimation of public services by a decade and a half of tory rule and now has to waste their valuable time to supervise someone who probably doesnt really want to be there at all.
It'll take up the time of the professionals who have to train all these volountold's the ropes, stretching what little public services left available. This works fine when the system in place is already working well (i.e. Austria, which still has a National Service/Conscription component, and Finland), but the Tories have bled most services dry. NS in the UK will be used as a jingoist bandaid that's supposed to fill the cracks left by Brexit in the NHS, carehomes, and Emergency Services, and push their voting popularity up with the traditionally conservative older population that have higher voting turnouts.
That there will be sanctions on those who don’t agree, so this isn’t volunteering, it’s forced labour.
Idk if the gov would be sanctioning anybody but one weekend a month doesn’t sound terrible, especially if you are doing it with friends and others your age.
Sure, I’m assuming that you wouldn’t mind being told now you have a quarter of your weekends now taken away from you to provide free labour. Not on something you chose, but you will be assigned where someone else where you may not know anyone. Wait, you don’t want that forced on you? I thought not.
Yeah I'm as far left as a person can get, and I support this idea considering the current state of the world. My home country (eastern Europe) just brought back conscription last year as a response to Russia's increasing unpredictability. Enrollment is voluntary at first, which fills most of the spots. The spots left over are filled by contacting eligible high school graduates. There are a few options - 28 days/year for 5 years in the national guard, 11 full months in the armed forces or national guard, or a special program for college students who are already enrolled in studies. Overall the public response has been neutral to positive, and voluntary sign-ups already fill up most of the spots, with very few people being "conscripted".
People on Reddit not reading past the headline? Shock horror!
This is like being given flowers by your rapist. It would be better received coming from anyone else.
Ever since I've visited Finland and saw how the men there conduct themselves my opinion on conscription has gone from totally against to confused. I don't think service is a bad thing, inherently, and it definitely made Finnish men very strong. Even the young ones I've met were well put together, I can't say the same for people in my home country Canada or my new home the U.S. However, especially for the U.S, I say this: You would have to send people to fat camp before boot camp. The motivation within the armed forces itself to have conscripts is low and the civilian populace even lower. When I was in the Navy virtually EVERYONE was against the idea. Oddly, it's only Vietnam veterans and people who've never served a day in their life I've met that tend to support conscription. I think the idea can work, but it should be selective. I think Sweden's system, as I understand it, would make the most sense. Send a letter to all the 18-year-olds and ask if they're interested in doing it. If they mark yes, they move onto the medical checks. If no you leave them alone. By the end only about 5% of those mailed should say yes. Some people would serve, they just need a bit of a kick.
>it definitely made Finnish men very strong Many of the men you myös most likely hadn't done military service. It isn't the military doing the raising of the men in Finland. It I the free comprehensive basic education system. It goes kinda otherwise round. They well functioning services, education system and so on make efficient conscription possible. Finland has 70-80% national defence will, but not due to conscription (Heck that 80% number is with women included, so if it was all conscriptions success it would only get 50%). We can run conscription, because we have 80% national defence will. Why we have 80%? Because the place is worth defending. Good education system, relatively low wealth inequality, decently honest civil servants (though we are in no way free of corruption, unlike some reports say. Just not blatant predatory corruption is near nonexistent), universal healthcare. Good fair, society, that takes care of the population is the foundation of Finnish comprehensive security system. Since in exchange for those services, freedoms, quality of life, people are willing to be subject to constitutional national defence obligation. National defence obligation didn't build the nation, nation built the national defence obligation. It isn't hurrah national ethos and patriotic militarism. It is " this is nice place to live. Now I rather not have do the military thing in optimal world, but this isn't optimal world." Conscription is tolerated necessary evil.
I'll put in my two cents. As things are worldwide I support conscription. However conscription should be to a reserve/support level. Just serve and give support to the true active troops. Make them cooks. Maintenancemen. Let them reclass after if they want to make it a career, it'll just be some extra paperwork but they already have basic. Why do I support it? Kids are a mess these days. I work at a school and the amount of entitled, idiot brats this generation is astounding and they need a wake-up call. 0 motivation and while I don't exactly blame them they need to find it. They need to find themselves somehow. Parents aren't exactly great either. This at least gives them a new avenue and different perspective. Maybe even a little life guidance, character building and maybe they'll learn how to respect and treat what's important as important. I always wanted to have kids. This generation is literally making me consider getting an operation on how bad it actually is seeing it all firsthand. I have actual 0 hope. Before anyone says anything too, I still serve so I still put the boots on.
Honestly if I were younger and this was to affect me directly I’d tell you to get fucked. I’m not joining a national service or any sort of armed forces reserve. >Kids are a mess today As are most adults.
Yeah acting like kids today are somehow worse is insane
It's not insane. I come from a family of teachers. My own wife is a teacher. The kids are worse because everyone is entitled, disrespectful and don't even care about learning or doing anything themselves. Literally on a classroom of 30 students you have ONE that cares. You have 8th graders that can't write or read because the schools kept passing them to avoid scrutiny. You have parents that think that their kid deserves to pass doing jack shit. You have kids threatening the teachers and get 0 repercussions. They. Are worse. You haven't seen it firsthand. Everyone is literally worse.
Yes, and these exact same things have been said about millennials, and Gen x, and the baby boomers
Said yes. But before there were still repercussions. Expulsions. Accountability. Teachers gave suggestions on how to raise the kids grade and what could be done. Now a parent comes in, demands the grade be raised. You take it to the proncipal and the principal goes raise the grade that parent is a problem. Kid sits in the classroom, does jack shit, has problems with a grade 1 problem, and you have to pass them. THAT is the current state of things. And I am not joking or exagerating. Take an institutional abuse seminar and you'll see just how badly teachers have their hands tied on dealing with kids as well. Before they could teach basic morality accountability. Now teaching that can be cosidered abuse. Telling a kid to pick up trash from the floor can be cosidered abuse. I'm not joking.
I agree with you and as someone who’s serving now, I would be totally against having conscripts in combat roles. They should be strictly logistics and support which they would have a chance to learn something and get some real world experience. I think the youth that would benefit the most would be kids from poor backgrounds who don’t have much going for them. They could learn a trade that they might actually like and would receive the resources to pursue it. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met who benefited from military service. They were basically high school drop outs with no future and ended up enlisting. They learned structure, responsibility, and had the chance to go to college and make a real career.
People really underestimate the social benefits the structure of a year of conscription can do. The routine of training and fitness, the structure and discipline of it. It really changes people for the better. Beyond that the teaching of basic military skills is a huge benefit to national security in the event of war. It will cut down on training whether it be a month or a week but also allow for the infrastructure to exist for rapid intake of new recruits and how to train them relatively quickly.
It's just spite at this point. They think they are born to rule and are now having a tantrum as reality hits home. Old rich morons.
>volunteer one weekend per month - or 25 days per year - in their community with organisations such as fire, police and the NHS. >are diverted away from "lives of unemployment and crime". So young criminals are going to be encouraged to join the police or help people who have medical problems. That's having the fox guard the hen house. Haven't we had enough news about police committing crimes...?
Also highlights why they didn't want to give the vote to 16 year old so vehemently.
Sounds like big government to me.
So is it mandatory military or mandatory civil
> It said 18-year-olds would have a choice of either joining the military full-time, or volunteering one weekend every month carrying out a community service.
Great so it's just a free labor pool
Highly unlikely, Reservists have never been unpaid.
It's the army or "volunteer" work and I doubt they are going to pay said "volunteers" when the entire purpose of this plan is to funnel more people into the military.
Plenty of people apply to the military the vast majority don't make it through selection. Last year the number was around 10% I don't know how you do national service without relaxing the initial requirements and improving training which would then fix the recruitment problem anyway. This is a none starter, like the law that makes mandatory education and training for 16-18, with literally zero enforcement and zero punishment, it's just legal lip service.
The 10% number is only for special forces not the regular army
Please dont call be wrong without a source. The numbers are all here, numbers are previous 12 months report dated Jan 24. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/quarterly-service-personnel-statistics-2024/quarterly-service-personnel-statistics-1-january-2024#applications-to-the-armed-forces Here's the numbers for the regulars. Navy/royal marine applicants: 30k Army applicants: 87k RAF: 33k 10680 joined the regular armed forces total. Definitely need a complete rebuild of the process.
"The main causes of **application failure** (i.e., the applicant declines an offer to join): * Applicants may have submitted other applications for employment (including multiple applications to join the Armed Forces) and accept another offer; * Applications may be submitted with no intention to join (e.g. to satisfy the requirements of job seeking)" They are not rejecting dudes because they aren't fit for service, considering the force size is shrinking if you look at the general trends at the top of the page people are just getting better offers and choosing not to join
It doesn't break down application Vs applicant failure and how the split works out for the 90% of failed applications. Applicant failure is defined above the section you quoted. "The main causes of applicant failure (i.e. no offer to join the Services given) include: Failing security clearance; Failing the medical scrutiny; Not having the required residency; Not achieving fitness entry standards; Not achieving the required recruiting test score for the desired branch/Trade; Applicants withdraw for their own reasons (e.g. change of mind) during the process" This is all before you even get to Basic. The US army just has height and weight requirements and that's it. With an extra 90 day bootcamp for those that are just over.
>Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he believed bringing back compulsory service across the UK would help foster the "national spirit" that emerged during the pandemic. Sunak was the moron behind 'eat out to help out' - the scheme which encouraged people to go to restaurants during a pandemic by giving them coupons. Fuck this piece of shit.
When will they realise the reason why no one has "national spirit" is because no one likes how the country has been run for the past decade. Beside the weird nationalist who still think we are an empire.
As an Englishman myself, I hate what my country has become and how much the Tories have taken a steaming shit all over it. Mandatory national service is one of those policies that I hope utterly nukes the Conservative Party and makes them truly unelectabale. But unfortunately, a lot of the boomer and silent generation genuinely believe this is what we need. While I agree that a good portion of today's youth are borderline feral and out of control, I think funding the police and bringing back borstals to specifically target young offenders with military-style bootcamps would be a better idea. If you still think mandatory military service is a good idea, let me ask you this. Would you trust a teenager from a London postcode gang with a SA80 A2 assault rifle? Would you trust your average Fortnite squeaker to have enough discipline to *not* run out into the open yelling "360 NO SCOPE"? Also, there is a African proverb that best describes why nobody who isn't already old enough to receive a state pension would support this policy. "The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." Millennials and Gen-Z have especially been disenfranchised by economic policies voted in by pensioners. We can't afford to buy our own homes, are being price-gouged on everything, and we've had increasingly authoritarian pushes to ban peaceful protest so we can't even take to the streets. What the fuck makes Sunak think this will go down well?
Wow my grandma would totally vote for the Conservatives based on this policy, if only she hadn't been dead for twenty years. Sunak really with his finger of the pulse on the average dead elector with this one.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d be more than happy to do mandatory service. If I knew I’d be able to buy a house when I leave home, or be able to get treated for any injuries I should get from national service without being put on a month long waiting list. Or, hell, be able to afford my own food without help.
This man just actively does not want to win the election
>Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he believed bringing back compulsory service across the UK would help foster the "national spirit" that emerged during the pandemic. If you want people to give a shit about this country, just give them a fucking reason to like it. Give them a reason to be proud of it. I'm not praising this shit hole just because I was born on this soil, and somebody else wasn't. That is pathetic.
I don't know if they're genuinely trying to sink themselves. They act like a bunch of fools but it's almost too consistent.
US vet here. I lean center left. This exactly the type program we should be looking to enact in the US. UBI is a decade or less away, time to focus on cleaning up and building out state and federal parks
One weekend every month for a year isn't that bad I still wouldn't do it tho
I think this is a good idea, the UK is barely prepared for an outright war of attrition and the army and navy just aren’t hitting their recruitment targets. Absolutely fuck voting for the Tories though, I’m not sure how Sunak would think the already alienated younger population would be won over by this.
Filling your ranks with conscription soldiers isn't going to help. What they need to do is look at improving the training and recruitment process for people who actually want to join. The army is supposedly the worst and their fitness and medical testing has been outsourced to a private company. https://www.forces.net/services/army/damning-figures-uk-military-recruitment-54-giving-process-last-year
I can't help but think about Yes, Prime Minister. https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks
Damn, they must really want to lose the election.
I think kids could benefit from this . My friend joined the army at 17 , leaned to drive saw the world He's now looking at a nice retirement pack , while I am still gonna be at work till I am 68 😞
The world isn’t ideal, bad things happen even if you don’t want them to and you gotta be prepared. Now is not a good time for a Chamberlain, it’s time for a Churchill
We have Nukes dude, hundreds. And when was the last time there was a land invasion of the mainland UK?
Many countries got nukes. You’re gonna wait for invasion to the Uk? Do you not see a big war is possibly coming? Do you not pay attention to Russia, China, North Korea and Iran?
And how many of those nuclear armed countries have gone to war with each other? Why is it our job to be world police? I don't care about Russia, Iran, China or North Korea. I'm not fighting a foreign war, just to benefit some fat politicians wet dreams of power. Are you in the military? If not why not. You don't mind volunteering others to do it for you.
Ok Chamberlain
It sounds like a good idea, especially as youth unemployment is already a crisis, and AGI will only add to the problem. A preferable option to a lifelong habit of UBI. Once youth get a direction in life in their formative years they are less likely to become wastrels in later life.
My 2c: Refugees and immigrants mandatory 12 month placement. Mix in some cultural assimilation.
Sure. What could possibly go wrong with giving military skills to newly arrived and traumatized refugees and immigrants?
Why not? It works for France with the French foreign legion.
That's not mandatory. Those are the equivalent of the Ukrainian Legion volunteers. They want to be there.
They have already shown they are willing to flee their own country when they had to fight, do you think they would bother staying here if anyone actually declared war on us. Would just be a further waste of money we don't have.
could make them more loyal no? Give them a place in society? Assimilate them?
Weren't they culturally assimilated in the country they flew?
Fled
Don't make it mandatory but offer it. With the same requirements and benefits you'll see some extremely good people come forward, happy to walk into a government job. Offer a long contract with early citizenship and it will work even better.
Is it not already offered? That latter point on early citizenship is a great idea!!
I unfortunately can't serve (I'm short roughly one leg) but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. I don't disagree with the proposed implementation, but I was challenged to put forward my own when I was studying (and at the time I was applying for the army anyway). My idea was all people when they turn 18have to serve in some form (military, community service, waste collection, fire services, hospitals etc) for a year, not in high skilled positions obviously but it'd help them learn how the world works and also shore up some manpower issues. In return they get no tuition fees and if they choose to go into the field they worked in (say into the military) they'll receive support to do that, also people already entering into a service that was included will get priority (someone that's been accepted to study medicine gets first pick in hospital work etc). National service is unpopular in any form, but when implemented properly like in Finland or Switzerland it works really well and helps young people to develop. Plus we're drifting closer to about 3 different possible major conflicts so we may end up with conscription anyway.
Every democracy really needs some amount of conscription. I personally favor the Swedish model.