Comment

Comment on Conservatives plan to bring back mandatory National Service

As we are talking about the UK. Where it is UK military leaders and technological investment that the leaders will be training for.

What any other nation thinks or dose is pretty worthless. As is some politicians trying to win votes from boomers. Or myself.

Only opinion that matters really is the UK military leadership. Who make it clear they do not want this.

source

Sort:hotnew top

ceasarlegsvin@kbin.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

This isn't talking specifically about the UK, and nor was I.

source
- HumanPenguin@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah this is a tread about the UK government trying to sell a crap idea.
  
  So yes the only opinion of any merit at all. Is what the military leaders of the UK armed forces think.
  
  Other nations have different military structures. Different concentration of assets. The UK back in the 1960s ended conscription. And decided instead to invest in technology. And personal with the training to operate that technology.
  
  Rather then using ill motivated short time troops as little more then cannon fodder.
  
  source
  - ceasarlegsvin@kbin.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    this is a tread about the UK government trying to sell a crap idea.
    
    Largely, but I was responding to the specific sentence I highlighted.
    
    The UK back in the 1960s ended conscription. And decided instead to invest in technology. And personal with the training to operate that technology.
    
    The UK has favored a doctrine of a small, well trained, professional army since before WW1. It's also tended to be more expeditionary. Both of these conflict with the benefits of conscription.
    
    That doesn't mean it's an outright superior system. It has its own drawbacks and benefits compared with alternative systems. Sometimes you send that force into a meatgrinder because the fighting calls for more manpower than it can supply, regardless of technology. It depends on the war you're fighting.
    
    Rather then using ill motivated short time troops as little more then cannon fodder.
    
    Weirdly enough, fighting a defensive, existential war tends to solve the motivation problem pretty quicky.
    
    Also, if you're calling up previously conscripted troops when shit hits the fan, they will have been trained for far, far longer than if you try to enlarge the size of your fighting force from scratch.
    
    I feel like your knowledge of conscription comes entirely from the Red Alert 2 unit of the same name. Don't confuse peace time conscription with war time conscription. They're incredibly different things.
    
    For a nation lacking funding.
    
    You're really just running down the bingo board of one-liners that betray a complete unfamiliarity with what you're trying to talk about.
    
    No military budget is infinite. You decide the type of military you want to build, and you build it in the most effective way possible. Sometimes conscription fits in with that. Sometimes it doesn't.
    
    once you have gotten to that stage
    
    Tick another one off the bingo board.
    
    We're talking about conscription in peace time.
    
    Conscription is by its very nature using citizens of your own nation to absorb attacks.
    
    That's literally what a military is.
    
    in no situation can conscripts show the professional training of people who choose to invest in a military career.
    
    Conscripts receive the same training as career professionals.
    
    Russia knows full well attacking a NATO member nation will not result in a ground war
    
    Why wouldn't it result in a ground war? NATO isn't going to want to escalate into full apocalypse unless they absolutely have to.
    
    There's a reason the UK didn't nuke Argentina when it took the Falklands.
    
    They know full well natos are well maintained
    
    The UK's two most recent trident tests both failed.
    
    source