Which is exactly why the army has been asking for more funding, which it actually needs. It doesn’t want conscription, which it recognises would be a waste of resources.
Other countries considering a bad idea doesn’t make it a good idea.
And the military leadership of every country where conscription is a thing disagrees with you.
All it dose is create ill motivated unskilled labour.
If you think military conscription is for the here and now you unfortunately don’t know what you’re talking about.
Conscription is so that if you need to mobilise quickly, all of your eligible population are already trained, have units to report to, officers etc.
If you’re building a defensive military, it makes perfect sense, because in a defensive war motivation more or less ceases to be an issue.
The UK’s military is far more expeditionary, so it doesn’t make sense unless you build it into your long term plan, which is exactly what I said in my original comment.
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.
Conscription is always a bad idea. Because once you have gotten to that stage. You are basically deciding to throw bodies at the problem. As russia is doing.
For a nation lacking funding. Sure it can be the only option. And for a nation at genuine risk of ground war. It can be needed. But its a bad idea. Because when you get to that stage. Other ideas and options before hand would always have been better.
Conscription is by its very nature using citizens of your own nation to absorb attacks. As in no situation can conscripts show the professional training of people who choose to invest in a military career. Hence way pretty much every nation with funding. Even the few that keep the option active like the US. Has military leaders who reject it. And just mouthy politicians and older voters who think it is a positive solution.
Edit: related but a little of topic. Another reason most nato nations and the UK reject conscription as anything but an all has failed strategy. Is MAD. As much as Russia threatens and brags. Russia knows full well attacking a NATO member nation will not result in a ground war. Russia simply dose not have the air or naval superiority over NATO nations as a whole. The only threat they have that has any chance of working in an all out war. Is nukes. And while russia may be overconfident in the effectivness of their own stock of nukes. They know full well NATOs are well maintained. So using one on a nato nation. Is the end of Russias ability to use them as a threat.
There is a reason Russia has avoided landing on NATO land. Even after they forced Finland and sweeden to join. Mutually Assured Distruction may be crap when dealing with Extremist nations using terrorism. But Russia still has enough sanity to recognise its limits.
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.
It’s certainly a bad idea to rely on conscripts to make up the bulk of your fighting force. It’s not a totally bad idea to have a population of fighting age citizens have had some basic military training and know which way to hold a gun. Countries like Finland or Switzerland have a more realistic view of what they may need to do if things ever got bad on their eastern front.
For the UK we’d have probably resorted to our nuclear deterrent before we consider putting conscripts on the front line.
In a war, the bulk of Finland’s force will be made up of conscripts. Or more accurately, people who were conscripts.
The career military men will be the officers. If you look at their officer to non officer ratio in peacetime it will be absolutely bananas compared to the UK’s. Because if they do get invaded by Russia, they’ll immediately call up their reserves (which due to conscription is their entire eligible population) and the ratios will make more sense.
Because their long term military strategy changed.
Conscription makes perfect sense if you’re setting yourself up to fight a defensive war. E.g., Finland’s entire military is more or less built for a defensive war against Russia, so they conscript.
Because they built it into their long term strategy, like I said in my original comment.
Germany used to conscript, because there was this thing called the USSR that represented a very real and existential threat right next door. Then that stopped being the case, so their long term doctrine changed from defensive to expeditionary, so they stopped conscripting.
Given that expeditionary wars in the middle east are becoming a bit faux pas, and “being invaded by your neighbour” is back in fashion, I imagine more places will shift doctrine again and conscription will start seeing a return. Then again it might not because of how fundamentally unpopular it is with the population.
Which is exactly why the army has been asking for more funding, which it actually needs. It doesn’t want conscription, which it recognises would be a waste of resources.
Other countries considering a bad idea doesn’t make it a good idea.
Conscription isn’t fundamentally a bad idea it just needs to be built into your long term defense strategy
The UK military leadership disagree with you. IE the experts who need to manage the system.
All it dose is create ill motivated unskilled labour. At a time were fighting a wat has the least need for that type of labour.
And the military leadership of every country where conscription is a thing disagrees with you.
If you think military conscription is for the here and now you unfortunately don’t know what you’re talking about.
Conscription is so that if you need to mobilise quickly, all of your eligible population are already trained, have units to report to, officers etc.
If you’re building a defensive military, it makes perfect sense, because in a defensive war motivation more or less ceases to be an issue.
The UK’s military is far more expeditionary, so it doesn’t make sense unless you build it into your long term plan, which is exactly what I said in my original comment.
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.
This isn’t talking specifically about the UK, and nor was I.
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.
Conscription is always a bad idea. Because once you have gotten to that stage. You are basically deciding to throw bodies at the problem. As russia is doing.
For a nation lacking funding. Sure it can be the only option. And for a nation at genuine risk of ground war. It can be needed. But its a bad idea. Because when you get to that stage. Other ideas and options before hand would always have been better.
Conscription is by its very nature using citizens of your own nation to absorb attacks. As in no situation can conscripts show the professional training of people who choose to invest in a military career. Hence way pretty much every nation with funding. Even the few that keep the option active like the US. Has military leaders who reject it. And just mouthy politicians and older voters who think it is a positive solution.
Edit: related but a little of topic. Another reason most nato nations and the UK reject conscription as anything but an all has failed strategy. Is MAD. As much as Russia threatens and brags. Russia knows full well attacking a NATO member nation will not result in a ground war. Russia simply dose not have the air or naval superiority over NATO nations as a whole. The only threat they have that has any chance of working in an all out war. Is nukes. And while russia may be overconfident in the effectivness of their own stock of nukes. They know full well NATOs are well maintained. So using one on a nato nation. Is the end of Russias ability to use them as a threat.
There is a reason Russia has avoided landing on NATO land. Even after they forced Finland and sweeden to join. Mutually Assured Distruction may be crap when dealing with Extremist nations using terrorism. But Russia still has enough sanity to recognise its limits.
Largely, but I was responding to the specific sentence I highlighted.
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.
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.
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.
Tick another one off the bingo board.
We’re talking about conscription in peace time.
That’s literally what a military is.
Conscripts receive the same training as career professionals.
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.
The UK’s two most recent trident tests both failed.
It is a bad idea, which is why nearly everywhere has stopped doing it and hardly anywhere has started again.
It’s certainly a bad idea to rely on conscripts to make up the bulk of your fighting force. It’s not a totally bad idea to have a population of fighting age citizens have had some basic military training and know which way to hold a gun. Countries like Finland or Switzerland have a more realistic view of what they may need to do if things ever got bad on their eastern front.
For the UK we’d have probably resorted to our nuclear deterrent before we consider putting conscripts on the front line.
In a war, the bulk of Finland’s force will be made up of conscripts. Or more accurately, people who were conscripts.
The career military men will be the officers. If you look at their officer to non officer ratio in peacetime it will be absolutely bananas compared to the UK’s. Because if they do get invaded by Russia, they’ll immediately call up their reserves (which due to conscription is their entire eligible population) and the ratios will make more sense.
Because their long term military strategy changed.
Conscription makes perfect sense if you’re setting yourself up to fight a defensive war. E.g., Finland’s entire military is more or less built for a defensive war against Russia, so they conscript.
Because they built it into their long term strategy, like I said in my original comment.
Germany used to conscript, because there was this thing called the USSR that represented a very real and existential threat right next door. Then that stopped being the case, so their long term doctrine changed from defensive to expeditionary, so they stopped conscripting.
Given that expeditionary wars in the middle east are becoming a bit faux pas, and “being invaded by your neighbour” is back in fashion, I imagine more places will shift doctrine again and conscription will start seeing a return. Then again it might not because of how fundamentally unpopular it is with the population.
And when there’s any chance of us having to fight a defensive land war against Russia, I will admit I was wrong.
Don’t worry, you don’t need to admit you were wrong for you to be wrong.
“Conscription is always a bad idea” is an objectively incorrect sentiment.