Your country needs YOU!

Rroff said:
In this day and age, assuming their arsenal worked as intended - which is debatable, the UK post a Russian nuclear strike would look very different to what most people seem to think, and in some ways more hellish. It isn't going to be a sea of radiation. While some warheads would be used against capital cities/high population centres most will be targetted at military and civilian infrastructure, aside from against bunkers/command centres most would be configured for airburst use which significantly reduces fallout.

Reality would be 100s of thousands dead, no power, no ports, mass civil crisis/disobedience, no supermarkets, people fighting for scraps, etc.
Click to expand...
And if that happens then I damn well hope we retaliate.
 
Hades said:
I'm against military national service because I would prefer our armed forces to be professional soldiers. I'm sure the army, etc, don't want to have to look after a bunch of people straight out of university. But I am coming around to the idea of a civilian based national service where people spend a year or two working on civil projects; for example road repairs or vehicle repairs, etc. Perhaps there could be an option of a military arm but it would have to be voluntary. I think the country would benefit a lot from it and I also think young people would benefit from it.
Click to expand...

Personally think we need something more in between rather than national service we need an agile core of people who have the familiarity to be able to much more quickly progress into the armed forces if required which would involve a lighter schedule of training (like 1 day a week or a couple of days a month or whatever) including:

-Leadership skills (and basic problem solving and survival skills)
-Very basic tactical training (so as to at least have a minimum awareness to build from)
-Basic fitness to maintain a certain minimum standard
-Marksmanship and general weapons familiarity
-Basic familiarity with the operation of armoured vehicles
-Electronics/Drone operation

And a few other things like that.

In some ways a bit like the TA but largely in a more of a classroom environment so to speak, though not to preclude a more practical side to it if people want.

The future is relatively uncertain what we need is the ability to adapt and having an appropriate level of preparedness rather than double down on building a big army.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Personally think we need something more in between rather than national service we need an agile core of people who have the familiarity to be able to much more quickly progress into the armed forces if required which would involve a lighter schedule of training including:

-Leadership skills (and basic problem solving and survival skills)
-Very basic tactical training (so as to at least have a minimum awareness to build from)
-Basic fitness to maintain a certain minimum standard
-Marksmanship and general weapons familiarity
-Basic familiarity with the operation of armoured vehicles
-Electronics/Drone operation

And a few other things like that.

In some ways a bit like the TA but largely in a more of a classroom environment so to speak, though not to preclude a more practical side to it if people want.

The future is relatively uncertain what we need is the ability to adapt and having an appropriate level of preparedness rather than double down on building a big army.
Click to expand...

Intorduce something similar to the Hitler Youth? In the years building upto war - compulsory boy scouts - Ages 13-16 teaching them map reading skills, survivalism, basic weapons training, fitness
 
rumple9 said:
Intorduce something similar to the Hitler Youth? In the years building upto war - compulsory boy scouts - Ages 13-16 teaching them map reading skills, survivalism, basic weapons training, fitness
Click to expand...

That is a very negative connotation, I'd also open it to any age rather than something like national service kicking in at 18-26 or whatever, though it would also need some cooperation with employers, etc. which likely wouldn't go down too well even if subsidised rather than necessarily something people did instead of a job or in their free time.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
I don't think they're going to fight for the british empire anymore...


You're missing the point. Putin's in it for the long term he isn't going anywhere anytime soon, or infact ever the only way he's ever going to leave the Kremlin is feet first in a wooden box. Biden's package for ukraine is already held up but internal infighting in congress and Trump will likely be POTUS soon enough he won't be giving ukraine anything he's just as likely to pull funding on NATO completely he's so whacked up anythings possible with him. The EU can't get funds to ukraine because its blocked by Orban acting as Putins' ally. Interest is always short term in the West like a baby with a new toy it gets distracted easily right now its Iran thats generating all the US ire now ukraine is all but forgotten and its troops having to ration ammunition they're so short of it .Putin knows this and calculating ukraine will if nothing else sue for peace after annexing a good chunk of its territory. Once thats done he'll turn his gaze elsewhere.

And you're failing to grasp the larger picture its not just about us the army chiefs aren't simply referring to our borders they're talking about defending NATO's borders which means the former soviet satellites i.e. the baltic states in Putins backyard etc and whatever else takes his fancy he's made no bones about that. He has a steady stream of money to fuel his ambitions in the form of oil and backdoors in the fort of China, N. Korea and even Iran to source the stuff he can't get from the west. They may not openly supply russia but you can bet theres some form of smuggling going on official or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Russia's rouble has dropped 40% against the dollar which is the world trading currency. Everything they buy costs more for Russia. The EU has given aid to Ukraine

EU Assistance to Ukraine (in U.S. Dollars) | EEAS

Last updated January 26, 2024. To view a PDF version, please click here. The European Union (EU) and our 27 Member States remain united and determined in our unprecedented support for Ukraine. By bringing war back to Europe, Putin plans not only to destroy Ukraine and destabilize Europe, but tear
www.eeas.europa.eu www.eeas.europa.eu

What you are talking about is another specific aid package.

All the former Soviet satellites in the Baltic are NATO, EU and Eurozone members now and there is no way he would try anything against NATO. Finland is also in NATO. There is nothing on the north western area of Russia that is not NATO. Oil/gas are being sold at heavily discounted prices and embargoed goods are being sold at a premium. A double whammy for Putin.
I am afraid it is you who are failing to grasp the reality of Russia and what it can do.
 
If war breaks out and conscription looks likely volunteering might be better than waiting to be called up. You'll probably have a better chance of getting a job relating to your civilian skillset. And if not and you get sent to do actual fighting at least you're more likely to be in a unit of motivated volunteers and hopefully not get killed by the actions of some stupid conscript.
 
do_ron_ron said:
What you are talking about is another specific aid package.

All the former Soviet satellites in the Baltic are NATO, EU and Eurozone members now and there is no way he would try anything against NATO. Finland is also in NATO. There is nothing on the north western area of Russia that is not NATO. Oil/gas are being sold at heavily discounted prices and embargoed goods are being sold at a premium. A double whammy for Putin.
I am afraid it is you who are failing to grasp the reality of Russia and what it can do.
Click to expand...

Most people, though now many engage in revisionism :rolleyes:, had the same kind of opinion(s) on the same kind of basis in the build up to Russia invading Ukraine. It is not the barrier you think.

(I also had people telling me I was failing to grasp reality in the build up to that as well when sounding a cautionary note from watching things develop).

EDIT: Also Russia still has the cash to fund a full mobilisation if they went down that road, they are also building up a problem for themselves in that the economy is increasingly built on military spending, if they turn away from that now it would produce a huge shock to their economy, which turns into something of a trap.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Yeah war can take many forms but it seems modern warfare involving any kind of near peer, not involving nuclear, will likely come down to expending a lot of the advanced stuff first without necessarily any kind of conclusion and increasingly descending into something more akin to trench warfare :s
Click to expand...
This is exactly right, and the reason that the Army's current size is of such concern.

We're seeing it in Ukraine - some of the videos coming from the front are scary. WW1 revisited, only with semi-automatic rifles and constant eyes in the sky. I dread to think how we'd cope if suddenly called upon to fight in that environment, I suspect not well and not for long. Drones have made things so painful for the attacker that it's ground the front to a near halt.

What ever perceived advantage we thought we had against our Russian counterparts in a back-to-basics ground battle has been significantly weakened, at least until we can prove we'd dominate in a drone-heavy environment.
 
Rroff said:
Most people, though now many engage in revisionism :rolleyes:, had the same kind of opinion(s) on the same kind of basis in the build up to Russia invading Ukraine. It is not the barrier you think.
Click to expand...
You are comparing apples and pears. Russia before Ukraine was in a stronger place economically and militarily. Also, as we now find out Putin expected Ukraine to fall as quickly as the Crimea. It was meant to be a short war but it has turned into a long attritional war which they were not prepared. Your idea of them going further to take on others this side of ten years is laughable. Putin will be in his 80's by then and likely dead/deposed.
 
Rroff said:
That is a very negative connotation, I'd also open it to any age rather than something like national service kicking in at 18-26 or whatever, though it would also need some cooperation with employers, etc. which likely wouldn't go down too well even if subsidised rather than necessarily something people did instead of a job or in their free time.
Click to expand...

The point is the next generation of troops are mostly trained and fit by the time they are conscripted to fight at age 18. Not like currently where most UK teenagers are obese and the only gun they've ever held is in COD
 
do_ron_ron said:
You are comparing apples and pears. Russia before Ukraine was in a stronger place economically and militarily. Also, as we now find out Putin expected Ukraine to fall as quickly as the Crimea. It was meant to be a short war but it has turned into a long attritional war which they were not prepared. Your idea of them going further to take on others this side of ten years is laughable. Putin will be in his 80's by then and likely dead/deposed.
Click to expand...

People used the same kind of arguments, can't afford a war, etc. none the less and conventionally there is some logic to it but it isn't a hard barrier, which is something people seem to be ignoring.

Russia's situation is not unfixable well within 10 years, I don't think in reality that is likely to happen but it is well within possibility and with the current situation a potential which should not be ignored.

Putin dying off doesn't necessarily change the equation, depends who replaces him and under what circumstances - Russia is potentially in this for the long haul whether they like it or not, the more they turn to a war footing the larger the shock to their economy if they try to turn away from that.
 
I doubt Russia would nuke us or France as that would set off a nuclear war.

Russia have talked of detonating a small nuclear bomb. I suspect they would do that in non-nuclear countries then the ball would be in our court to start a nuclear war.

I think we'd get hit with conventional missiles/bombs.
 
rumple9 said:
The point is the next generation of troops are mostly trained and fit by the time they are conscripted to fight at age 18. Not like currently where most UK teenagers are obese and the only gun they've ever held is in COD
Click to expand...
Most teenagers in the UK are not obese, that is an exaggeration (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03336/) it's the oldies that are fat, current teenager have been raised on a diet of social media shaming and are more likely to be down the gym than drinking in bus shelters like the previous generation (https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-14760-y).
 
BowdonUK said:
I doubt Russia would nuke us or France as that would set off a nuclear war.

Russia have talked of detonating a small nuclear bomb. I suspect they would do that in non-nuclear countries then the ball would be in our court to start a nuclear war.

I think we'd get hit with conventional missiles/bombs.
Click to expand...

Russia isn't likely to be slinging nukes about when the consequences of that is to put Putin's arse on the line.
 
Rroff said:
People used the same kind of arguments, can't afford a war, etc. none the less and conventionally there is some logic to it but it isn't a hard barrier, which is something people seem to be ignoring.

Russia's situation is not unfixable well within 10 years, I don't think in reality that is likely to happen but it is well within possibility and with the current situation a potential which should not be ignored.

Putin dying off doesn't necessarily change the equation, depends who replaces him and under what circumstances - Russia is potentially in this for the long haul whether they like it or not, the more they turn to a war footing the larger the shock to their economy if they try to turn away from that.
Click to expand...
No if you look at what usually happens in Russia, the next leader blames whatever happened on the last leader and goes their own way. Not just Russia mind you, in this country the Tories have done the same with a new leader over the past ten years. There is more chance of a wider war in the middle east than from Russia.
 
EdGey said:
We're seeing it in Ukraine - some of the videos coming from the front are scary. WW1 revisited, only with semi-automatic rifles and constant eyes in the sky. I dread to think how we'd cope if suddenly called upon to fight in that environment, I suspect not well and not for long. Drones have made things so painful for the attacker that it's ground the front to a near halt.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced We'd end up like that.

Ukraine has severe limits on what it can do.

Any war with Russia and the west quickly becomes nuclear or a massive stand off for decades and China won't want global production being impacted.

which countries actually want a war?
Russia realises it bit off more than it can chew.
Iran just like to throw its toys around as always.


who else is left? just the usual middle east lunatics?


Hyping up military conscription and spending is likely more about putting pressure on China to reel in Russias aggressions
 
BowdonUK said:
I doubt Russia would nuke us or France as that would set off a nuclear war.

Russia have talked of detonating a small nuclear bomb. I suspect they would do that in non-nuclear countries then the ball would be in our court to start a nuclear war.

I think we'd get hit with conventional missiles/bombs.
Click to expand...
MAD has ensured this will not happen. America is currently moving nulear bombs back to the UK as a show of force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom