Is A Conscripted Army Needed Given The Growing Security Threat From China, Russia, Iran & N Korea?

[Metal Biker]

I'd like to teach the world to sing.

Raining Blood - Slayer

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

If you and your kids are first on the list. I'm firing no shots at any of my fellow human beings on behalf of some warmongering government cunts.

 

[Bigg Bigg Blue]

Make love not war.

 

[johnny crossan]

Until the Manhattan project delivered it’s bastard baby wars were mainly fought on a numbers and equipment basis but even in WW2 things were changing Capital equipment such as battleships we’re basically obsolete due to air power threats. As technologies have changed the need for huge armies has reduced in the past to take a tank out you needed a tank or a tank destroyer with a crew of four or five to get relatively up close and personal now as Ukraine are proving you can take one out with a £500 drone.

Highly trained units equipped with up to date tech is the way forward however we are short of numbers and equipment due to cuts in spending.

Yes, I think the military capacity needed these days wouldn't just be "boots on the ground" - still needed but a different technological landscape altogether.

If you and your kids are first on the list. I'm firing no shots at any of my fellow human beings on behalf of some warmongering government cunts.

You'll be first in the line to wave flags for your Russian/Chinese/Iranian conquerors then. "Welcome to Manchester - how can I be of service?"

 

[Blue and true]

Archaic? There are already over 80 countries with conscripted forces.

True. But in the context of this country it's archaic.

 

[mancboy]

unless theres an app for war or national security good luck conscripting any of gen z

 

[Manc in London]

Surprised the right have not recommended that all immigrants should be conscripted

 

[DiscoSteve]

Like it or not, war and the threat of it is a good revenue earner and also keeps lots of people in good jobs.

We will also always need boots on the ground, either directly on the front line (to get shot at) or remotely to support those getting shot at. That's nothing new, its just that the percentage of people at risk of a "Game Over" moment is lower (a world-ending event notwithstanding).

 

[johnny crossan]

True. But in the context of this country it's archaic.

if 1963 is archaic, then perhaps so.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Until the Manhattan project delivered it’s bastard baby wars were mainly fought on a numbers and equipment basis but even in WW2 things were changing Capital equipment such as battleships we’re basically obsolete due to air power threats. As technologies have changed the need for huge armies has reduced in the past to take a tank out you needed a tank or a tank destroyer with a crew of four or five to get relatively up close and personal now as Ukraine are proving you can take one out with a £500 drone.

Highly trained units equipped with up to date tech is the way forward however we are short of numbers and equipment due to cuts in spending.

You still need manpower to take and hold land though and heavy armaments is part of that, yes drones have been a game changer but AirPower alone will never win a war no matter how much technology you have bodies in the field eventually have to be committed. I do think a mandatory two military service like a lot of other nations have should be a thing to think about even if it’s just teach the “youff” of today a bit of discipline.