General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
Why would anyone fight for a country that's repeatedly fucked them over for a decade? I'd sooner shoot myself in the fucking head than shoot another person.
Overseas war, sure. I'm not happy here in the UK and am thinking of emigrating, but if we're invaded I'll be fighting, not for my country but for those i love in it.
I'll fight as long as Tommy Robson has to too. A little bit of friendly fire should put him right.
Those who believe The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.
The context here is Russia. If you think you have it bad... yeah. I'm no fan of killing people, but in those circumstances, I'll do whatever my 52 year old body can manage.
Hey! Someone older than me?! I thought I was the Lemmy grandad at 40yo. Got any words of wisdom for a young, spritely thing like me?
Don't get old, it fucking hurts.
If you must get old, do the following to mitigate:
The country is more than what's happened in the last 12 years or so. There's our way of life, our culture and identity that would all be under threat.
But if you've family and friends who are being bombed or having to live under an oppressive occupier who's turned everyone's lives upside down then I can see why people would be motivated to fight.
I'm hoping this guy is trying to light a fire under the governments arse to improve the recruitment process and also make a u-turn on the reduction of numbers they've been facing.
family and friends
I lack these items.
I'm assuming all this is coming up because they think there's a decent chance that Trump could win the election and take the US out of NATO, so everyone else will have to scramble to cover for them.
That being said, if the UK government thinks they can strip the Army to the bone and privatise the recruitment process to line their mates pockets, then expect the public to go off and fight so they can stay comfy at home, there is not yet a unit of measurement big enough to describe how far off they can fuck.
I know they say they don't want conscription, which is exactly why I assume that is precisely what they want.
I'd advise everyone else to tell them to get fucked too - they can't put everyone who says no in prison, because they've stripped that to the bone as well and there's no room.
I think it’s about more than just the conflict in Ukraine, would could itself become a wider European conflict. There’s also spiralling conflict in the Middle East, the situation with Taiwan, and potential wars brewing elsewhere in Africa, Asia, and South America. That’s before considering the longer term conflicts that could be triggered by climate change.
We’ve been living through a period of relative stability, but now the world is swinging towards instability and perhaps we really aren’t prepared for it. Post Cold War politics have seen the military as something that could be cut back on. Maybe we should reconsider that, and before we have to consider ideas like national conscription.
You've just described the 2000s.
Nothing has changed. It just feels that way because we had a brief period of quiet during the 2010s between the endless of slew of wars that have been happening since long before any of us were born, and the invasion of Crimea.
Journos are already growing weary of Ukraine and Gaza. It'll be out of the public conscience by Christmas '24 and noone will remember some toerag general with a sadism fetish and a conscription fantasy talking nonsense on bbc breakfast.
I'm fine. When it was a kid I was in a car crash and broke my wrist, and it never healed right so I actually couldn't hold a gun as I can't get my hand to go into the correct position.
I could probably hold it with my left had but I'm not going to bring that up.
There are many roles in the military that don't require a gun. The military also has more sophisticated standards for assessing a person fitness to serve than they did in WW2. There are infantry members missing legs now.
I don't think people have thought through what would happen in an all-out war between two nuclear powers.
More like 4: US, UK, France, and Russia
Plus China India and North Korea
This is forgetting, of course, that Russia has enough nuclear weapons to wipe the UK off the face of the earth before we even land the first troops on Russian soil.
With that in mind, I guess he's insinuating we're going to be embroiled in yet another proxy war in the not-too-distant future. I can't wait to find out which poor country is going to get screwed over for the next 20 years in the name of "freedom", only for us to give up and let everything slide back into an even worse state yet again, because Afghanistan and Iraq taught us nothing in that regard.
Nuclear strikes are lose lose. At least public plans and discussions the UKs nuclear weapons are only for spite.
It's possible a full scale conventional war happens between NATO and Russia. Neither side chooses to not launch Nukes until the other does, so no Nukes get launched. This changes if Moscow, France, Britain or North America faces any realistic chance of invasion. But a several month war in Poland, the Baltics, black sea and Russian borders could occur without anyone deciding to Nuke Europe and North America till there's nothing left.
On many occasions during the cold war people decided to not launch Nukes despite radar or enemy rhetoric telling them a strike was occuring. Even if Putin or Biden gave the orders to launch Nukes they may not happen.
You're assuming a lot of competence on Putin's part. In any scenario where a groundwater happens he would already have had to have made the insane decision to attack NATO at a time where the russian military is severely depleted. Since that's obviously not a sane thing to do we have to assume that in that scenario he is insane and therefore he may decide that nukes are viable.
Your logic that they wouldn't use nukes doesn't track.
Your also assuming Putin would use nukes in these scenarios. Both are assumptions. It's inappropriate to plan for one assumption, especially when the consequences are that significant and the insight is low.
If Putin thinks he can beat NATO or get some benefit from fighting NATO he will. Even if this is just negotiation to strengthen his position in Russia. For example a fight with NATO would allow Putin to negotiate an end to war with Ukraine without losing face for the Russian armies poor performance in Ukraine. He tells has the narrative a NATO stalemate caused the peace negotiations that had Russia leave Ukraine.
This type of conflict is more likely if Trump wins. He's anti NATO, a conflict would test the commitment of the US to NATO. It is possible the US doesn't commit to defending European NATO members. Putin would hope that NATO unravels. The unravelling of NATO would be his legacy (in his mind).
NATO is too dependent on the US. So strengthening Europe would be increased commitments from European countries. This makes NATO unravelling less likely as it won't be dependent on the US.
If Putin operates on these assumptions. Then he can start a ground war with NATO without nuclear weapons. The other nuclear states in NATO either store American weapons or have spite retaliation weapons. Nuclear weapons are lose lose, so Putin is unlikely to use them unless his loss is guaranteed.
If we assume it will all end in complete nuclear exchange, anyone operating on another assumption will have the upper hand. Europe needs to keep the US engaged with NATO and simultaneously reduce their dependence on them.
The USA global dominance is under threat. As a consequence the liberal order of the world is under threat. For all their ills America is better than most when it comes to world powers. Russia was cruel to those under its control, Colonial Europe deadly exploitative, the Mongol horde terrifying etc. If you care about liberal democracy, individual liberty and rule of law then Europe needs to defend these values. The assumption that the world is heading towards democracy and freedom is over, it know looks like a post war daydream. China, Russia, India and other emerging powers are increasingly authoritarian and populist. The west is seeing similar motion in their local politics but we are still liberal and need to defend these values or they'll expire. Afghanistan and Iran has caused the west to lose confidence in spreading liberal democracy, but we should not stop defending it. Nuclear weapons aren't necessary to defend it, they also aren't necessary to attack it. Both Russia and Israel have nuclear weapons and involved in conflicts that would be expedited with their use. Neither has used them or looks to use them. Because the outcome is lose lose.
Putin might be very powerful in Russia. But if he tries to launch Nukes his bodyguards and people in the chain of command will recognise such a command would cause them and all their family and loved ones to die. Refusing the order becomes easy when the alternative is certain death of yourself and family.
That doesn't really deal with the fundamental problem though that in the Russians cannot possibly win against NATO in their current state. So attacking NATO right now would be guaranteed defeat. NATO won't need to negotiate because they will win and they will know that they will win.
The only card Putin will then have to play is the nuclear weapons threat. Which given the fact that he's already started a pointless unwinnable war with NATO, on top of his other pointless unwinnable war, nuclear weapons are an actual real possibility.
Victory against NATO was highly unlikely when Russia's military was powerful, now it's practically impossible.
I do wonder about the intelligence of military officers if this hasn't occurred to them. They still seem to think we're living in the 1940s and that the number of troops you have is it at all relevant to your military success in a third world war conflict.
I suppose it's possible that Russia has select all of the corrupt generals sell off all of the nuclear weapons, and they actually don't have any left, but it would be a bit of a risk to take.
I can't believe this has had so much coverage.
When you hear hired fearmongers like General Gobshite engaging in this kind of masturbatory hyperbole, do take a second to remember he's tugging himself under the table at the slightest thought of forcing the average person through the physical and mental torture of bootcamp.
The threat of mandatory conscription in a world full of nuclear weapons is about as effective as my threat of no dessert to my child who has a whole box of ferrero rocher under their bed.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The people of the UK are part of a “prewar generation” who must be prepared to fight a major war against Vladimir Putin’s increasingly aggressive Russia if necessary, the head of the army argued in a speech on Wednesday.
Gen Sir Patrick Sanders said ordinary citizens would be forced to reinforce the UK’s small military – although in a clarification the Ministry of Defence said it was not calling for a return to peacetime conscription, which was abolished in 1960.
Sanders highlighted the example of Sweden, which has just reintroduced a form of national service as it closes in on joining Nato, in a speech given to a military conference in Twickenham, south-west London.
The army chief said the UK needed to broadly follow Stockholm’s example and take “preparatory steps to enable placing our societies on a war footing”.
A year ago, in an attempt to ensure politicians plugged the gap with future spending, he warned that gifts of weapons to Ukraine would “leave us temporarily weaker”.
Labour has avoided making a firm spending commitment, but it has complained about cuts to the size of the army and has promised to launch a defence review if it is elected.
The original article contains 603 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Fuck, really? I'm too old to join the army now though.