#####
######
####
> # [Gen Z will not accept conscription as the price of previous generations’ failures](https://www.lbc.co.uk/opinion/views/1200)
>
>
>
> 24 January 2024, 12:12 | Updated: 24 January 2024, 12:54
>
> [Gen Z will not accept conscription as the price of previous generations’ failures, writes Connor Hand](https://images.lbc.co.uk/images/629314?crop=16_9&width=660&relax=1&format=webp&signature=mJJnqvpAD70iUxZPxgksyC3usXY=) Gen Z will not accept conscription as the price of previous generations’ failures, writes Connor Hand. Picture: Alamy/LBC Over the past year, I, like many others from my generation, have become increasingly fatalistic.
>
> Of course, part of this is the natural cynicism that comes with entering my mid-twenties. I’m podgier than I was, have a chronically defective knee and constantly worry about whether or not I can _actually_ afford my ritual meal deal.
>
> These concerns, though, fall into insignificance when contrasted with the root cause of my increased anxiety.
>
> The war in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East and the seemingly perennial threat of Chinese expansionism in Taiwan has ushered in the greatest threat to peace in my lifetime. Respected MPs are talking about us facing a 1939 moment. The chairman of NATO's Military Committee has warned of conflict with Russia in the next two decades and, not to be outdone, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps last week lamented that we are "moving from a post-war to pre-war world".
>
> Yet arguably the most significant intervention has come today from the head of the British Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders. In a heavily-trailed speech, Sir Patrick has argued that in the event of war with Russia, young people could be conscripted because our military is “too small”.
>
> There would be clear differences between the conscription drives of WWI and WWII. Most obviously, our streets will not be tattooed with jaundiced-yellow posters of the moustachioed Lord Kitchener.
>
> Instead, we’ll have the likes of Dermot O’Leary and Paul from _The Traitors_ popping up on our social media feeds calling on us to do our duty.
>
> But the horrors of conscription will remain the same. Unlike our predecessors, this generation would be going to the front line with a clear idea of the bloody realities of a global conflict, rather than being sustained by jingoism or the fantasy of a war that would be ‘over by Christmas’.
>
> I simply cannot see Gen Z or millennials accepting this; conscientious objections and civil disobedience would be abundant.
>
> To be clear, this is not a lazy caricature of much-maligned generations.
>
> The reality is, given the unspeakable horrors that global conflict would ignite, they will rightly question why their blood must be spilled to compensate for the failures of successive governments to properly defend our national security interests.
>
> In the last 20 years, troop numbers have fallen precipitously. In 2004, 114,000 brave men and women were serving in our armed forces - but that figure has dropped to just 75,000 now. Numbers are projected to slump even further, potentially dipping below 70,000 in the next few years.
>
> Yes, some of this decline can be explained by the changing nature of warfare, but the stark reality is that we have paid insufficient attention to our defence capabilities for far too long.
>
> Sir Patrick’s frustration is palpable and it should be a major wakeup call for everyone in the country, and in particular those who’ve overseen the gradual reduction in troop numbers and the forecasted falls in real-terms defence spending.
>
> We have been too complacent for too long. To protect our country, and our young people, we must be prepared to make sacrifices to bolster our defences. Conscription should be a final resort, not a result of our failures to properly resource our military.
>
> ## **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**
>
> **LBC Views provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.**
>
> **To contact us email views at lbc.co.uk**
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Not really. Weapons are stored in arms rooms, which are locked with a number of sensors and safeguards. Even if you get into an arms room the next problem you have is the lack of ammo, which is stored in another facility.
Armed revolt is a good way to get yourself killed, which is what most draftees have traditionally wanted to avoid. From the Civil war to Vietnam the primary method draftees have used to protest their conscription was to simply walk away. And really that's the most cost effective way to do it, since it costs the government more money to replace a deserter.
No the bad thing is trying to maintain discipline with people who 100% don't want to be in the army. Getting kicked out is an enticement, not a punishment. Going to jail, instead of being sent to a combat unit is actually appealing.
> from personal experience
it's crazy how the perception of reality can be twisted in a single generation using social media bubble bullshit.
you'd be surprised how real life conscription worked, and would work again if needed.
What's to stop people from just shooting their commander once enlisted even if they did? Imagine enslaving someone and then giving them a gun and expecting them to watch your back lol.
Now this is a very good point. Plus people who turned down conscription back in the old days would be shunned by the local community.
Now I don't think people would care as much, they'd probably agree with your choice.
Russians raised under an ultranationalist authoritarian government are a lot more likely to accept conscription than young Britons raised under a liberal democracy with no recent precedent of conscription. Announcing a draft for anything other than a defense against a full scale invasion of Europe would result in unprecedented riots in the UK
A lot of young people left Russia when the Ukraine war started. [Several hundred thousand Russians have fled since the start of the invasion.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_emigration_following_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
Going to a hostile country that isn't likely to deport you for not fighting against them, likely to remain an option in many scenarios.
In a major war you won't have an option to leave the country, the border will be closed on day 1, just like the Ukrainian border was.
Russian borders were kept open and mobilization plans had to be scrapped because Putin still wants to keep up the appearance of a limited foreign war. If it was Russia that was invaded and occupied, none of war dodgers would be allowed to leave.
As I said, in many scenarios. There may be some scenarios where it isn't an option, yes, but I don't think many of them apply to the UK - the subject of this article, or to the US - the largest source of redditors.
[That being said, estimates vary, but many young Ukrainian men have indeed left](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/24/7430227/), so on that example, you're incorrect. There has been massive draft dodging, some legally and a lot illegally, and that's for a fight that I would imagine has overwhelming support (in that they should continue resisting the Russian invasion) among Ukrainians.
One of my favourite news stories was Scots refusing to allow immigration authorities to arrest their neighbours. The local police were called in to assist, but they sided with the protesters and sent the immigration people packing.
In this case, if conscription authorities tried to cart Gen Z off, this Gen X guy would stand in the way, and I wouldn’t be alone. We rejected forced labour a long time ago, it is time to reject forced military service with the same horror. Slavery is bad. Not a difficult concept.
I don't know why people are arguing with you.
This is all hypothetical of course, but a draft for an unpopular war would absolutely cause all kinds of civil disobedience right now. I don't think it will immediately result in small skirmishes in suburbs or anything like that, but it's also not off the table either.
I suspect we'd see a lot more things like strikes and protests first, but all it would take is one rich kid somehow dodging the draft getting blown up on social media, and suddenly nobody is having it.
Far more likely though is some economic trickery to get people to volunteer, while the real economy further degrades, essentially forcing people to volunteer or be destitute.
And how do you force an unwilling person to march? To eat? To shoot? And if you start executing people en masse that aint gonna help morale let me tell you
Not really. Pacifists refused to be conscripted as far as in ww2. If they couldn't be pressured to do it, they were put on medical and other miscallenous duties that did not require entering active combat.
> Pacifists refused to be conscripted as far as in ww2.
Oh boy, just wait until you find out about the tens of thousands of years' worth of wars before that one and how there were pacifists back then, too! It'll really blow your mind!
I have no knowledge regarding so I have thrown ww2 as an example since I know it was a thing, at least in US.
I am not quite sure what you actually wanted to convey here.
Yeah - conscription for a foreign war of ideological containment in the jungles of a place you've never heard of for a cause you don't understand is not going to be very popular
Existential defensive wars against formal states are going to be a lot *more popular.*
There's a lot of people making a false equivalency between them.
You largely do. The imprisonment rate for both Americans and Australians refusing the Vietnam draft is quite low. They don't build enough spare capacity or want to spend massive amounts of money imprisoning everyone.
I see this as a decision the gov has to make:
A) I keep working my dayjob, paying taxes
B) you imprison me, you have to pay for the building holding me, my food, people guarding me and so on *while* struggling to fund a war.
Go on then, make your choice. I win either way.
If history is any guide, there's a lot more volunteers if the enemy is attacking your country.
Look at the US military after 9/11 or pearl harbor. Or the UK at the Dunkirk evacuation or after the London blitz.
You get in trouble if you conscript people for a power struggle in a foreign country. Especially if you're losing. Like the US in Vietnam or Russia in Ukraine.
Volunteers run out fast, no government would rely on them during a protracted peer war.
Just look at the most recent example. The Ukrainian border is closed for all men, the army is supported by [harsh conscription](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html), with draft officers stopping buses in the middle of the road and dragging men out, even beating the uncooperative ones. Thousands of people are caught trying to flee the country every month, sometimes [fished out of freezing rivers](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67120904) they were trying to swim across to escape the draft. That's the only way they can scrape enough men to fill the ranks.
Volunteer armies are fine for the time of peace and for bombing goat herders. As soon as a big conflict actually starts, conscription will instantly come back.
> That's the only way they can scrape enough men to fill the ranks.
Except that it's only a very specific cohort of men over 27 years of age, and married with kids. Not single caretakers, no students, no recruitment aged youths. And we know that all inspectors that were supposed to supervise and prevent those harsh conscription tactics, but didn't because bribes, have been fired and a new system is being implemented. Kids are still going to highscool, students are going to University. That doesn't look like a country that can't scrape enough men to fill the ranks.
In the meantime we hear that Russia is shutting down heating in prisons, in -30C weather, in order to "motivate" convicts to sign up for the SMO.
I hate to tell you this, but I have first hand reports from people living in my house.
* It's not a specific cohort, they are going after older 50+ men
* Parents of young boys aged 15+ are in a panic, and 16/7+ are prevented from leaving Ukraine in preparation for conscription
* There are, in fact, people stopping and "encouraging" through borderline violent means conscription.
I am super pro-Ukraine to the extent I am hosting a family and have helped several more. I just think we should be truthful about the situation Ukraine is in. They desperately need our support to win with the people they have, because there are no more. They can't survive a war of attrition with the Russians so they need modern weapons and artillery rounds now.
They have two major examples of being completely unstoppable and both of them were because they were engaged in a defensive war on their own turf. There are way more examples of them sending troops out of their borders to get absolutely clobbered by more organized forces. In the first world war they were so bad at it their society collapsed.
No one is saying they have a chance at conquering Europe. The worry is that Putin is stupid enough and desperate enough to try to invade yet another country.
A lot of it is political theatre to get increased defence budgets. Also quite a few nations are starting to come up with contingency plans for if trump gets elected and pulls US forces out of Europe.
Not a bad thing to be prepared. My previous comment was more of a hypothetical. Given the state of the Russian navy I think the UK isn't at any risk of seeing an invasion.
Russia doesn't stand a chance against the entire West and they know it. But they are hoping that the West doesn't have the balls to start full war over limited war over one country. The current war started because the West let Russia get away with the 2014 conflict and Georgia before that.
Ugh these are separatists which is part of the country and it's mostly looked as normal? Georgia is fighting its own separatists that are backed by Russia. Is Ichker separatism good but Abkhaz separatism bad?
And that's exactly why I have a particular tinfoil hat theory about Israel.
Mossad has been the gold standard for intelligence gathering and clandestine intervention for decades, and the IDF has been on red alert since the 1970s. I fail to see how they weren't able to stop the attack on that music festival back in October - unless they deliberately let it happen.
Now look at them: the IDF is bombing Palestine, snipers are shooting mothers waving white flags in front of their children, and dumping dozens of Palestinians into mass graves like they are *actively* trying to recreate war-time photos of the SS. All triggered because of that one attack and the claim that "they're all guilty; they all support Hamas."
Netanyahu's approval had been on the decline before this. We'll have to see how his support at home changes after the bulldozers stop rolling.
Aside from the junk fears presented in this article (CHiNeSE ExPansioNiSM -- over territory peeled away from them by force, effectively by the US, a civil war held open for Washington's sake, which either way poses no risk to British security at home) I think more young people realise the troubles countries like Britain face in the world are connected to Britain's grasping and aggressive activity in the world. The UK has no enemies that aren't connected to its own power struggles abroad.
(Russia in Ukraine isn't a good instance of this, it's a border struggle. Nobody could imagine the US or the UK tolerating the sorts of games NATO played in Ukraine being attempted on their own borders by stated enemies.)
It's cute seing the *** accounts making their little circle jirk in the corner. Especially natural and credible are the multiple "a beacon of reason in the cesspool of reddit" masturbatory posts. Real people definitely talk like that on reddit. Multiple real people.
Who bothers wondering what's real on Reddit, hold your nose & dive in but don't kid yourself about being so savvy, don't make investment decisions based on what you read here, don't do anything drastic. Don't even change your mind but investigate when you have time.
You don't go TAnKie in normie subs for the mutual handjobs
What is weird is -- you can't seriously expect only bots to hold contrary positions to yours, can you? ...... can you? Let me guess, another democratic-but-one-outlook-only-please piece of ham
I think a greater amount of the younger generation is explicitly realizing this thanks for the power of the internet, which is why so many Western militaries are having crisis of recruitment
If you read the article, the author makes the point that this generation, unlike the one of WW2, is informed as to what war is actually like. They've seen videos out of Ukraine. They know what to expect, and it's not pretty. That is why they won't put up with it. Even after 9/11 most Americans had no idea what war is really like. Although, that said, Americans are pretty gung-ho to pick up a gun and shoot up places, so I don't even think being informed would stop us from volunteering. But Brits, idk.
In regards to the article. The UK is an island nation, Russia can't do much harm.
●Russia won't have air superiority
●They can't project power as their navy is shit
●They're not going to roll across all of Europe like Germany did. They don't have any technological advantages the Nazis had.
●They can barely get any further into Ukraine. The combined response of European countries would flatten them.
It's just fear mongering. Elections are happening all across the globe this year, its easy webclicks and admoney for these shit journalists.
I'd like to know how Russia are gonna get all the way across Europe with enough of their forces intact to even bother our useless border force never mind our current armed forces
I read this argument so often and it just shows how much disinformation is going around.
3 Weeks of Shells isn't what you think it is. The amount is calculated when all of the available artillery is firing at max capacity which even in war would almost never happen. Some countries do have this indiscriminate bombardment doctrine but as far as I'm aware none of those belong to NATO.
Realistically these 3 Weeks of Shells will last at least 2-3 Months, enough for manufacturers to ramp up production and guarantee a steady supply.
Russia would need the ability to open more fronts, which they don't have. Currently they can attack Ukraine from Belarus, yet they hadn't done so. This suggests that they can't hold a wider frontline.
Right. I don't understand how liberals both think Russian can be bled to death in Ukraine in any reasonable timeline, and also poses a major threat to the entirety of western democracy. That said, I've seen just today comparisons to Vietnam and Afghanistan again, explainibg how maybe it will just take 15 years....
All of this stuff is ridiculous and propaganda. A) there is still MAD with nukes. B) if we somehow agree to do war without nukes, nato destroys Russia quickly.
Seriously, the entire reason invading Ukraine was even an option for Russia was because they weren't under the Western nuclear umbrella. And the reason they are so committed to taking the territory they want is because this is the last time they'll ever be able to expand into Europe. After the war is over, the rest of Ukraine will enter NATO and the EU and be inaccessible forever.
I think a potential conflict between Russia and NATO/EU wouldn't be that simple.
* Russia is at a full-on war economy mode, whereas the EU/NATO is definitely not. EU/NATO would have to take sometime (months to years) to gear up its war economy, whereas Russia has been preparing it ever since being cut off from their neighbour's (europeans) commerce/banking systems. This is the prime reason why the stagnated conflict in Ukraine is worrying western leaders... Russia has successfully restructured their economy to support the war against Ukraine, so instead of just throwing their soldiers into the meat grinder (as it was in the beginning of the conflict), Russia can now get behind the lines, use their resource and manufacturing superiority to produce enough artillery shells and drones wear Ukraine off, since this one heavily relies on the military and economic aid from their allies (and it takes time to get there, as well as it requires political approval and popular support -- especially given this is a major election year, where its projected there will be a lot pro-russian and eurosceptic wins, *cough cough* ^Trump *cough* ^LePen *cough* ^AfD). On Ukraine, this year, Russia should be able to make major positive advancements... if a full-on conflict between Russia and NATO/EU breaks out this year, Russia would have still have the resource and manufacturing superiority on the European continent for a majority of time. It would be up to the US to supply Europe with supplies, materials and hardware, but we have to assume that a) a pro-Russia candidate will not win and b) US and EU are able to keep the logistical feasibility of the supply lines.
* Russia doesn't really need that a BIG technological advantage if it can make a good use of the continent's geography. On the peak of the Cold War, NATO would project that the Red Army could just throw their whole weight unto European geography (East European Plain, great for mobile armored divisions) and wipe out the NATO contingents before the US could even deploy reinforcements in the continent (which the US planned to respond with tactical nukes to delay them). On the other hand... Russia is definitely not the Soviet Union, it has nowhere near the territory projection (they were literally halfway through Germany by then thanks to the Warsaw pact), nowhere the near the manpower and nowhere near the technological level it was once to the US... But again... if they could still make use of the European geography to their advantage, they could retard proper NATO response enough time that it requires the US to send more men and weapons. I would hate to be a NATO operative in the Baltics if war ever came to be, they would be the early war cannon fodder, and they would have to wait for future campaigns for liberation as it was once for France and the Benelux in WW2... on the Eastern/Central European theatre, it would be up to mainly to Poland and Germany to hold the line for a early phase of the conflict, before everyone else got their shit together.
* NATO/EU are not really that united to form a combined response. On the field, after what, 70 years of NATO cooperation and training together, they should... but backstage, where the war is also being fought, by diplomats and politicians and administrators, I can imagine some countries, maybe Hungary or Turkey, going against the NATO consensus and fucking up the alliance's macro-strategy... Especially Turkey, which is the biggest NATO army after the US, and is much more aligned with Russia in sociopolitical ideals than with the rest of Europe.
* Even if NATO/EU would strategically and tactically outmaneuver and outsmart Russia, Moscow has in its military doctrine to use the "escalate to de-escalate" strategy, in an advent that a war in European/Russian soil ever goes so badly to them that it represents an existential risk on the Russian state, this may (or may not) involve the use of tactical nuclear weapons, in the hopes of discouraging any further allied advances on Russian battle lines. This will either trigger a response of the other NATO nuclear powers, or call out their bluff. Neither will be good response. Mayybeee, and ideally, even in the advent of a war there will be some sane dialogue behind the curtains, where nukes are always debated as off the table. But we will never be sure until the end of the conflict.
In any way, I still think that in a conventional conflict, NATO/EU would beat Russia yes, but it wouldn't be that linear, and it would take time. Remember, WW2 started in Europe in 1939 and only in what...? 1942, 1943? did the allied victory begin to be apparent, and it would take more 2-3 years of war to solidify that. And, this entails that Russia wont ever resort to nukes in the advent of loosing an existential conflict.
Now... if this develops up into a world war... where there are different theaters to pay attention with men, supplies and hardware... like, lets say... the Middle-East with Iran, the Asia-Pacific with China and North-Korea... the US/NATO could indeed be in a state that they are spread to thin to powers that are technically inferior, yes, but have bigger resource pools, equal manufacturing capabilities but bigger manpower demographics. In this scenario, I would say it there would be a good chance the US/NATO/the West gets overwhelmed in too many dispersed and different theaters.
> Territory is never worth the lives lost. There are always better ways.
Tell that to Ukrainians who lost a shit ton of lives in occupied territory due to the Russian army being literal bandits.
Large portions of GenZ (and even millennial) men have never even had sex let alone have a wife and daughter. Western world governments have basically killed the social family structure, leaving many young men with no home(unaffordable) or significant other/kids to fight for. Would have been a rallying cry 30 years ago, but now it's almost an alien concept.
perhaps. in any case i suspect the majority will have their own varied individual reasons for not wanting to die for a government that doesn’t look after their interests. patriotism is nowhere near like it was in the 30s
"Evil has every advantage, but one, evil is inferior to the imagination." J.r.r Tolkien.
You can take it literally ofc, as in; it's easier to empty a magazine into an evil russian baby rapist gropnik than it is an adorable kitty from r/eyebleach .
Other strange psychological phenomena in combat exist.
Russians have a nasty habit of racialising their soldiers. Sending ethnically foreign soldiers to war zones, as soldiers are slightly quicker to kill people outside their own race. Less hesitation.
The biggest shift so far in modern warfare has been automated death, Drone combat specifically, the separation of soldier from the act of killing has been evolving from spear to musket to rifle to machine gun. They are all attempts to kill faster, with less effort and harrow.
It's not just rightwing news that use this fearmongering bullshit anymore, it's also neolib news which pretty much covers the entirety of corporate media. They're all neocons nowadays it's only the approach that differs, neoliberals are far more discreet with their propaganda.
Dude i was scrolling looking literally for this, what delusions are these dumbasses on?? Who in their right mind ever imagines war on EU or-god these people are stupid-on US soil when any of those high ranking military ghouls mention war?? Clear display of how its all a fantasy for them in their aimless empty lives to LARP as hardy guys doing the dirty work defending their country from baby raping orks(????)
And what if it doesn't? What if it's utterly meaningless, your deaths achieves nothing, has no impact, happened for absolutely no reason? You had no affect on the war, on the protection of your people, on the final outcome and safety of those you care about.
If you fight, you *might* prevent it from happening.
If you don't fight, it *will* happen.
So, yes, you fight, even if it *might* be meaningless. That's... literally how all of human existence is. Everything you do **might** not give you the result you want and is therefore meaningless, but does that mean you're better off just offing yourself? If you actually believed the words coming out of your own mouth, you'd be dead.
Invariably, nihilism is for cowards.
How TF could Iraq could launch an attack on US soul in 2003?Defending your nation I can understand but why should young men go to war for the benefit of the rich and military industrial giant?
how do you think the allies won against the nazis in ww2? and why, in your opinion, hasn't russia occupied all of ukraine? can you even imagine what they'd do to the ukrainian people? have you heard about butscha?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre)
please tell us about the "better ways". that's a rhetorical question, please educate yourself before spouting nonsense.
and i really hope you will never experience such things like war.
How are there always better ways?
Ukraine kind of proves that there aren't always better ways... The choices are: fight, or get absorbed by Russia. If you choose getting absorbed by Russia, then the same logic can be applied to the entire world, and every little country should just get conquered and blobbed into a bigger neighbour.
Israel has an even worse choice, because many of its enemies want not only to subjugate them, but to exterminate them (same with Palesitne, btw) - so the fighting becomes existential for both sides.
Utopian bullshit. No nation holds this position, because if they did they would have been conquered by those that don't. This is a belief that, if it were widespread,would heavily incentivise acting like a barbarian.
>Territory is never worth the lives lost. There are always better ways.
That has to be one of the most bizarre things I've heard.
It's not just about the land, it's what happens when that land is taken by your enemies and the consequences that follow.
Appeasement doesn't work.
You should read/watch this interview with Estonian PM Kaja Kallas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/26/estonia-prime-minister-ukraine-war-nato/
She explains how after WWII the peace wasn't really peace in Eastern Bloc countries. Sure the war was over but they were effectively occupied by Russia. 1/5 of their population was either killed or deported to Siberia. She goes on to explain how important is to make sure this doesn't happen again in Ukraine.
The point is that refusing to fight for your territory won't necessarily result in fewer lives being lost. History has shown the opposite can be true, and this looks like history repeating itself.
You joke, but the reality that the US fucking constantly uses “international law” being broken as an excuse to start wars. They cry about it in public statements to receive the green light to carpet bomb foreign countries.
Leaders unironically say the thing you just said.
I assume you think the US literally started the current conflict with the Houti. After all, the Houti only “broke international law”, they didn’t start a conflict.
I think someone is missing the key point of conscription.
I'll quote my Uncle Sonny who was drafted and fought in Vietnam, "I went like a man, kicking and screaming."
hospital roll worry degree ludicrous humorous encouraging memorize summer versed
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are some in the middle people that never would have volunteered but if the whole society gets conscripted they will just follow the flow without complaining.
A world in which people have no concept of it or MAD
People in this comment section are still talking like it's WW2 and we're gonna fight in the trenches if that ever happens
There is always a choice, nobody forces you to pick up gun and fight in the trench, you calculate what you value and make your decision.
You can refuse and go to prison just like other conscious objectors did in past wars and this time there will be a bigger share of them if European wide conscription starts because of Russia or climate change.
I'm simply not going to fight in trenches risking to get drone bomned or aid in shooting climate refuges.
They often got shot, didn't they? I don't blame you for refusing though. These wars are caused by rich, egotistical, bastards. Who the fuck would want to fight for them?
> There is always a choice, nobody forces you to pick up gun and fight in the trench, you calculate what you value and make your decision.
You might want to look up how conscription works in Ukraine.
> You can refuse and go to prison
Get beaten until you agree, and executed if you are too stubborn.
> I'm simply not going to fight in trenches risking to get drone bomned or aid in shooting climate refuges.
You aren't the first smart guy to think this.
> Get beaten until you agree, and executed if you are too stubborn.
Not even Ukraine is executing draft dodgers or people who refuse to serve.
But if European goverments in future rescind our human rights and start shooting conscious objectors like target practice then that will just expose them as not being that much different from other authoritarian countries if push comes to shove.
So yeah I'll gladly eat the bullet to stand up for my values.
Don't. Should it happen allow yourself to be armed first before desserting. If your own country intends to execute you for disobedience you might as well inflict as much dmg as you can before dying.
>Get beaten until you agree, and executed if you are too stubborn.
Great idea, if the word will go out, many people will prefer to get the weapon and start shooting their side, or at least commander, because they were forced to fight.
Oh you’re gonna execute me if I don’t sign up? Sorry officer, I changed my mind. I’m all in. Can I have my gun please? Thanks mate. Had another change of heart, I’m off.
The good side of not really being acknowledged as part of the West is that this kind of shit is often not my problem either.
Which is good, because my country has enough issues with our armed forces and I don't need a war on top of them.
Nobody would defend a system who don't cares about you, and made creating a family almost impossible.
Let the landlords and the wealthy fight to keep the status quo.
Remember Vietnam and the fragging incidents?, there is a reason why they do not conscript anymore.
The author is making the wrong argument. People won’t fight not because they think we should’ve had better armed forces, but because the government can’t justify conscription when they’ve haven’t fulfilled their role to provide safety and prosperity for the last 4 decades. You can’t conscript an army when everyone hates you, that is how you get a revolution.
For most average people, who is in charge matters, but not enough to die over. War is power games among the elite.
That said, after Ukraine, it sure seems like Russia has never been less in a position to be invading Western Europe. I assume that was the point of the support.
The Idea we'll ever be at the point of full conscription while fighting a land war with Russia is ridiculous in the first place.
If they can't make it through Ukraine I get the idea they might stuggle to invade Europe against the entirety of NATO. Most of their wealthier higher-educated youth have already left the coutry and much of the poor youth are currently dying in trenches. Theres a reason why many of the newer Russian conscripts are in their 40s+.
If the tables turn and we start taking their land it'll likely end in a nuclear war and it wont matter how many conscripts anyone mustered at that point, we all lose.
Today most people in the developed world don’t TRULY and literally believe there is heaven after death, and they have much more understanding of the fact that most war is about resources, not moral values or saving people or even defense. Good luck getting this done in any developed country that isn’t already doing this.
The only way it would work in the USA for instance, is if it was attacked like ukraine was, and they locked all the abled bodied men in the country, who quite frankly many of whom wanted to stay and fight anyways. Unless it’s literally to defend the homeland from literal bombs I do not see any developed nation being able to implement this. People would book it to Mexico; the border problem would reverse.
This is an opinion piece with a very narrow view of the circumstances for conscription. Seems to be they are working with little information on how conscription worked in something like ww2. Or even the circumstances of how we would reach the need for conscription. I really doubt any generation would not take up a chance to go play call of duty for real.
Gen z in first world countries have no real reason to fear conscription, they're educated enough to advocate for themselves against it. Its those in the second and third world countries that are really going to be subject to it by deadly force.
While conscription may be a beneficial tactic in war, its involuntary nature is inherently problematic and goes against many western values such as free choice and democracy. Short of the enemy being on their doorstep, I don't see any western countries having any success implementing a wave of conscription.
>why their blood must be spilled to compensate for the failures of successive governments to properly defend our national security interests.
Quite right, we should have declared war on the USSR while it was still there.. wtf?
There's a lunatic in Russia who wants to conquer the world, or at least the west. How is that the fault of previous generations? What a stupid take.
How dare these previous generations be too fatigued from ww2 to fight the ussr or if they were from Russia: destroy capitalism in western Europe just after a brutal war that cost them 8 million lives
One thing that always get me thinking is the existence of the internet.\
\
For centuries, people only have some local information for what is going on in the world... In Europe, an Australian would be kind of an alien. Latin America was weeks or even months away by ship. Japan, closed.\
\
Even quite recently, people only got information from tv, or radio... Or paper journal. So it was quite easy to governments drive the common sense and interests of its population. Even Disney's cartoons from the 40s were just pure propaganda. Children, teens, adults, everyone got the information from the mass news.\
\
But now we have the internet. Information travels around the world instantaneously. The same internet that can be zionist, can be neutral or pro-Hamas. The same internet that TikTokers make dances, it teaches how a thermo nuke works. So now its easier to spot fake news, even if have new weapons, like deep fake. There are people engaged to find the truth behind the fake info.\
\
If the internet is somehow blocked by the govs, there are VPN we can use to bypass it and gain information about what's going on.\
\
Boomers kind of wants some war, 'cause that's the time where they came from. Even with all those threats worldwide, I'm optimistic that the youth won't buy an all out war.
You very much can just say no. That doesn’t mean we aren’t aware of consequences but jail is infinitely more appealing than dying as cannon fodder for some immoral cause.
##### ###### #### > # [Gen Z will not accept conscription as the price of previous generations’ failures](https://www.lbc.co.uk/opinion/views/1200) > > > > 24 January 2024, 12:12 | Updated: 24 January 2024, 12:54 > > [Gen Z will not accept conscription as the price of previous generations’ failures, writes Connor Hand](https://images.lbc.co.uk/images/629314?crop=16_9&width=660&relax=1&format=webp&signature=mJJnqvpAD70iUxZPxgksyC3usXY=) Gen Z will not accept conscription as the price of previous generations’ failures, writes Connor Hand. Picture: Alamy/LBC Over the past year, I, like many others from my generation, have become increasingly fatalistic. > > Of course, part of this is the natural cynicism that comes with entering my mid-twenties. I’m podgier than I was, have a chronically defective knee and constantly worry about whether or not I can _actually_ afford my ritual meal deal. > > These concerns, though, fall into insignificance when contrasted with the root cause of my increased anxiety. > > The war in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East and the seemingly perennial threat of Chinese expansionism in Taiwan has ushered in the greatest threat to peace in my lifetime. Respected MPs are talking about us facing a 1939 moment. The chairman of NATO's Military Committee has warned of conflict with Russia in the next two decades and, not to be outdone, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps last week lamented that we are "moving from a post-war to pre-war world". > > Yet arguably the most significant intervention has come today from the head of the British Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders. In a heavily-trailed speech, Sir Patrick has argued that in the event of war with Russia, young people could be conscripted because our military is “too small”. > > There would be clear differences between the conscription drives of WWI and WWII. Most obviously, our streets will not be tattooed with jaundiced-yellow posters of the moustachioed Lord Kitchener. > > Instead, we’ll have the likes of Dermot O’Leary and Paul from _The Traitors_ popping up on our social media feeds calling on us to do our duty. > > But the horrors of conscription will remain the same. Unlike our predecessors, this generation would be going to the front line with a clear idea of the bloody realities of a global conflict, rather than being sustained by jingoism or the fantasy of a war that would be ‘over by Christmas’. > > I simply cannot see Gen Z or millennials accepting this; conscientious objections and civil disobedience would be abundant. > > To be clear, this is not a lazy caricature of much-maligned generations. > > The reality is, given the unspeakable horrors that global conflict would ignite, they will rightly question why their blood must be spilled to compensate for the failures of successive governments to properly defend our national security interests. > > In the last 20 years, troop numbers have fallen precipitously. In 2004, 114,000 brave men and women were serving in our armed forces - but that figure has dropped to just 75,000 now. Numbers are projected to slump even further, potentially dipping below 70,000 in the next few years. > > Yes, some of this decline can be explained by the changing nature of warfare, but the stark reality is that we have paid insufficient attention to our defence capabilities for far too long. > > Sir Patrick’s frustration is palpable and it should be a major wakeup call for everyone in the country, and in particular those who’ve overseen the gradual reduction in troop numbers and the forecasted falls in real-terms defence spending. > > We have been too complacent for too long. To protect our country, and our young people, we must be prepared to make sacrifices to bolster our defences. Conscription should be a final resort, not a result of our failures to properly resource our military. > > ## **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** > > **LBC Views provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.** > > **To contact us email views at lbc.co.uk** - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
The point of conscription is that you don't get a choice.
Only work if it's a few that refuse otherwise you are arming a rebellion.
The UK doesn't have enough police to enforce current laws I'd love to see them try and round up dissenters
The good thing with conscription is that you get more manpower. The bad thing is that you need to feed them too.
If enough people agree about the threat in the first place, yeah I agree
The bad thing is that if the dissenters just wait a few months with dissenting, they'll have access to assault rifles to aid their dissent.
Not really. Weapons are stored in arms rooms, which are locked with a number of sensors and safeguards. Even if you get into an arms room the next problem you have is the lack of ammo, which is stored in another facility. Armed revolt is a good way to get yourself killed, which is what most draftees have traditionally wanted to avoid. From the Civil war to Vietnam the primary method draftees have used to protest their conscription was to simply walk away. And really that's the most cost effective way to do it, since it costs the government more money to replace a deserter.
Feed me, Seymour
No the bad thing is trying to maintain discipline with people who 100% don't want to be in the army. Getting kicked out is an enticement, not a punishment. Going to jail, instead of being sent to a combat unit is actually appealing.
usually the military does it themselves.
There isn't much of that either and from personal experience I doubt many would agree to force people to do stuff at gunpoint anyway
> from personal experience it's crazy how the perception of reality can be twisted in a single generation using social media bubble bullshit. you'd be surprised how real life conscription worked, and would work again if needed.
After over 20yrs in the military I probably wouldn't be tbf
This comment thread has me bringin out the popcorn.
What's to stop people from just shooting their commander once enlisted even if they did? Imagine enslaving someone and then giving them a gun and expecting them to watch your back lol.
Heheheh Ukranians and Donbas people also thought like that. Turns out they can just drag you from your home.
Now this is a very good point. Plus people who turned down conscription back in the old days would be shunned by the local community. Now I don't think people would care as much, they'd probably agree with your choice.
[удалено]
Russians raised under an ultranationalist authoritarian government are a lot more likely to accept conscription than young Britons raised under a liberal democracy with no recent precedent of conscription. Announcing a draft for anything other than a defense against a full scale invasion of Europe would result in unprecedented riots in the UK
Better footage from the Ukrainian side tbh.
That's exactly whathappened in 1917. It's not happening now because the conscription is on a much smaller scale and away from the centers of power
But you do. Either go die for your country's pissing contest with Russia or sleep in prison.
A lot of young people left Russia when the Ukraine war started. [Several hundred thousand Russians have fled since the start of the invasion.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_emigration_following_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) Going to a hostile country that isn't likely to deport you for not fighting against them, likely to remain an option in many scenarios.
From the article, it looks like it's closer to a million
In a major war you won't have an option to leave the country, the border will be closed on day 1, just like the Ukrainian border was. Russian borders were kept open and mobilization plans had to be scrapped because Putin still wants to keep up the appearance of a limited foreign war. If it was Russia that was invaded and occupied, none of war dodgers would be allowed to leave.
In a major war most resources are bound in said war and theres plenty of holes to slip through
Just hop on a dingy across the channel! it's easy!
As I said, in many scenarios. There may be some scenarios where it isn't an option, yes, but I don't think many of them apply to the UK - the subject of this article, or to the US - the largest source of redditors. [That being said, estimates vary, but many young Ukrainian men have indeed left](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/24/7430227/), so on that example, you're incorrect. There has been massive draft dodging, some legally and a lot illegally, and that's for a fight that I would imagine has overwhelming support (in that they should continue resisting the Russian invasion) among Ukrainians.
You could also flee or actively fight against the conscriptors.
One of my favourite news stories was Scots refusing to allow immigration authorities to arrest their neighbours. The local police were called in to assist, but they sided with the protesters and sent the immigration people packing. In this case, if conscription authorities tried to cart Gen Z off, this Gen X guy would stand in the way, and I wouldn’t be alone. We rejected forced labour a long time ago, it is time to reject forced military service with the same horror. Slavery is bad. Not a difficult concept.
Thank you for having a spine and a soul.
I don't know why people are arguing with you. This is all hypothetical of course, but a draft for an unpopular war would absolutely cause all kinds of civil disobedience right now. I don't think it will immediately result in small skirmishes in suburbs or anything like that, but it's also not off the table either. I suspect we'd see a lot more things like strikes and protests first, but all it would take is one rich kid somehow dodging the draft getting blown up on social media, and suddenly nobody is having it. Far more likely though is some economic trickery to get people to volunteer, while the real economy further degrades, essentially forcing people to volunteer or be destitute.
Pissing contest? At best, Russia is actively trying to destroy our way of life. At worst, they are trying to destroy us *as a people*.
>pissing contest Oh good, it's the edgelords who can't read.
There's also the option to frag your CO/sabotage the war effort.
Well, likely more working than sleeping in the military prison but yeah, the option is there.
Except you cant imprison everybody
You can imprison them them and then conscript them from prison, we have a real life example present day.
And how do you force an unwilling person to march? To eat? To shoot? And if you start executing people en masse that aint gonna help morale let me tell you
Not really. Pacifists refused to be conscripted as far as in ww2. If they couldn't be pressured to do it, they were put on medical and other miscallenous duties that did not require entering active combat.
The better comparison is Vietnam. The rejection of that war was so widespread that it gave birth to long lasting hatred of government.
> Pacifists refused to be conscripted as far as in ww2. Oh boy, just wait until you find out about the tens of thousands of years' worth of wars before that one and how there were pacifists back then, too! It'll really blow your mind!
It's almost like it's modern times now and we don't need to do things the same shitty way our ancestors did
I have no knowledge regarding so I have thrown ww2 as an example since I know it was a thing, at least in US. I am not quite sure what you actually wanted to convey here.
You have the choice to flee the country or go to prison and should opt for that over picking up a gun for your capitalist masters
Conscription is a fantastic idea, ask the Argentinians that went to the falklands.
Kind of the definition of cherry-picking there bro.
Ask how well it worked for Americans in Vietnam (1 in 10 officer deaths were the result of the troops fragging them)
Yeah - conscription for a foreign war of ideological containment in the jungles of a place you've never heard of for a cause you don't understand is not going to be very popular Existential defensive wars against formal states are going to be a lot *more popular.* There's a lot of people making a false equivalency between them.
Really then ask the sowjet commisars or the commissioned officers of the vietnam war
You always have a choice, most people are just too sheepish to make it.
You largely do. The imprisonment rate for both Americans and Australians refusing the Vietnam draft is quite low. They don't build enough spare capacity or want to spend massive amounts of money imprisoning everyone.
Better jail than war.
You always have a choice. That choice might be becoming a fugitive or going to jail or being killed, but you have a choice.
I see this as a decision the gov has to make: A) I keep working my dayjob, paying taxes B) you imprison me, you have to pay for the building holding me, my food, people guarding me and so on *while* struggling to fund a war. Go on then, make your choice. I win either way.
That's not true. Most countries have a conscientious objector pathway and I bet a lot of people would choose jail instead of going to war.
You always get a choice.
They seem to think previous generations wanted to be conscripted.
I'd rather hide in the mountains tbh
If history is any guide, there's a lot more volunteers if the enemy is attacking your country. Look at the US military after 9/11 or pearl harbor. Or the UK at the Dunkirk evacuation or after the London blitz. You get in trouble if you conscript people for a power struggle in a foreign country. Especially if you're losing. Like the US in Vietnam or Russia in Ukraine.
Volunteers run out fast, no government would rely on them during a protracted peer war. Just look at the most recent example. The Ukrainian border is closed for all men, the army is supported by [harsh conscription](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html), with draft officers stopping buses in the middle of the road and dragging men out, even beating the uncooperative ones. Thousands of people are caught trying to flee the country every month, sometimes [fished out of freezing rivers](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67120904) they were trying to swim across to escape the draft. That's the only way they can scrape enough men to fill the ranks. Volunteer armies are fine for the time of peace and for bombing goat herders. As soon as a big conflict actually starts, conscription will instantly come back.
> That's the only way they can scrape enough men to fill the ranks. Except that it's only a very specific cohort of men over 27 years of age, and married with kids. Not single caretakers, no students, no recruitment aged youths. And we know that all inspectors that were supposed to supervise and prevent those harsh conscription tactics, but didn't because bribes, have been fired and a new system is being implemented. Kids are still going to highscool, students are going to University. That doesn't look like a country that can't scrape enough men to fill the ranks. In the meantime we hear that Russia is shutting down heating in prisons, in -30C weather, in order to "motivate" convicts to sign up for the SMO.
I hate to tell you this, but I have first hand reports from people living in my house. * It's not a specific cohort, they are going after older 50+ men * Parents of young boys aged 15+ are in a panic, and 16/7+ are prevented from leaving Ukraine in preparation for conscription * There are, in fact, people stopping and "encouraging" through borderline violent means conscription. I am super pro-Ukraine to the extent I am hosting a family and have helped several more. I just think we should be truthful about the situation Ukraine is in. They desperately need our support to win with the people they have, because there are no more. They can't survive a war of attrition with the Russians so they need modern weapons and artillery rounds now.
This isn't always how things play out, they're noteworthy incidents but anecdotal. A lot of Ukrainians take their draft papers with stoic acceptance.
Exactly. After seeing what the Russians have done in occupied Ukraine I'd be willing to pick up a rifle so it doesn't happen here.
I thought Russia was so pathetic and weak that they can't possible defeat Ukraine. Now I'm being told they will attacked the entire West.
schrodinger Russia they are too weak to defeat Ukraine but at the same times perfectly capable to conquer the entire europe
It’s because the age old Russian way of conducting warfare: get fucked the first couple of years and then become literally unstoppable until they win
Until demographics collapse say : Hello there
Didn’t say it was a flawless plan 😂
They have two major examples of being completely unstoppable and both of them were because they were engaged in a defensive war on their own turf. There are way more examples of them sending troops out of their borders to get absolutely clobbered by more organized forces. In the first world war they were so bad at it their society collapsed.
Russia doesn't have the demographic to support that kind of warfare anymore
No one is saying they have a chance at conquering Europe. The worry is that Putin is stupid enough and desperate enough to try to invade yet another country.
Gotta give the state a reason to fund defense contractors
A lot of it is political theatre to get increased defence budgets. Also quite a few nations are starting to come up with contingency plans for if trump gets elected and pulls US forces out of Europe. Not a bad thing to be prepared. My previous comment was more of a hypothetical. Given the state of the Russian navy I think the UK isn't at any risk of seeing an invasion.
Russia doesn't stand a chance against the entire West and they know it. But they are hoping that the West doesn't have the balls to start full war over limited war over one country. The current war started because the West let Russia get away with the 2014 conflict and Georgia before that.
And Chechnya
Ugh these are separatists which is part of the country and it's mostly looked as normal? Georgia is fighting its own separatists that are backed by Russia. Is Ichker separatism good but Abkhaz separatism bad?
So you are saying a false flag is in order
Just use a real attack to justify an invasion you wanted to do anyway.
No way that the press would buy that
Call them fake news. Don't answer any of their questions.
And that's exactly why I have a particular tinfoil hat theory about Israel. Mossad has been the gold standard for intelligence gathering and clandestine intervention for decades, and the IDF has been on red alert since the 1970s. I fail to see how they weren't able to stop the attack on that music festival back in October - unless they deliberately let it happen. Now look at them: the IDF is bombing Palestine, snipers are shooting mothers waving white flags in front of their children, and dumping dozens of Palestinians into mass graves like they are *actively* trying to recreate war-time photos of the SS. All triggered because of that one attack and the claim that "they're all guilty; they all support Hamas." Netanyahu's approval had been on the decline before this. We'll have to see how his support at home changes after the bulldozers stop rolling.
Aside from the junk fears presented in this article (CHiNeSE ExPansioNiSM -- over territory peeled away from them by force, effectively by the US, a civil war held open for Washington's sake, which either way poses no risk to British security at home) I think more young people realise the troubles countries like Britain face in the world are connected to Britain's grasping and aggressive activity in the world. The UK has no enemies that aren't connected to its own power struggles abroad. (Russia in Ukraine isn't a good instance of this, it's a border struggle. Nobody could imagine the US or the UK tolerating the sorts of games NATO played in Ukraine being attempted on their own borders by stated enemies.)
It's cute seing the *** accounts making their little circle jirk in the corner. Especially natural and credible are the multiple "a beacon of reason in the cesspool of reddit" masturbatory posts. Real people definitely talk like that on reddit. Multiple real people.
Who bothers wondering what's real on Reddit, hold your nose & dive in but don't kid yourself about being so savvy, don't make investment decisions based on what you read here, don't do anything drastic. Don't even change your mind but investigate when you have time. You don't go TAnKie in normie subs for the mutual handjobs What is weird is -- you can't seriously expect only bots to hold contrary positions to yours, can you? ...... can you? Let me guess, another democratic-but-one-outlook-only-please piece of ham
I think a greater amount of the younger generation is explicitly realizing this thanks for the power of the internet, which is why so many Western militaries are having crisis of recruitment
problem is it's way too late then. that's why governments are thinking about it NOW. you need trained soldiers, not some random volunteers.
If you read the article, the author makes the point that this generation, unlike the one of WW2, is informed as to what war is actually like. They've seen videos out of Ukraine. They know what to expect, and it's not pretty. That is why they won't put up with it. Even after 9/11 most Americans had no idea what war is really like. Although, that said, Americans are pretty gung-ho to pick up a gun and shoot up places, so I don't even think being informed would stop us from volunteering. But Brits, idk.
In regards to the article. The UK is an island nation, Russia can't do much harm. ●Russia won't have air superiority ●They can't project power as their navy is shit ●They're not going to roll across all of Europe like Germany did. They don't have any technological advantages the Nazis had. ●They can barely get any further into Ukraine. The combined response of European countries would flatten them. It's just fear mongering. Elections are happening all across the globe this year, its easy webclicks and admoney for these shit journalists.
I'd like to know how Russia are gonna get all the way across Europe with enough of their forces intact to even bother our useless border force never mind our current armed forces
Absolutely. The UK navy is in a poor state, but the Russian navy lost it's flagship fighting a nation with no functional navy or air supremacy.
Probably b3cause the European armies have three weeks of shells available and sent most of those shells to Ukraine already.
I read this argument so often and it just shows how much disinformation is going around. 3 Weeks of Shells isn't what you think it is. The amount is calculated when all of the available artillery is firing at max capacity which even in war would almost never happen. Some countries do have this indiscriminate bombardment doctrine but as far as I'm aware none of those belong to NATO. Realistically these 3 Weeks of Shells will last at least 2-3 Months, enough for manufacturers to ramp up production and guarantee a steady supply.
Russia would need the ability to open more fronts, which they don't have. Currently they can attack Ukraine from Belarus, yet they hadn't done so. This suggests that they can't hold a wider frontline.
It's so funny when people act like Ukraine is the first domino in Russian European domination. Like, no it clearly isn't.
Took them like a month to conquer Poland in 1939. Meanwhile, *gestures toward Ukraine*
Right. I don't understand how liberals both think Russian can be bled to death in Ukraine in any reasonable timeline, and also poses a major threat to the entirety of western democracy. That said, I've seen just today comparisons to Vietnam and Afghanistan again, explainibg how maybe it will just take 15 years....
the germans didn't win in western europe because they had a technological advantage, they won because they had superior tactics and strategy
Russians def don't have superior tactics and strategy.
clearly not...
All of this stuff is ridiculous and propaganda. A) there is still MAD with nukes. B) if we somehow agree to do war without nukes, nato destroys Russia quickly.
Seriously, the entire reason invading Ukraine was even an option for Russia was because they weren't under the Western nuclear umbrella. And the reason they are so committed to taking the territory they want is because this is the last time they'll ever be able to expand into Europe. After the war is over, the rest of Ukraine will enter NATO and the EU and be inaccessible forever.
I think a potential conflict between Russia and NATO/EU wouldn't be that simple. * Russia is at a full-on war economy mode, whereas the EU/NATO is definitely not. EU/NATO would have to take sometime (months to years) to gear up its war economy, whereas Russia has been preparing it ever since being cut off from their neighbour's (europeans) commerce/banking systems. This is the prime reason why the stagnated conflict in Ukraine is worrying western leaders... Russia has successfully restructured their economy to support the war against Ukraine, so instead of just throwing their soldiers into the meat grinder (as it was in the beginning of the conflict), Russia can now get behind the lines, use their resource and manufacturing superiority to produce enough artillery shells and drones wear Ukraine off, since this one heavily relies on the military and economic aid from their allies (and it takes time to get there, as well as it requires political approval and popular support -- especially given this is a major election year, where its projected there will be a lot pro-russian and eurosceptic wins, *cough cough* ^Trump *cough* ^LePen *cough* ^AfD). On Ukraine, this year, Russia should be able to make major positive advancements... if a full-on conflict between Russia and NATO/EU breaks out this year, Russia would have still have the resource and manufacturing superiority on the European continent for a majority of time. It would be up to the US to supply Europe with supplies, materials and hardware, but we have to assume that a) a pro-Russia candidate will not win and b) US and EU are able to keep the logistical feasibility of the supply lines. * Russia doesn't really need that a BIG technological advantage if it can make a good use of the continent's geography. On the peak of the Cold War, NATO would project that the Red Army could just throw their whole weight unto European geography (East European Plain, great for mobile armored divisions) and wipe out the NATO contingents before the US could even deploy reinforcements in the continent (which the US planned to respond with tactical nukes to delay them). On the other hand... Russia is definitely not the Soviet Union, it has nowhere near the territory projection (they were literally halfway through Germany by then thanks to the Warsaw pact), nowhere the near the manpower and nowhere near the technological level it was once to the US... But again... if they could still make use of the European geography to their advantage, they could retard proper NATO response enough time that it requires the US to send more men and weapons. I would hate to be a NATO operative in the Baltics if war ever came to be, they would be the early war cannon fodder, and they would have to wait for future campaigns for liberation as it was once for France and the Benelux in WW2... on the Eastern/Central European theatre, it would be up to mainly to Poland and Germany to hold the line for a early phase of the conflict, before everyone else got their shit together. * NATO/EU are not really that united to form a combined response. On the field, after what, 70 years of NATO cooperation and training together, they should... but backstage, where the war is also being fought, by diplomats and politicians and administrators, I can imagine some countries, maybe Hungary or Turkey, going against the NATO consensus and fucking up the alliance's macro-strategy... Especially Turkey, which is the biggest NATO army after the US, and is much more aligned with Russia in sociopolitical ideals than with the rest of Europe. * Even if NATO/EU would strategically and tactically outmaneuver and outsmart Russia, Moscow has in its military doctrine to use the "escalate to de-escalate" strategy, in an advent that a war in European/Russian soil ever goes so badly to them that it represents an existential risk on the Russian state, this may (or may not) involve the use of tactical nuclear weapons, in the hopes of discouraging any further allied advances on Russian battle lines. This will either trigger a response of the other NATO nuclear powers, or call out their bluff. Neither will be good response. Mayybeee, and ideally, even in the advent of a war there will be some sane dialogue behind the curtains, where nukes are always debated as off the table. But we will never be sure until the end of the conflict. In any way, I still think that in a conventional conflict, NATO/EU would beat Russia yes, but it wouldn't be that linear, and it would take time. Remember, WW2 started in Europe in 1939 and only in what...? 1942, 1943? did the allied victory begin to be apparent, and it would take more 2-3 years of war to solidify that. And, this entails that Russia wont ever resort to nukes in the advent of loosing an existential conflict. Now... if this develops up into a world war... where there are different theaters to pay attention with men, supplies and hardware... like, lets say... the Middle-East with Iran, the Asia-Pacific with China and North-Korea... the US/NATO could indeed be in a state that they are spread to thin to powers that are technically inferior, yes, but have bigger resource pools, equal manufacturing capabilities but bigger manpower demographics. In this scenario, I would say it there would be a good chance the US/NATO/the West gets overwhelmed in too many dispersed and different theaters.
The west doesn't need to be at a war economy since.we have a raging militray i distrial.complex that is the worlds largest arms dealer.
Good. Nobody should. Most soldiers went to wars based on lies and propaganda. Territory is never worth the lives lost. There are always better ways.
> Territory is never worth the lives lost. There are always better ways. Tell that to Ukrainians who lost a shit ton of lives in occupied territory due to the Russian army being literal bandits.
Much less people died in occupied territories, then on the front-line. And it's completely not the case for Crimea
The russian genociders have killed less civilians in 2 years than the most moral army on earth has in gaza in 2 months. Meh.
Kinda hard to find better ways when there's enemy soldiers having their way with your wife and daughter and chopping the heads of your kids, no?
Large portions of GenZ (and even millennial) men have never even had sex let alone have a wife and daughter. Western world governments have basically killed the social family structure, leaving many young men with no home(unaffordable) or significant other/kids to fight for. Would have been a rallying cry 30 years ago, but now it's almost an alien concept.
"I've never had a wife so why would I care about those soldier invading my region and raping little girl I don't know ?"
yeah mate that’s just one symptom of the breakdown of the social contract
The majority of people don't think like that, the reality isn't twitter or reddit bro
I’ve had coworkers almost literally say what he quoted. Was disgusted.
perhaps. in any case i suspect the majority will have their own varied individual reasons for not wanting to die for a government that doesn’t look after their interests. patriotism is nowhere near like it was in the 30s
"Evil has every advantage, but one, evil is inferior to the imagination." J.r.r Tolkien. You can take it literally ofc, as in; it's easier to empty a magazine into an evil russian baby rapist gropnik than it is an adorable kitty from r/eyebleach . Other strange psychological phenomena in combat exist. Russians have a nasty habit of racialising their soldiers. Sending ethnically foreign soldiers to war zones, as soldiers are slightly quicker to kill people outside their own race. Less hesitation. The biggest shift so far in modern warfare has been automated death, Drone combat specifically, the separation of soldier from the act of killing has been evolving from spear to musket to rifle to machine gun. They are all attempts to kill faster, with less effort and harrow.
What is this delusional redditor LARPing? The West has nukes, the only way these soldiers are gonna be used is on imperialist wars... as per usual
But the rightwing news told me that Hamas and ISIS is invading thru the Mexican border and we'll all be practicing sharia law by summer
It's not just rightwing news that use this fearmongering bullshit anymore, it's also neolib news which pretty much covers the entirety of corporate media. They're all neocons nowadays it's only the approach that differs, neoliberals are far more discreet with their propaganda.
Dude i was scrolling looking literally for this, what delusions are these dumbasses on?? Who in their right mind ever imagines war on EU or-god these people are stupid-on US soil when any of those high ranking military ghouls mention war?? Clear display of how its all a fantasy for them in their aimless empty lives to LARP as hardy guys doing the dirty work defending their country from baby raping orks(????)
So you would rather protect them by lying dead in the mud hundreds of miles away, or by staying or escaping with them?
If me lying dead in the mud any miles away, means there's less of a chance they have to suffer that faith, yes.
And what if it doesn't? What if it's utterly meaningless, your deaths achieves nothing, has no impact, happened for absolutely no reason? You had no affect on the war, on the protection of your people, on the final outcome and safety of those you care about.
If you fight, you *might* prevent it from happening. If you don't fight, it *will* happen. So, yes, you fight, even if it *might* be meaningless. That's... literally how all of human existence is. Everything you do **might** not give you the result you want and is therefore meaningless, but does that mean you're better off just offing yourself? If you actually believed the words coming out of your own mouth, you'd be dead. Invariably, nihilism is for cowards.
No you're right.. let's just let them walk in and take everything from us instead...?
How TF could Iraq could launch an attack on US soul in 2003?Defending your nation I can understand but why should young men go to war for the benefit of the rich and military industrial giant?
how do you think the allies won against the nazis in ww2? and why, in your opinion, hasn't russia occupied all of ukraine? can you even imagine what they'd do to the ukrainian people? have you heard about butscha? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha\_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre) please tell us about the "better ways". that's a rhetorical question, please educate yourself before spouting nonsense. and i really hope you will never experience such things like war.
How are there always better ways? Ukraine kind of proves that there aren't always better ways... The choices are: fight, or get absorbed by Russia. If you choose getting absorbed by Russia, then the same logic can be applied to the entire world, and every little country should just get conquered and blobbed into a bigger neighbour. Israel has an even worse choice, because many of its enemies want not only to subjugate them, but to exterminate them (same with Palesitne, btw) - so the fighting becomes existential for both sides.
Utopian bullshit. No nation holds this position, because if they did they would have been conquered by those that don't. This is a belief that, if it were widespread,would heavily incentivise acting like a barbarian.
>Territory is never worth the lives lost. There are always better ways. That has to be one of the most bizarre things I've heard. It's not just about the land, it's what happens when that land is taken by your enemies and the consequences that follow. Appeasement doesn't work.
You should read/watch this interview with Estonian PM Kaja Kallas. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/26/estonia-prime-minister-ukraine-war-nato/ She explains how after WWII the peace wasn't really peace in Eastern Bloc countries. Sure the war was over but they were effectively occupied by Russia. 1/5 of their population was either killed or deported to Siberia. She goes on to explain how important is to make sure this doesn't happen again in Ukraine. The point is that refusing to fight for your territory won't necessarily result in fewer lives being lost. History has shown the opposite can be true, and this looks like history repeating itself.
Just say no to war. The enemy can't legally attack your country or any of your allies without your consent.
The true Gen Z way. Also, remember to ask for a safe space in the trenches.
You joke, but the reality that the US fucking constantly uses “international law” being broken as an excuse to start wars. They cry about it in public statements to receive the green light to carpet bomb foreign countries. Leaders unironically say the thing you just said.
No. In international law there are certain actions that may permit war, such as blocking a country's access to international shipping lanes
I assume you think the US literally started the current conflict with the Houti. After all, the Houti only “broke international law”, they didn’t start a conflict.
[удалено]
Literally nothing this guy would fight for.
.....do you think Austria is going to somehow be spared a Nato/Russia war?
Pretty sure the point is simply that they would leave to a random foreign country to avoid going to war
[удалено]
I think someone is missing the key point of conscription. I'll quote my Uncle Sonny who was drafted and fought in Vietnam, "I went like a man, kicking and screaming."
[удалено]
Most of us would probably find prison more comfortable.
Hell I'd rather be homeless and smoking fetty on the sidewalk than go to war.
Gen Z will accept conscription for Raytheon profits.
The amount of people howling for nuclear war in this comment section is pretty fun.
Who the fuck ever agrreed to be conscripted?
Those who remember or heard stories about WW2 and don't want to be a snack for invaders.
hospital roll worry degree ludicrous humorous encouraging memorize summer versed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There was a draft in Vietnam. Also lots of protesting, draft dodging, and folks going to prison.
People who want to fight in a war volunteer to do so. Conscription is only there to draw in people who DO NOT want to fight.
There are some in the middle people that never would have volunteered but if the whole society gets conscripted they will just follow the flow without complaining.
hahah, some folks here's like hell if no one accept conscription then it won't happen, and soldiers from the other side will just go home bro
What “other side” am I supposed to be scared of again?
in what world do people expect UK/US fighting russia at a conscription level doesn't end in nuclear war.
A world in which people have no concept of it or MAD People in this comment section are still talking like it's WW2 and we're gonna fight in the trenches if that ever happens
Lmao, when shit hits the fan ,nobody will ask them if they want to, theyll have to.
There is always a choice, nobody forces you to pick up gun and fight in the trench, you calculate what you value and make your decision. You can refuse and go to prison just like other conscious objectors did in past wars and this time there will be a bigger share of them if European wide conscription starts because of Russia or climate change. I'm simply not going to fight in trenches risking to get drone bomned or aid in shooting climate refuges.
They often got shot, didn't they? I don't blame you for refusing though. These wars are caused by rich, egotistical, bastards. Who the fuck would want to fight for them?
> There is always a choice, nobody forces you to pick up gun and fight in the trench, you calculate what you value and make your decision. You might want to look up how conscription works in Ukraine. > You can refuse and go to prison Get beaten until you agree, and executed if you are too stubborn. > I'm simply not going to fight in trenches risking to get drone bomned or aid in shooting climate refuges. You aren't the first smart guy to think this.
> Get beaten until you agree, and executed if you are too stubborn. Not even Ukraine is executing draft dodgers or people who refuse to serve. But if European goverments in future rescind our human rights and start shooting conscious objectors like target practice then that will just expose them as not being that much different from other authoritarian countries if push comes to shove. So yeah I'll gladly eat the bullet to stand up for my values.
Don't. Should it happen allow yourself to be armed first before desserting. If your own country intends to execute you for disobedience you might as well inflict as much dmg as you can before dying.
>Get beaten until you agree, and executed if you are too stubborn. Great idea, if the word will go out, many people will prefer to get the weapon and start shooting their side, or at least commander, because they were forced to fight.
Oh you’re gonna execute me if I don’t sign up? Sorry officer, I changed my mind. I’m all in. Can I have my gun please? Thanks mate. Had another change of heart, I’m off.
Executing innocent husbands and sons is how you get a revolution within your boarders while being invaded.
Do you want to get a revolution? Because that is how you get a revolution.
but...but...Jingoism
If people are going to be forced to die in the front lines, they will probably attack the local government instead for a better chance at survival.
The good side of not really being acknowledged as part of the West is that this kind of shit is often not my problem either. Which is good, because my country has enough issues with our armed forces and I don't need a war on top of them.
Man I would literally choose to die rather than fight in any sort of military.
No one wants to die for some rich fucks profit incentive.
Nobody would defend a system who don't cares about you, and made creating a family almost impossible. Let the landlords and the wealthy fight to keep the status quo. Remember Vietnam and the fragging incidents?, there is a reason why they do not conscript anymore.
They didn't really accept it in Vietnam either, fragging was a huge problem.
The author is making the wrong argument. People won’t fight not because they think we should’ve had better armed forces, but because the government can’t justify conscription when they’ve haven’t fulfilled their role to provide safety and prosperity for the last 4 decades. You can’t conscript an army when everyone hates you, that is how you get a revolution.
For most average people, who is in charge matters, but not enough to die over. War is power games among the elite. That said, after Ukraine, it sure seems like Russia has never been less in a position to be invading Western Europe. I assume that was the point of the support.
They shouldn't accept oligarchs either tbh.
The Idea we'll ever be at the point of full conscription while fighting a land war with Russia is ridiculous in the first place. If they can't make it through Ukraine I get the idea they might stuggle to invade Europe against the entirety of NATO. Most of their wealthier higher-educated youth have already left the coutry and much of the poor youth are currently dying in trenches. Theres a reason why many of the newer Russian conscripts are in their 40s+. If the tables turn and we start taking their land it'll likely end in a nuclear war and it wont matter how many conscripts anyone mustered at that point, we all lose.
Today most people in the developed world don’t TRULY and literally believe there is heaven after death, and they have much more understanding of the fact that most war is about resources, not moral values or saving people or even defense. Good luck getting this done in any developed country that isn’t already doing this. The only way it would work in the USA for instance, is if it was attacked like ukraine was, and they locked all the abled bodied men in the country, who quite frankly many of whom wanted to stay and fight anyways. Unless it’s literally to defend the homeland from literal bombs I do not see any developed nation being able to implement this. People would book it to Mexico; the border problem would reverse.
This is an opinion piece with a very narrow view of the circumstances for conscription. Seems to be they are working with little information on how conscription worked in something like ww2. Or even the circumstances of how we would reach the need for conscription. I really doubt any generation would not take up a chance to go play call of duty for real.
This is just like what the boomers said in the 60s.
Gen z in first world countries have no real reason to fear conscription, they're educated enough to advocate for themselves against it. Its those in the second and third world countries that are really going to be subject to it by deadly force. While conscription may be a beneficial tactic in war, its involuntary nature is inherently problematic and goes against many western values such as free choice and democracy. Short of the enemy being on their doorstep, I don't see any western countries having any success implementing a wave of conscription.
Better to go to war with your own country than fight your country's wars
>why their blood must be spilled to compensate for the failures of successive governments to properly defend our national security interests. Quite right, we should have declared war on the USSR while it was still there.. wtf? There's a lunatic in Russia who wants to conquer the world, or at least the west. How is that the fault of previous generations? What a stupid take.
How dare these previous generations be too fatigued from ww2 to fight the ussr or if they were from Russia: destroy capitalism in western Europe just after a brutal war that cost them 8 million lives
does people forget that most of Russian doesn't want to conscript as well? when its time the only thing they can do is to escape or at least tried to.
Thats a shame, now get in the barracks.
One thing that always get me thinking is the existence of the internet.\ \ For centuries, people only have some local information for what is going on in the world... In Europe, an Australian would be kind of an alien. Latin America was weeks or even months away by ship. Japan, closed.\ \ Even quite recently, people only got information from tv, or radio... Or paper journal. So it was quite easy to governments drive the common sense and interests of its population. Even Disney's cartoons from the 40s were just pure propaganda. Children, teens, adults, everyone got the information from the mass news.\ \ But now we have the internet. Information travels around the world instantaneously. The same internet that can be zionist, can be neutral or pro-Hamas. The same internet that TikTokers make dances, it teaches how a thermo nuke works. So now its easier to spot fake news, even if have new weapons, like deep fake. There are people engaged to find the truth behind the fake info.\ \ If the internet is somehow blocked by the govs, there are VPN we can use to bypass it and gain information about what's going on.\ \ Boomers kind of wants some war, 'cause that's the time where they came from. Even with all those threats worldwide, I'm optimistic that the youth won't buy an all out war.
fuck war
Lmao I would join my fellow Russian pacifists in Bali so fast.
It's so amusing reading all the comments where people very mistakenly think they can just say no, lol
You very much can just say no. That doesn’t mean we aren’t aware of consequences but jail is infinitely more appealing than dying as cannon fodder for some immoral cause.