Defense Minister talks about Conscription

[The Baker]

Rather than your kids or grandkids having to fight the Russians would it not be better to give more stuff to the Ukrainians?

Discus

 

[blup]

Both

 

[gant]

Lots of people saying they wouldn't take up arms to fight for the people who run the country, which is a lot different than saying they wouldn't fight for the country.

 

[Odds]

It's not a good idea enlisting civilians - it dilutes the fighting quality of a professional army.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Lots of people saying they wouldn't take up arms to fight for the people who run the country, which is a lot different than saying they wouldn't fight for the country.

Some sense, at last.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It's not a good idea enlisting civilians - it dilutes the fighting quality of a professional army.

It's only of use if war starts and numbers are needed quickly.

The message is to look at the threats and start building up, not cutting back.
Not just armed forces either

 

[Odds]

This is a flawed concept. The army needs the tech to fighter smarter, shorter, conflicts - not massing armies to fill a gap in the line at Mons.

 

[IT Minion]

The forces don't want a conscript army. We don't want to fund it. Everyone wins.

Invest in British businesses and buy shells to ship to Ukraine. Everyone wins.

 

[JohnD]

I don't know why the government would be thinking about forcing people to join up. They've been deliberately running down the numbers and spending for years.

Some sort of Public Relations distraction ploy, perhaps.

 

[SirGalahad]

To all you Tory voters trying to have a w nk over this policy.

Tories strip £90billion from defence during 13 years of cuts to the military

The House of Commons Library calculated that £90.3billion more cash would have been injected into the armed forces if the Conservatives stuck with spending 2.5% of GDP on defence

www.mirror.co.uk

Tories strip £90billion from defence during 13 years of cuts to the military​

The House of Commons Library calculated that £90.3billion more cash would have been injected into the armed forces if the Conservatives stuck with spending 2.5% of GDP on defence

 

[SirGalahad]

Rather than your kids or grandkids having to fight the Russians would it not be better to give more stuff to the Ukrainians?

Discus

Maybe if the Tories didnt cut £90bn from our defence budget we would have enough soldiers to put into combat in multiple theatres of war.

 

[SirGalahad]

I don't know why the government would be thinking about forcing people to join up. They've been deliberately running down the numbers and spending for years.

Some sort of Public Relations distraction ploy, perhaps.

Like the health service get Nurse practitioners to do a GPs job.

They want it done on the cheap or for free.

 

[Odds]

“Hypothetical scenarios” involving possible future wars was “not helpful”, the No 10 spokesperson added, as the row opened up a rift between the Conservatives and the military at a time when cuts mean the army is at its smallest for more than 300 years.

This country has traditionally kept a small, professional army to maintain standards and avoid becoming another Cromwell's Republic, where house searches and arrest by the New Model Army became commonplace during the 1650s.

The Royal Navy remains the Senior Service because our coastline is the first line of defence and protection of trade routes is vital for the country's economy.

I don't see why the Army General should wang on about fighting Russia - they can barely cross the Dneipro without risking a bullet in the head.

 

[SirGalahad]

“Hypothetical scenarios” involving possible future wars was “not helpful”, the No 10 spokesperson added, as the row opened up a rift between the Conservatives and the military at a time when cuts mean the army is at its smallest for more than 300 years.

This country has traditionally kept a small, professional army to maintain standards and avoid becoming another Cromwell's Republic, where house searches and arrest by the New Model Army became commonplace during the 1650s.

The Royal Navy remains the Senior Service because our coastline is the first line of defence and protection of trade routes is vital for the country's economy.

I don't see why the Army General should wang on about fighting Russia - they can barely cross the Dneipro without risking a bullet in the head.

The General has to make the case no matter how tenuous so appeal to the wild eye cretins on here and it works.

 

[Odds]

The General has to make the case no matter how tenuous so appeal to the wild eye cretins on here and it works.

The General is entitled to his opinion...which is all he'll have when he leaves the armed forces next summer, having been overlooked for the top job three years ago. I'm sure he isn't bitter about it.