By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 07:59 - Jan 25 by GlasgowBlue
Why would both the government and the opposition saying they are against something that we do not have, be the main news story.
Breaking News. I’m against Paul Jewell being anointed the next Ipswich manager.
[Post edited 25 Jan 8:00]
Because the story was about introducing it, which would appear to be a fairly major socio-economic and human-level threat.
I get a bit of conscription or national service is what the likes of JRM and the far-right like. Well until they get bone-spurs or the like and need to be excused...
0
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 09:19 - Jan 25 with 2043 views
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 09:15 - Jan 25 by ElderGrizzly
Because the story was about introducing it, which would appear to be a fairly major socio-economic and human-level threat.
I get a bit of conscription or national service is what the likes of JRM and the far-right like. Well until they get bone-spurs or the like and need to be excused...
But neither the opposition or the government are suggesting it.
There’s an underlying issue here leading to the nonsense being spouted by useless MPs. I was at a presentation the other week by somebody directly involved and basically:
The nominal strength of the army is 74k, set to be reduced to 72k. The actual strength in 12 months time will be about 62k due to people leaving and lack of recruitment. People just don’t want to do it. Pay and conditions are poor, aside from the danger element. There’s little incentive/attraction for young people to go into the military.
The topic of national service did crop up, but I can’t believe anyone is serious about it. But then I didn’t think anyone was serious about sending people to Ruanda, so what do I know.
It’s not just restricted to the army either. Much of the UKs now tiny navy is mothballed because it hasn’t the trained personnel to man it.
The armed forces and structures that support, like all public services, has have been subject to cuts upon cuts, neglect and a complete lack of interest by government for years. If you don’t value them and invest, reinvest etc they will dribble away and you will be left with the chaotic situation we have now. You get what you pay for.
So, for the Tory manifesto - defence. Err, better cross that off. Along with economy, education, immigration, health, public services, crime, police, prisons, justice system, railways, local government services (rate support grant effect), post office scandal, inflation, disgraceful behaviour in public life, corruption, Brexit and Covid.
They can campaign on…. How well the top 5% have done? How good Fortnums hampers were this Christmas? Rishi’s last dental appointment? Unicorns? The tools will think of something.
4
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 11:03 - Jan 25 with 1910 views
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 10:15 - Jan 25 by Churchman
There’s an underlying issue here leading to the nonsense being spouted by useless MPs. I was at a presentation the other week by somebody directly involved and basically:
The nominal strength of the army is 74k, set to be reduced to 72k. The actual strength in 12 months time will be about 62k due to people leaving and lack of recruitment. People just don’t want to do it. Pay and conditions are poor, aside from the danger element. There’s little incentive/attraction for young people to go into the military.
The topic of national service did crop up, but I can’t believe anyone is serious about it. But then I didn’t think anyone was serious about sending people to Ruanda, so what do I know.
It’s not just restricted to the army either. Much of the UKs now tiny navy is mothballed because it hasn’t the trained personnel to man it.
The armed forces and structures that support, like all public services, has have been subject to cuts upon cuts, neglect and a complete lack of interest by government for years. If you don’t value them and invest, reinvest etc they will dribble away and you will be left with the chaotic situation we have now. You get what you pay for.
So, for the Tory manifesto - defence. Err, better cross that off. Along with economy, education, immigration, health, public services, crime, police, prisons, justice system, railways, local government services (rate support grant effect), post office scandal, inflation, disgraceful behaviour in public life, corruption, Brexit and Covid.
They can campaign on…. How well the top 5% have done? How good Fortnums hampers were this Christmas? Rishi’s last dental appointment? Unicorns? The tools will think of something.
Well said - I think Corbyn was utterly useless, but despite his weasel words on NATO it’s clear that this Government are the ones weak on defence. They are the ones that have severely cut our millitary capabilities (as well as pocketing dirty Russian money and turning the London property market into an oligarchs laundromat.
I would challenge the top 5pc assertion (that includes well paid but not wealthy people). All but the top half a percent, and well connected will be considerably worse off that when this government came into power. More tax (worse services), savings and investments eroded by world beating inflation, all made worse by Brexit and Truss’ damage to Sterling. On top of that 12pc of all the tax we pay is now just interest on our debt.
3
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 13:39 - Jan 25 with 1832 views
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 11:03 - Jan 25 by SuperKieranMcKenna
Well said - I think Corbyn was utterly useless, but despite his weasel words on NATO it’s clear that this Government are the ones weak on defence. They are the ones that have severely cut our millitary capabilities (as well as pocketing dirty Russian money and turning the London property market into an oligarchs laundromat.
I would challenge the top 5pc assertion (that includes well paid but not wealthy people). All but the top half a percent, and well connected will be considerably worse off that when this government came into power. More tax (worse services), savings and investments eroded by world beating inflation, all made worse by Brexit and Truss’ damage to Sterling. On top of that 12pc of all the tax we pay is now just interest on our debt.
Agreed. Yep, had a look on the interweb and you are right. The top 1% income is a min £183k. So let’s be uber generous and call it 1%. That equates to about 7 seats in the House of Commons. Sounds generous to me. 0.5% = let’s say 4 seats.
I had no time for Corbyn and neither did the military - he was stupid enough to walk across Horseguards after wreath laying on Remembrance Sunday before the general election and got a right earful. He wasn’t happy. But then I don’t think he really did happy.
But none of the current mess is down to him or any of the opposition. It’s sits fair and square in the lap of Johnson, Truss, May, Sunak’s disgusting crowd.
Edit: I forgot slippery shyster Cameron. Apologies!
[Post edited 25 Jan 15:45]
3
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 13:46 - Jan 25 with 1824 views
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 13:39 - Jan 25 by Churchman
Agreed. Yep, had a look on the interweb and you are right. The top 1% income is a min £183k. So let’s be uber generous and call it 1%. That equates to about 7 seats in the House of Commons. Sounds generous to me. 0.5% = let’s say 4 seats.
I had no time for Corbyn and neither did the military - he was stupid enough to walk across Horseguards after wreath laying on Remembrance Sunday before the general election and got a right earful. He wasn’t happy. But then I don’t think he really did happy.
But none of the current mess is down to him or any of the opposition. It’s sits fair and square in the lap of Johnson, Truss, May, Sunak’s disgusting crowd.
Edit: I forgot slippery shyster Cameron. Apologies!
[Post edited 25 Jan 15:45]
You missed David Cameron from that list; the moron who started it all and who in my opinion, is the worst of the lot.
3
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 15:49 - Jan 25 with 1775 views
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 13:46 - Jan 25 by Blueschev
You missed David Cameron from that list; the moron who started it all and who in my opinion, is the worst of the lot.
I’ll hang my head in shame for missing Mr odious. Corrected and yes, there’s a strong argument to say he was the worst. Probably the worst in history given the damage he’s wrought.
2
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 18:07 - Jan 31 with 1585 views
Just to resurrect this one - it popped up on my radar that four days after the original article, we have another 'expert' advocating for Australia to look at bringing back conscription and national service:
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 18:07 - Jan 31 by Zx1988
Just to resurrect this one - it popped up on my radar that four days after the original article, we have another 'expert' advocating for Australia to look at bringing back conscription and national service:
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 18:07 - Jan 31 by Zx1988
Just to resurrect this one - it popped up on my radar that four days after the original article, we have another 'expert' advocating for Australia to look at bringing back conscription and national service:
Strange how two different countries on completely different sides of the world would run similar news stories within days of each other...
*dons tin-foil hat*
It's strange how public opinion is being whipped up to support increased defence spending.
The arms manufacturers must be rubbing their hands with glee.
As the Jam put it.
"You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns"
In my view, a bit more jaw-jaw, rather than war-war, is needed especially in areas (such as Taiwan) where there is no actual conflict and where no side actually wants it.
[Post edited 1 Feb 8:19]
1
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 08:36 - Feb 1 with 1377 views
Well, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. He's got himself in a terrible jam Way down yonder in Vietnam So put down your books and pick up a gun, We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.
And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam; And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Yeah, come on Wall Street, don't move slow, Why man, this is war au-go-go. There's plenty good money to be made By supplying the Army with the tools of his trade, Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb, They drop it on the Viet Cong.
[Post edited 1 Feb 8:36]
0
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 08:44 - Feb 1 with 1353 views
Would obviously love to have a crack at the Russians, but have a slightly gammy ankle so gonna have to sit this one out. Good luck to the rest of ye though
2
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 08:54 - Feb 1 with 1318 views
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 08:44 - Feb 1 by leitrimblue
Would obviously love to have a crack at the Russians, but have a slightly gammy ankle so gonna have to sit this one out. Good luck to the rest of ye though
Yep, I've got a niggling Achilles, so give me a shout if you're all getting desperate.
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 07:25 - Jan 25 by hype313
Nuclear missiles render this question redundant.
Yes this.
Not sure why anyone is thinking a conventional war between NATO and Russia could be a feasible event. The only 'national undertaking' would be we all grab our shovels and start digging fallout shelters. But we'd likely have only an hour to do so.
There's no need for huge numbers of conscripts and not likely to be. The armed forces do not want national service, it's a nightmare for them to manage so many unwilling and reluctant young people. What they need are smaller numbers of well trained, courageous and skilled professionals for those times when we do need to provide 'boots on the ground'. Oh and plenty of superior high-end technology, which is a more effective way to spend the defence budget than paying to feed, equip and train all those personnel just for half of them to drop out once their minimum term is served.
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 09:27 - Feb 1 by baxterbasics
Yes this.
Not sure why anyone is thinking a conventional war between NATO and Russia could be a feasible event. The only 'national undertaking' would be we all grab our shovels and start digging fallout shelters. But we'd likely have only an hour to do so.
There's no need for huge numbers of conscripts and not likely to be. The armed forces do not want national service, it's a nightmare for them to manage so many unwilling and reluctant young people. What they need are smaller numbers of well trained, courageous and skilled professionals for those times when we do need to provide 'boots on the ground'. Oh and plenty of superior high-end technology, which is a more effective way to spend the defence budget than paying to feed, equip and train all those personnel just for half of them to drop out once their minimum term is served.
Personally I think j2 nailed it on this or a similar thread when he said talk of conscription is a tool to persuade the public to back increased defense spending. As you say, the big wigs don't really want a edit(!) non-volunteer army.
Where I differ with you (in my know nothing way) is that any war with Russia and NATO would inevitably involve nukes, thus making conventional forces redundant. If Russia attacks the Baltics, are we really going to nuke them? I can't see it. We'd want to defend them, but not end all human life over them. To me, there are new rules forming whereby its possible to fight a 'small' limited war where all sides hold nukes in hand and want to push as far as possible, but not that far.
[Post edited 1 Feb 9:53]
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 08:11 - Feb 1 by DJR
It's strange how public opinion is being whipped up to support increased defence spending.
The arms manufacturers must be rubbing their hands with glee.
As the Jam put it.
"You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns"
In my view, a bit more jaw-jaw, rather than war-war, is needed especially in areas (such as Taiwan) where there is no actual conflict and where no side actually wants it.
[Post edited 1 Feb 8:19]
Taiwan and China have a fundamental difference which appears to tricky to talk out - China may not want war, but is certainly sounding willing to go there. As long as the Taiwanese people want to be independent, and China continues to boost its military hugely, what choice does the Taiwanese govt have but to spend more on arming itself as a way to deter war?
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 09:51 - Feb 1 by giant_stow
Personally I think j2 nailed it on this or a similar thread when he said talk of conscription is a tool to persuade the public to back increased defense spending. As you say, the big wigs don't really want a edit(!) non-volunteer army.
Where I differ with you (in my know nothing way) is that any war with Russia and NATO would inevitably involve nukes, thus making conventional forces redundant. If Russia attacks the Baltics, are we really going to nuke them? I can't see it. We'd want to defend them, but not end all human life over them. To me, there are new rules forming whereby its possible to fight a 'small' limited war where all sides hold nukes in hand and want to push as far as possible, but not that far.
[Post edited 1 Feb 9:53]
Well in the cold-war years even the US didn't have enough conventional firepower to repel a full invasion, and therefor it was always assumed it would quickly escalate to the big ones if a NATO country was attacked. But you are right to point out things aren't quite the same today. Still if either side looks like losing, it would surely be too strong a temptation to think they might get away with a 'limited nuclear exchange'
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 10:15 - Jan 25 by Churchman
There’s an underlying issue here leading to the nonsense being spouted by useless MPs. I was at a presentation the other week by somebody directly involved and basically:
The nominal strength of the army is 74k, set to be reduced to 72k. The actual strength in 12 months time will be about 62k due to people leaving and lack of recruitment. People just don’t want to do it. Pay and conditions are poor, aside from the danger element. There’s little incentive/attraction for young people to go into the military.
The topic of national service did crop up, but I can’t believe anyone is serious about it. But then I didn’t think anyone was serious about sending people to Ruanda, so what do I know.
It’s not just restricted to the army either. Much of the UKs now tiny navy is mothballed because it hasn’t the trained personnel to man it.
The armed forces and structures that support, like all public services, has have been subject to cuts upon cuts, neglect and a complete lack of interest by government for years. If you don’t value them and invest, reinvest etc they will dribble away and you will be left with the chaotic situation we have now. You get what you pay for.
So, for the Tory manifesto - defence. Err, better cross that off. Along with economy, education, immigration, health, public services, crime, police, prisons, justice system, railways, local government services (rate support grant effect), post office scandal, inflation, disgraceful behaviour in public life, corruption, Brexit and Covid.
They can campaign on…. How well the top 5% have done? How good Fortnums hampers were this Christmas? Rishi’s last dental appointment? Unicorns? The tools will think of something.
You can't expect them to get everything right. The others are all the same ... I am sure they can find something for an election slogan out of that ... "don't trust them, they're worse ... we are still sorting out their mess".
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 16:50 - Jan 24 by backwaywhen
This country definitely needs a 2 year national service , for all those that are 18 to 25 and are currently self unemployed as Del Boy would say , far too many scrotes who think being on the dole is a self chosen career, install some discipline and manners into today lazy generation.
"When I was a lad... "
Tis bollox I am afraid, we don't need conscription the majority of youngsters are decent people, oldies just don't like the life they lead, which has nothing to do with them.
So, we're all going to fight Russia then... on 10:03 - Feb 1 by giant_stow
Taiwan and China have a fundamental difference which appears to tricky to talk out - China may not want war, but is certainly sounding willing to go there. As long as the Taiwanese people want to be independent, and China continues to boost its military hugely, what choice does the Taiwanese govt have but to spend more on arming itself as a way to deter war?
But mutual assured destruction means that the US and China will never go to war over this, particularly as Biden has said the US would defend Taiwan.
Far better to tone down the rhetoric on both sides, and give China the illusion that under the One China policy (which the US supports) it will somehow one day take control of Taiwan.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
