Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-26

[Grey Fox]

I think you should feel legitimised. The world has changed. Dictatorship and tyranny awaits them if they don't start defending it.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah it would be a big shift here because national service has basically always been temporary (conscription, like standing armies, are obviously historically associated with continental tyranny and Popery ) - so we last had it from 1939 and started gradually getting rid of it in the late 50s and it was gone by the early 60s.

But I think there's reason enough - both Russia's behaviour in Europe, challenges recruiting into the forces, social divisions etc - that make me think it might be something we need to do. Hopefully, again, temporarily.

[Tamas]

Yeah it would be a big shift here because national service has basically always been temporary (conscription, like standing armies, are obviously historically associated with continental tyranny and Popery ) - so we last had it from 1939 and started gradually getting rid of it in the late 50s and it was gone by the early 60s.

But I think there's reason enough - both Russia's behaviour in Europe, challenges recruiting into the forces, social divisions etc - that make me think it might be something we need to do. Hopefully, again, temporarily.

What would be the point for the UK? Wouldn't we be nuking Russia if they land on the island? Similarly, if a mass conscripted army is needed on the continent, nukes will be flying by then.

It MAY be necessary for a country like Germany (defo for Baltic States for example) but I can't shake the feeling you guys are so gung ho about it because you are too old to be called up.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

What would be the point for the UK? Wouldn't we be nuking Russia if they land on the island? Similarly, if a mass conscripted army is needed on the continent, nukes will be flying by then.

It MAY be necessary for a country like Germany (defo for Baltic States for example) but I can't shake the feeling you guys are so gung ho about it because you are too old to be called up.

"The British army should be a projectile to be fired by the British navy."

Though these days, the Royal Navy could use some help...

[Tonitrus]

Yeah it would be a big shift here because national service has basically always been temporary (conscription, like standing armies, are obviously historically associated with continental tyranny and Popery ) - so we last had it from 1939 and started gradually getting rid of it in the late 50s and it was gone by the early 60s.

But I think there's reason enough - both Russia's behaviour in Europe, challenges recruiting into the forces, social divisions etc - that make me think it might be something we need to do. Hopefully, again, temporarily.

What would be the point for the UK? Wouldn't we be nuking Russia if they land on the island? Similarly, if a mass conscripted army is needed on the continent, nukes will be flying by then.

It MAY be necessary for a country like Germany (defo for Baltic States for example) but I can't shake the feeling you guys are so gung ho about it because you are too old to be called up.

I think there are arguments for a robust BEF to support defense against limited incursions/conflict in the Baltics/Scandanavia, etc.

I guess that means I am not sure I agree with the "nukes will be flying", or at least not immediately and massively.  I don't rule out (and even might expect...moreso if Russia thinks the US won't act) in a case like that Russia would use 1-3 "demonstrative" nuclear weapons in an attempt to cow the rest of EU into submission.

I kind of expect a potential Russia/NATO (EU?) war would run more along the lines of Twilight 2000...a fair bit of conventional with limited nuclear use.  If Russia, say, deployed a smaller nuclear weapon as a blocker to the Suwalki gap while rolling into the Baltics, I doubt the UK/French response would be to nuke Moscow and St Petersburg.

Though if Putin inhales too much of Solovyov's Anglo-Saxon hate rhetoric and puts a nuke on London as their "demonstration"...then yeah, ya'll should.

[Tonitrus]

That being said, I would actually be surprised if Putin decides to move against NATO/the Baltics.  I think he will provoke and prod (ala the sabotage in Poland) as much as he can get away with short of open conflict.

I am far more worried about whomever takes over the Russian state when Putin dies. 

[Tonitrus]

Also, ya'll should just go ahead and stop/board/seize this fucker:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx24028k7edo

Russian spy ship pointed lasers at RAF pilots tracking it, says UK
2 hours ago

Brian Wheeler,Political reporter and Paul Seddon,Political reporter

A Russian spy ship has used lasers for the first time to disrupt RAF pilots tracking its activity near UK waters, the defence secretary has said.

John Healey told reporters the "deeply dangerous" move from the Yantar was being taken "extremely seriously" by the government.

He added that the vessel was north of Scotland and had entered UK waters for the second time this year during the last few weeks.

[crazy canuck]

That being said, I would actually be surprised if Putin decides to move against NATO/the Baltics.  I think he will provoke and prod (ala the sabotage in Poland) as much as he can get away with short of open conflict.

I am far more worried about whomever takes over the Russian state when Putin dies. 

I wonder if Russia is testing to see if the alliance will hold despite having an unreliable US.  So far so good.

[Sheilbh]

What would be the point for the UK? Wouldn't we be nuking Russia if they land on the island? Similarly, if a mass conscripted army is needed on the continent, nukes will be flying by then.

It MAY be necessary for a country like Germany (defo for Baltic States for example) but I can't shake the feeling you guys are so gung ho about it because you are too old to be called up.

I think, practically, it's hopefully of limited use as there'd be a division of labour across Europe. In that case I think Britain should prioritise the Nordics and the High North/Atlantic.

But I think there are two big reasons it may still be worthwhile. The first is just solidarity with the rest of Europe. I think an awful lot of Europe's problems with security come from freeloading and I'm not sure it's right for us to just allow the Baltics, Germany etc to bear costs for the defence of the continent that we won't. The other is that from the opinion polling I've seen (and this is quite old) we are actually one of the more bellicose countries in Europe - so the opinion polling on fighting to defend Baltic states is pretty concerning from a lot of European states (including those who are in NATO, the EU and share a currency with, say, Estonia) and comparedly pretty robust in the UK so there may still need to be a role.

[Tamas]

Whatever the solituion is to defend the Baltic States, sending in conscripts won't be it, certainly not the best one.

I wonder if they redid that poll in the UK asking people how they would feel if they and men they know would HAVE to go and fight in the Baltics after minimal training.

In the UK especially, take all that money a conscripted mass army would cost and maintain a robust navy, airforce and a BEF.

[Tonitrus]

Whatever the solituion is to defend the Baltic States, sending in conscripts won't be it, certainly not the best one.

I wonder if they redid that poll in the UK asking people how they would feel if they and men they know would HAVE to go and fight in the Baltics after minimal training.

In the UK especially, take all that money a conscripted mass army would cost and maintain a robust navy, airforce and a BEF.

Sending to conscripts to fight, no it wouldn't.  But conscripts could potentially be helpful in lots of logistical/support roles, which can be as much as 8-14 servicemembers-to-frontliners.

Also, does the UK generally have enough volunteers to maintain a robust RN/Army/RAF?

[Sheilbh]

Also, does the UK generally have enough volunteers to maintain a robust RN/Army/RAF?

We don't have enough to maintain the current forces, so no.

I think the recruitment side could be quite important from a UK perspective.

[Tonitrus]

Also, does the UK generally have enough volunteers to maintain a robust RN/Army/RAF?

We don't have enough to maintain the current forces, so no.

I think the recruitment side could be quite important from a UK perspective.

One of things I had noticed when I was stationed there, was that my middle level enlisted-scum salary was roughly the equivalent to a Major in the UK forces.

Not to mention that on-base support services/creature comforts for troops were much more lacking than our equivalent.  Digby has a really nice gym though.

Another interesting phenomenon was the large amount of folks that "lived" local to the base during the work week, but went "home" (where they kept their family)...even as far as Cornwall or Manchester...on the weekends.

[Sheilbh]

Salary and services is not much of a surprise - but the US is particularly strong on that, I believe.

Surprised by the last point though as I've knowna couple of squaddie towns and I very much got the impression they were there (and in force) on the weekends Although I wonder if there's a forces difference too. Like I definitely know navy towns where people who are serving and their families live. But I think it is less common with army and RAF/they're in more remote areas - maybe also just a function of the Royal Navy needing an entire industrial apparatus at their bases? So it's more obviously a very naval town.