You're in the army now - well, maybe.

[guzzler17]

I didn't know that Status Quo were now running the country 😲

 

Oh well apart from

 

Not being able to sing in tune and

Unable to play any musical instrument

 

Count me in 😉

 

Whether that's in the army or a member of Quo I'll leave it for others to decide.

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

The forces need volunteers, not conscripts.

The problem is, the current inability to recruit & retain.

However, this is not unique to the UK Armed Forces.

Armed Forces pretty much the world over are having the same recruitment & retention problems.

 

I think the real issue is a total lack of strategy to enable the Country as a whole to become resilient within a couple of years or so.

 

We are so reliant on outside sources for all our current needs, as society dictates, that we are far too vulnerable as a country.

 

It only takes  a short bombardment [one day of sorties from north of Norway is sufficient] from Russian cruise missiles and the whole Country would be approaching the ''dark ages'....literally..So reliant are we on wind, Norwegian gas, etc..for our civilian needs.

As civilians, we are not mentally or physically prepared for such hardships.

As a society, as it stands at present, we'd fall apart in next to no time. We lack the gazumph that existed during 30's....We also lack a generation that hasn't endured the Cold War, or the fears that were generated.

I'm not on about nuclear warfare...far from it, that is unnecessary  in order to persuade out voting population that we really should not support NATO, or Europe, or anybody else, any more...Especially when it means our electric cars cannot be recharged, or we'd miss our sunny hols in Majorca!

 

The USA may be heading that way too....Isolationism is very attractive if one is economically large enough to not be subdued by bilateral international dealings.

I'd like to have a lot more faith in our institutions as well...But the current crop of politicians seem intent on breeding mistrust.

[didcot]

I think there was a comment on Jeremy Vines programme today along the lines of we are essentially in the same world status/crisis as in1937. We all know what happened next and it appears that humanity hasn't learnt the lessons

As a father of two teenage boys it fills me with dread. 

[Johann Marsbar]

14 minutes ago, guzzler17 said:

I didn't know that Status Quo were now running the country 😲

 

Oh well apart from

 

Not being able to sing in tune and

Unable to play any musical instrument

 

Count me in 😉

 

Whether that's in the army or a member of Quo I'll leave it for others to decide.

 

Quo got that song from someone else - Bolland & Bolland, originally released in 1982......

 

 

They wrote it, and I certainly remember hearing it on Dutch radio stations at that time. The Quo version came 4 years later in 1986!

[Michael Hodgson]

24 minutes ago, alastairq said:

The problem is, the current inability to recruit & retain.

However, this is not unique to the UK Armed Forces.

Armed Forces pretty much the world over are having the same recruitment & retention problems.

 

Really?  Messrs Netanyahu and Putin don't seem to be short of recruits.  I get the impression Benjamin is not losing as many of his troops as Vladimir Vladimirovich, but I don't think either of them is unduy worried about the numbers they have now or at the end of the day.  It may be a bit unpopular, but conscription does seem to work.

 

What seems to matter as much as ever is how up modern your equipment is and how much of it you've got (or can get in a hurry) compared to the other side.

 

PS

I'm lucky.  I grew up expecting to have to do "National Service", but it finished before it would have applied to me.

My father fought for King and country; he was in a reserved occuptation (GPO telegraphs) but volunteered as aircrew and my little brother chose the RAF as his career. 

Edited January 29 by Michael Hodgson

[Claude_Dreyfus]

6 hours ago, brossard said:

Surprised no-one has thought of this:

 

John

The one that really came to mind was this one...

 

 

[The Johnster]

Hang on a minute, I think I might have missed something.  Over the last week our military and parliamentary leaders have been talking up the concept of a trained citizen army to defend the home island against, or presumably to back an assault on, Russia.  What changed?  The situation in The Ukraine has been in place more or less unaltered for many months, with the Ukrainians (as far as I can tell) holding their own with weapons and financial assistance from Western Europe, not to mention Poland who are next in line, and of course, us.  Why has the top brass and the government decided now that we must be prepared mentally and trained militarily to conduct a total war?

 

There must have been a fairly important stategic shift in the balance on the River Don to provoke this (and yes, I can see the parallels with 1937).  What was it?  Do the Belarus intend to involve themselves?  Have we (meaning NATO, since other European NATO nations are showing similar signs of jitteryness, aren't they?) become aware of plans to invade the Baltic states, Sweden, or Poland?  Has Russia suddenly gained hitherto unsuspected resources or support?

 

My problem is that I don't fully trust our government in such matters, and I get suspicious when major changes in policy (and they don't get much majorer than all-out war in which the entire population of fighting age are expected to put themselves at the disposal of the military and the rest of us are expected to support them as fully as we can*) are implemented on the back of what feels a bit like a 'raising awareness' campaign, a war being marketed as our duty in a way that cannot be easily questioned or challenged.  Hitler had annexed Austria, the Sudatenland, and Czechoslovakia before his invasion of Poland kicked full-scale war off, so I can see how the current situation diverges from 1937 as well as the parallels.  Putin has gone as far as invading The Ukraine, so is in that sense in a position similar to Hitler in 1938 when he annexed Austria, except that Austria didn't mount anything like Ukrainian resistance.  It was pretty clear by the end of 1938 that war was coming, and the economy was put on a war footing; you'd have had to have been in pretty strong denial to set much store by Chamberlain's piece of paper!  We are not in that position, yet, though I see no harm in preparing for it. 

 

I doubt that there is much traction in a potential conventional conflict ground war with Russia.  The Russians have been historically hopeless at fighting aggressive wars outside their own territory, but at the same time pretty much unbeatable defending Mother Russia, so neither side has much to gain in such a conflict.  Because of this, and the enduring 'appeal' of MAD, the most likely outcome scenario is a stalemate and ongoing war of attrition on or close to the Russian western border, which is pretty much what we've got now.

 

The alternative is MAD, and everybody over the age of 50 on both sides knows it.  The younger generations who will have to do the dying possibly don't in quite the same way.  I feel sorry for them.

 

In 1961, when I was 9 years old, there was a demonstration/exhibition sort of thing on our local recreation ground, by Civil Defence.  They showed off some equipment, gave us gas masks to try on, and put on film shows in a film bus.  This was basically footage of British and American nuclear testing, kids in American schools doing duck and cover, and some quite horrific footage of Hiroshima/Nagasaki damage and survivors (I've since realised that much of this was edited and we were not shown the true extent of the horror).  We were introduced to the potential delights of fallout, radiation sickness, and societal collapse.  And then lectured on how best to cope in the aftermath; didn't take a genius who'd seen the Bravo test footage to work out that there really wasn't going to be an aftermath.  Or anything else.

 

Years later, talking to a mate who'd been in the RAF, an aircraft mechanic at a base with Victor bombers, he told me the following about a conversation he'd had with one of the pilots.  This pilot had worked out that his instruction, to destroy an airfield and everything else in a 5-mile radius somewhere in Eastern Germany, and then return to base had not accounted for the undeniable fact that the base would have been a lifeless smoking radioactive hole for some hours before they got back to it.  So he broached the subject with the Wing Commander about what he was best advised to do in the actual event.  'Well', says the Wingco, 'this is not official advice of course, but once you've got rid of the payload, what I'd suggest is continuing eastwards until the fuel runs out, should take you about 4,000 miles, bale out, find some fat jolly Siberian women, and have a go at restarting the human race'.

 

As I walked home from the rec with a group of friends of the same age, we discussed what we would do in the four minutes.  Agreement was very quickly reached that death was preferable to survival and that we would attempt to get to the highest and most exposed location that we could in the time available, because you only ever see this once.  The idea of 9-year olds agreeing that this was the best course of action is horrific, but was I believe quite normal amongst my generation.  Death is better than survival if that's all survival has to offer. 

 

Nothing that has happened since 1961 has promted me to change this bleak view, which has no doubt had it's long-term psychological effect on me and all of my generation.  Airbust 2,000 feet directly over my head, please, like switching off a light, gone, incinerated to atoms before you know anything's happening to you.

 

 

*I don't actually mind doing this, I mean I don't want to have to do it but it is my duty, generations before me have stepped up and so will I as much as I can.  But I want to know why I'm doing it, and the current talking-up and lack of discussion in the face of a full-on marketing-type awareness campaign that is in fact preventing any meaningful awareness feels very much like propaganda and manipulation.  I see no direct threat serious enough to warrant psychological preparation of the populace for all-out war, not yet anyway, not that we shouldn't be contingency planning as nervously as an Arab in an airport departure lounge.  So, I ask again, what just happened, actually happened, the facts.  I don't expect to be told, of course...

 

Don't trust the government to tell you the truth, always ask questions.  When you start hearing odd little clicks and noises on your phone, you'll know you are asking the right questions.  Keep asking them.  I'll lay down my life for my country and my King, in that order, but I want to know why???

Edited January 30 by The Johnster

[Hroth]

@The Johnster  The current problem with Russia is that Putin was a KGB operative in East Berlin when the wall came down and  he takes the "Westernisation" of the former Soviet Bloc as a personal insult and a direct threat to Mother Russia.  From his pov all he is trying to do is to recover that precious buffer zone against the capitalist West.

 

Soviet Russia may have had trouble keeping the Bloc in line but they managed to do so for nearly 35 years from '45 to '79 when the walls came tumbling down.

 

The mistake the West made was to see the events of the late 70s/early 80s as a chance to cash in on an illusory Peace Dividend, make swingeing cuts to our armed forces and divert the money into the pockets of greedy, selfish bankers and stock market manipulators.  It certainly didn't go to fund equitable social change for the vast majority of the country.

 

I don't know what the solution is, but I fear that trying to upsize our armed forces would cost more than tax-cutting politicians dare divert from a relatively comfy electorate who, like the Oxford Union in the 30s, hasn't the will to fight for King and Country.

 

Edited January 30 by Hroth

[Ozexpatriate]

13 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

AI fight a virtual war and tell us its outcome

A Taste of Armageddon.

 

(Star Trek: the original series) for the unwary.

[Ozexpatriate]

8 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Messrs Netanyahu and Putin don't seem to be short of recruits.

Service is mandatory in Israel. I suspect conscription in Russia is very unpopular - of course that may be a reflection of western reportage of the deluge outflow at the borders when it was announced or the use of ex-criminal mercenaries on the frontlines

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Hroth said:

 

The mistake the West made was to see the events of the late 70s/early 80s as a chance to cash in on an illusory Peace Dividend, make swingeing cuts to our armed forces and divert the money into the pockets of greedy, selfish bankers and stock market manipulators.  It certainly didn't go to fund equitable social change for the vast majority of the country.

 

In spades.  We saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as guaranteeing democracy in Russia, because everybody wants democracy don't they.  Not only did the 'Peace Dividend' fail to materialise here, the cash as you rightly say being diverted to the pockets of bankers and venture capitalists who mostly lost it, but the benefits of a free market failed to materialise in Russia, where it also failed to provide equitable social change for the vast majoritiy of that country.  Because we had enough blind and delusional faith in the power of democracy to regulate itself without assistance in a country of oligarchs, many overtly criminal and with strong and effective power bases rooted in the Soviet era, thinking that the collapse of the wall and the downfall of the Soviet system proved that our system was intrinsically superior having 'won out' over Communism, we sold the Russian people down the river; it has been a broken country ever since.   Well, let's be honest, it hasn't really been unbroken since Ivan the Terrible set up his secret police.

 

We played into the oligarchs' hands by investing heavily in their enterprises, in the belief that it was a business opportunity.  We should have been seeing it as a chance for genuine reform of a country that needed us to help set up robust institutions and systems for it that would serve it well, which would have been worth it to promote accord between them and us in the future, i.e. now.  A stable, happy, Russia that has the respect of the world community would never suffer the likes of Vlad the Insaner and his cronies; he's dying, but not quickly enough, and wants to leave his mark on history by safeguarding his country, patriotic, in a corrupt and highly unpleasant way.  Instead, in a blind search for profits we thought would be easily made off the backs of people who had no idea how capitalism worked we bankrolled the oligarchs, who stole the money and pocketed it, having as it happened a very good idea exactly how capitalism worked, which is exactly like Karl Marx said it did!  Many ordinary Russians are worse off, and living in poorer conditions now than in the Soviet era which many of the older ones want back; this is also one of the pillars of Putin's hold over them.  Capitalism red in toof an' clore comes as a culture shock to people who are used to subsidised housing, heating (this is Russia we are talking about), and public transport, then suddenly have to pay what some crook in a hand-made suit with a private army reckons is a market price for all those things!  The word 'Landlord' is as historically loaded in Russia as it is in Eire, and with good reason, but the Landlords are back, and so are the peasants, pretty much...

 

For which Western free enterprise capitalism and lack of foresight must shoulder their share of the responsibility.  They never will, though.  They'll kill us all in a profitable war to make an easy buck, with god (Anglican or Orthodox) on their side!

[jjb1970]

On national service, I see a lot of positives whilst being opposed in principle.

 

The positives are it can provide good training and experience if done well, it can also act as a glue for society by providing a shared experience. 

 

The reason I am opposed despite seeing a lot of positives is I don't agree with compelling people to enlist in anything unless they actively volunteer, especially the armed forces where part of the deal is possibly being sent to fight and die in a war.

 

The last bit is rather important to me. I am currently in a country with national service, I see the upsides and although I still do not support the idea I will also say it helps cement society as a cohesive hole. The difference between here and the UK is that young people here do two years where they can play with expensive toys and go on training exercises in places like Brunei, Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia, and the government see's the army largely as a defence force. If they fight it'll be to protect their home, even as a bit of an anti-militarist (despite an avid interest in military history and military equipment) I can see why that could be necessary. In the UK if I look at the propensity of politicians to get involved in wars nowhere near us and in which have little if any stake then there's no way I could put aside my objection to forcing youngsters into the army.

[alastairq]

Folks, try a few of these Youtube Channelers?  For the key takeaways....

On recruitment and retention , try

 

 

[Kickstart]

I do wonder if the recruitment / retention issues the armed forces have are a combination of factors which amount to not being treated well. Rounds of redundancies with more and more time deployed in hot and sandy environments where people are trying to kill them. This can become self perpetuating, if less people means more time deployed, so more recruitment issues, etc.

 

Might also not help that there is now a far higher perception of the chances of being severely wounded, when those who have been wounded are more likely to survive and then be seen in society at large (this is not denigrating those who have been severely wounded, rather just the effect on the public and its knowledge of the chances of life changing injuries).

 

We also have perceptions of kit not being fit for purpose. SA80 for example - even if those in combat use will be the upgraded version which seem liked and reliable there is still the perception that it is unreliable (from memory, only about half the L85A1 were upgraded to L85A2 standard).

 

Further, how appealing is it to join a military to fight a war that doesn't appear to be an appropriate place to stick our noses, and which has no real defined plan for completion?

 

Possibly the comments on preparing for a citizen army have more to do with just increasing military spending to strengthen the professional armed forces to avoid talking about conscription. I doubt the UK could arm a conscript army, nor could source the weapons to do so in any short space of time.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[alastairq]

For political psychology [from an expert who advises the UK Govt......]  try looking through this guy's videos?

 

https://www.youtube.com/@VladVexlerChat/videos

 

He explains exactly what Putin's real intentions are.

It is dangerous to view Russian policy from UK eyes...

[russ p]

I wish people in high places would stop talking up was as if there is WW3 there would only be one outcome no matter if there is conscription or not.

As this country has massively deindustrialised and closed most air bases it would take many nukes to completely immobilise this country 

Anyone living near an American airbase or big city can look forward to vaporisation in an instant away from that look forward to to a slow painful death from radiation sickness and  starvation in a world with no power water or medical care as no electrical equipment would work nor would 99.9% of vehicles 

I think I'll be having a hearty breakfast or paracetamols in antifreeze that day

Everyone should watch threads before talking WW3 up

Also back in the cold War there were many bunkers for a futile attempt to reestablish civilization,  most of these have been derelict for years 

[didcot]

And against this the UK/USA governments are quietly bringing Lakenheath back to nuclear base.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-68129189

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, russ p said:

I wish people in high places would stop talking up was as if there is WW3 there would only be one outcome no matter if there is conscription or not.

As this country has massively deindustrialised and closed most air bases it would take many nukes to completely immobilise this country 

Anyone living near an American airbase or big city can look forward to vaporisation in an instant away from that look forward to to a slow painful death from radiation sickness and  starvation in a world with no power water or medical care as no electrical equipment would work nor would 99.9% of vehicles 

I think I'll be having a hearty breakfast or paracetamols in antifreeze that day

Everyone should watch threads before talking WW3 up

Also back in the cold War there were many bunkers for a futile attempt to reestablish civilization,  most of these have been derelict for years 

Who's talking it up, as if it's something wanted? Lunatics who think they can start something and win are the danger, and they're running other countries. Arguing that we need a credible military is NOT talking up WW3.

[alastairq]

3 minutes ago, russ p said:

I wish people in high places would stop talking up was as if there is WW3 there would only be one outcome no matter if there is conscription or not.

As this country has massively deindustrialised and closed most air bases it would take many nukes to completely immobilise this country 

Anyone living near an American airbase or big city can look forward to vaporisation in an instant away from that look forward to to a slow painful death from radiation sickness and  starvation in a world with no power water or medical care as no electrical equipment would work nor would 99.9% of vehicles 

I think I'll be having a hearty breakfast or paracetamols in antifreeze that day

Everyone should watch threads before talking WW3 up

Also back in the cold War there were many bunkers for a futile attempt to reestablish civilization,  most of these have been derelict for years 

 No, there won't be a ''world war three'' in the old, cold war sense.

 

That is recognised as being counter productive to all concerned.

 

But we will likely see an attempt by Russia, within the next few years, to challenge NATO's Article 5....That is Putin's  [acknowledged, and proven] ambition, to see the collapse of NATO [and probably the EU too]...so that Russia can then interact with other countries on a bilateral basis.

Russia has always known that they could never stand up to the combined resources of NATO..[which is why they chose to concentrate their military energies on air defence, EW, etc]..during the cold war.

But once NATO is seen as a hollow entity [would countries really  rush to the support of those whom Russia attacks? ], then Russia can interact with all the smaller countries from a position of power, based on size & resources.

 

Putin genuinely believes the democratic  west is on the decline. He's probably right in that respect.

 

Any politician who thinks this is all bluster and rubbish, needs to take their heads out of the sand. 

 

Russia doesn't want escalation, so will chose to prod NATO somewhere where the likes of us in the UK won't care about. Somewhere where, if NATO does stand up for its beliefs,  Russia can withdraw and say ''ooops, sorry, bit of a blunder there''.....

 

We are no averse to dumping on less fortunate nationalities, as history has proved.

 

Much will depend on how secure Putin sees his regime within Russia?

 

 

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

The reason I am opposed despite seeing a lot of positives is I don't agree with compelling people to enlist in anything unless they actively volunteer, especially the armed forces where part of the deal is possibly being sent to fight and die in a war.

I'm with you on that - I strongly dislike any form of compulsion (laws can prohibit but should never compel), and military service is the peak of that. Whilst there are always exceptions that can be made in extremes all reasonable efforts should be made to avoid them, and when they can't be it needs to be acknowledged that a bad thing is done which we hope is the lesser evil. I'd go as far as labelling compulsions like jury duty in that (you can certainly argue that it's the least bad choice), so you can imagine what I think of conscription.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

On national service, I see a lot of positives whilst being opposed in principle.

 

The positives are it can provide good training and experience if done well, it can also act as a glue for society by providing a shared experience. 

 

The reason I am opposed despite seeing a lot of positives is I don't agree with compelling people to enlist in anything unless they actively volunteer, especially the armed forces where part of the deal is possibly being sent to fight and die in a war.

 

 

It's not much of choice when it's a question of joining the military and risk being kllled or stay at home and risk being killed.

Ask somebody who lived through the blitz or failing that, a Ukrainian.

 

If an enemy is coming here to kill me, I'd rather have a gun to defend myself than a pitchfork.  There's a lot of nasty people in this world, and I can understand why kids living on sink estates carry knives.  Politicians can make it illegal to carry knives or to commit genocide, but if they haven't the resurces to enforce it, people will inevitably look to what they can do for themselves.

[C126]

Are those in the modern fighting forces really wanting assistance from 'amateurs'?  I thought the professionals looked upon Territorials and conscriptionists as a bit of a joke, like Special Constables in the police forces.

 

[APOLLO]

I'll be off to here. It's a secret place, (well signposted) so it's easy to find in an emergency !!

 

 

 

£15.80 entrance fee, A bargain !!!

 

https://www.hackgreen.co.uk/

 

Brit15

[C126]

4 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

I'll be off to here. It's a secret place, (well signposted) so it's easy to find in an emergency !!

 

 

 

£15.80 entrance fee, A bargain !!!

 

https://www.hackgreen.co.uk/

 

Brit15

 

Kelvedon Hatch is cheaper: £12.00!

 

https://secretnuclearbunker.com/

 

😀

[APOLLO]

When I worked for The North Western Gas Board at Longford works in Warrington back in the mid 70's there was a grey telephone in the entrance lodge. Pick up the receiver and only a ticking sound could be heard. It was connected to the UK "early warning system" so I understood, 4 minutes (or so) warning.

 

What was funny was that nobody, boss included, had a clue what to do if ever that phone rang, and the lodge was unmanned overnight. !!! (It did occasionally the lodge man told us, just a verbal "test only" message).

 

Happy days !!

 

Brit15