That will be down to the UK government not NATO.
It is certainly possible. But our current military leaders have made it clear in the past,
1 career milatary volunteer is worth 100s of untrained forced fighters.
The cost of training huge numbers of conscripted fighters. When fighting a modern battle. Is not going to be the first choice of our military by any means. Moving from a total voluntary army to conscription would take a huge change in our forces. More so then the US that at least still keeps records suitable for drafting young fighters.
I don’t know about you guys but anyone close to Russia probably understands the usefulness of conscription.
Given russia has taken 2 years to fail to win a war it expected to win overnight. And it conscription draws from a population 3 x the size of the Ukraine. Most would be less then impressed with the effectiveness of forced labour fighting in a nation they do not care about. Vs people defending their own home.
And that has been the point the UK military leaders have argued in the past. Conscription is only effective when folks need to defend their family. Not fight for political/ politicians gain.
I think this was about defensive use?
The British people must be prepared for military conscription and making other sacrifices to defend the UK if Russia attacks, a former senior army commander has warned.
He said the country needs to snap out of thinking war is always an “away game”.
“You’re not mobilising because you’re going to invade somebody else’s country. You’re mobilising because someone is threatening yours – and your family and your livelihood.
“If we were to go to war with a power like Russia, we would have to secure the homeland, guarding things. We would have to play a bigger part in deterrence – and fighting on continental Europe.
Ukraine probably wouldn’t exist today without conscription. Their manpower reserves is one of the huge assets they have.
You can have professional troops for overseas service and conscripts for defense. And you’d have more ability to send those professionals abroad when you have capable soldiers at home. I think that’s what they’re talking about in the article anyway.
I’m doubtful. Conscript soldiers are great for filling trenches; for specialized and technical fields that first world armies like the UK and rest of NATO employ, it’s not nearly as useful. The training is simply too involved and time consuming.
I mean, if there were to be conscription it probably wouldn’t be for technical roles like mechanics or artillery coordinators. It would be for logistical duties (drive this truck, mop this floor, cook this soup) and for dads-army-esque garrison duty. That then frees up the career soldiers to do what they are trained for. Mass mobilisation for an infantry-focused army I cannot see happening, mostly because Russia would be rubble by the time we get that desperate.
How does one prepare for conscription? Keep a bag packed, just in case?
find out what the list of medical exemptions are
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/uk-conscription-exemptions-certain-health-31973713
id imagine theyd get more lenient for conscripts though
Both my grandfather’s on both sides fought in both world war 1 and world war II and all four were killed, so there doesn’t really seem to be much future in conscription.
This is bullshit. There will be no war between NATO and Russia of the type that needs Britons to conscript. Russia has few meat sacks left to send into any war. Having sacrificed 350,000 of its youth in Ukraine, Russia is scraping then bottom of the barrel for chumps willing the have their guts splattered on distant frozen farm fields. Russia now has to resort to mining prisons and third world countries for troops. What remains of Russia’s war materiel (tanks, vehicles, etc) is antiquated. When it comes to conventional warfare, Russia is a joke.
Now nukes and missles on the other hand, that’s a different story. Russia has plenty of them. But again, if Russia hits NATO with something like that, retaliation is like-for-like, and no foot soldiers are needed.
But it won’t come to that because in spite of Russia’s blustering and the media’s fear mongering, Russia knows that such a strike on nato would mean the end of Russia. And Russia wants to continue to exist.
Russia will not be seeking to get a firm NATO response in the form of troops mobilised; they will be seeking to carefully undermine confidence in article 5 with small offenses that “should” trigger it but (they hope) don’t, causing fractures in the alliance that will allow them to be more brazen. They don’t want to deal with blocs of countries, they have more leverage in 1:1 negotiations and will seek ways to force more of these on NATO members.
Which they’ve done blatantly since Georgia. Well put friend. I’ve been trying to articulate it this succinctly. Always think of raptors testing the cage.
Credit for this explanation to Anders Puck Nielsen. He puts things into words in a way that clicks with me