danny Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Im not talking about conscription ala WW2 im talking about national serivde which ran from the end of the war until 1960. The troops were not always used. But often just held as a standing force etc. If a new cold war does start it may have to happen. As all 3 forces have been reduced to such an extent under mostly labour but also the conservatives before them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 If I had to go, I'd go and do my best, I guess. I'd like to think all those years playing FPS would give us a little advantage. I feel that. But it might give us a bit of a God complex. We'll charge thinking we'll simply respawn if anything goes wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portlett Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 I think national service could be a good thing for this country. You think of all the chavs and delingquents and kids involved in knife crime, if they had to do a few years national service it might actually change their lives and sort them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Bog bless exemption Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfox Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 There's pros and cons: Pros - good armed forces to defend the country, teaches delinquents disapline and gets them off the street and actually doing something for their country Cons - its forcing people to do what they might not want I dunno if I'd be for it, its not that I think its a bad idea - just not convinced its necessary, yet. I'd get out of it anyway, and hopefully when I qualify I'd be an automatic officer.. huzzah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 I can safely say I would not wish to do it (and I know its not really a choice thing except maybe totally cowering out and fleeing). Im a pacifist, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I were forced to kill. Perhaps helping in other ways wouldn't be so bad, but on the actual battlefront with weaponary at hand. Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 National Service itself is pretty flawed for today's society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 National Service itself is pretty flawed for today's society. More flawed than being over run by a foregian agressor? Im guessing not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 c'mon- like that'd possibly happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoMan1031 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 It would sort out alot of problems with the scum of society, teach them some disapline. Send all the druggies who eat away at our taxes to live to the front line as cannon fodder! Thats what i say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 More flawed than being over run by a foregian agressor? Im guessing not. More flawed than a gigantic whale landing on your house?! Than a sea of rabid dogs sweeping over our great nation?! I'm guessing not. I raise your scaremongering situation by twelve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 More flawed than a gigantic whale landing on your house?! Than a sea of rabid dogs sweeping over our great nation?! I'm guessing not. I raise your scaremongering situation by twelve. Its not scaremongering. Just a situation that could be enviasged. Ie the cold war. War never happened (hence the cold war). the only reason it did not happen though was both sides USSR in the east and NATO in the west both ammassed huge armys to the point each side was far to scared to go to war. Hence hwo we could end up back in that same situation again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 I dunno if I would be signed up with my health problems. Don't you have to be in relatively good condition to be signed up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 I dunno if I would be signed up with my health problems. Don't you have to be in relatively good condition to be signed up? Yes but i would expect in this day and age they would have you do an MOD civilain job for 2 years or something. If you were not fit to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 the cold war had nothing to do with armies. if that shit had kicked off, most (if not all) of this lovely Island and the rest of Europe would have been a smouldering pile of ash within a couple of hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodleman Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Its not scaremongering. Just a situation that could be enviasged. Ie the cold war. War never happened (hence the cold war). the only reason it did not happen though was both sides USSR in the east and NATO in the west both ammassed huge armys to the point each side was far to scared to go to war. Hence hwo we could end up back in that same situation again. See that's not strictly true to say there was no war during the cold war. Those pesky Ruskies definitely weren't supporting the Vietcong for example. Also the whole amassing a large army to prevent going to war is an utterly retarded argument. See the causes of World War 1 for an example of this. I'm totally against National Service least of because there is no way the country could actually afford it anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 the cold war had nothing to do with armies. if that shit had kicked off, most (if not all) of this lovely Island and the rest of Europe would have been a smouldering pile of ash within a couple of hours. Thats debatable. Nuclear weaopons ahve only been used twice in anger. Nuclear weapons played there part in the cold war deffiantly a masssive part. But the armys did just as much. Nuclear weapons are employed by nations not to be used to blow other countrys up. But to stop other countrys using nuclear weapons agaisnt them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 you're forgetting how powerful H-Bombs are, then. They might be aimed at air bases, nuclear sites and government centres but they'd also destroy everything else, practically as a bi-product. They were also designed explicitly to destroy rural areas in a way the atom bomb never could, so that the military couldn't retreat away from populated areas and retaliate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Nuclear weapons are employed by nations not to be used to blow other countrys up. But to stop other countrys using nuclear weapons agaisnt them. So the easiest way to stop a country from blowing you up is to blow them up first. I think it would be a good idea. But there are plenty more problems that they should solve first. For one stop giving all of the fat, lazy, benefit scroungers lots of money to fund their criminal lifestyles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 I'd leave the country if National Service were ever put into action. Unless I could get a job in the forces where I wasn't in the battlefield. I'm not going to run into a desert to get shot for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 you're forgetting how powerful H-Bombs are, then. They might be aimed at air bases, nuclear sites and government centres but they'd also destroy everything else, practically as a bi-product. They were also designed explicitly to destroy rural areas in a way the atom bomb never could, so that the military couldn't retreat away from populated areas and retaliate. Im not forgetting how powerful they are. But the millitary planners (in this country at least) do not plan on using them. there name in this country is not nuclear weapons but a Nuclear deterant. (That isnt just a bit of PR either) They do have a secondry role that they could be used to blow things up. but there primary role is that no one will use nuclear weapons against us. if we ahve nuclear weapons to fire back at them. That is in respect to any hostile nation. Clearly it dosent work against some lunatic or terrarist cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Im not forgetting how powerful they are. But the millitary planners (in this country at least) do not plan on using them. there name in this country is not nuclear weapons but a Nuclear deterant. (That isnt just a bit of PR either)They do have a secondry role that they could be used to blow things up. but there primary role is that no one will use nuclear weapons against us. if we ahve nuclear weapons to fire back at them. That is in respect to any hostile nation. Clearly it dosent work against some lunatic or terrarist cell. *slaps hand against head* My friend went into the RAF but left. He said that the brain washing was obvious and more over, scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 *slaps hand against head* My friend went into the RAF but left. He said that the brain washing was obvious and more over, scary. Well if its not true that nuclear weapons are used as a detrerant. Why have we never opted to use them? Say against Argentina. They invaded british soil. It was not clear who wold win a conventional campaign. They did not have nuclear weapons to fire back. So Why didnt we just nuke them. Rather than commit to a massive conventional campaign in which we were far from certain of wining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 I'd leave the country if National Service were ever put into action. Unless I could get a job in the forces where I wasn't in the battlefield. I'm not going to run into a desert to get shot for anyone. In national service you probably wouldn't even see battle. You would just be trained and possibly brought in in case of a war like WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Well if its not true that nuclear weapons are used as a detrerant. Why have we never opted to use them? Say against Argentina. They invaded british soil. It was not clear who wold win a conventional campaign. They did not have nuclear weapons to fire back. So Why didnt we just nuke them. Rather than commit to a massive conventional campaign in which we were far from certain of wining? So many, many reasons. I'm worried you can't think of one, having served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts