4 ms·
Your insinuation that the UK will implement a Ukraine war draft in order to advance a totalitarian agenda is weird, unnecessarily conspiratorial, and dilutes yo
by ahzhou 3y ago
Your insinuation that the UK will implement a Ukraine war draft in order to advance a totalitarian agenda is weird, unnecessarily conspiratorial, and dilutes your point.
I encourage you to make one point and to make it well.
- mcpackieh 3y agoAs long as conscription laws remain on the books, it should never be taboo to worry about those laws being put into practice.
- meepmorp 3y agoI don't think the point was that it is or should be taboo to talk about the possibility that conscription laws would be used, just that the particular context in which it's been brought up makes it weird. It sounds like fringy conspiratorial silliness, especially considering the utter lack of any evidence that western countries are considering actual combat operations in Ukraine. Or maybe a bit of propaganda. It's reasonable for people who want to seriously address the very real and legitimate problems with this kind of "wiretap" legislation to not want extraneous issues derailing the discussion, as having their concerns conflated with more conspiratorial-sounding ones makes them far easier to dismiss.
- etothepii 3y agoI don't think you understand anything about the British system if you think that "removing laws from the books" matters at all. As demonstrated by COVID regulations in emergency the law can be changed very quickly. Modern armies (like NATO members) have really got very little to gain by conscription. Being a modern soldier has very little to do with being cannon fodder.
- ghklqa 3y agoModern warfare against insurgents, where CNN broadcasts the night vision green victory footage. Unfortunately, in Ukraine both sides are cannon fodder again because modern anti air defenses are so good that the fighting relies on 155mm howitzers again. Which NATO has just run out of and has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities.
- gumballindie 3y ago> has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities. That’s scary. If 31 countries cant get their act together to manufacture basic weapons then we are in no better shape than russia. Should they win the war in ukraine and decide to attack other countries we’d be caught with our pants down.
- AdrianB1 3y agoYou can easily build capacities, but it requires will and money, both are missing.
- _kbh_ 3y ago> Unfortunately, in Ukraine both sides are cannon fodder again because modern anti air defenses are so good that the fighting relies on 155mm howitzers again. Which NATO has just run out of and has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities. To be fair it appears that Russia is using 10x more shells then they manufacture in a year so once they run out of their old soviet stock pile things will go south for them.
- ric2b 3y agoRussia constantly shares footage of their Ka-52 helicopters striking land vehicles, so clearly air vehicles are still able to operate in important areas.
- Tade0 3y agoI had defense readiness classes in high school back when there was still debate in my country whether to phase out conscription (which eventually happened) and our teacher, a retired colonel(who was against phasing it out), told us one thing that stuck with me: Conscripts are only good for defense - they know the area and the local language/customs. Additionally, they stand to lose their friends, family and possessions, so they're motivated to do something about that. None of these advantages apply on the offense.
- motohagiography 3y ago[flagged]
- vogon_laureate 3y agoSir, this is a Wendy’s.
- salawat 3y agoWrong. This was a Wendys. It is now a public forum. En garde! Besides which, if you get to use it for poetry readings, I reserve the right to air my polemic before you commit your war crime on literature everywhere.
- 3form 3y agoI wish you were aware how the thing that you just wrote reads from someone else's perspective. Anyway, it would be nice if you were open to actually propose some points that support your theories, rather than making a long-winded case about that people know nothing. You mentioning that: > end state of totalitarian movements requires a liquidation mechanism via war. isn't such a point, because it leaves the readers to guess why would you think so. For me, at best, I can assume you say so because it happened historically, but neither you say that, nor does an argument from history make for a really good one.