Four UK conscription elements that determines if the UK introduces a WW3 army draft
An EU briefing on mandatory military service has outlined what considerations are taken into account when deciding whether to force citizens to serve – here are the four key factors
Some experts have sounded the alarm it might be time for conscription to come back to the UK
With the world seemingly more perilous than ever, talk about the potential reintroduction of conscription in Britain has been sparked. While the practice was abolished in the 1960s – having first been implemented during the First World War in 1916 – there are fears it could make a return.
However, an EU briefing on compulsory military service from March last year outlined the factors considered when deciding whether to mandate citizens’ military service. Should the British Government deem it necessary, they may take into account similar considerations. The EU report stated: “national security threats and the degree of threat perception are essential variables.”
It added: “Expert analysis highlights that countries such as Greece, Cyprus, and Nordic and Baltic countries, whose interests are under threat from ‘unresolved conflicts in their neighbourhood‘, adhere to conscription.”
Alongside this, research indicated “non-aligned” nations not partaking in military alliances “may choose to maintain large armies through conscription because no other state is obliged to assist them in case of an attack.”
Another factor to ponder – according to the document – is whether modern militaries require conscripts given the advancements in warfare technology, which could potentially serve as a replacement. For instance, the United States reportedly contemplated proposing the integration of a robot platoon into its armoured brigade combat teams in 2024, as per the EU paper.
The paper added: “Some experts also believe that short conscript service periods may not equip soldiers for modern warfare. Advances in artificial intelligence and discussions about the development of (lethal) autonomous weapons may support this argument.”
Nevertheless, others argue contemporary conflict “continues to be labour intensive”, with today’s battlefield demanding “new expertise in the cyber and space domains, while traditional military professions remain indispensable”.
“Even if a military is technologically advanced, mass may also be useful if the force structure cannot absorb personnel losses. Triggered by media reports about new NATO troop number targets, an expert considers ‘more European countries are going to have to look at conscription if they’re going to have any hope of meeting their targets,'” the briefing says.
Financial and economic considerations are both factors in the debate surrounding whether a professional army, an all-volunteer force, or a mixed approach would prove more economically viable, reports the Express.
“Most economists consider conscription results in an ‘inefficient match between people and jobs’ and in ‘output losses’ which could have been avoided,” the EU document read.
“The basis of this argument lies in the belief that conscripted armies ignore the comparative advantage of each person, leading to lower productive capacity. Moreover, from a societal perspective, a conscription system shifts the burden of manpower costs from society (i.e. taxpayers) onto young conscripts.”
Public opinion and “how society has historically perceived conscription and the military in general play crucial roles in this discussion”. According to polls cited in the Niinistö Report, public opinion “tends to be sensitised by the threat environment”.
The briefing further added: “Research indicates that a population’s strong willingness to fight a) plays a crucial role in shaping political decisions regarding conscription, and b) can influence the effectiveness of conscription by fostering a sense of unity and enhancing morale.”
