Young Brits could be targeted in a potential conscription bill, after a new report warned Britain’s army is “underprepared and under attack”— made worse by the fact our military is at its smallest in 200 years
A fresh report has branded Britain “underprepared and under attack”, highlighting that the British Army consists of just 70,000 soldiers — its smallest size in over 200 years. And now there are fears that the government is set to impose conscription — mandatory military service — to prepare for a potential war.
Nations across Europe have begun preparing for worst-case scenarios, from distributing lengthy emergency readiness guides to citizens, to bringing back mandatory military service. Germany has indicated that if the volunteer approach fails to boost recruitment adequately, they might restore mandatory service for young men, which they abolished in 2011 when tensions were lower.
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and Turkey are all NATO members that currently operate mandatory conscription, with Croatia set to join their ranks this year.
The fresh report, authored by MPs and a former senior NATO advisor, argued that Britain can no longer count on America to uphold Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which declares that an assault on one member constitutes an assault on all members. The Civitas report also cautioned that the US isn’t just working along the same guidelines as its NATO allies, but is already acting against the interests of other members of the alliance, according to the Mirror.
The document further stated: “New forms of governance and the development of a war-capable political process are well overdue,” whilst demanding that the whole of British society be mobilised and readied for warfare.” Britain has not enforced conscription since 1963, when the final soldiers completed their mandatory duty and joined the armed forces.
Apart from this, the nation has only imposed such measures during relatively brief spells: from 1916-1920 and from 1939-1960, during both World Wars. However, the UK stands alone as the only nation to recruit soldiers aged 16 years old and upwards — something one expert argues desperately needs to change due to the moral implications of the role.
Dr. Jonathan Parry from the London School of Economics, said that a soldier is one of the few jobs that may require killing someone, and even when a 16-year-old enlists voluntarily, some major ethical questions need to be asked. Roughly 1 in 4 army recruits enlist before turning 18, according to Dr Parry, with many hailing from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Dr Parry explained mass conscription “is obviously going to be hard to justify, given the high level of coercion and costs involved”. Some believe that imposing conscription on young people can foster what’s known as the “school for the nation”, but Professor Vincenzo Bove considers this a “romantic” concept.
He explained: “According to this view, conscription brings together young citizens from different social, regional, and economic backgrounds, exposes them to common rules and sacrifices. And in doing so helps forge a shared sense of national purpose and identity.
“In this perspective, the military ‘dissolves’ social divisions and instils civic virtues such as discipline, solidarity, and duty to the nation. The assumption is that a strong military identity naturally becomes a shared civic identity.”
Yet the expert’s findings don’t support this as fact. In fact, powerful military identities emerge through conscription in a manner that proves “very effective”, though this may well sacrifice a broader cultural identity. Dr Parry clarifies that widespread universal conscription would likely prove ineffective, stating: “I doubt that such a model would be practically very useful — it would be astronomically expensive and unlikely to produce highly-trained personnel.
“But there are much more ‘light touch’ versions of conscription available,” which he characterises as “less coercive [and] disruptive and more likely to be effective.” Thousands of people have also said they would refuse to join the military, even under conscription.
One specialist informs the Mirror that this might create a “significant concern” for Westminster, potentially posing a “threat” to cohesion during wartime. “Right now, most young Britons say they wouldn’t be willing to fight to defend the UK in surveys, which suggests that resistance to a draft could become a serious issue in a major conflict,” explains Dr. Marco Giani from Kings College London.
“But our feelings and willingness to fight could shift quickly if the geopolitical situation changed dramatically.” During the First World War, those who refused conscription and did not wish to fight, known as conscientious objectors (COs), faced severe punishment.
Some were sentenced to death – although later reprieved – or suffered dreadful prison conditions, including solitary confinement and long periods of hard labour. “The violence of WW1 had created more sympathy for the pacifist position,” Dr. Linsey Robb from Northumbria University said.
She added: “Fundamentally though I think tolerance was the more practical route; punishments were labour intensive — whether in prison or in the army — and so to work with COs, when most of them were willing to do some work for the war effort, was a much more sensible use of the state’s time and the manpower at its disposal.
“It is important to remember that the biggest challenge facing the British state was manpower (and especially the balance between civilian and military labour). If COs were willing to work in capacity it was simply sensible to let them rather than waste their labour potential in prison.”
For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletters.