Why did the United Kingdom scrap Conscription in 1960?.

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
There were in my opinion numerous reasons for the ending of conscription in the UK. Including cost, it was expensive to run, the dislike of the regulars for conscripts, and a much reduced need for them, with the withdrawal from Empire. One reason that hasn't been covered, is I believe the unique structure of the British Army compared to those of the major European powers.

Unlike the continental colonial powers, Britain had only one army, a relatively small professional force, that served both at home and overseas. France and others, including Germany pre WWI, had two. The first and by far the largest was the home army, made up of a mix of professionals and conscripts. While the smaller colonial force was professional only, and served permanently in the colonies. All of the British Army's traditions and procedures were based around the mix of home service and colonial service. And conscripts didn't easily fit into the structure, being only short service, where the army was looking for a normal minimum of a three year posting. With the withdrawal from empire, and the reduction in the numbers needed, and the growth of the Army of the Rhine, later BAOR. It was time to go back to the traditional way, and revert to an all volunteer army.

As for the possibility of a return of conscription in the UK, not what the service want, or the nation needs. Having to babysit large numbers of stroppy teens, more interested in playing Candy Crush, and having a hissy fit when told to do something that they don't like. Get out of bed before midday, keep their room tidy, have a wash, and eat their greens, isn't what the regulars joined up for. Then there is the problem of equality, after all if Bill Smith has to join up and ' get some in.' Then in these days of equality, so too should Jill Smith, and doing just the same role.


RR.
 

Deleted member 94680

Then there is the problem of equality, after all if Bill Smith has to join up and ' get some in.' Then in these days of equality, so too should Jill Smith, and doing just the same role.

This is a problem to you?

Whilst the issue of females in direct combat roles is a thorny one (mainly due to hidebound intransigence, IMO) there are a multiple of other roles available in the military where gender is truly no barrier.

IMO the true 'barrier' should be an aptitude one as opposed to a gender one.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
This is a problem to you?



Not a problem for me, but you can bet that there would be major problems with universal unisex conscription. And without it being universal unisex, then I can envision plenty of young men objecting, on grounds of discrimination.
 

Deleted member 94680


Recruitment now IRL is unisex as you put it, with restrictions on certain roles. Why would conscription not work if adopted on this basis?
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Not a problem for me, but you can bet that there would be major problems with universal unisex conscription. And without it being universal unisex, then I can envision plenty of young men objecting, on grounds of discrimination.

Note: Im not talking about Britain!

In Norway this was no problem previously when conscription was male only.

Today conscription is universal. The main complaint being males who do not get to serve, due to there being to few available slots for those who want to serve.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Universal unisex conscription in the UK, would produce far more bodies than the forces need. And there would be strong protest from the reactionary right in regards to females serving in combat roles, or in them being conscripted in the first place. There would also be outrage from the hardcore feminists, at women being forced to serve. Especially if they had already had children, which would see a major increase in teenage pregnancy, if it was a way of being excused service. I am sure that this is a can of worms, that no present or foreseeable UK government would want to get into.

Right that's all for now, I think that the company wants me to do some work, that is what they pay me for.

RR
 
The Russian Army still has 12 Month Conscription for Males aged 18-27, how is that going, do you think they will keep it for another 20 years?.
 
Then there is the problem of equality, after all if Bill Smith has to join up and ' get some in.' Then in these days of equality, so too should Jill Smith, and doing just the same role.
Hardly a problem, women are conscripted in China, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Norway, Peru and Taiwan, and in Switzerland soon.
 
IIRC the Royal Navy was cut from about 125,000 to 100,000 between 1957 and 1962. There was no reduction in the number of men at sea IIIRC because what they cut were the 10,000 National Servicemen and 10,000 regular instructors that trained them. AFAIK the conscripts weren't needed to man the peacetime fleet, they were needed to man the ships in the Reserve Fleet in the event of World War III.
 
I would say the more Hawkish or military-leaning members of Parliament and society could also see ending conscription as a good way to prevent thre being further protests about military actions. Since fear of being conscripted would be a big draw for people to fight against it, banning conscription would let the more apathetic or fence-sitters to decide that it wasn't something that could hurt themselves.
 
The Army is there to kill the Queen's enemies, not to sort out troubled young men who have been failed by the school system. Name one war fought by the United Kingdom since 1945 that could have been fought more effectively by National Servicemen than by Regulars?

* Two uncles did National Service, and I did 6 years in the TA.

This sort of 'Bring back National Service' nonsense pops up all the time on Social media and does my nut

Further to your point (which I totally agree with) I did some napkin math and the pool of 18 year old's in the UK is about 500,000 in a given year - far larger than the Regular established Armed forces of the UK (Approx 154,000 regulars + 82,000 reserves as of May 2016) and would totally overwhelm both the Military budget and ability of the armed forces to train and absorb even a fraction of them.
 
Why does Russia still have a Conscript Army? 12 Months for Males aged 18-27

Yes, and they've been working to reduce it and moving conscripts increasingly farther from "frontline" roles. It's also unpopular to the point where politicians have campaigned on reducing/eliminating it for a while (even if they weren't sincere, still shows the mood). As for why, it's "maintain a big army in the wake of reduced demographics".

A land power with long borders and a knack for intervention in its "near abroad" has a more legitimate use for a large land force than an island with a history of a small peacetime army.
 
Top