.png?trim=0,0,0,0&width=1200&height=800&crop=1200:800)
Debate over whether young Britons would fight in a war has sparked a lively response from Independent readers, with many highlighting disillusionment with government, lack of national pride, and the perception that conflicts are other people’s wars.
The conversation was sparked by Gen Z commentator Thomas Horn, who questioned whether people his age would sign up for a war not of their making following concerns about the UK joining a US-led war in Iran.
Readers noted that unlike their grandparents, Gen Z have grown up facing student debt, a broken social contract, climate change, and a global pandemic, making it harder to feel loyalty to a country they see as failing them.
Some said they would only consider fighting if Britain faced an immediate, unprovoked invasion threatening their way of life, comparing it to the clear moral purpose of the Second World War.
Most, however, were reluctant to be called up for conflicts driven by foreign powers, citing lack of trust in political leaders and the unfairness of being forced into a war they did not choose or agree with.
Other commenters pointed out that European countries with conscription have successfully mobilised young people, while the UK lacks both national service schemes and a culture of preparation, leaving many unready to face war.
Here’s what you had to say:
Compulsory service like Switzerland
We should be like Switzerland, with compulsory service for men and a voluntary one for women of recruitment age, with refresher courses every year. The service can be in the military, a longer civilian service, or a civil defence service for those who don’t want to serve in the armed forces. This should apply to dual nationals as well as to those who have been granted asylum.
Pomerol95
Someone else’s war
As is spelled out in the article. If there was a threat to the UK and a country was threatening invasion, people would step up to defend their homes.
People fight to defend their way of life, not their country; it’s the people they love in the country.
In the Second World War, Germany was coming for us. Iran is not coming for us and wouldn’t be coming for us. Why would people want to go to the Middle East and fight Iran?
Russia could maybe trigger that response. But they too are not threatening an invasion of Europe, and also with Nato, we have a whole lot of allies and weapons, so Russia hopefully won’t do that.
But generally, yeah. Fighting to defend a threat to the country, I think, would get people signing up.
Fighting someone else’s war, which they never wanted to be part of, not so much.
And Iran is someone else’s war (Trump and Netanyahu’s) and is not something that we would sign up for (I am too old to be called up, thankfully, but I would feel the same way if I was younger).
Someone182
When our country is worth fighting for
The only qualification that could be suggested to this is, perhaps our country is worth fighting for in the circumstances of a genuine external threat. But our corrupt ruling classes and the external grievances they’ve generated are certainly not worth defending.
hollybaxter
Life is not gentle
Gentle parenting has a lot to answer for. There is a whole generation that doesn’t understand resilience, consequences, or hardship. In other words, life. Life is not gentle.
allsorts
Run for the hills
Kids don’t go; don’t fight Trump’s war. He doesn’t care about US troops, he won’t care about you either. My advice: if they ask you to fight for this, run for the hills and hide out. Let the old men who started it line up to fight … it’s what they want. Let them be cannon fodder, blasted by bombs, grenades, and napalm … they started this.
Red Dragon
Revolution
The only war worth fighting would be the war against financial elites, billionaires, tech bros, and big business. A war against those who create, maintain, and benefit from poverty and deprivation – a war fought in tax havens and centres of obscene wealth, wherever they may be.
But they don’t call that war, do they – they call it revolution.
Ali446
Our country is worth fighting for
This is a much wider subject than being shot at! Our country is worth fighting for if you value the basic things that get us through our lives: freedom of movement, education, social welfare, health service, freedom of speech (unfortunately a widely abused phrase, especially by the right). Would whoever defeated you offer these things? No longer does the USA offer them!
Most European states do offer similar benefits. No one European state can survive alone. We can’t; Germany can’t. The rest of the world would be hostile, and leaders, mainly autocrats, would make sure we couldn’t compete with them on equal terms.
As part of Europe, we have size and the power to stand against what we consider the faults, or less attractive lives, autocrats offer: unable to speak, rigged voting, wealth all in the hands of the chosen few. USA, Russia, China are the obvious three examples.
We have something worth fighting for, but the big fight is political within! Farage and Reform seek the autocratic USA-style of Trump government, which is removing freedoms and education, healthcare, and choice from their people.
Surely, tenuous as it is, what we have is worth fighting for, especially if we can head off the dangerous politics we face from the billionaires and their poodles.
TuftedDuck
People forgot what war is like when it comes to you
Former army chief General Sir Patrick Sanders has said a war would require a “whole-of-nation undertaking” and a “citizen army”. The report of the Nato summit of Vilnius and of the EU Council meeting a month earlier mentioned that what happens in Ukraine reminded us that war involves the “whole of society”.
Until the fall of the Berlin Wall, people were aware of that based on what happened in both world wars. But after the fall of the Wall and the signing of the OSCE’s Security Charter for Europe by all European countries (incl. Russia), it was believed there would never be another major war in Europe.
The military were reformed from a homeland defence force to a lean and flexible force that can be deployed to faraway places to take care of a threat against our security. Our societies weren’t affected by these faraway operations, and people forgot what war is like when it comes to you. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, though, quickly reminded everyone that when war comes to you, it requires everyone to do their part: there have to be sufficient troops, the defence industry has to step up and scale up so that it can produce to need should the need arise, and civilian society has to be self-sufficient and resilient; people have to know what to do, and do all kinds of tasks in support of the military.
Real European
Leaders create wars, people don’t
Two points.
Firstly, the narrative is: country, Russia attacks; Iran attacks; Israel attacks. And so on. When specifically, it is the leaders of these countries who demand it. Millions of people of those countries and the global population are led into conflict by leaders who have spats with each other and demand retribution; it’s like they’re playing a war game, moving the pieces around a board. Those same millions of people don’t want to fight each other. I’ve got nothing against those people, nor they against me; probably a handful of leaders, some of them unpredictable, use us as pawns.
Secondly, in what world would anyone follow Starmer, or rather follow his directions, into war? The man can’t run a country – off you go lads, straight off that cliff, that’s right, keep to the left… no, wait! Come back!
leafspot
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here.
