The US and Israel have launched attacks on Iran, with the Islamic Republic reportedly striking back. As the conflict spills over into the wider region, and WW3 fears grow, the Mirror takes a look at what refusing conscription would look like for Brits
Conflict breaking out in the Middle East has amped up fears that we could be on the brink of WW3, and it remains to be seen if the UK would be ready. The British Armed Forces are the smallest they have been in two centuries, leading to some calls for conscription – enforced service in the military – to be introduced in some capacity.
The UK wouldn’t be the first country to introduce conscription in recent times if it did so, with nine NATO countries already enforcing the policy and Germany and France introducing new voluntary service models. The US, alongside Israel, launched strikes against Iran today in what US President Donald Trump has dubbed “Operation Epic Fury”.
The President has cited Iran’s nuclear programme, alongside its reputation as a “state sponsor of terror” as motivations for the attack, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu long calling the Islamic Republic an “existential threat” to his country. Trump claimed diplomatic negotiations with Iran over their nuclear capabilities had been stalling, but Badr Albusaidi – Oman’s Foreign Minister, who had been mediating – said that there had been “significant progress” in the talks which took place in Geneva. It remains unclear what changed.
The conflict has already spilt over into the wider region in what is a rapidly changing and developing situation, with explosions heard in the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar. Flights have been rerouted to avoid the region, with countries closing their airspaces, and the UK Foreign Office has advised Brits in some parts of the Middle East to “immediately shelter in place”. Saudi Arabia has condemned the attacks from Iran, and tensions are reaching a boiling point.
Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.
READ MORE: Key players in the US-Iran conflict as Trump unleashes Operation Epic FuryREAD MORE: Distraught son of Brit couple holed up in filthy Iran jail speaks out on 10-year sentence
For some, even before the conflict broke out in the Middle East today, the prospect of another world war isn’t something far off in the distant future, but a reality right now. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky said on the fourth anniversary of the conflict with Russia starting, saying to the BBC, “I believe that Putin has already started it [World War 3]. The question is how much territory he will be able to seize and how to stop him… Russia wants to impose on the world a different way of life and change the lives people have chosen for themselves.”
Zelensky is not alone, UK Strategic Defence Review advisor Fiona Hill has said repeatedly that a third world war has already begun, but it is not in a form that the public yet recognises. A recent report declared the UK “underprepared and under attack” and the British Armed Forces Minister Al Carns said that there are many eerie echoes in today’s geopolitical picture and that which existed in the years building up to the Second World War, saying “there’s definitely a lot of similarities.”
The UK has only very rarely employed full conscription, from 1916-1920 during the First World War, and from 1939-1960 during the Second, with the last soldiers undertaking compulsory service leaving the Armed Forces in 1963. Currently, the 70,000-strong British Army is a highly trained, professional force, but some would like to see these numbers significantly bolstered.
Unfortunately for the government, it doesn’t look like young people are particularly keen on plugging this gap. Polling last year showed only 11 per cent of young people would be willing and enthusiastic to take up arms and fight for the UK, with 41 per cent declaring they would fight under no circumstances. However, 38 per cent did say that if they agreed with the reasons behind a war, they would be willing to fight.
This is potentially a major issue for the government, and refusing to comply with enforced conscription used to be something that was punished incredibly harshly. “As WWI was approaching, some European countries used the death penalty against draft resistance,” explains Dr Marco Giani from King’s College London to the Mirror. “Times have changed, but draft resistance would still represent a significant concern for a government, threatening national unity and basic principles of equality.
“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. But our feelings and willingness to fight could shift quickly if the geopolitical situation changed dramatically.”
Punishment for refusing conscription
Those who refused to fight were dubbed conscientious objectors (COs), and in the First World War, they were subjected to the now-notorious ‘White Feather’ Campaign. This saw those men not wearing uniform handed white feathers by women as a symbol of their perceived cowardice – essentially publicly shaming and humiliating them.
But this was the least of it: COs endured horrific conditions in prison, including long spells of hard labour and solitary confinement. Some were even sentenced to death, though later reprieved. Internationally, there are still intense punishments inflicted on those who refuse to take part in enforced military service.
Professor Vincenzo Bove tells the Mirror: “The consequences of refusing conscription vary substantially across countries and historical periods, but they can be significant. In many systems, refusal has entailed legal penalties such as fines, criminal records, or imprisonment such as in Russia today”.
When the Second World War arrived, social attitudes towards COs shifted, and measures taken against COs were far softer. However, this was, according to an expert, a practical measure as much as anything else.
“Tribunals were civilian – headed by a civil judge and manned by civilians – rather than military – staffed by the military – so in one sense the process was less heavily stacked against World War Two objectors,” explains Dr Linsey Robb from Northumbria University.
“The violence of WW1 had created more sympathy for the pacifist position,” the expert explains, adding that “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.”
Is conscription in the UK likely?
Dr Giani explains that, despite the geopolitical climate, it is still fundamentally unlikely that Brits would face the policy, particularly on a universal level like that which existed in the previous world wars. “Britain is not bringing back the draft anytime soon,” the expert explains. “The UK scrapped conscription in 1963, three to four decades earlier than most European countries, and the case for forcing people into the army has always been weaker here. Why? Geography.
“As an island, Britain has never faced the kind of constant land-invasion threat that makes mass armies essential. What’s far more likely is something lighter and voluntary – a short-term military scheme where young people can ‘try out’ army life. Think of it as a military taster, not a call-up. That could make the armed forces feel more familiar and appealing, and help tackle the current recruitment crisis – without dragging anyone in against their will.”
