We can't rely on an army of conscripts for British defence

‘Defence has been cut too far. It is time to build up again’

- Ross Clark

THERE will be many who will be cheered by the suggestion of the head of the army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, that Britain might have to introduce conscription in the event of war with Russia. It's very tempting to look back nostalgically to the 1950s and argue that there are a number of young people now who could do with being instilled with the discipline of military life.

But the general wasn't thinking so much of the social benefits of obligatory military service. He was looking at it purely from the perspective of how we would defend Britain if we ever found ourselves with the country under attack. Even an army of 120,000, he argued, would not be sufficient to ward off a full-scale attack from Russia.

Sadly, we don't have an army anything like that strong. As of October 1 last year the Army had just 75,980 regular troops, and it is due to be reduced to 72,500 next year. The fall in military personnel over the past few decades has been precipitous. Obviously, the size of the Armed Forces was swollen at the end of the Second World War, when we had 4.9 million people serving. But even in 1952, several years after demobilisation, we had 871,700 service personnel. The corresponding figure for 2023 which includes the Navy and RAF - was 142,560.