Suppose They Called a War and Nobody Came
There is an old anti-war saying, in various forms: suppose they gave a war and nobody came? Britain may be about to conduct a small and rather interesting experiment in that proposition.
The Liberal Democrats have urged Prime Minister Andy Burnham to establish a national register of civilians willing to help if Britain comes under attack or faces another major national emergency. The proposed "war register" would be voluntary. People could put their names forward in advance and presumably indicate skills that might prove useful if the country suddenly needed large numbers of civilians for logistics, communications, medicine, engineering, cyber defence, infrastructure protection or other essential work.
There is no such register yet. Contrary to some excitable headlines, Britons have not been ordered to register, nobody has been conscripted and the Burnham government has not yet adopted the proposal. At present it is an idea advanced by the Liberal Democrats against the background of increasing European concern about Russia and the possibility of a wider conflict. That distinction matters, but if the register is established, something fascinating could happen: we would discover who turns up.
For generations governments have possessed an enormous implicit assumption about war. When things become sufficiently serious, ordinary people will rally around the flag. They may complain about politicians, taxes, bureaucrats and the state of the country during peacetime, but when the trumpet sounds the deeper national loyalty will supposedly emerge.
That assumption worked extraordinarily well in Britain during earlier periods of national danger. Millions of people served in the armed forces during the two world wars, while millions more worked in factories, civil defence, agriculture, medicine and countless other parts of the national war effort. But Britain in 2026 is not Britain in 1940, and that is not primarily a military observation. It is a sociological one.
Modern Britain has spent decades transforming its understanding of nationhood, citizenship, obligation and identity. The result may be a society that is wealthier and more individually liberated than earlier generations could have imagined, but whether it possesses the same reserves of collective loyalty is another question. A voluntary war register would provide an intriguing test.
Put aside the question of whether Britain should fight Russia, Iran or anybody else. The deeper question comes first: how many Britons would volunteer to help Britain at all?
That is not the same thing as asking how many would pick up a rifle. Civilian defence encompasses far more than fighting. A modern war would involve cyberattacks, attacks on energy systems, disruption of communications, pressure on hospitals, transport problems, supply shortages and potentially the protection of critical infrastructure.
Doctors could be needed, along with engineers, computer specialists, truck drivers, electricians, mechanics, radio operators and people with emergency-management experience. The proposed register therefore asks something much less demanding than, "Will you die for Britain?" It asks, "If Britain is in serious trouble, are you willing to help?" The answer could tell us a great deal.
The awkward problem for governments is that national loyalty cannot simply be summoned into existence by ministerial announcement. Patriotism is a reciprocal relationship. The state can ask citizens what they are prepared to sacrifice for their country, but citizens are entitled to ask what kind of country they are being asked to sacrifice for.
That question becomes particularly acute among younger people. A young Briton struggling to afford housing, watching public services deteriorate and wondering whether he will ever accumulate the security enjoyed by his parents may not automatically respond to patriotic appeals in the way politicians expect.
That does not mean such grievances justify abandoning one's neighbours during an actual attack. If missiles are falling on Manchester, the person operating the hospital generator is defending ordinary people rather than endorsing whichever government happens to occupy Downing Street. But governments interested in national resilience would be foolish to ignore the connection between social solidarity and willingness to serve.
People tend to defend things to which they feel they belong. That is why Finland is an interesting example but not necessarily one Britain can simply reproduce by creating a database. Finland's approach to national preparedness exists within a much larger culture of defence, reserves, civil preparedness and public understanding of the country's strategic vulnerability. You cannot import the administrative mechanism while assuming the surrounding social culture comes free.
Britain could create the finest civilian register in Europe and discover that nobody particularly wants to put his name on it. That would be an important result, and it would also turn the old anti-war joke on its head: suppose they called a war and the usual cannon fodder did not turn up?
The phrase "cannon fodder" is deliberately brutal because throughout history the relationship between those who decide upon wars and those who fight them has frequently been uncomfortable. Political leaders make speeches about national destiny. Generals discuss strategy. Commentators explain why confrontation is unavoidable. Then somebody else's twenty-year-old son climbs into the armoured vehicle.
That does not mean wars are never necessary. A country that is actually attacked has an obvious right to defend itself, and there are circumstances in which refusing to resist aggression merely transfers the suffering to somebody else. But democratic governments asking citizens to risk their lives acquire a corresponding obligation to explain clearly what is being defended, against whom, and why.
The proposed register is not military conscription, and it should not be described as such. Indeed, its voluntary character is what makes it politically interesting. Conscription tells you very little about enthusiasm because a government orders people to report and punishes them if they refuse. Volunteering is different.
Place an empty register on the table and ask the British public to sign, then count the names. If enormous numbers volunteer, Britain's political class will have learned something encouraging: despite all the cynicism, fragmentation and political anger, a deep reservoir of national solidarity remains.
If relatively few volunteer, the lesson will be considerably more uncomfortable. Politicians may discover that decades of telling people that traditional ideas of nationhood matter less have consequences when the government suddenly needs people to behave as though nationhood matters enormously. They may discover that citizenship understood principally as a collection of individual rights does not automatically produce citizenship understood as reciprocal obligation.
They may also discover that a population can live inside the same borders without necessarily possessing the social cohesion required for collective sacrifice, and that national defence begins considerably earlier than purchasing missiles. It begins with the population believing there is a nation worth defending.
There is another reason the register could be revealing. The modern British state knows an extraordinary amount about its population. It can tax people, regulate them, monitor economic activity and administer enormous social programs. Yet none of that administrative capacity answers the most primitive political question of all: when the state says, "We need you," will the citizen answer?
The Liberal Democrat proposal may therefore accidentally become something much larger than its advocates intend. They presumably want a practical database of useful people available during emergencies. They may instead create a national opinion poll with consequences.
It would not be a poll asking what people think about defence spending while sitting at home with a cup of tea, but one requiring a small personal commitment: put your own name down. That is still a very long distance from military service. Signing a civilian volunteer register costs little, and someone who registers during peacetime might still disappear when a genuine crisis arrives. Conversely, someone who ignores the register might behave heroically when his neighbourhood is actually threatened. The numbers could therefore never be treated as a precise measurement of patriotism, but they would tell us something.
Britain's political leaders increasingly speak about national resilience, military preparedness and the possibility that Europe has entered a more dangerous age. NATO's leadership says the alliance has detailed plans for defending its eastern flank, while European governments are paying greater attention to cyberattacks, infrastructure protection and civilian preparedness. All of that planning eventually encounters the human question: who will do it?
Armies consist of people. Civil defence depends upon people. Hospitals, power grids and supply chains are maintained and operated by people. No amount of government planning can entirely substitute for citizens willing to participate.
That is why the proposed register could become one of the more interesting political experiments in modern Britain. Perhaps hundreds of thousands will volunteer, perhaps millions will, or perhaps the government will discover that when it finally asks the population to put something back into the national project, an uncomfortable number reply that they no longer regard it as their project.
Suppose they called a war and nobody came? Britain may soon have a way of discovering how many would at least answer the mobile phone.
https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/andy-burnham-urged-set-war-081600000.html
