[ytNumbers]

There have been plenty of moments in history where if a country doesn't resort to conscription then it won't continue to exist. If a country exists in a rough neighborhood, then its people must, unfortunately, expect to be enslaved for a few years of their life. In some ways, humanity has made little progress in the last hundred years. It's a shame that some large countries continue to have leaders that are so determined to expand the size of their country no matter the cost. It's also a shame that so many countries continue to trade with such tyrants.

[mrob]

This is why it's so important to have a nuclear deterrent. If Russia were to invade the UK, and there was no hope of a volunteer military defending us, I strongly hope our politicians would have the courage to use our entire nuclear arsenal. Regardless of death toll, this is morally superior to enslaving people.

[flembat]

I understand this, to some extent, but I would rather learn Russian and get along with a new set of completely uncaring oligarchs, not that dissimilar to the ones we have now, than end all life on earth.

[mrob]

It wouldn't even end all life in the involved countries. Submitting to military aggression is also morally wrong. Nuclear retaliation is a heroic sacrifice that does good to the rest of the world by discouraging future wars.

Furthermore, it's no longer medieval times, where the citizens are personally loyal to a king who is expected to be replaced by another king some time. The invention of nationalism guarantees civilian resistance, so the only way to safely rule a subjugated country in modern times is with a brutal North Korean-style regime.