Forum debate on war conscription: 'I'll object and stay home'

Forced recruitment: half would not go to war

The question was simple: if World War III broke out and the State called up troops, would you fight for Spain? The majority response, in a thread with 161 posts active for nearly three years, is neither yes nor no. It is "it depends." It depends on who the enemy is, who governs, and whether it is mandatory or voluntary. Above all, it depends on whether the threat is external or internal.

The initial premise of the thread is a declaration of intent: the peine argues that Spain functions as "a laboratory and testing ground for Agenda 2030," that there is nothing worth defending, and that his plan is to become a conscientious objector and stay home. From there, the thread becomes a thermometer of why people would not go, rather than whether they would.

Rejection is not pacifism: it is distrust of those giving orders

Conscientious objection appears early, but with a nuance that distances it from classic anti-militarism. One participant recalls that objection was a left-wing banner for decades, when the army was not "their" army, and argues that today, under different rulers, "they will draft everyone from infancy." The implicit conclusion: laws change overnight via the BOE (Official Gazette) and objection ceases to exist.

This is the first axis of the thread: suspicion that the legal framework protects no one. Several messages insist that serious conflicts suspend guarantees, that objectors end up in disciplinary battalions or prison, and that deterrence works better than volunteering. The discussion shifts to historical precedents—Ukraine, the Soviet Union, Vietnam—with opposing conclusions: some argue armies are built on obligation and punishment; others counter that jailing dissidents costs more than ignoring them.

"No against Russia, yes against Segarro"

The geography of the imaginary enemy orders the debate. One message summarizes the trend: almost all respondents reject a scenario of war against Russia, but would accept one against Segarro. This line separates those who see conflict as a NATO imposition from those who view it as territorial defense.

Here appears the most repeated critique of the allied framework: the idea of sharing trenches with British, Germans, French, or Americans while debating exactly what is being defended. The Gibraltar paradox—fighting for an ally that maintains a colony on Spanish soil—is used to deactivate any patriotic call. Some go further, arguing that Spain is subordinate to foreign interests and that in a bloc war, going to the front means fighting for real enemies.

The enemy is inside

Part of the thread completely shifts focus. It is not about whether to fight, but against whom. Messages identify the adversary within the country—the political class, parties, voters of opposing options—and describe the conflict as an opportunity to settle domestic scores. These are the most aggressive interventions, clearly showing that recruitment does not unite: it divides.

Opposing this, another current argues that taking up arms only makes sense against a clear foreign invasion, not in expeditions abroad. One message states plainly: if it is to defend Spain, yes; if it is to attack third parties, no. The distinction between defense and expeditionary war is likely the point of greatest consensus in the entire thread.

Logistics for those who do not want to go

The final section abandons epic narratives for calculation. Several messages describe the realistic scenario: officers will not come at dawn, but a more effective mechanism will activate—economic crisis, imminent threat narrative, perversos pay—to make people enlist out of necessity. This is the "ELbichito scheme" thesis applied to military mobilization.

Others recall that armies have never been formed by enthusiastic volunteers, that cannon fodder has always been compulsory, and that alternatives to the front are prison or hazardous labor. The discussion closes, like most of its kind, with an uncomfortable observation: those with foreign passports will leave, and those without will stay to see what happens.

What if recruitment never arrives because the country to be defended dissolves first? That is the question the thread leaves floating, unanswered and unexplored.