War debate by age: young and over-50s

Neither young nor old are spared: age does not protect in a war

In a total war scenario, age is not a shield. The approach that opens this analysis argues that those under 30 will end up in trenches similar to the Ukrainian ones, with drones overhead and expired canned food, while those over 50, with diminished physical strength, will be easy prey in streets taken over by an intermediate generation that, according to this thesis, will not hesitate to snatch any resource from them. The idea that youth or seniority grants any advantage collapses as soon as the arguments running through the 103 replies to this thread are examined.

The supposed forced conscription by age

The first idea discussed is that war will hit the youngest hardest. The initial message predicts for those under 30 a fate of trenches, bombardments and mandatory conscription. Against that, some participants recall that in recent conflicts conscription has widened the age range as volunteers ran out: first the youngest, then those aged 28 to 35, then up to 45 and finally up to 55. That escalation, attributed to NATO doctrine, suggests that no age group is safe if the conflict drags on.

The discussion soon drifted towards physical endurance. Some maintain that the over-50s retain an advantage: many did their military service and know how to handle a CETME, a Zeta or a pistol without slicing their fingers. Others reply that this knowledge is residual, that military training consisted mainly of enduring shouting and that firing a real weapon is nothing like video games. The generational gap thus becomes a dispute over who is better prepared for a scenario of chaos.

Physical strength and the mirage of training

The second axis of the analysis is physical condition. One participant states that in a war situation the strong have better odds of surviving than the weak, and that a trained 110-kilo, 1.90-metre man will withstand privations better than a sick person, an elderly person or a child. The response is not long in coming: at the front everyone is equalised when a swarm of drones drops a rain of grenades. Technology, they point out, blurs any bodily advantage.

The discussion on training introduces an interesting nuance: being on steroids is not the same as being fit. The comparison launched is that of a turkey that, because it has more meat, believes it will escape before those who want to eat it at Christmas. Physical preparation, they conclude, guarantees nothing when the scenario is unpredictable and violence is massive.

Social control and the pandemic experience

A third line of argument connects war with the recent pandemic experience. It is recalled that during the state of alarm, nighttime curfews were imposed and more than a million people were fined for breaking them. That, which many considered typical of distant countries, was experienced in Spain and was largely accepted. The conclusion some draw is that in a war control over the population would be even greater, with or without a legal umbrella.

The objection to that control also appears: in Ukraine, after the outbreak of war, men aged 18 to 60 were banned from leaving the country. That fact is used to illustrate that in conflict situations freedoms are suspended and obligations imposed by decree. The discussion drifts towards whether that would be applicable in Spain and whether civil servants, due to their permanent status, would be exempt from a hypothetical conscription.

Weapons, shotguns and the law of the strongest

The fourth block revolves around gun ownership and self-defence. Several participants list their domestic arsenals: hunting shotguns, rifles, sharp objects. The conversation dwells on the difference between a hunting weapon and a weapon of war. A shotgun is fired at the mass to kill a small animal; a submachine gun is fired to kill or seriously wound another human being. The distinction, they note, is small but fundamental for survival.

The conclusion drawn is that the law of the strongest would prevail, but not necessarily in favour of the youngest or the oldest. Money, contacts and the ability to organise in a group also count. One participant sums it up bluntly: whoever has a car full of food and whose neighbour does not will become a target. Solidarity, in that scenario, would be a luxury.

The role of elites and the future of pensions

The final stretch of the analysis focuses on elites and economic calculation. It is speculated that a war could be of interest to lighten the burden of pensions and healthcare by eliminating the elderly, and to reduce the surplus of young population. There is no evidence of this, but suspicion hangs over the discussion. Other participants recall that civil servants would be the least affected due to their permanent status, although it is countered that a purge of civil servants would be easier than that of other groups.

The analysis closes without reaching a single conclusion. War, if it comes, will not distinguish by age, but neither will it equalise everyone. The question remains floating: is Spanish society prepared for a scenario in which age, strength or money no longer matter?