Two in three adults would not fight for King or country if it came under attack, a new study has revealed.
The research found 64 per cent of respondents were unwilling to defend Britain in the event of war – while a further six per cent expressed uncertainty.
In every age bracket of the poll, conducted by the Daily Express, the majority of respondents were ‘not very willing’ or ‘not willing at all’ to serve.
The figure within the 18 to 24 group was 52 per cent while amongst 25 to 34-year-olds it was 51 per cent.
Just five per cent of those quizzed believed the country is ‘very well prepared’ for war and 58 per cent thought Britain is not ready for the prospect of conflict.
Armed Forces chief Admiral Sir Tony Radakin earlier this year blamed an ongoing recruitment crisis in the military on practices being ‘behind the times’.
Last year a role in the military was listed as the third least appealing career among Gen Z – those aged 13 to 28.
The only careers that scored worse were working at McDonalds or KFC.
In response to the new dataset Shadow Armed Forces minister Mark Francois blamed the Labour Government for the apparent lack of enthusiasm in a military career.
He claimed there had been a failure to protect veterans and to improve the lived experiences of servicemen such as in the case of Northern Ireland.
But the Conservative MP for Rayleigh and Wickford added: ‘
Nevertheless, I truly believe that if our nation were genuinely attacked, the people of this country, including its young people, would rally to our defence – just as they did in the Second World War, despite almost a decade and its failure to protect veterans and to improve the lived experience of those in uniform.’
Over the past 15 years the number of Army troops has dwindled from 110,000 to fewer than 74,000.
In part this has been conscious decision to complement a smaller force with greater technology but it has also been compounded by a consistent failure to meet recruitment targets.
Recruiting giant Capita, which has overseen Army recruitment since 2012, last year managed to recruit just 63 per cent of its target.
Backbench Conservative MP Danny Kruger told the Commons last year: ‘The Public Accounts Committee, I understand, heard that for every five people recruited to the Armed Services, eight are leaving.
‘That is a national security crisis. It is not just a problem for recruitment, it is an absolutely profound security risk.’
In June it was suggested Britain should pay new recruits a one-off £10,000 bonus as a way of stopping the British Army haemorrhaging manpower.
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey suggested the cash be paid out to new recruits who complete their training and serve for at least two years.
Additionally, he proposed re-joining bonuses for veterans should be increased to £20,000 to help retain talent, under a scheme that would cost the taxpayer up to £45million.
The British Army has struggled to recruit and retain soldiers for years, with the trained personnel strength hitting 70,752 in January this year.
Sir Ed, who last week visited British soldiers in Estonia, said the bonuses could be paid to help the force reach 73,000, the level desired in the Government’s Strategic Defence Review.
Earlier this week it emerged dozens of potential soldiers were being barred from joining the Army because of their bad teeth.
Figures released by the Ministry of Defence show that in the last four years 173 would-be recruits were turned away because of gum disease and rotting teeth.
The applicants were just a fraction of the almost 47,000 Army hopefuls rejected on medical grounds such as psychological issues, heart problems and being short-sighted.
Defence secretary John Healey has admitted it would take ‘some time to reverse the decline’ in general recruitment numbers.
