Just two years later, as the prospect of state on state warfare looms like a dark cloud, the MOD announced plans to raise the upper age limit of the strategic reserve to 65.

The Strategic Reserve consists of a pool of former service personnel who still have a legal liability to train and can be called out and mobilised if needed in times of crisis.

Announcing the new plans, the MOD claimed the move allowed them to boost the “pool of skilled former military personnel called upon in crises as the UK strengthens preparedness”.

Initially and perhaps inevitably, the measure was ridiculed, with comparisons made to the bungling cast of Dad’s Army.

Yet in an age of modernity, where the popular imagination envisages future wars to be fought in cyberspace by robots, are we too quick to baulk at the idea of utilising the experience of those who fought in wars of Britain’s past?

Michael Hawkes, 65, who served in the SAS for 13 years, dismissed the idea that veterans over the age of 55 would be able to increase the lethality of the military in the event of war.

He told the Daily Express: “I just don’t think that there is any way people of that age would be up to it physically. Perhaps there are roles in the rear echelons but forget the idea that they might be capable of frontline service.

“The military is a young man’s game, especially warfare. The government should forget targeting 65-year-olds and get on with a massive recruitment drive to attract young people.

“We haven’t got a fighting force anymore. If we had a situation like the Falklands again, I’m not sure what we would be able to do.”

The MOD insists that the measure allows them to draw on skills possessed by veterans in areas such as cyber, medicine, intelligence and communications, as opposed to combat.

Hawkes added: “This whole thing is just a sticking plaster solution. The government has known for years that the military is on the wane but they have done nothing about it.

“It is all smoke and mirrors and an attempt to look good on paper.”

Former paratrooper Andrew Fox, 46, who served for 16 years in the British Army, deploying to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Northern Ireland and the Middle East, believes that there is some logic to the measure.

He said: “If this were to happen, there would obviously be major issues with modernity and currency of skills. Modern military equipment has evolved significantly but that said, could former senior officers add value in a planning team? Absolutely.

“In reality, they will be doing specialist jobs in the rear. They are not going to be fixing bayonets and charging enemy trenches.”

However Fox, who has transitioned to academia since leaving the military, believes that the move does highlight manpower deficiencies at a time when the prospect of peer on peer war is a genuine one for the first time in a generation.

He added: “It does show huge problems with recruiting over recent years and given that war is closer than ever and our traditional security arrangements have been ruined, we need to address our national security.”

Fox is not alone in his concerns about the size of the British military. Last year, former Royal Marine Colonel and Defence Minister Al Carns warned that based on attrition rates seen in the war in Ukraine, the British Army would be destroyed within six months.

According to the latest figures released by the MOD in November, the British Army has little over 78,000 soldiers, not enough to sell out a Taylor Swift concert, let alone win a war of national survival.

The Strategic Defence Review, released last summer, made 62 recommendations to prepare the Armed Forces for the modern battlefield over the next decade. Within that, were several means of boosting manpower, including investing heavily in the Cadets, the reserve force and working in schools and industry to bridge an ever widening disconnect between the military and society.

Measures to standardise strategic reserve service and increase the pool of talent that makes it up were thus one small part of this attempt to widen the force available to defend Britain should the time come.

Gene Plews, 66, served in First Battalion Coldstream Guards and deployed to Northern Ireland in 1978. Despite his age putting him narrowly out of scope, he does believe that veterans would heed the call to serve despite their physical limitations.

He said: “From what I understand, they would want older people to provide logistics support and other tasks but I very much doubt people my age would be able to deploy into trenches in Ukraine.

“I reckon I could run a home guard in my village or town, no problem. I could get people doing what they need to do, using the experience I gained in the forces, but at my age, I’m not sure I am up to fighting in trenches anymore.

“But first of all they need to focus on getting more young people in. I look around and there are so many people on benefits, so many overweight people eating McDonald’s and KFC.

“Get them in, get them fit and adding value to society because I tell you, it doesn’t matter how good you are with a rifle if you can’t even get to the front and hold it you are too fat.”

The desire to serve is a common trait amongst veterans, perhaps unsurprising given their demonstrable experience of putting their lives on the line for Queen and country.

Yet whilst many are still willing to serve their nation and protect its values and freedoms, you are hard pressed to find one who does not have serious reservations about the Prime Minister and his government’s treatment of those who served.

Most veterans spoken to for this piece point to the government’s move to repeal legislation designed to protect veterans of conflict in Northern Ireland as a contradiction in approach – a leadership content to make use of the skills and experience possessed by former members of the Armed Forces before hanging them out to try at the mercy of greedy lawyers.

Earlier this month, Labour’s plans to repeal protections in the Legacy Act were voted for in parliament, leaving hundreds of veterans vulnerable to spurious civil claims.

Garreth Williams, 50, served for 17 years and now runs Veterans Can, an organisation designed to promote the benefits of service leavers to society.

Williams believes that many veterans would still possess the willingness to put their lives on the line to defend their country, even if that country doesn’t always protect them on their return.

He said: “The whole measure is a band aid. Sure veterans would stand up and go again, but calling veterans forward to make up for long periods of societal kowtowing feels like an insult and smacks of desperation on behalf of the MOD, while they concurrently hang other veterans out to dry.”

Asked if he would be willing to serve again, he smiled: “If the stuff hits the fan, I’ll gladly command the Veterans Can Auxiliary Rifles – if my wife lets me!”

Former SAS soldier Hawkes concurred: “I think a lot of veterans would not be prepared to fight for this government because they treat veterans really poorly.

“There is a lot of resentment felt by the veterans community towards this government. The Tories weren’t great but Starmer is something else and I’m not sure it would improve if Labour changed their leader.

“Even last month we have seen them getting rid of legislation that will drag those who served in Northern Ireland through the courts.”

Plews added: “What this government has done to veterans is a disgrace and shows exactly what they think of us.

“Despite Starmer, a guy I think is completely out of his depth, getting his MPs to throw veterans like me under the bus the other week, I think veterans would serve the country again. We took an oath.”

The chances of the strategic liability ever being called upon are slim but not remote. War is raging in Europe, China is competing to be the world’s dominant superpower and the reliability of the United States is in doubt like never before.

Set against that backdrop the government would be negligent in their duties if they were not to prepare for every eventuality, including the activation of the strategic liability. For all the benefits utilising the vast military and post-service experience of our veterans would bring, the measure is at most a marginal gain.

Set against stagnant recruitment, public apathy and severe equipment deficiencies much more needs to be done to prepare the country for war. But for all the youngsters poking fun at the idea of pensioners on parade, hard-earned experience from the battlefields of Gorazde, Basra and Helmand is more likely to be a force multiplier than a fool’s errand.