Debate Growing Over Whether Military Should Lower Enlistment Age to 16

[Swordsmyth]

As the Army, Navy and other services contend with a thriving economy and a directive to expand their ranks, there is a growing debate over whether the military should consider lowering the minimum enlistment age from 17 to 16. More than a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, already have adopted the policy.
Critics say the idea is deeply flawed and presents a host of societal problems, but supporters argue that the Pentagon needs to think outside the box if it wants to continually overcome one of the toughest recruiting environments in decades.
Neither the military nor lawmakers have given any indication that they are entertaining the idea, but some analysts say that opening the ranks to younger Americans could provide unique benefits and may be the kind of fundamental overhaul the recruiting system needs for the 21st century.
“For one, many of the factors that disqualify older youths from joining — like criminal records — are not as present in younger teens,” said Shane McCarthy, chief marketing officer of Sandboxx, a leading technology platform that connects military members stationed abroad with families and friends at home. Mr. McCarthy also has advised military commands on how to better target recruits.

"Currently, of the 75% of 17- to 24-year-olds who are ineligible to serve, for example, 10% are ineligible due to criminal records,” he wrote in a recent piece for the Military Times. “And, according to the Department of Justice, there are twice as many arrests of 18- to 20-year-olds as there are arrests of 15- to 17-year-olds.”


Mr. McCarthy’s argument touched off a firestorm, with skeptics saying the move could create more problems than it would solve. Peter Warren Singer, a senior fellow at the Washington think tank New America, countered that lowering the enlistment age to 16 would undermine combat effectiveness and unit cohesion and create other problems.
Mr. Singer, author of the book “Children at War,” also said the very idea shows a “misunderstanding [of] the different brain chemistry of youths and their ability to make informed judgment” and would destroy “the day-to-day lives of the poor drill instructors and commanders of these teens’ first unit.”

More at: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...over-enlistme/


This is part of the campaign to lower the voting age.

[brushfire]

I'm all for it, provided they are the children of politicians.

[timosman]

How about 12?

[Swordsmyth]

How about 12?

That's next, libs would love to lower the voting age that far.

[enhanced_deficit]

I'm all for it, provided they are the children of politicians.

No, children of politicians and rich business leaders should be exempt.

Granted we need presence in many parts of the globe to defend our freedoms and those of our closest allies. Kids growing up in rough, working class neigborhoods are different and grow up fast ; many priviliged kids might not be as prepared to face rough war zones abroad away from family, can have greater risk of health issues without private doctors, bone spurs etc during early tender years.


Likely Un-Related

Top US General Says American Troops Should Be Ready To Die For Israel

[XNavyNuke]

From 1802 until the National Defense Act of 1916, you had to be at least 18 and could not enlist under the age of 21 without parental consent. We can thank that Progressive archetype Woodrow Wilson and his desire to raise a conscript army in 1917 for doing away with that and ordering 18 YOs into service.

XNN

[specsaregood]

How about 12?

recruiters have recently been asking for permission to start targeting middle schoolers.

btw, if you are parent of a young one and don't want the schools to give your kids info to military recruiters, you have to opt out:
more info: https://nnomy.org/en/resources/count...ent-lists.html

[Anti Globalist]

How about 12?

How about fetuses?

[Swordsmyth]

From 1802 until the National Defense Act of 1916, you had to be at least 18 and could not enlist under the age of 21 without parental consent. We can thank that Progressive archetype Woodrow Wilson and his desire to raise a conscript army in 1917 for doing away with that and ordering 18 YOs into service.

XNN

And I bet they had already planned to use it to lower the voting age back then.

[Swordsmyth]

How about fetuses?

The Abortionists would never stand for it, the party would embrace life because they would want to claim the votes of the unborn along with those of the dead.

[oyarde]

My states constitution requires service from anyone over 17 ( Article 12 Section 1 ). If Federals want to accept voluntary 16 yr olds with parental agreement , how is that different than accepting 17 yr olds ? .

[Anti Globalist]

Can't buy alcohol until 21. Can't buy tobacco products till you're 18, 21 in some states. But we can ship you off to fight in wars you don't understand and tell you its all for freedom at age 17 and possibly 16.

[Swordsmyth]

My states constitution requires service from anyone over 17 ( Article 12 Section 1 ). If Federals want to accept voluntary 16 yr olds with parental agreement , how is that different than accepting 17 yr olds ? .

If it were only a matter of whether 16 year old could enlist I would probably say that I wasn't sure and maybe they should be able to but this is definitely tied to the campaign to lower the voting age, "old enough to die but not old enough to vote" was how they lowered it last time.

[kpitcher]

My local national guard has a sign out front, one side says ask how to get $20,000 for college. The other says "Make Charlie Company great again"


While obviously a play on MAGA it is basically saying "Sign up here, it currently isn't so great but maybe one day". Now there's incentive to sign up

[timosman]

Make drinking age equal draft age an amendment and vote.

[Stratovarious]

That's next, libs would love to lower the voting age that far.

Good catch.

No doubt , this is almost Hegelian, lowering the voting age would/will certainly follow.


A point I had not considered till I read the 'lower to 12 post': it becomes clear
that the lower the age of the voter the greater the 'liberalist' , kids are absolutely reliant
on their parents , at 'tender' ages, they have no idea what it would mean to be out
on their own carving out a life and supporting themselves.
Would they vote for self reliance, fuch no they'd vote liberal/socialist every time.
So yea, that would probably be next....

[PAF]

More age stuff.

I oppose war period unless it is in actual legitimate defense.

My grandparents owned and operated a farm before they were 16. They didn’t sit around playing video games 12 hours a night after sitting through a full day of Common Core. The word handout never uttered their mouths.

At 14 I was working part time jobs in parts stores and body shops making money while working on a junk car which turned out like new when I was finished with it.

Back in WW1 teens would lie about their age because they felt in their hearts they were fighting for a legitimate reason.

18 years old nowadays provide a service without being on Welfare and the news calls them “children” and must be “rescued”, after fingerprinting them and then releasing them with a record.

Even in France and Italy you can have wine and drink early on and they don’t have the problems of alcoholism like we do here.

How about the family unit start taking on the responsibility of raising responsible kids so that idiotic questions like this don’t even need to brought up. In this day and age the consensus seems to be “it takes a village” and “government help me save me please make my own decisions for me” it doesn’t really matter if you are 16 or 36 - the end result is the same.

I’d much rather have my offspring “vote” at 15 than many of the “R” folks in my committee meetings at 65. Too bad I can’t say that across the board, this country no longer has moral compass and asks all the wrong questions.

[oyarde]

If it were only a matter of whether 16 year old could enlist I would probably say that I wasn't sure and maybe they should be able to but this is definitely tied to the campaign to lower the voting age, "old enough to die but not old enough to vote" was how they lowered it last time.

I remember back in the 70's they came in with these age limits of 16 to buy cigarettes , 21 beer liquor and wine but you could get a work permit at 15 for a full time job and pay taxes and enlist at 17 and still had to wait to 18 to vote. I do not even know if they need a voting age , if you are 15 or 16 and pay a few thousand in taxes I am ok with voting , if you are 18 - 22 and do not work and live off your parents no need to vote

[tod evans]

I remember back in the 70's they came in with these age limits of 16 to buy cigarettes , 21 beer liquor and wine but you could get a work permit at 15 for a full time job and pay taxes and enlist at 17 and still had to wait to 18 to vote. I do not even know if they need a voting age , if you are 15 or 16 and pay a few thousand in taxes I am ok with voting , if you are 18 - 22 and do not work and live off your parents no need to vote

On base drinking at 17.........

[euphemia]

I’m going to say no. Today’s 16 year olds are nothing like the 16 years olds who fought at Normandy.

In addition the military has become mother hotbed of indoctrination. I really don’t see the advantage. If we are for the NAP, we don’t want to make it easier to join the military.

[euphemia]

That's next, libs would love to lower the voting age that far.

Don’t kid yourself. This would be the first step, or so the argument went in the 60s and 70s. If I’m old enough to die for my country, I should be old enough to vote.

The other agenda behind this is age of consent based on the same argument.

My big problem is that kids are so undereducated these days, they don’t know how to count change. And I’m supposed to trust them with a tank? Really?

[tod evans]

I’m going to say no. Today’s 16 year olds are nothing like the 16 years olds who fought at Normandy.

In addition the military has become mother hotbed of indoctrination. I really don’t see the advantage. If we are for the NAP, we don’t want to make it easier to join the military.

I think that's a really bad thing.

We, all of us, have permitted this to happen.

The 16 y/o of yore deserves respect.

[kcchiefs6465]

Maybe we ought to send those supporting this bill to a mountain in Afghanistan.

[brushfire]

Can't buy alcohol until 21. Can't buy tobacco products till you're 18, 21 in some states. But we can ship you off to fight in wars you don't understand and tell you its all for freedom at age 17 and possibly 16.

Cant even purchase a firearm - they were also talking about raising the age to drive as many believed that a 16 yo is not mature enough.

But they dont need responsibility, they just need some gamers to play shoot-em-up.

[Swordsmyth]

I remember back in the 70's they came in with these age limits of 16 to buy cigarettes , 21 beer liquor and wine but you could get a work permit at 15 for a full time job and pay taxes and enlist at 17 and still had to wait to 18 to vote. I do not even know if they need a voting age , if you are 15 or 16 and pay a few thousand in taxes I am ok with voting , if you are 18 - 22 and do not work and live off your parents no need to vote

Voting should require a fully developed brain and some life experience, you should have to be 25 or 30 to vote.