Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

16 comments

Date Votes
  • spasmcreek
    not sure enlisting younger is the correct fix......though it seems many are more grown up earlier....on the other hand many still live at home in the early 20's and are allowed under parents insurance while in the early 20's ???.......maybe a study of this age groups maturity compared to Israel or some other nations that have an ongoing adversarial relationship with neighboring countries....????
    0
  • WearyTraveler
    I know it?s a different age and scenario that we?re talking about, but we condemn countries that use child warriors. So we?re talking about semi-doing the same thing.

    Also - kids, at 16 - generally aren?t mature enough to handle that. And to listen. I was a Scoutmaster. Hell - they couldn?t even be depended upon to show up, let alone show up on time, in uniform and prepared...

    And this also goes back to the Vietnam era ?I can fight at 18 but cant vote till 21? mantra. Enlist at 16 but no smokes, vote, drink, own a gun till 18/21...

    I see nothing good coming of it.
    0
  • KenK/84Bravo
    Not the direction we need to be going in, in my humble opinion.
    0
  • Rocky Raab
    It's a roundabout way to get the vote for teens, IMO. Because teens are overwhelmingly starry-eyed utopians.

    In reality, sixteeners are woefully immature, have not yet achieved their physical peak, and are in hormonal turmoil. It would be a VERY bad idea to allow them to enlist.
    0
  • Sam06
    Big mistake IMO.
    0
  • SG
    Yep,it'll bring in another voting block plus 16 year olds are that much easier to brainwash that they're fighting for "freedom" and not banking cartels and criminal politicians.
    0
  • He Dog
    How ya gonna keep your BDUs and tighty whiteys clean without 'em? :lol:
    0
  • Cornflk1
    Lets look at a mandatory draft for ALL , male and female. Everyone does military service or public service (old CCC program ) before they are 25 years old. You go to college, get a degree/ perform your civic duty, get a job, period. You don't go to college, learn a tech trade in the military, period.

    Several countries have this already in place.
    0
  • KenK/84Bravo
    Cornflk1 wrote:
    Lets look at a mandatory draft for ALL , male and female. Everyone does military service or public service (old CCC program ) before they are 25 years old. You go to college, get a degree/ perform your civic duty, get a job, period. You don't go to college, learn a tech trade in the military, period.

    Several countries have this already in place.




    Have felt this way for Eons. Yes, (In my humble opinion) that is the way to go.

    If you choose Not to Serve (notice the capitalization.) your mandatory 2-3 years, no College Loans, no EBT, no Section 8, no Anything. (Ever.)

    You had your chance, now you are on your own. Buh bye.
    0
  • chiefr
    I think it is a much better idea than to accept those who cant tell what sex they identify with.
    0
  • He Dog
    chiefr wrote:
    I think it is a much better idea than to accept those who cant tell what sex they identify with.


    I identify with sex. :D
    0
  • Rocky Raab
    I can still identify sex. From memory.

    Another strong vote for universal service, and I'll double down on the "If you decline, you forfeit any and all government assistance for life."
    0
  • bearman49709
    Just last week I was reading that both the Army and Marines are considering requiring all combat arms MOS's to have at least 6 years in service,be at least 26 Y.O. and be at least a E-5.
    I joined at 18, served 7 years 3months and 4 days and was only 25 when I got out, even as a E-5 I would not have been old enough to change my MOS to combat arms if was like that back then.
    How many people would stay that long in one MOS, be promoted to E-5 in their MOS then want to change to combat arms?
    0
  • ltcdoty
    If I remember right, back in 1969 when I was stationed in the UK, they let boys enlist at sixteen. They would be trained in non combat arms...mechanics...cooks....that kind of stuff. Also I believed you enlisted in a particular regiment...if they'd take you.
    0
  • Mobuck
    Current teens aren't nearly as responsible or mature as teens of the 1950-1970 groups. I see this constantly since I have two 14 year old Grandsons. What I did w/o a blink at that age, these boys simply aren't prepared for(either physically or mentally) even though they grew up in basically opposite environments. One has lived a "city life" since he was 5 while the other has lived a rural life. One is in a "digital" household and the other in a "Bible thumper" setting but neither is ready to make "grownup decisions".
    0
  • WearyTraveler
    An unintended consequence of recruiting and filling non combat roles with 16 year olds is that 18 year old recruits will be forced out of the non combat MOSs. Not every 18 year old wants to be a grunt. Some want technical fields. So - they?re going to lose some 18 year olds that want the IT field.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity