It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

should the minimum age for enlistment to the armed forces be raised to 21 or possibly even higher?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
i am sorry that i have no source or off site content as this is purely just a question.
anyway, i was thinking that many people at 16 or 17 (depending on where you live) are not really emotionally evolved yet and are therefore not ready to take part in wars in other nations. also many teenagers who have been brought up on violent programmes and movies may think it is cool to go out and kill some foreign people in other lands. but most of all some of these people are still children and have no real understanding of what war is really like.

the army makes it a crime to leave before a certain amount of time has been spent there and a 17 year old will not be able to back out if he realises he has made the wrong career decision.

i understand that our governments would probably never agree to such a drastic change as it would probably reduce the amount of applicants by about a half but what are your thoughts on this subject?




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 


sorry forgot to mention that i personally think this would be a good idea.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Absolutely not.

They're much more impressionable and susceptible at the younger age.

If anything the age limit should be dropped to 15 or 16. Get them when theyre really stupid and feel invincible.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 


I agree it should either be raised or lower the drinking age.
You can't drink til you are 21 but you can kill someone while being under 21??
I know alcohol has its dangers but I am safe in assuming that war is a greater danger hands down.
(my opinion is based on the hippocracy)
edit on 28-1-2011 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


you can also not vote when your 17, so you could be in the army with one candidate wanting to go to war with lets say denmark and your family could be danish, while the other wants to help some hungry people in zimbabwe or somewhere. but you would not be able to vote for the guy who wants to help the hungry and may be forced to go to war with your own people, and then not even be able to opt out without going to a military prison.

so i suppose the voting age would need to be lowered too.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
You pose an interesting and controversial question. You asked for opinions and I have one. Yes, at least 21, heres why... in order for any person to make a life or death decision in prudent fasion, they need to be aware of facts. Facts about who they are fighting "for", and why they are fighting. Because (IMHO)only roughly 10% of the information we obtain from the msm is based in "fact", and because they are not informed the truth while being indoctrinated in our public schools, they are in absolutely no position to make a well informed, educated decision. Not to say something miraculous occurs by the time they turn 21, but that would give individuals a little more time to make the right choice.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
another idea would be to let them join the army but not let them go to the front lines until they are atleast 21, but i suppose the us and uk armies are so despised around the world that any situation regarding our forces in another nation can very quickly turn into a battle ground.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I too agree enlistment should be 21 years of age however I no longer believe our military should fight overseas but to defend their own nations on their own soil.

Taking our sons in to an elitist's war especially to invade another nations is meaningless. Let the rich men and their politicians that work for them send their own sons.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
No. The minimum age should stand as is. We don't live in Utopia, and probably one of the main reasons individuals join the armed forces is as a source of employment/money.

I would rather have those between "x" (depending on your country)-21 voluntarily doing something productive with their lives, and learning discipline than getting on the welfare system, or worse, drugs.

I do agree that it would be best to keep them in their home country as long as possible, though.



edit on 28-1-2011 by sonjah1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
There is not much difference in maturity levels of 18 vs 21. It is a good alternative for folks not wanting to take out huge school loans to get a degree and work at the same time.

Leave it as is.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Interesting point. I joined up at 16. This was back in the good old 70s. I could not drink until 18 (UK drinking laws) or vote. Mind you, at that time, we were note allowed to vote anyway. However, I was not allowed into any theatre of war until age 18.

I am pretty sure that the last rule still applies. Certainly, my son was not allowed to travel outside UK with the army until he was 18.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
yep raise it to middle age lol sadly for you i wouldnt be killing innocent muslims but .... ha

i served from 91 - 95 ..
edit on 28-1-2011 by Burgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLoneArcher
 


just out of interest, was your son allowed to serve in northern ireland at 17 as that is part of the uk or was that not allowed either.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The voting age, drinking age, age of consent and enlistment age should be the same.

18 sounds like a good number, but if anyone wants to move it, all of those need to move together.
edit on 28/1/11 by MikeboydUS because: e



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
For those of you who don't know, in the US, you only have to register for the draft at 18, but that is no contract of service at that age. You can join at any age. Speaking from experience, I can assure you that these " children " you speak of, that can't make valid decisions for themselves, is a false assumption. When an 18 year old joins any branch of service, and thrust into a position where they are responsible for millions of dollars of tax payers equipment, maybe other lives at stake, the training that these " children " undergo, vastly improve their maturity rate.
The very notion that these individuals at the age 18 " don't know any better ", is a slap in the face to those who have, and are currently joining our forces at the age of 18.

With that logic, we also need to change the acceptance age to prestigious colleges, because the children at the mere age of 18, are ill informed, and can't make decisions for themselves, further suggests that at colleges, they can't discern from fact or fiction from a college Professor who is preaching leftist propaganda? So we need to stop allowing HS grads from going to college, atleast till they're 21, just so they can perceive the world in their own way rather than buying into a college paradox.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
If the raised the age limit to 21+, then recruitment would go way down. That would give an additional 3+ years for potential recruits to:

a) realize that they CAN make through college and find a career path on their own,
b) wise up to the reality of war,
c) resort to a life of crime,
d) find love, get married and start a family,
e) find other means of employment that doesn't require signing their life away,
f) die by other means other than the battlefield
g) learn to control their testosterone,
h) etc.....

I think that increasing the enlistment age would be the moral thing to do; however, it would certainly lead to a draft. A draft is the last thing we should have. so I say that increasing the age limit would be a good thing for the individual and bad thing for the country.

my 2-cents



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


i think you have quite a fair argument there and i would say that this would be 100% true a few years back, but in these times of unmanned predator drones and fighter jets against farmers, i would have to disagree as i think we could get by on half of the man power we collectively have today, bearing in mind that we the uk and us have russia on our side these days and china may be winning an economic war but they are not a threat to our personal safety as they are happy to just make money and control parts of asia.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
In the UK, men can enlist at age 16 and go overseas however in Australia and NZ they can enlist at 16 but can not go overseas until they are 18.

In Israel it's compulsary at 18 years of age and I think so is France and other nations.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 
The very notion that these individuals at the age 18 " don't know any better ", is a slap in the face to those who have, and are currently joining our forces at the age of 18.

With that logic, we also need to change the acceptance age to prestigious colleges, because the children at the mere age of 18, are ill informed, and can't make decisions for themselves, further suggests that at colleges, they can't discern from fact or fiction from a college Professor who is preaching leftist propaganda? So we need to stop allowing HS grads from going to college, atleast till they're 21, just so they can perceive the world in their own way rather than buying into a college paradox.


signature:
Theres no hunt like the hunting of a man~

Hemingway~
You sir, have the right to your own opinion. I guess we need to seek out the 21 and unders here at ats, and find out in their honest opinion, why we are occupying Afghanistan. If they mention nothing about the Taliban completely stopping the poppy production, as soon as they took control in the 1990s, they need to know. We are talking about poppies that are used by pill companies, the cia in the drug trade and others for pain relieving properties. Ask them why we have occupying forces in most of the "undeveloped nations" and very few in the rest. Ask them why our military is outsourcing things like "meal serving", running the commisary and laundry duties. Ask them why they feel willing to undergo experimental testing on the effects of drugs or other military tactics. Surely your "well informed", highly educated high school teenager, who is about "mature: at our training facilities, will tell you cause they know everything. DISCLAIMER...I am sorry if I offended "any" one, and I dont have all the answers either, but I genuinly feel that our military is protecting corporate interests more so than what now is known as the "homeland".



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Enlistment age would be a near non-issue if "we the people" knew that our governing body would only use troops for legitimate conflicts, and keep our noses out of other cultures. We need those troops here, not somewhere else fighting and dying for our rogue governments greed and lust. Translated "spreading democracy".

But simply put. If they're old enough to fight and kill. They're old enough to do everything else our society offers to those who have come to what we think of as an age of accountability.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join