Should 16 year olds be allowed to join the military?

[kail]

Should only allow adults IMO. Our country can't seem to make up it's mind on what's considered an adult.

[Vankrys]

Why not do what many developed countries do and offer free higher education so people don't have to sign their lives away?

we are talking about the US right? Free higher education is heresy in these savage lands.

Yes, bernie sanders vision of free education is ideal, but realistically, if a young american kid isn't rich or smart enough to put himself to college, army is one way to do it.

[oplawlz]

Not unless they can also vote, drink, and fuck legally.

[Techno-Druid]

Not unless they can also vote, drink, and fuck legally.

The age of consent in most states is 16.

[Deleted]

A draft for 16 years olds wouldnt be such a bad idea to teach people some basic discipline and mature them.

As long as they are exempt from deployment of course.

Yes let's train more young people how to kill.

[Deleted]

Yes let's train more young people how to kill.

In my experience they spend more time learning to make beds and iron than they do killing.

[Deleted]

In my experience they spend more time learning to make beds and iron than they do killing.

I suggest hotel service training rather than national service training then.

[Tijuana]

The discussion on whether 16 year olds should vote—both in the UK and in the US—has been picking up on the politics subforum. While I'm personally in support of it because of the rights that are already extended to that age demographic (the ability to obtain a license, the ability to consent to sex and get a job, etc). I also believe that more rights should equal more responsibilities.

So in America, should 16 year olds be allowed to enlist in the military in non-combat roles?

I would move the voting age, up not down. I don't care what a person thinks, who does not yet have a fully developed brain. The age of adulthood should be 21, imo.

I wouldn't want 16 year old soldiers. The majority at that age could not physically do the things men do.

[Tijuana]

So you would eliminate yourself from the voting pool? Fair enough, it's rare that i see someone being that self critical.

LOL nice troll. 7/10

[zenkai]

The discussion on whether 16 year olds should vote—both in the UK and in the US—has been picking up on the politics subforum. While I'm personally in support of it because of the rights that are already extended to that age demographic (the ability to obtain a license, the ability to consent to sex and get a job, etc). I also believe that more rights should equal more responsibilities.

So in America, should 16 year olds be allowed to enlist in the military in non-combat roles?

No. The tide pod eating generation needs to finish highschool.

[zenkai]

So you would eliminate yourself from the voting pool? Fair enough, it's rare that i see someone being that self critical.

The irony is strong in this post.

[zenkai]

So you missed the sarcasm? I think that's a part of higher brain function so you can't vote either?

Sucks because your avatar makes you seem dead set on exercising that right.

That wasn't sarcasm, that was an insult, you should look up the definition of sarcasm before you use it again.

[Tijuana]

Cmon show me that fully developed brain of yours.

I don't haz a sharp object. I can't see past my skin. Hang on, I'll go to the kitchen.

[I Push Buttons]

Intersting that you think we’d have to give them the vote. Why didn’t we have to give the 17-year olds the right to vote if it would be a necessity?

Because 17 is an exception that requires extra steps.

Whereas the standard age, 18, makes one eligible for selective service. And it is for that reason the voting age is even 18... Up until 1970, the voting age was 21. There was much ado over the fact that people who were 18 were being drafted to go fight in Vietnam, yet they weren't even allowed to vote.

So there is precedent that we would lower the voting age commensurate with the age people are eligible to serve/be drafted.

[I Push Buttons]

Why would you think 16 couldn’t work like 17 is the real question. It’s a complete lack of logic when you jump to the conclusion you did.

Perhaps, but it seems rather arbitrary to suggest we take something that is already an exception and make even further an exception for no apparent reason. Thus I assumed the OP meant standard enlistment. Especially since he explicitly mentioned it in the context of those who are 16 being given the right to vote.

[Azelas]

why?

the boner americans have for their military baffles me.

[oplawlz]

The age of consent in most states is 16.

But not all, and age of enlistment is federal.

[Vizardlorde]

No.
It's at 18 you're an adult. This is when you can get your drivings license, buy high % alcohol, buy a house, rent an apartment, buy a car.
Essentially anything of value. (At least here)
Should we then allow 16 year olds to sign up for something to get themselves killed? No.

You can get a drivers license at 16.

[McFuu]

The discussion on whether 16 year olds should vote—both in the UK and in the US—has been picking up on the politics subforum. While I'm personally in support of it because of the rights that are already extended to that age demographic (the ability to obtain a license, the ability to consent to sex and get a job, etc). I also believe that more rights should equal more responsibilities.

So in America, should 16 year olds be allowed to enlist in the military in non-combat roles?

The concept that there are "non-combat" jobs needs to go away. I understand that during the 2000s there was a recruiting push and by making it seem that there were "non-combat mos" that they got people that normally wouldn't join.
But nothing could be further than the truth, just because your job may be to support "combat" roles, doesn't mean you won't see it.
The biggest issue is people do join with this "non-combat" mentality and they are detrimental to everyone else, they are potentially a liability.

More OT, I think it's 17 right now with parental permission. See no reason to make it lower.

[Deleted]

The concept that there are "non-combat" jobs needs to go away. I understand that during the 2000s there was a recruiting push and by making it seem that there were "non-combat mos" that they got people that normally wouldn't join.
But nothing could be further than the truth, just because your job may be to support "combat" roles, doesn't mean you won't see it.
The biggest issue is people do join with this "non-combat" mentality and they are detrimental to everyone else, they are potentially a liability.

More OT, I think it's 17 right now with parental permission. See no reason to make it lower.

I agree, they really should come up with a more apt description, like "Less combat likely" roles.