6 ms·
> In April 1862 it adopted a policy of universal conscription, and in February 1864 it lowered the age of mandatory service from eighteen to seventeen. Addition
by andyjohnson0 3y ago
> In April 1862 it adopted a policy of universal conscription, and in February 1864 it lowered the age of mandatory service from eighteen to seventeen. Additionally, some Confederate states enrolled boys as young as sixteen for service in state-controlled units.
In the UK in 2023 it is still possible to join the military when you're 16 years old, and you can start your application when 5 months before that. No other country in Europe recruits child soldiers, only the UK.
- dmichulke 3y ago[flagged]
- andyjohnson0 3y agoI'm British. I was referring to the continent of Europe, not the EU.
- denton-scratch 3y agoEurope != The EU
- frankfrankfrank 3y ago[flagged]
- cafard 3y agoUmm, what is Switzerland, and what do the EU tyrants (has Gessler been replaced?) say about that?
- watwut 3y agoWhy should EU adopt slavery and genocide facilitating constitution? I mean, not that European or whatever history was nicer. But still ... current EU is not practicing either which says something good about it comparatively.
- dmichulke 3y agoFYI: The British often say "we go to Europe" when they go to continental Europe. Also, it's kind of condescending to point out the obvious.
- shkkmo 3y agoMore condescending than the original nitpicking?
- civilitty 3y ago> No other country in Europe recruits child soldiers, only the UK. That'll show the French!
- Eumenes 3y ago"Child soldiers" is dramatic. I don't see a problem with a 16 year old joining the military, with the support of their parents, esp. if they don't have an interest in college. They could learn some valuable skills, certainly more than you'd learn in public education.
- koolba 3y agoDamn straight. A structured environment that doubles as a boarding school is exactly what some children at that age need.
- Retric 3y agoThere’s typically a fair bit of schooling a 16 year old goes through before college. Dropping out and joining the military may have benefits, but it’s hard not to see that as a failure by society.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoCould not create a better environment for hazing and sexual abuse if you tried.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> doubles as a boarding school is exactly what some children at that age need. Also environment for brainwashing
- Tostino 3y agoMilitary provides a bunch of benefits until it's actually used for its purpose. Then you send a bunch of underage kids to die.
- earthboundkid 3y agoI could see letting them join an academy early, but you can't send them to fight before 18 and you should give them a chance to back out when they actually turn 18.
- 3y ago
- alphanullmeric 3y agoPick an age of majority. It should be the same age for joining the military, voting, drinking, owning a gun, driving a car, consent, etc. You don’t get to call a 16 year old a child only when it’s convenient for you.
- andyjohnson0 3y agoThe age of majority in the UK is 18. People who are younger than 18 are minors/children, not adults.
- JadedBlueEyes 3y agoIt's not quite so simple. Although the age of majority is 18 according to the Family Law Reform Act 1969, that is primarily relevant to financial contracts (debt), criminal sentencing, and tobacco. Drinking, you can drink in private from sixteen, although you can only purchase once at eighteen. You can start a company at sixteen. You bear primary authority over your medical records from sixteen, and your caregivers cannot access them without your consent. You can vote in some elections from sixteen. But you can't adopt until 21. The TLDR is that in the UK, age limits are quite case-by-case, and tend to range from 16 to 21, although in more niche cases can range from 11 (the age you can open a bank account) to 30 (the age of suffrage for women in the 1918 Representation of the people act).
- throwaway462910 3y agoWanted to mention that 16 year olds could buy cigarettes until 2007, went to check the year, found that more interestingly: You can smoke cigarettes at any age, but you are not allowed to buy them until you are 18. If you are caught smoking by a uniformed police officer or park keeper in a public place when under 16, he or she can take away your tobacco and cigarette papers. s.7 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 https://lawstuff.org.uk/at-what-age-can-i/buy-and-consume/ https://lawstuff.org.uk/at-what-age-can-i/buy-and-consume/
- watwut 3y agoThere is zero reason to demand that drinking age is same as joining army age or voting age or owning gun age. It is absurd to demand same age for all these.
- ars 3y ago> No other country in Europe recruits child soldiers Are these 16 year old actually fighting? Or are they placed in support roles, i.e. it's basically a job, but under the structure of the military?
- andyjohnson0 3y agoThey can't legally be deployed in combat situations until they are 18, so I guess they do other stuff. But once they turn 18 they can be ordered into combat based on a decision they made when they were still a child. Recruits can leave up to the end of their first six months of service. After that they are committed until they are 22.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago> But once they turn 18 they can be ordered into combat roles based on a decision they made when they were still a child. That is an uncomfortable situation, but it's not worse than countries that conscript 18-year-olds, who don't even get to make a decision at all.
- Abekkus 3y agoSystemically, conscription can be "better" if it is randomized and includes everyone. "Volunteer" Armies just means that rich parents can decide to start wars without worrying that their kids might be sent to fight.
- gretch 3y agoIt’s definitely more equitable. It also gives everyone the same incentive to not start shit (even though few ppl are in position to instigate a war) because it could be you and your family that’s sent to fight it. However, when you’re actually fighting, you want to trust the person fighting next to you. And if that person was conscripted and didn’t want to ever be there, that’d cause a lot of issues.
- IIAOPSW 3y ago
- BrotherBisquick 3y ago[flagged]
- dukeyukey 3y agoYou can't actually be deployed until you're 18 though - it's basically a way of front-loading training.
- sidewndr46 3y agobut if the UK was invaded, you'd be expected to pick up arms in the kingdoms defense right?
- dukeyukey 3y agoHonestly, probably not. Even in WW2, the closest there got to 16-year-olds fighting (at least without lying about it) was in the Home Guard (sometimes called the Dad's Army because of its use of retired soldiers), and them fighting would mean the enemy landed on Great Britain itself. It's not impossible, but I imagine something similar would happen in almost any other country under active occupation. Which doesn't mean I think it's good (or bad), I just think the UK doesn't stand out.
- sidewndr46 3y agoAre they subject to the UK's equivalent of the UCMJ?
- retrac 3y agoCanada also allows 17 year olds to be enlisted (16 for the reserves). They cannot be deployed in combat per international convention. As I understand it, it's basically a legal historical quirk at this point; it almost never happens -- they're not qualified otherwise. Essentially all roles require secondary education and many want a college degree these days.
- Fricken 3y agoI joined the reserves at 17 in 1994, and did ql 2/3 (Canadian basic) between my grade 11 and 12 year. They woke us up on the first morning, gave us 15 minutes to shit, shower and shave, but I had never shaved before. It was just wisps of peachfuzz on my face, and my hurried, improvised hack shaving job had the sergeants shaking their heads.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]