3 ms·

They 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 ba

They 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 ago
  Systemically, 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 ago
    It’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
Meh. Lets not pretend like a 16 year old signing papers to join the army was too dumb to understand it meant they were joining the army. 16 is hardly fingers-in-the-wall-socket level of understanding the world.
- watwut 3y ago
  No. Pretty obviously they are not as mature as 18 years old which is why they should not make these decisions. They are more naive easier to manipulate and more of kids the adults. 10 years old understand joining army means joining army. And still don't get to make those decisions.
  - IIAOPSW 3y ago
    Some kids should probably have been allowed to vote since they were 12. Some adults probably shouldn't be trusted with glue. Yet for some reason its taboo to say, some kids really do know what they're doing when they signed up for the army and should be allowed to do it, and some adults really have no damn clue what they're doing when they vote and should maybe not be allowed to. Age cutoffs are an arbitrary and shitty substitute for a test of competency, prone to both high false negative and high false positive rates.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Seriously? Why do you think we recruit teenagers and not 25 to 30 year old men, who are stronger, tougher and more mature? Because teenagers are easy to manipulate and control, don’t value their life, and think with their dick.
  - IIAOPSW 3y ago
    On what basis do you think 25-30 years old is a more capable fighting demographic? Are you basing this assertion on literally anything? Have you looked up any information about demographics and fighting effectiveness before sharing your opinion? Do you have literally anything other than the small window on the world of your immediate general area and personal life experience / gut feeling? I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say by sheer coincidence you're in that 25-30 year old male demographic, and in about 5 years you'll be of the opinion that actually its 30-35 year olds who are clearly the strongest, toughest, most mature and capable fighting force and all them 25-30s are a bunch of idiots that don't value life and think with their dick.

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 ago
Systemically, 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 ago
  It’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

Meh. Lets not pretend like a 16 year old signing papers to join the army was too dumb to understand it meant they were joining the army. 16 is hardly fingers-in-the-wall-socket level of understanding the world.

watwut 3y ago
No. Pretty obviously they are not as mature as 18 years old which is why they should not make these decisions. They are more naive easier to manipulate and more of kids the adults. 10 years old understand joining army means joining army. And still don't get to make those decisions.
- IIAOPSW 3y ago
  Some kids should probably have been allowed to vote since they were 12. Some adults probably shouldn't be trusted with glue. Yet for some reason its taboo to say, some kids really do know what they're doing when they signed up for the army and should be allowed to do it, and some adults really have no damn clue what they're doing when they vote and should maybe not be allowed to. Age cutoffs are an arbitrary and shitty substitute for a test of competency, prone to both high false negative and high false positive rates.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
Seriously? Why do you think we recruit teenagers and not 25 to 30 year old men, who are stronger, tougher and more mature? Because teenagers are easy to manipulate and control, don’t value their life, and think with their dick.
- IIAOPSW 3y ago
  On what basis do you think 25-30 years old is a more capable fighting demographic? Are you basing this assertion on literally anything? Have you looked up any information about demographics and fighting effectiveness before sharing your opinion? Do you have literally anything other than the small window on the world of your immediate general area and personal life experience / gut feeling? I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say by sheer coincidence you're in that 25-30 year old male demographic, and in about 5 years you'll be of the opinion that actually its 30-35 year olds who are clearly the strongest, toughest, most mature and capable fighting force and all them 25-30s are a bunch of idiots that don't value life and think with their dick.