Age of enlistment

On the news here today there was a story about how 16 year olds who enlist in the armed forces have to serve 2 years more than those who enlist at 18 or older.

I'm not a military person ...my instinct is to say that 16 is too young.. how can someone really know what they want then?

On the other hand, some kids might not have many opportunities and/or have a home life that's as safe and comfortable as it should be.. if the armed forces can offer them something better than why not?

I do think it is a bit backward though that kids can join the army at 16 but not buy call of duty until they're 18...

Thoughts? Opinions?

A student of mine I saw the other night mentioned in our conversation she graduated from "boot camp high school"...

I didn't know we had one in ourcarea, lol...

Some of us/them need more structure...

If it helps the kids, and they still get high school/GED/whatever any one calls it credits, and not involved in conflicts, I think it should became option....

But, I reserve the right to change my mind upon more information...

Some of us/them need more structure...

Perhaps places like bootcamps are a way of managing pupils rather than simply expelling them when they get difficult.

Perhaps...

But, as I am actually discussing via PM right now, perhaps an ADHD child would excel as the physical requirements are there too....

I would have...

And, as adults, isn't this what we Jedi discuss?

Balance of the mind, body and spirit?

In the USA someone can enlist when they're 17 with parental consent but I'm not sure why someone would need to serve more time just because of the age they were upon enlistment. Military boarding school is one thing, but actual enlistment in the military should be different I'd imagine.
Having said that, I don't think a child is ever to young to learn some of the things taught in the military. Discipline, accountability, physical fitness, strategy, tactics, and any of the academics studied at military academies can be positive influences on children the same way they are on young adults. The line between young adult and child is pretty blurred too. A lot of us default to 18 for most things like this because it's the accepted norm, but it's just a number. Is 17 too young? If not, then why is 16? Why is 10? The instinct to protect children and keep them out of that world for as long as possible is nice, but it's an emotional decision. What age is too young for a child to begin the path to become a Jedi Knight? Is it wrong for children who enter Buddhist temples to become monks to start learning martial arts and how to use actual weapons at age 6? It's all relative and all based on perspective. Obviously nobody wants to see a 16 year old go over to Afghanistan and fight and nobody wants an Ender's Game kind of scenario going on in the nations' militaries, but I don't think there's a number I would designate as "too young" to start any path that would require combat training or anything military related.

Edan wrote:

Some of us/them need more structure...

Perhaps places like bootcamps are a way of managing pupils rather than simply expelling them when they get difficult.

I have seen a few projects that do exactly this and quite successfully.

I have also recently been corresponding with a psychologist as a requirement for one of my university papers who changed the way she ran her practice to include nutritional and physical activity aspects to the treatments she provides. So far having as lot more success in treating issues, particularly with adolescents than she did with just traditional treatment.

I certainly think theres merit in it, if not just as "treatment" but in some cases, preventing issues in the first place.

(idk, but now i think I misread Edan's post, lol... sorry if I did, and my reply makes little sense, lol...)

Jestor wrote: (idk, but now i think I misread Edan's post, lol... sorry if I did, and my reply makes little sense, lol...)

No I think its still relevant. Because pupils who are "difficult" get labeled with something

I tried to enlist when I was 18 and they said no, the interviewing psychologist decided I should try again when I had become more mature.... lol fair enough, I'm pretty sure I'd aced the other tests so I guess sometimes age is irrelevant. I think it must be limited to 'adults' and however that society defines adulthood. Given science believes the brain really has not stabilized its 'growth' phase of childhood until the early 20's it probably should be at least 21. It would be good if something else could provide the food, shelter, training, activity, purpose and financial benefits for younger folk who need it, without the huge risk and responsibility of combat and combat support.

As a graduate from the Military institute in Texas, i can honestly say that for some people, like my self, the military is the right thing. The structure and discipline was what i needed to get my head out of my ass, truth be told.There are programs all over the world that have pre start possibilities. Depending on the person, it may be a good move.... Age is time, and times only a tool to use and if you use it right you can accomplish much!