Military eyes 16-year-olds as ranks and candidates dwindle

[mystery-ak]

 By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times - Thursday, July 18, 2019

The best way to fix the U.S. armed forces’ recruiting challenges may involve dipping further into the nation’s high schools.

As the Army, Navy and other services contend with a thriving economy and a directive to expand their ranks, there is a growing debate over whether the military should consider lowering the minimum enlistment age from 17 to 16. More than a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, already have adopted the policy.

Critics say the idea is deeply flawed and presents a host of societal problems, but supporters argue that the Pentagon needs to think outside the box if it wants to continually overcome one of the toughest recruiting environments in decades.

more
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/18/military-recruiting-woes-spur-debate-over-enlistme/

[Fishrrman]

Too young.
It's "18" for a reason.

And another danger:
Give -some- 16-year-olds the opportunity to serve in the military, and it won't be long before the democrat-communists counter with the demand that ALL 16-year-olds should have "the right to vote", as well.

No deal!

[rustynail]

Why not 60's year olds?

[truth_seeker]

Why not 60's year olds?

Implement another draft. Just win the war decisively and keep it won.

A truly novel idea, since WWII.

[sneakypete]

By Ben Wolfgang - The Washington Times - Thursday, July 18, 2019

The best way to fix the U.S. armed forces’ recruiting challenges may involve dipping further into the nation’s high schools.

 

@mystery-ak

I guess that is one possible solution. Here is another one,how about we just reduce the number of countries we are sending soldiers into to fight other people's wars for them?

Here we are now sending soldiers to protect Saudi Arabia! SAUDI,FREAKING,ARABIA! The world-wide epicenter for fundie Islam. If ANYTHING we should be sending them cruise missiles.