Also, per the article link below, the Marine Corps is considering going the opposite direction - at least for Infantry units.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/07/31/go-four-before-grunt-the-controversial-idea-posed-by-the-head-of-mattis-task-force/
As we have a large contingent of US military veterans who are FReepers, I would be interested in everyone's thoughts about lowering the age of enlistment down to 16.
Just in terms of the acknowledgement that a 16 year old can aspire to being a man as opposed to the many democrat options pop culture pushes, it’s a good idea.
Can’t get in with flat feet, can’t get in with tattoos on your hands, can’t get in with bad teeth, can’t get in with a history of broken bones, can’t get in with an undescended testicle, can’t get in with a GED, I could go on but I think the point has been made.
I tried for years to get into the military but they look for excuses to not let people in. I’m not a drug user and have no criminal record. Their excuse was I was 6 pounds over their weight limit.
So I lost the weight and went back in a few weeks.
Then their excuse was I can’t get in with a GED and need 15 college credits. For infantry. These manpower problems are largely of their own making.
Want to increase volunteers? Stop teaching global communism in our public and Catholic schools.
It’s a bit different now that homosexual rape is such a big problem in the military.
Sounds problematic. Base pay for a newly minted E1 is $9.70 per hour if I understand correctly (and please correct me if I don’t). Hard to compete when everyone is headed to $15/hr.
Worst idea possible. High school grads are usually 18 so lowering the age also means lowering the level of intelligence. Most 16-year-olds don’t even know what they want for supper for crying out loud. With all the high technology used today in what possible position could they serve anyway? I found myself back in the 60’s surrounded by McNamara’s 100 Thousand. You old-timers know what happened there!
If the services can’t get quality recruits, start up the draft again.
The answer is mandatory National Service.
At age 18 EVERYONE goes with no exemptions for any but the most crippling of conditions such as confined to bed and hooked up to a respirator.
The best of these kids will be in the fighting end and the rest in support. Two full yrs and not a day less, long with bonuses offered to reenlist to those deserving.
Your average 16-year-old male these days is not as mature as the average one 50 years ago. I’d rather see a renewed focus on getting teens in shape, which would presumably make a significant chunk of those “17- to 24-year-olds who are ineligible to serve” eligible.
16 is too young (17 is almost too young).
Lowering the age limit isn’t going to solve the problem of queer, freak and feminist social engineering that’s infecting the military. No normal human who would otherwise serve and put their lives on the line wants to be subjected to that every day.
Bad idea for sooo many reasons
Maybe they should recruit older people, instead of younger.
This is a ploy by liberals to drop the voting age to 16.
This creates a real quandary for the low I.Q. RATs. They would finally have an argument for lowering the voting age to 16 but how could they explain allowing a 16 year old to carry a firearm. Hmmmmmm.
Stop the SJW bullcrap that’s infesting the military and quit driving men out of the service with a whip and the problem just might solve itself.
As it is, there’s so much time taken up with all the social engineering sensitivity training there’s no time for actual MOS training.
NO!
I tried to join the Marines when I was 30 and they said I was too old.
Stupid idea. If anything, the age should be increased. If we need more soldiers than we have recruits, then either increase pay and bonuses or institute a draft.
My story as well except that it was the Navy. Man, those guys were old! I don't think this plan is anything more than a stopgap measure. If you want more recruits out of a dwindling pool, make the military more attractive, in my opinion with far less social programming and engineering, more education benefits, higher pay.
Most of these factors are under civilian control, not military, and the Secretary of Defense ordering the JCS to make the military more attractive is an exercise in futility. Perhaps fewer overseas deployments might help relieve the strain? Perhaps reducing our collective defense commitments might be in order? (Trump certainly got that one right). Perhaps civilian leadership should stop the stupidity of making the services a haven for "protected classes" and start making them safe for everybody?