-
If you had fun it worked - the goal is to encourage young people into the military.
Any targeting of non-adults by the military is highly ethically dubious.
It was announced as part of a package of military policies, not education policies. The aim is to help the army. The army should stick to targeting adults.
Fox-
This!
-
The army should stick to targeting adults.
My cousin is in the rifles. He does away days giving kids a taste of military style training, assault courses, orienteering, that kind of thing. Some of them love it, some of them are lazy pains in the arse. Whats the ethical issue? I don't think it turns any of them into violent people, and very few probably go on to join up.
-
Well, no, it didn't work, because on leaving the last thing I wanted to do with my life was join the RAF.
A career in the forces is still a career, regardless of ethical dimension of fighting a war - and not all the roles available revolve around putting yourself in the firing line directly.
I assume you do approve of the country keeping an army?
I don't really see the difference between that and football clubs scouting for 13- year-olds.[I should add that I don't necessarily condone this scheme: I'm just saying that I don't think there's much wrong with offering membership to the Army Cadets to teenagers generally.]
mi7rennie
William.
The_Kindness_of_Trees
The way the cadets used to work - and I can only go on my experience of being in the ATC 25-odd years ago - is that you paid your weekly subs and this covered the basic costs of running such a venture. The people who then oversaw this did so on a voluntary basis.
As for militarisation, that wasn't the vibe at all. It was actually quite a laugh and the people it attracted were fairly geeky. In some respects, it was little different from the Scouts, but was perceived as being way cooler!