-
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.]
The_Kindness_of_Trees-
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?Yes I do approve of the country keeping an army and I don't have anything against the armed forces, or people having careers in the forces. I just think they should leave the kids alone, as do many others. It doesn't seem that unreasonable: you have to be 18 to drink alcohol but if you're 16 and want to die in some hell hole then sure why not.
If you can't see the difference between recruiting young people into sport (healthy, self-discipline, harmless fun) and the military (designed to kill people, PTSD, IEDs, the stuff I've already posted about how non-adult recruits are statistically more likely to die) I think we'll just need to agree to differ.
Fox
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.