-
I'm not sure where that stat has come from but I'm pretty sure that troops under 18 are not deployed on the frontline so it seems a bit unlikely.
Personally I know a fair few people from school (all boys comp in a fairly disadvantaged industrial town) who went into the army and came out having developed as a person much more than if they'd stayed in the same town doing some crap (or more likely no) jobs.
I don't agree with recruiting at 16 but you do need the parent's permission as well. Also another two years of forced education isn't necessarily going to benefit everyone (although I'd suggest apprenticeships would be more beneficial).
aggi-
It's true that for some people in deprived areas the army can give them opportunities they otherwise don't get.
But isn't the issue then that there are no opportunities?
Why does the UK gov keep pushing the army as heroic, yet injured veterans have to fight for help sometimes? [see also the USA btw]That just doesn't sit well with me.
JWestland
Except statistically young people from poorer/disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to join the army in the first place, and troops under 18 are more likely to die in combat. So while it would be hyperbolic to call it a death sentence aimed at poorer kids the notion clearly isn't total bullshit.