Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

commonplace.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#91

Post by sneak »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #47
Eumenes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Child soldiers" is dramatic. I don't see a problem with a 16 year old joining the military, with the support of their parents, esp. if they don't have an interest in college. They could learn some valuable skills, certainly more than you'd learn in public education.

Really? I see a problem with people joining the military regardless of their age, but especially if they're too young to be sufficiently critical of whatever they were told by the recruiter.

There is an argument that even someone who is 18/19/20 is too young to be sufficiently critical.

We don't let those people drink alcohol for a reason.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#92

Post by hattmall »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #37
Eumenes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Child soldiers" is dramatic. I don't see a problem with a 16 year old joining the military, with the support of their parents, esp. if they don't have an interest in college. They could learn some valuable skills, certainly more than you'd learn in public education.

I believe several nations have similar to Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) like the USA has, which can start at middle school or around 4th 5th grade or 12 to 13 years olds. (edit: spelling)

Yeah we even have military schools that start at kindergarten too, but JROTC and military schools aren't really actually being in the military by a large margin and have no type of commitment. The overwhelming majority of kids involved in those programs don't join the military.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#93

Post by ClumsyPilot »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #74
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? Why do you think we recruit teenagers and not 25 to 30 year old men, who are stronger, tougher and more mature? Because teenagers are easy to manipulate and control, don’t value their life, and think with their dick.

On what basis do you think 25-30 years old is a more capable fighting demographic? Are you basing this assertion on literally anything? Have you looked up any information about demographics and fighting effectiveness before sharing your opinion? Do you have literally anything other than the small window on the world of your immediate general area and personal life experience / gut feeling? I'm going to take a stab in…

muscle strength peaks at 25, this is a well known fact. Likelihood of crashing a car or doing something stupid with a car drops sharply as you mature to 30. This is common knowledge and is easilly verified.

Nobody claims that 40 yeat old men are peal of physical perfection.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#94

Post by IIAOPSW »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #93
IIAOPSW wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what basis do you think 25-30 years old is a more capable fighting demographic? Are you basing this assertion on literally anything? Have you looked up any information about demographics and fighting effectiveness before sharing your opinion? Do you have literally anything other than the small window on the world of your immediate general area and personal life experience / gut feeling? I'm going to take a stab in…

muscle strength peaks at 25, this is a well known fact. Likelihood of crashing a car or doing something stupid with a car drops sharply as you mature to 30. This is common knowledge and is easilly verified. Nobody claims that 40 yeat old men are peal of physical perfection.

You say muscle strength peaks at 25 as if it supports your point about the 25-30 year old fighting condition, when the same fact could equally well support the case for the fighting condition of the 20-25 year old demographic.

Car accident rates have an obvious confounding factor. Of course the people with +5 years experience driving have a lower accident rate than the people who just got their license. Skill comes from practice. If you pushed the legal age for a drivers license to 25, the 25-30 year old demographic would probably suck at it and get into accidents in their first ever years on the road. There's no way around the fact that driving judgement has to be learned at some point, and is not just bestowed by the maturity fairy when you hit the big three ooh.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#95

Post by cykros »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #93
IIAOPSW wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what basis do you think 25-30 years old is a more capable fighting demographic? Are you basing this assertion on literally anything? Have you looked up any information about demographics and fighting effectiveness before sharing your opinion? Do you have literally anything other than the small window on the world of your immediate general area and personal life experience / gut feeling? I'm going to take a stab in…

muscle strength peaks at 25, this is a well known fact. Likelihood of crashing a car or doing something stupid with a car drops sharply as you mature to 30. This is common knowledge and is easilly verified. Nobody claims that 40 yeat old men are peal of physical perfection.

Muscle strength is far from the most valuable military skill in most roles these days, and arguably hasn't really been since the 19th century when most combat became firearms oriented. Yes, it still plays a role, and for some jobs, it is among the most important, but they're a minority.

Ability and willingness to follow orders is probably paramount, along with reflexes, and some common sense and logical abilities. And then of course, proficiency in your role.

18 year olds are typically right out of school, so learning new roles comes easy. They've also typically come right out of a situation in life where the expectation of following commands is pretty fresh, even if they perhaps weren't the best at following through (the military has ways to fix that).

And perhaps most importantly, for folks that are staying in for the career, or at least longer than the minimum level of service, joining at 18 means that you've had time to get training and experience so when you DO hit that "prime muscle strength" time of life, you're a well honed killing machine. Waiting til you've hit that point means you'll be going in cold, and get suboptimal results.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#96

Post by cykros »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #30

A bit of an aside, but it seems like the South would've had a lot fewer able-bodied, young men to fight the war especially since they weren't inclined to arm black soldiers. Given that the south was primarily agrarian with fewer urban areas to draw from - the population was more sparse. How did the confederacy think they could win given that difference?

They had help from (and were egged on by) Britain and they didn't count on the help the Union was going to get from Russia. Also, war on home turf gives a "home field advantage." Also, in the end, the war lasted over 4 years -- they were hardly a pushover.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#97

Post by cykros »

shkkmo wrote: post #55
marcusverus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At first glance one might suspect that South's disinclination to arm black soldiers would harm their ability to field a large proportion of their population, but that wasn't the case. The ready availability of slave labor enabled free men, who would have otherwise been required at home to work the fields or bring in the crops, to go off and fight instead. IIRC, around 80% of able-bodied free men in the South fought i…

> When your country gets invaded, you don't grab your abacas, you grab your gun. The confederacy was not being invaded when they chose to start the war.

They seceded from the Union. The war was started when the Union under Lincoln asserted that this was unacceptable. Which, in fairness, there had been no prior precedent for.

This is why many southerners know it as "The War of Northern Aggression."

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#98

Post by sidewndr46 »

dukeyukey wrote: post #56
sidewndr46 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but if the UK was invaded, you'd be expected to pick up arms in the kingdoms defense right?

Honestly, probably not. Even in WW2, the closest there got to 16-year-olds fighting (at least without lying about it) was in the Home Guard (sometimes called the Dad's Army because of its use of retired soldiers), and them fighting would mean the enemy landed on Great Britain itself. It's not impossible, but I imagine something similar would happen in almost any other country under active occupation. Which doesn't me…

Are they subject to the UK's equivalent of the UCMJ?

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#99

Post by shkkmo »

Clubber wrote: post #83
shkkmo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with your extremely selective quoting, (including the exclusion of what that ruse was required and the food shortage that necessitated resupply) there is still nothing there that qualifies as a invasion.

>your extremely selective quoting If you read the article I linked, Anderson took the fort on his own accord. Did you want me to paste the entire article in here or something? What's extremely selective about it? I linked the article. >including the exclusion of what that ruse was required Got any references or anything to explain what you mean? >food shortage that necessitated resupply Anderson took the fort and hel…

It wasn't their fort. It was the property of the US army and was taken by a commander who that article describes as very sympathetic to the southern cause, but honorably loyal to the army. There is no indication that Anderson had any desire to "invade" the south, but rather the opposite.

The CSA fired at the Star of the West to prevent resupply of Anderson. The CSA also chose to fire at the fort even though they knew that Anderson would surrender due to lack of food within days.

The CSA repeatedly chose violence to take a fort that a they couldn't get through negotiation and thus started a very bloody war. Perhaps that war was inevitable and it clearly stemmed from hostile choices on both sides, but the decision to officially start that war by the CSA was preemptive and absolutely not a response to any invasion.

Re: Underage Enlistment in the United States and the Confederacy

#100

Post by redkinght99 »

moioci wrote: post #80

A minor point that may have some relevance here. When I was doing genealogical research on my great grandfather who served in the US Civil War, I read that at the time, your legal age was considered to be the age you would attain by the end of the calendar year, so everyone officially aged up on January 1. By this convention, many 17 year-olds who enlisted would have been legally 18 and did not actually lie about the…

I'm mentally trying to wrap my head around someone having a great grandfather that served in the Civil War. That's incredible! Thank you.
Post reply on HN