It seems totally wrong to begin with but it has been the case in the past for example in the Armenian genocide that children have had to fight alongside their parents just to ensure their own survival as their capture would mean death. Is it therefore morally acceptable that in a last stand against their certain death to hand them a weapon and tell them how to kill with it? But beyond that if that is in principle ok then is it reasonable to send them on the offensive to secure their own existence and finish off an enemy who would otherwise kill them? A friend of mine put this to me the other day and I can't seem to find a concrete, fool proof answer.
like it or not every war in human history, without exception, has been fought with children. I don't think it is moral but humanity has decided that it is acceptable.
So, we can go ahead and condemn it all we want but it won't change. No way in hell the military is going to start basic training with 30 year olds.
In a perfect America all wars would be funded by taking it out of social security payments that are being issued right now.
American wars are funded by China and especially Saudi Arabia..and take it out of social Security? NO..rei1nstate the Draft..No Exemptions for Anyone..in fact the1st to drafted is the Congressional office holders of age children..17 -32 uears of age..that would emd the war within weeks..
@Charlene the elderly vote for wars. They should pay for what they vote for.
@engineer_in_nj
Well actually it the Pols that vote for War..the general population have No say in that decision making process.