General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat if the minimum age for military service was 55?
Would the USA have invaded Iraq if all our troops were older folks?
What if everyone serving on an aircraft carrier, a submarine, a fighter plane or a bomber had at least a few gray hairs?
Would we less inclined to military adventures if it was grandma and grandpa getting shot at or blown up by roadside bombs?
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)"I can't see a thing without my readers. Hey sarge, can we stop a minute...I gotta pee again..."
.
hunter
(38,327 posts)... they may not be as physically strong as a twenty year old, but they know how to take down an opponent before it becomes a battle of brute strength and endurance.
I've met older people who can crush or turn an assailant with words.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I watched my wife's parents slouch into a barcalounger and watch McGyver reruns in their old age. No way am I letting that happen to me! In fact, I'm going to the Surf Expo in Orlando this weekend to meet up with some of my old wave riding buddies. Use it or lose it!
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Military service is very physically demanding. While some people 55 and up are in the service, they're mostly NOT found as front-line grunts and other jobs that require you to be able to haul 150 pounds of gear 10 miles across a desert in 110 degree heat, or lift 650 pound naval gun shells, or the like.
Jean V. Dubois
(101 posts)Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)TheWraith
(24,331 posts)It's about as relevant to the real world as if I asked "What if the military was composed entirely of people who prefer Star Wars over Star Trek?" Or if only people with webbed toes could join up. In fact, the example is counter to the point--people are generally more protective of their kids than they are of their parents, so chances are FEWER people would object to wars if it was all graybeards getting shot up, instead of Little Johnny who just turned 19 and has his whole life ahead of him.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts).
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Young men and women are sent to kill and die by those predominantly in that 50-60something group. They're calling the shots from far behind "the lines" (to the extent that battle lines matter anymore), and they're getting a lot of 19 and 22 year olds killed in the process. These 50/60 year olds are also very aware that the peak of physical fitness also coincides (in men) with peak testosterone production. Moreover, armed forces have an easier time imposing groupthink on younger soldiers and sailors. This is critical in any war--to get the unit to act as a single entity. So the idea here is to send the warmongers who make the decisions about who lives and dies, to do it for themselves. I'll go ahead and wager that the OP did not submit this as some sort of a policy plank that should be fleshed out and made real, but was instead using the device, the notion of elderly soldiers, to make a point.
I'm surprised you didn't understand the point. Thinking like this has been around, in poetry, literature, and articles, since at least World War 1, and probably before that.
onenote
(42,760 posts)Yes, the theme of old men sending young men to war has been around for ages. And it still happens. Not just in the US, but everywhere. And the fact is that so long as they are armies, no matter what the age of the soldiers, someone is going to send them to war. Do I think Bush, Cheney et al would send 55 year olds to war? Darn tooting they would if that was the only army we had (and, of course, the only way we'd have such an army is if the folks we were fighting had such an army and that hasn't happened in the history of the world so if you're going to speculate about that you might as well speculate about a world in which there simply are no armies.
By the way, not that it really matters, but would this army of old guys (and I'm in the old guy category) be made up of conscripts or volunteers?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The OP may or may not have meant something different, but I never for a second considered this an actual proposal. I considered it thought-provoking hyperbole. Is everyone else reading this as a literal prescription for what ails our warring society?
Iggo
(47,565 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)So I don't think sending older people will change much.
hunter
(38,327 posts)In civilian life most of them would have had plenty of experience dealing with asshole bosses, coworkers, and clients in a constructive manner.
Kids haven't learned these skills yet. Once they've had time to become bitter and cynical about the military, and before they've developed the skills to deal with an irrational command structure, most of them are out.
It'd be damned difficult to get older people to accept the role of cannon fodder.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Now that would be interesting. Make those chickenhawks put up or shut up
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)Could make a fortune!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Would we less inclined to military adventures if it was grandma and grandpa getting shot at or blown up by roadside bombs?"
No more and no less that if it were our sons and daughters getting shot at or blown up by roadside bombs... which is indeed the case.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)hunter
(38,327 posts)For several hours she held off the police and paramedics when they came to remove her from her home.
She went kicking and screaming and biting all the way to the ambulance.
My grandma was an awful, awful hoarder, like on the television shows, and a smoker who'd forget where she'd left her cigarette burning and light up another one. She was also a crazy woman who'd threaten neighbors with garden implements, and generally was a danger to herself and others.
onenote
(42,760 posts)You might just as well ask what if the maximum age for military service was four years old. Would the USA have invaded Iraq with an army of toddlers? No.
But military service isn't going to be limited to retirees or infants for the US or for any other country and thus the premise of this thread is blatantly ridiculous.
Oh, and by the way, the folks making the decision to go to war: usually they're over 55.
hunter
(38,327 posts)Einstein imagined surfing along a beam of light and came up with his theory of relativity.
He didn't actually surf a beam of light.
I'm simply trying to figure out the nature of our militaristic society.
onenote
(42,760 posts)I suppose its the same as the nature of all other societies that have militaries if you're basing the analysis on the age of those allowed to participate in military service. Maybe less militaristic than some, particularly those that still conscript citizens into military service against their will and that often foist military service onto young teens.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)stand around and think "what'd I come here for"? 30 seconds later "oh yeah, I remember".
Response to hunter (Original post)
HereSince1628 This message was self-deleted by its author.
RZM
(8,556 posts)Response to RZM (Reply #25)
HereSince1628 This message was self-deleted by its author.
RZM
(8,556 posts)No doubt some have really great food. But I'm talking Old Country Buffet style, where the options are limitless!
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)At least it was in Iraq. The Fajita and Philly Cheesesteak days were the best.
Response to RZM (Reply #28)
HereSince1628 This message was self-deleted by its author.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Really looked? Or are you just making an assumption that only teenagers and young people serve? My brother just retired from the military and he is in his mid 50s. He's not the only one who was serving with "gray hairs." The decision to go to war is not made by the enlisted personnel, but by the career politicians and the interests who put them in office. Let's drop the naivete and start being a little more realistic.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Well over half of the US armed forces are between the ages of 18 and 30, so while there are some gray-haired professional soldiers, the force is predominantly young.
Also, I took the OP as being a slam at the older people (both civilian and military) who start the wars.
hunter
(38,327 posts)Maybe more than half, most of them my age, in their fifties or sixties, the older among them being Viet Nam vets.
I also know a few messed up kids who served in Iraq. My brother's godson served in Iraq. He describes his job there as "scooping up brains and body parts." He means that literally. He has not had an easy re-assimilation into civilian society. Like some Viet Nam vets I know he may never be right.
I'm not talking about "The decision to go to war," I'm talking about the dynamics of the way we fight, and the way general society sees our military.
Certainly the character of military service would change drastically if our youngest soldiers were 55 and our larger society's perception of war would also change. Returning veterans, having already been part of civilian society, might also have fewer problems adjusting.
Uncle Joe
(58,418 posts)Thanks for the thread, hunter.
onenote
(42,760 posts)Bush: 57
Cheney: 62
Rumsfeld: 71
Powell: 66
Bremer: 62
Myers: 61
Wolfowitz: 60
Abrams: 55
Perle: 62
Why would anyone think that the decision whether to invade Iraq would have been different if it was left to folks over 55? It was. And we all know what decision they made. Would they have been less inclined to do so if the military was only made up of those over 55? As long as they weren't sending themselves into battle, I don't think it would have made the slightest difference to them. If we had a military, they were going to use it.
Uncle Joe
(58,418 posts)Under the current system, you can't even vote until just before or about the same time as you're eligble to enlist or in the past be drafted.
If people were eligible to vote long before they were eligible to kill, I believe there would be greater participation by younger people in the voting process and the older generation would have more at risk and as a result the government would become more liberal.
As it is, Americans participation in choosing their government increases with age and by then they have retired from the military or are past the age of enlisting or worst case, revised scenario being drafted.
I believe for the most part, people's political point of views are intricately tied to their personal risk/reward quotient.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)And the medical costs would be fearful.
Grab a bunch of 55 year olds and send them out with backpacks trudging around, and 50% would be disabled within six months.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)would really exist.
HubertHeaver
(2,522 posts)Very few of the old farts would survive basic training. (I'm 62. I can talk about those 55-year-old pups this way.)
My suggestion is to re-institute the Draft. Start with conscripting the 60 to 65 year old group with the only disqualifying condition being prior active-duty service. See it as an upper-age No Child Left Behind. They would be given 13 weeks to be able to perform as a healthy 20 year old, regardless of infirmities and or disabilities. _________ 1/2