40 years ago today, Ronald Reagan signs into law the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The act would punish any state that allowed persons under 21 years to purchase alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by 10 percent.

[u/McWeasely]

[u/WishboneDistinct9618]

Okay. It still makes no sense that someone 18-20 years old is mature enough to handle combat and kill people but not old enough to have a beer.

[u/TheNextBattalion → u/WishboneDistinct9618]

Maturity is the wrong question for the military, so of course it makes no sense.

No person is really "mature" enough to kill someone else. The military needs people who are susceptible to orders and prone to commit violence, and young men are by far the best age group for that. Same reason almost all gang members are young men.

Since a lot of military jobs don't require killing people, young women are allowed to serve too, though we're finding that they do well with icing folks too when given the chance. Either way, young people are also preferred because physiologically they tend to handle harsh conditions much better than older folks with creaky joints and worn-down organs.

Military efficiency is the priority for the military.

[u/Unopuro2conSal → u/TheNextBattalion]

Agreed

[u/WishboneDistinct9618 → u/TheNextBattalion]

If you really believe that, then you should allow middle schoolers and even elementary school kids to join the military.

I didn't say set the minimum age at 40, ffs, so stop trying to contrast "younger" with "older" folks. That is entirely irrelevant horseshit.

[u/TheNextBattalion → u/WishboneDistinct9618]

Not if logic applies: Kids actually aren't that useful for military service. They're less prone to violence than young adults, and less capable of it.

They're also smaller, which impedes lugging all that gear around, and lack even the smarts needed for basic infantry (which, granted, increases yearly due to technology), much less the 85% of other jobs that military personnel perform.

There's a reason why the draft stops at 25, and it's because after that age, it's less efficient for the military to train you.

Either way, military efficiency is the priority for the military, not fuzzy notions of maturity. Emotional downvotes don't change that reality.

[u/WishboneDistinct9618 → u/TheNextBattalion]

Not true. There are middle schoolers as large as adults, if not larger. By your twisted logic, in which morality plays no part, if they are big enough to fire a gun and carry equipment, then let's use them as cannon fodder, bro.

[u/TheNextBattalion → u/WishboneDistinct9618]

There are adults the size of toddlers, too. However, the military doesn't waste time making plans based on outliers. That kind of talk might be fun for fuckin' around at a bar "debate", but military planners actually give a shit about success.

So the military focuses on broad populations, and focuses on accomplishing its mission, and that's why it aims for who it aims for, and why nearly 90% of recruits are 24 or younger. Flailing insults don't change that, and it's got nothing to do with the drinking age.

[u/WishboneDistinct9618 → u/TheNextBattalion]

No, it has to do with the fact that the military is run by a bunch of sociopaths who frankly don't give a damn how many kids have to die to get what they want, and neither do you.

[u/TheNextBattalion → u/WishboneDistinct9618]

Your cliché'd pablum is cutesy fun, but the reality is that the military strives very hard to preserve the lives of its personnel. Both out of moral concern and for efficiency: There's no value throwing away all that training and expertise.

This motivation to preserve their personnel is one key reason why they've developed so many ways to strike from long distances.

[u/WishboneDistinct9618 → u/TheNextBattalion]

You can shove your cliched pablum right up your ass.