The morality of involving kids in warfare?

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Actually I was insipired by [url=http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=67255]this[/thread].

Well, although I cannot point to each specific example, I believe there's a lot of cases where kids/early teens are involved in warfare. IIRC there are cases in the history where 14-years old or such were involved in war like America independence or Napoleonic battles. For modern cases, I believe such things mostly happens in guerilla and "freedom fighters" like Palestininan intifada.

Nevertheless, what do you think? Do you think it's immoral to involve the underages as soldiers in the battlefield? Or things like "patriotism" or "jihad" can justify such act?

Personally, I loathe the idea. I believe involving kids in combat is even worse than employing them as coal miners or slave workers like those on 19th century. But I wonder what's your take on this matter.

[Il Saggiatore]

I don't think that children are able to make the choice to take part in a war. So I consider involving children in warfare immoral.

However, people with particular sets of priorities, might consider involving children less immoral than not achieving their goals.

[Trytostaydead]

More than likely immoral. But from who's point of view and under what context? If you're down to the line and you don't want to, or can't surrender, do you arm the kids or say it's immoral?

Those so-called "freedom" fighters are using kids they can brainwash and easily sway, African fighters because they can press them into service. So either way, those people are real dicks.

[The Guid]

Its worth considering that had it not been for Guerilla fighters in the Soviet Union during the second World war Hitler may have reached Moscow. I can't neccessarily back that up as its not my period any more but certainly the Commujnists in Russia used young people to hamber Nazi progress. We might call it wrong, but it may well have saved the world to not be too melodramatic.

[Enforcer Talen]

there are scales to wrong, neh?

war is wrong
kids in war are more wrong
loss of the human species is more wrong.

it all depends on the context

[Wicked Pilot]

Generally using kids to fight wars is immoral, but if you're being invaded, and you know it's the enemy's intentions are wipe out every one of your citizens, and they're breaking through, then yes you damn well arm the children and send them to the front.

[White Haven]

The kid in Matrix Revolutions had it right, I'd say. If they're coming to kill you and/or all you stand for, you won't be any less fucked if your children die with guns in hand than hiding in a bunker. It all comes down to what you have left to lose as a people.

[Castor Troy]

If it's a major danger, as in the people depend on the children fighting, then yeah, I say it would be all right (as in the child fights for his family, rather his nation). Otherwise, I say it's immoral.

[Aaron]

Were any of you guys involved in the peacekeeping missions in Rwanda and Somalia? Child soldiers were used extensively in both conflicts because they are easy to motivate and brainwash, you simply hop them up on drugs give them a machete and a AK-47 and point them an an upstart Hutu tribe, it's horrifying. I've seen grown men return from these operations and cry on a parade square full of cadats because they reminded them of a field full of 12 year old bodies in Rwanda or Somalia.

Using children as soldiers is one of the most disgusting and vile things a human being can do to another. It is tantamount to slavery and if it doesn't kill them will scar them for life.

[Panzer Grenadier]

I would say its wrong to use young children, or brainwash them into fighting. However, it depends on what you consider children. Im 17 and if my country ever was invaded by a hostile power I would take up arms to defend it. I am also sure there are a lot of 16, and 15 year olds that would do the same.

[Aaron]

I would say its wrong to use young children, or brainwash them into fighting. However, it depends on what you consider children. Im 17 and if my country ever was invaded by a hostile power I would take up arms to defend it. I am also sure there are a lot of 16, and 15 year olds that would do the same.

I consider anyone under 19 to be a child and would oppose their use in a war. No offense Panzer Grenadier. As a side note, Canada has signed a treaty stating that we will not use child soldiers, so while you can join up at 17, you will not be deployed until you turn 19.

[Z-Ha-Dum]

I personally view invovling children as soldiers in war as evil. It is traumatic to the very young and only serves to ruin their future.

It is not an unusual occurence for insurgents to recruit kids to serve their purposes. In my country, recruiting children for armed conflict is carried out by both the communist insurgents (the New People's Army) and Islamic rebels (Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Abu Sayyaf Group).

The practice isn't a recent phenomenon here. During the American colonial era, children have been used as both shields and soldiers by Muslims in Mindanao to fight American occupational forces (the battles of BudDajo in 1906 and BudBagsak in 1913).

[Ravengrim]

Using kids as soldiers in the manner that is common in Africa is wrong in so many ways, and would not be even considered by someone with a shred of humanity.

However teaching children how to fight to defend themselves during an occupation of hostiles is a responsibility, I feel, since children are usually brutalized by invading forces. That still doesn't mean that they should be used as front-line forces, even during an occupation or rebellion.

[Mr. T]

Using kids as soldiers in the manner that is common in Africa is wrong in so many ways, and would not be even considered by someone with a shred of humanity.

However teaching children how to fight to defend themselves during an occupation of hostiles is a responsibility, I feel, since children are usually brutalized by invading forces. That still doesn't mean that they should be used as front-line forces, even during an occupation or rebellion.

This is exactly the way that I feel. Ideally, people that have not reached the "age of majority" should not serve in combat. However, one can envision scenarios when it might cause more harm to not teach children to defend themselves.

[Surlethe]

If a child is old enough to make a reasoned, informed decision, then that child should be allowed to fight. Most children--under 18--are unable to make reasoned, informed decisions--hence, they should not be allowed to fight.

There may be, of course, extenuating circumstances, such as the Nazi invasion of Russia, but those, IMHO, are few and far between.

[Surlethe]

If a child is old enough to make a reasoned, informed decision, then that child should be allowed to fight. Most children--under 18--are unable to make reasoned, informed decisions--hence, they should not be allowed to fight.

There may be, of course, extenuating circumstances, such as the Nazi invasion of Russia, but those, IMHO, are few and far between.

[Chmee]

Generally using kids to fight wars is immoral, but if you're being invaded, and you know it's the enemy's intentions are wipe out every one of your citizens, and they're breaking through, then yes you damn well arm the children and send them to the front.

So another way of looking at that is ... if you're in a war for survival, then of course you're going to use every pair of arms that can lift a weapon.

If you're in a war that ISN'T for survival .... now you face questions about the morality of fighting the war at all, with people of any age.

[Alliance SpecForceTrooper]

there are scales to wrong, neh?

war is wrong
kids in war are more wrong
loss of the human species is more wrong.

it all depends on the context

War is the absence of morality. It is organized murder...and I say this as a military historian. Unfortunately, we ain't gonna cure it....ever. To think otherwise is to engage in fantasy.

[General Brock]

Definitely wrong to use child soldiers in combat, but only in terms of the waste of their lives in perpetuating their society. Morally, it depends on the context. Children have been used in war historically against invaders as spies and scouts, because they are less likely to provoke suspicion, are small, and sometimes are ubiquitous. Using them in combat is a desperate last measure, and usually the result of their parent's last attempt to preserve their future in what was an independent society. There is no excuse for using them as cheap, easy-to-manipulate fodder in gratuitous warfare, as in Africa where it is just warlords fighting for diamond money, not their nation.

[Aaron]

Definitely wrong to use child soldiers in combat, but only in terms of the waste of their lives in perpetuating their society. Morally, it depends on the context. Children have been used in war historically against invaders as spies and scouts, because they are less likely to provoke suspicion, are small, and sometimes are ubiquitous. Using them in combat is a desperate last measure, and usually the result of their parent's last attempt to preserve their future in what was an independent society. There is no excuse for using them as cheap, easy-to-manipulate fodder in gratuitous warfare, as in Africa where it is just warlords fighting for diamond money, not their nation.

Now why can't we make those Somali and Rwandan scum understand that?

[brianeyci]

The responsibility factor is the obvious issue here. Can a child make the distinction between the violence a soldier must perpetrate to defend his nation, and any kind of violence? The obvious answer is generally no.

Seems to me the important idea is that children cannot act responsibly. Psychological/mental scarring is another, but adults get psychologically scarred as well. Children more so, but responsibility to me is overriding. Why do we not allow children to smoke, drink and drive except at certain ages? Why should war be any different?

Would child soldiers be more inclined to ignore rules of engagement (if there were rules)? It seems the obvious answer is yes.

Brian

[Stofsk]

I would say its wrong to use young children, or brainwash them into fighting. However, it depends on what you consider children. Im 17 and if my country ever was invaded by a hostile power I would take up arms to defend it. I am also sure there are a lot of 16, and 15 year olds that would do the same.

I consider anyone under 19 to be a child and would oppose their use in a war. No offense Panzer Grenadier. As a side note, Canada has signed a treaty stating that we will not use child soldiers, so while you can join up at 17, you will not be deployed until you turn 19.

Why 19? Why not 18? I thought you were technically considered an adult when you turned 18, but it appears different nations have different rules (yeah I know, duh).

[wolveraptor]

You don't magically undergo some epiphany when you turn 18/19 and suddenly view the whole world more rationally. Personally, I think a child is an adult when he/she is fully self-supporting and stabilized. Vague and subjective, yes, but better than drawing an arbitrary line in the sand at age X.

In any case, children cannot morally be used as soldier in a war unless the war is for their very survival. To use Halo as an example: The Covenant would've killed every last surviving human and/or absorbed them into their own culture. The UNSC was somewhat justified in abducting the future SPARTANS as kids, though the ethics of taking them without parental consent are questionable. Still, the SPARTANS could potentially save the human race, and their abduction would be an acceptible sacrifice of rights.

[General Brock]

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Now why can't we make those Somali and Rwandan scum understand that?

I don't.... eh, let's avoid the bucket of green slime.

I assume they understand this, but their society is broken down to the point where, to the warlord's mind, this is a viable tactic. Or, they are using the children of a rival tribe/clan warlord in the sick hope of bleeding off their future. It might also be a way of protecting one's position as a warlord; a child soldier is less likely to become a rival for power.

I suspect De Beers and other foreigners are prodding this to their advantage as well; keeps the natives stupid, and more importantly, discourages other, more moral western competitors from doing business in the region. Somehow I doubt that the instigators of this lack understanding; just conscience, and a belief in a future outside their own gain. There is little room for reasoning with psychos like that when they have guns, money, guidance and the protection of well-placed foreign industrialists and financiers in other countries. Since the warlord societies have collapsed, yet somehow still continue, there must be outside parasites propping up the shell.

Children actually make good soldiers; during medieval times and into the modern era children have had roles in the military; squires, messengers, labourers. They are eager to please, knowing of fear, but ignorant of mortality, and can perform simple tasks. The relative ease of using firearms, compared to more primitive weapons, makes it easy to send a child into combat. Last rememberance day, I read an article on the children who died in the trenches of WWI. What makes the Somoli or Rwandan situation unusual is that there is that they are front-line combatants and an absence of a social structure that will allow child soldiers to become responsible adults capable of functioning as such.

This is just not natural, suggesting that warlord society is artficial and reliant more upon external, rather than internal imperatives. The scum may not reside in the countries in conflict, as the news coverage would suggest, and whether or not the warlords understand might be pointless.

[Aaron]

Why 19? Why not 18? I thought you were technically considered an adult when you turned 18, but it appears different nations have different rules (yeah I know, duh).

Easy enough to answer. 19 is the age when the Canadian Forces will send you off to war. Thats the age which I work off of, cause thats the service I was in.