It's the lowest cost time to take risks like that, and it's a hell of a lot more constructive than fighting in a world war like 17 y.o men of the past.
What kind of insane dichotomy is this? If you are 17 you can do so much with your life which isn't either grinding away making banking apps (if you want to do that, you can do that for the next 50 years of your life) or dying in a war.
Do you genuinely believe that my argument is that OP should have went into a war zone as a soldier instead? If not, why bring that up at all?