U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2012, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Tioga County
513 posts, read 1,853,639 times
Reputation: 490

Advertisements

Guess I'll throw in my views on this topic. A number of things come to mind. First, here we are are again. Another drawdown...good troops (inc some I know) who are young/combat/mos types will have to do the "dance" of "I'll switch to any mos(military occupational specialty)-any location in order to secure a reenlistment in the next few years". The previous drawdown in the 90's was pretty ugly in some ways.
As far as the low percentage of possible recruits....(having been in a position to know for 20+ years)...I wish parents would think VERY carefully before letting the system medicate their kids for a whole host of issues. If they absolutely need the meds..okay..but too many kids are medicated on the smallest of concerns. Little do their parents know..not only will this throw a roadblock in the possibility of their child's possible interest in the military...but it actually extends to a wide range of govt/law enforcement careers.
And now for, I'm sure, this last view will get some negative feedback...but like I said..been there for 20+ years...Anyone who has gone through the entrance physical has run the gamut of "you better tell us of any hidden medical issues, or we'll prosecute you, take away your birthday, etc...".
My advice(every situation is different), is this to a potential recruit: will that med issue that most likely will not show up in a physical really impact your ability to be a good military person? Two examplesof course THESE ARE MADE UP STORIES..not ones I know of) . First, an individual w/ a history of migraines. Well...he made sure he wasen't on any meds prior to the physical....checked no on the med forms for migraine..and did many years(inc combat/medal)...the migraines were around b4 he went in...he still gets migraines now that he's out. (Now another "made up situation"), the soldier who didn't disclose a slight issue w/1 leg..but could meet the pt standards....he just chose an mos that wouldn't overstress that 1 leg. Did 4 years honorable duty inc 1 in the sandbox. Am I telling a prospective recruit to hide an issue he feels he could work around? Everyone has to answer to his/her own conscience.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2012, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Fort Walton Beach
19 posts, read 35,525 times
Reputation: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
Techology as a force multiplier. The days of the big army are over. "Surgical precision." We've been hearing that song and dance for years now.

So...how did that work out in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Unless you've seen it, you don't know what it is, and when they talk about surgical precision and "smart" weaponry, they compare it to the early days of warfare where they would dump millions of tons of bombs on a city to take out a single factory that was making ball bearing for tanks in Germany; today all it takes is one guided missile to take out a floor of a factory and leaves all the others intact. When you've seen that, then you know what we are talking about. Is it perfect? not at all, have mistakes been made and civilians killed? of course but it's many times more effective and economical than the carpet bombing of WWII, Korea and Vietnam where hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Airpower and seapower combined with boots on ground equals no "army" that can withstand our military might. And who is hitting the fire button? Your former lazy dumb teenager who spent the last few years honing their skills to defend this great country with technology that was unimaginable just 20 years ago. An insurgency is totally different, and until mad scientists invent a bullet or a scope that can differentiate an insurgent from a civilian, we will spend a decade in a country that took hours to defeat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2012, 02:47 PM
 
Location: :~)
1,483 posts, read 2,823,516 times
Reputation: 1519
Generals are complaining about the pool of recruits when they should be planning for Afghan exit strategy...I know the report said retired Generals but they all talk. Plus, the military across the board is going through some serious cutbacks. Finally, I don't believe the BS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2012, 02:49 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,402,860 times
Reputation: 47450
good post and very disturbing but u would be amazed during a threat to the country how those stats would get adjusted to accomodate the emergency and how fast a teenager can skinny down when u drill him all day. erasing your record was common in WWII when u enlisted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2012, 04:17 PM
 
18,856 posts, read 30,447,336 times
Reputation: 25990
I think I told this story...but when the military wants people...even if drafted, and you get a deferral, you could go enlist, they would take you....pretty much everyone was taken during WW II...if you wanted in, they would make it happen. I think that is the same now...if there was a need, and they wanted people, they would lower the standards.

The issue is, the standards are very high now, because lower troop numbers needed. And the high rate of unemployment, there is a larger pool to pick from.

And, no doubt, there are problems with obesity, lack of HS diploma...those are definitely social issues that are affecting our society...sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 05:35 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,030,960 times
Reputation: 7701
Quote:
Originally Posted by stavidlin View Post
Unless you've seen it, you don't know what it is, and when they talk about surgical precision and "smart" weaponry, they compare it to the early days of warfare where they would dump millions of tons of bombs on a city to take out a single factory that was making ball bearing for tanks in Germany; today all it takes is one guided missile to take out a floor of a factory and leaves all the others intact. When you've seen that, then you know what we are talking about. Is it perfect? not at all, have mistakes been made and civilians killed? of course but it's many times more effective and economical than the carpet bombing of WWII, Korea and Vietnam where hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Airpower and seapower combined with boots on ground equals no "army" that can withstand our military might. And who is hitting the fire button? Your former lazy dumb teenager who spent the last few years honing their skills to defend this great country with technology that was unimaginable just 20 years ago. An insurgency is totally different, and until mad scientists invent a bullet or a scope that can differentiate an insurgent from a civilian, we will spend a decade in a country that took hours to defeat.

Yes, all that's true, but there still are situations where troops on the ground are necessary. We like to think we'll never face that situation again, but who knows the future? Remember, we were told that before Iraq and Afghanistan too and suddenly found ourselves trying to hurriedly build ad hoc Infantry units to offset a shortage of ground combat troops. That the situation in Iraq deteriorated so rapidly after the initial invasion can be linked directly to not having enough ground pounders at the outset. Most, if not all, of what followed could have been avoided had we had enough troops to send in initially.

The demise of the foot soldier has been predicted many, many times over the centuries. In fact, with every new advance in killing technology (cannons, machine-guns, airplanes, nuclear weapons) we've been assured that massed Infantry is now obsolete, but it's never turned out that way, has it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top