Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

*vaguely nods in agreement with the anti-draft sentiments and points about people with weight problems needing to exercise more and knock it off with the fad diets*

Also: not even an allusion to Private Pyle, yet?

Ahtman wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:

halonachos wrote:I take it that you really want to beat the fat out of obese people Jihadin.

hahahahahahahahaha....if that was possible, I'd set up a stand on the street and do it to every person that I deem needs it

+

LumenPraebeo wrote:My dad smoked, gambled, and drank when i was small...it lessened as I grew older but has now returned as I got older. I cannot respect such a man and wouldn't even flinch if he died. He hit and yelled at me too...

= Us getting some nice insight to your inner motivations and thought process. I feel like were really getting to know you.

Motivation would not be tough, but to see my thought process, you'd have to be me....or at least learn my life story. In which case...I'm pretty sure anyone who ever did will say I'm either a sociopath, or plain crazy. And I wouldn't have it any other way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
well....maybe not a sociopath, probably more of just a person that couldn't care less because it doesn't affect him nor his loved ones...and that might be cold and hypocritical, but like I said, I can care less.

You don't come across as a sociopath or crazy, just someone perpetuating the cycle of violence your father inflicted on you on to others, even if it is just in conversation. You have some unresolved daddy issues is all. Not complicated or mysterious at all.

Being over weight will not get you out of a deployment.

Ahtman wrote:You don't come across as a sociopath or crazy, just someone perpetuating the cycle of violence your father inflicted on you on to others, even if it is just in conversation. You have some unresolved daddy issues is all. Not complicated or mysterious at all.

Do not. I type the things I do for a reason, read the whole quotes and post that instead of drawing sentences from my comments to suit your purposes. If you would think deeper, I'm sure you can come to suddenly, out of the blue realize (just as you did by putting two of my sentences together) that thoughts of violence can come from many different causes, some may be from childhood, some may be from teenage years, and some even adulthood. Or it can come from feelings of sorrow, grief, and pity over those that have suffered needless acts of teasing, bullying, or violence inflicted upon ones other than himself. But of course you wouldn't think this, you would take two of my sentences and put it together to support your opinion. Btw, your natural reactions to my counter would be to go on the defense, say sorry, or drive in further guesses in an attempt to prove your point. For both of our sakes, please don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Being over weight will not get you out of a deployment.

I know....you posted that already dude.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:US military practice has always been personnel and officer retention when the budget is low. We sacrifice material before we sacrifice personnel as a standard practice. I see no reason for this to change.

If you're referring to the Clinton cuts, that wasn't simply a matter of the budget, but the simultaneous conversion to a military which placed greater demands on the officer corps by placing higher ranking officers at positions that were historically left to more junior ones. Basically, the argument is that during the conversion process the military promoted people too quickly, and so placed many young officers into positions for which they were not prepared, or were not conditioned to understand on a cultural level; leading to high rates of attrition (eg. screw you guys, I'll go work in the private sector). This lead the military to institute officer retention programs, and sacrifice concerns over materiel.

Not just that. Between WWI and WWII the US Army and Navy prioritized maintaining NCO's and its officer corp over acquiring weapons and equipment. The interesting thing in that case is that we still modernized the Army by matters of organization, but did not equip the modernized divisions with modern equipment (well, we did, but we did it really really slowly). The same thing happened throughout the 1800's. The US military has a long history of prioritizing it's personnel over it's gear when the budget is down. EDIT: Now, that has its downside mind you. I believe there were problems with a shortage of NCO's in WWII because we couldn't get enough them. I'm not saying the way we do things is flawless, just that personnel shortages as a matter of numbers has for the most part never been a problem for the US military as it relates to its budget.

LumenPraebeo wrote:Btw, your natural reactions to my counter would be to go on the defense, say sorry, or drive in further guesses in an attempt to prove your point. For both of our sakes, please don't.

Since you've already placed yourself on the defensive, I doubt that would be the natural reaction of anyone questioning you.

dogma wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:Btw, your natural reactions to my counter would be to go on the defense, say sorry, or drive in further guesses in an attempt to prove your point. For both of our sakes, please don't.

Since you've already placed yourself on the defensive, I doubt that would be the natural reaction of anyone questioning you.

Not defensive...mererly outraged that he pulled sentences out of my arse to say something that had nothing to do with what i wrote.

Ahtman wrote:You have some unresolved daddy issues is all. Not complicated or mysterious at all.

Like these poor sweet girls.

LumenPraebeo wrote:
Not defensive...mererly outraged that he pulled sentences out of my arse to say something that had nothing to do with what i wrote.

In this instance there isn't really a difference.

LordofHats wrote:

Horst wrote:Give us fatties who play lots of video games command of predator drones.

Ironically speaking, the Army has picked up a lot of gamers to fly Predator drone Not fat ones mind you but gamers are the folk who end up in that field it seems.

Totally missed this one the first go around.
No. Or at least from my personal experience no. Aside from the casual xbox gamer, few of the operators I know can be considered "gamers." It's an outdoors occupation, Army UAV operators are more likely to hunt, fish, fourwheel, and fight than game.

LordofHats wrote:
Not just that. Between WWI and WWII the US Army and Navy prioritized maintaining NCO's and its officer corp over acquiring weapons and equipment. The interesting thing in that case is that we still modernized the Army by matters of organization, but did not equip the modernized divisions with modern equipment (well, we did, but we did it really really slowly). The same thing happened throughout the 1800's. The US military has a long history of prioritizing it's personnel over it's gear when the budget is down. EDIT: Now, that has its downside mind you. I believe there were problems with a shortage of NCO's in WWII because we couldn't get enough them. I'm not saying the way we do things is flawless, just that personnel shortages as a matter of numbers has for the most part never been a problem for the US military as it relates to its budget.

My point, which in hindsight wasn't clearly made, was that despite budget cuts under Clinton the military focused more on the acquisition of new equipment than it did on officer retention; instead choosing to simply adopt a doctrine of swift promotion. Only after it turned out that many officers chose to leave the services earlier than was expected did officer retention become a priority. The point being that the increasing complexity of military equipment had lead to an increasing need for that equipment to be present in order to train soldiers.

Then, of course, there's that whole military industrial complex thing, which has never really been an issue before.

From reading just the title of this thread i thought it might be about reducing your drag co-efficient by tucking in behind a chubber [facepalm]

Just make a few fat men platoons and feed them the same as the other units, but use them to attack hard to take targets if said targets have food inside. Instant profit.

I have the insulin dependant diabetus so I'm ok! (unless they want to give me a pancreatic transplant!)

I'd only want to join engineers anyway. Being Irish I get a +4 racial bonus to Craft (explosives)

mattyrm wrote: Draft the obese anyway, take the napalm out of the bombs and replace it with brownie batter, and drive our wobblesome warriors into a berserk fury that will grind even our stoutest foes cowering into the sand!

dogma wrote:My point, which in hindsight wasn't clearly made, was that despite budget cuts under Clinton the military focused more on the acquisition of new equipment than it did on officer retention; instead choosing to simply adopt a doctrine of swift promotion. Only after it turned out that many officers chose to leave the services earlier than was expected did officer retention become a priority. The point being that the increasing complexity of military equipment had lead to an increasing need for that equipment to be present in order to train soldiers.

Then, of course, there's that whole military industrial complex thing, which has never really been an issue before.

Ah okay. Then I wonder what may happen if the military faces major cuts again. Will they learn from that situation and maybe take a middle road or go one way or the other...

No. Or at least from my personal experience no. Aside from the casual xbox gamer, few of the operators I know can be considered "gamers." It's an outdoors occupation, Army UAV operators are more likely to hunt, fish, fourwheel, and fight than game.

Well you a dogma can just go and ruin my dillusions of reality then

Draft threads should seriously be locked as soon as they are opened.

There will never be a draft, it is an impossibility. The only way there would ever be one is if the US was invaded. Which will not happen, due to the advent of nuclear weapons the day of global wars between superpowers are over. The only wars that will be fought are proxy wars or wars where only one side (or none) is in possession of nuclear weapons.

Too many Americans are mentally and physically ineligible for service.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

halonachos wrote:If there is a draft then anyone over the age of 18 and a male is part of the selection pool. If you are disabled or in some sort of higher education(university or medical schools for example) then you are also exempt. If you ever got a little card saying "Selective Service" that is your draft card, keep it with you and carry it proudly because its also used in conjunction with voter registration.

Higher education doesn't exempt you, thats an urban myth.

If a draft does come up, I would enlist (or if its an option to you apply for OTS/OCS). At least you have more control over where and what you end up doing, so that when the cold dark hand of death embraces you to carry you to the netherworld you can be at peace with yourself knowing that you are dead because you chose the path that led you there rather than being forced on that path by a fat cat in washington.

I've always thought I would just enlist in the navy if their were a draft. Those boats seem pretty safe, also the guns are nice and big

You should read up on the Navy some more. The largest gun in the US arsenal is 5 inches in diameter, which is smaller than some of the Army's land borne artillery pieces.
According to the GAO (Government Accountability Office), some 50% of the US naval fleet has failed combat readiness inspections, but that number is deflated due to certain unsavory/illegitimate practices used to keep the remaining 50% of the fleet looking like its good to go. link: http://forbes.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/HighResolution/a91add9b-d57e-4a67-951a-b15d9fffc3c2.jpg , http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/12/surface-navy-were-not-good-to-go/

Naval vessels are very much floating death traps, in fact they are cynically referred to as 'targets' by some surface warfare officers that have realized what is up. Yes, they do have a variety of defensive systems in place, but there is question as to how effective they will actually be in a real wartime scenario.

Soures: I am currently in a class taught by naval officers called "Naval Weapons Systems"

There has been not call nor justification to reinstate the draft since Viet-Nam. The recruitment dynamo of the Defense Department has the Armed Forces well-stocked for decades, even if they claim numbers are down. Only in time of an actual, declared war, would Congress even consider it, but we haven't had one of those since World War II.

Recruitment is well stocked NOW, that wasn't the case 10-20 years ago. I'm sure you find it hard to believe,but the Air Force and Navy actually had trouble meeting its fighter pilot needs for some time because they just weren't getting enough people interested in flying.

If the super committee....those 12 individuals that got picked to trim a couple trillion dollars from the budget...blows the deadline then the military gets gutted bigger then hell. Which means early retirement after 15 yrs, retention control point of 12 yrs for those that can't get promoted pass E5, bonus to reenlist goes out the window, and units getting deactivated. The Pentagon already stated that the draft MIGHT have to be implemented for 3-4 yrs tour...medical and aviation field is six yrs. Low enlisted soldiers is cheaper then keeping carreer soldiers. That...irks me.

Source please? I have not read this. I find it suspect particularly in regards to the aviation field = six year contract draft. I can't fully speak for Army Aviation, but I know their aviators are warrant officers, and Air Force/Navy have an 8-10 year commitment (after training is completed,so it works out to more than that) and you have to be a commissioned officer. You don't draft officers, so this makes no sense.

This scenario is unlikely (Reenlistment bonuses however probably would decrease) in the case of budget cuts. US military practice has always been personnel and officer retention when the budget is low. We sacrifice material before we sacrifice personnel as a standard practice. I see no reason for this to change. Material costs more in the short term than personnel anyway, and all government money handlers ever think about is the short term.

What you're talking about of is actually more of a European (namely French) military practice.

Which is why the US military apparatus is cutting some 100,000 personnel, officers included? Hell, some of my ROTC buddies are being told that they will be let go upon graduation, education paid for in full by the gov't because they have an excess of officers and they can't take on any more.The Navy has been throwing its excess officers into the flight training pipeline, knowing that they can eliminate hundreds of them through attrition at flight school, and they are talking additional cuts... and yet, the USAF, USN, and USMC insist on maintaining the F-35 program which may surpass the F-22 as the most expensive military aviation development effort in history. Most of the major back-breaking and largely unnecessary projects have been gutted or significantly scaled back, there really is very little we can do to not cut personnel in the face of additional budget cuts. In any case, we are heading towards Jimmy Carter style hollow force 2.0, fun times.

I mean honestly... I kill LOTS of people in video games. Tell me they are real people, I don't think it would change my perspective on it, because I'm conditioned to not care about them at this point.

I have a friend who just started flying Predators for the USAF (btw, the Army doesn't have Predators, they fly a derivative called the Grey Eagle), he thought he would be good to go, after witnessing people quite literally explode on what he considers to be one of the most vivid HD video displays he has ever seen, he understands why people get PTSD. Besides that, despite what the media would like you to believe, drones are not exactly the best platform for providing support to boots on the ground, manned aircraft such as the A-10 can accomplish the mission much more effectively. Due to ROE's and some political nonsense (he couldn't tell me exact details) he was once forced to basically watch as boots came under heavy fire by Taliban/AQ and he was not allowed to act in support. The unit suffered casualties while he watched and waited for some fast moving manned aircraft to come on station and put warheads on foreheads the old fashioned way. It WILL change your perspective on it, because it has changed the perspective of quite a few people I have met, and I'll bet they are 'harder' men then you (no offense).

There will never be a draft, it is an impossibility. The only way there would ever be one is if the US was invaded. Which will not happen, due to the advent of nuclear weapons the day of global wars between superpowers are over. The only wars that will be fought are proxy wars or wars where only one side (or none) is in possession of nuclear weapons.

I disagree, especially these days where basically everyone has acknowledged the impracticality of nuclear weaponry and has significantly downsized their arsenals, and the existing arsenals of many nations are somewhat irrelevant, either because the warheads are old and need to be replaced, the missiles are old and need to be replaced, etc. or there are anti-missile systems which can neutralize enough missiles to decrease the effectiveness of a mass strike.

Suggested reading:

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=052aad71-19cb-4fbe-a1b5-389689d542d7

Too fat to fight? Join the Air Force.

Tyyr wrote:Too fat to fight? Join the Air Force.

That would have been hilarious 10 years ago, but last I checked the AF pt test was scored harder than anyone elses barring the Marine Corps. Also last I checked, the Air Force was the most aggressive branch in purging members from its ranks that could not meet weight/BMI standards. In fact, a friend of mine who got dropped from AFROTC for failing to meet weight standards is now serving as an E-3 in the Army, despite the fact that he has GAINED weight...

The AF is the only service that measures waist size as a part of the PFT regardless of hieght/wieght. Unless they changed that recently.

Nope, its still there

My AFROTC experience is ancient history now, but IIRC our test was more or less the same as the Army cadets. They generally seemed to be out doing more PT than we did, though. But then I enjoyed sleeping in on those days that they were out tromping around the woods at 6 am doing whatever it was they did. Chair Force FTW!

Yeah, the Army and Navy PT'd a lot harder than we did too, but we were expected to work out on our own time. PT was there only so we would be physically fit enough to pass with bare minimums, but that wasn't necessarily good enough to get a commission, let alone a rated slot.

The Army PT test, as I understand it, has changed entirely to a 'combat fitness assessment' which is more or less a timed obstacle course. It seems kind of complicated, and I'm not entirely sure on the specifics of it, but people I have spoken to said its not difficult at all.

The Navy test is the same as the Air Force, but they get 2 minutes for pushups and situps where the Air Force only has 1.

Marines of course have a 3 mile run (vs. 1.5 mile) and replace pushups with pullups.

The Air Force is more of a stickler on criminal offenses as a bar to get in, such as to many speeding tickets. Admittedly it was a few years ago that I was sharing a table with an AF recruiter but he essentially talked about how they know some people think of them as the blow off class of the services and between that and having a lot of technical positions they work on having harder standards to meet to weed out those thinking it is just a free ride.

chaos0xomega wrote:Yeah, the Army and Navy PT'd a lot harder than we did too, but we were expected to work out on our own time. PT was there only so we would be physically fit enough to pass with bare minimums, but that wasn't necessarily good enough to get a commission, let alone a rated slot.

The Army PT test, as I understand it, has changed entirely to a 'combat fitness assessment' which is more or less a timed obstacle course. It seems kind of complicated, and I'm not entirely sure on the specifics of it, but people I have spoken to said its not difficult at all.

The Navy test is the same as the Air Force, but they get 2 minutes for pushups and situps where the Air Force only has 1.

Marines of course have a 3 mile run (vs. 1.5 mile) and replace pushups with pullups.

Bwhaha!

I laugh at these childlike "fitness" tests!

In the RM you have to pass a Commando fitness test three times a year, involving a 12 mile speed march with webbing, water and weapon, a 30 foot rope climb in kit, then a 3 miler with the last mile and a half in under 10 minutes.

Also, you have to do it on a Friday after going out on the piss on the Thursday, and if anyone in the entire unit dares fail, they are endlessly mocked by the entire camp, before they are forced to re run it on the Monday dressed as a woman.

You are permitted to remove the high heels for the run however.

As my marine friends said, they accept me even though I am fat only because I try... that and I have the most defined calves between all of them. My Gastrocnemeus is sexy.

Source please? I have not read this. I find it suspect particularly in regards to the aviation field = six year contract draft. I can't fully speak for Army Aviation, but I know their aviators are warrant officers, and Air Force/Navy have an 8-10 year commitment (after training is completed,so it works out to more than that) and you have to be a commissioned officer. You don't draft officers, so this makes no sense.

Its fact. Talk to a recruiter and he/she say the same thing. Of those two fields its a standard six due to the amount of money thats poured in to train you. That's the enlisted side of the house. Warrants and Officers are retain a different way as you stated. So many years one have to commit for the training


edit 1

So basically. If the draft happens. Will you commit or protest/burn your draft card. If your in even though against your wishes will you perform or exceed the standards or just be lackluster.

They take fat people now. If you show up to Parris Island and can't pass the initial fitness test you go to Physical Conditioning Platoon until you can.

At least, that's how they did it when I enlisted. Not that I had to to to PCP, mind.