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.
2017/11/17 11:40:01
Subject: Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
gak, I thought I had them as one thought, not separate.
Okay, it would all depend on the felony. Honestly, there are some felonies I think should keep you out of the service. Any felony where the deed in question engenders distrust would be severely detrimental to the cohesion of whatever unit the felon wound up joining.
Just Tony wrote: Gradation isn't a bad thing, especially given the extreme limit examples put forward already in this thread. That doesn't mean I believe that there should be a blanket "let 'em in" for every single occurrence, nor do I think they should ALL be blocked out.
Now, if the ban on felony convictions or domestic violence convictions is somehow waived, THAT would be a disaster.
Why? It seems to me that these are some of the people who can benefit most from the discipline and standards the military sets. At least with regards to the felons.
Edit: And it would definitely be a good way for them to start their life over. By all means, keep 'em on a tight leash, but I'd say give 'em the chance to improve their lot.
Just Tony wrote: Gradation isn't a bad thing, especially given the extreme limit examples put forward already in this thread. That doesn't mean I believe that there should be a blanket "let 'em in" for every single occurrence, nor do I think they should ALL be blocked out.
Now, if the ban on felony convictions or domestic violence convictions is somehow waived, THAT would be a disaster.
Why? It seems to me that these are some of the people who can benefit most from the discipline and standards the military sets. At least with regards to the felons.
Edit: And it would definitely be a good way for them to start their life over. By all means, keep 'em on a tight leash, but I'd say give 'em the chance to improve their lot.
The kind of person who would look his wife or child in the face, the person/people he swore to love and protect, and punch them in the face like an enemy combatant is too far gone. Once they are to that point, their behavior is pretty much set in stone. Now, you want that person in a position where they will potentially get reprimanded or some other ego-damaging maneuver by a female soldier, that they already view as inferior and have no qualms beating mercilessly. Oh, and we'll train him to excel at hand to hand combat to boot. This seems like a good idea to you?
I am late to the party but I would like to offer something in this regards. As to federal convicts being allowed in, it would have to be a very narrow scope. Are we talking selling a dime bag or robbing a bank? Easier to just say no. I am very pro marijuana but someone who couldn't follow the law in high school I am not sure is best suited for most military service since 99% of what we do involves following some pretty strict laws. As for the DV convicts, no way. So much of what the warfighters learn over time is overwhelming but controlled violence. You have to be able to be shooting at someone on patrol, then be able to come back in the wire and behave normally. (aside from a few WTFs and a very fast heart beat) Someone who visits violence on those closest to him would not at all do well. I have known some NCO's who were found guilty of real Domestic Violence and it was not hard to see it at all honestly. donkey-caves stand out.
The ADHD thing well I have known many that grow out of it and learn to focus. Taking meds does not necessarily make you non deployable unless failing to receive the meds could lead to some kind of health issue such as insulin and diabetics. ADHD medicine I do not believe meats the criteria, but things change constantly. Either way relaxing standards is nothing new. Some amazing Soldiers came to my platoon after the recruiting goals were increased and some standards relaxed. Everything from neck tattoos and GEDs to straight up thugs. With some direction and a lot of supervision they turned out ok. More work than would normally be needed but in the end most served honorably and went their merry way.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2017/11/21 03:55:31
Subject: Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
Is drinking a beer underage a felony? If not, then I don't see how that bears any point in this discussion.
And I think the gradation discussed earlier also should apply at any rate. Are we really putting drinking underage in the same bracket as spouse abuse or armed robbery?
When I went into the Service, GEDs were on the way out (the DoD changed their recruitment polices to require the minimum of a high school diploma). Being a high school drop-out was a disqualifier. Minor felonies and "infamous misdemeanors" were a no-go, as well as ANY drug conviction. Also, if you had a medical condition that required prescription medication, no matter how minor the condition, disqualified you (with the exception of prescription eyeglasses). And for enlisted ranks, your education level (High School Diploma verses Associates Degree in anything) determined your starting rank when completing Basic and how fast you got to E-5/E-6.
All of this was in a volunteer military during one of the most dangerous periods in history (the Cold War), and U.S. military forces being deployed around the globe. There is no excuse for lowering standards or lifting bans just to meet quotas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/21 04:46:36
Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k
2017/11/21 05:26:12
Subject: Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
When I went into the Service, GEDs were on the way out (the DoD changed their recruitment polices to require the minimum of a high school diploma). Being a high school drop-out was a disqualifier. Minor felonies and "infamous misdemeanors" were a no-go, as well as ANY drug conviction. Also, if you had a medical condition that required prescription medication, no matter how minor the condition, disqualified you (with the exception of prescription eyeglasses). And for enlisted ranks, your education level (High School Diploma verses Associates Degree in anything) determined your starting rank when completing Basic and how fast you got to E-5/E-6.
All of this was in a volunteer military during one of the most dangerous periods in history (the Cold War), and U.S. military forces being deployed around the globe. There is no excuse for lowering standards or lifting bans just to meet quotas.
One could argue that joining during active combat operations is objectively more dangerous than cold war era. The Army is at 10 divisions vs the 16 divisions it easily filled with those stricter standards. During recruiting operations to fill the numbers during the surge, at those standards we simply could not meet mission. At that time the 15 month deployments were the norm and if a kid who took ADHD medicine and maybe smoked a joint in highschool were allowed in to get everything under control then I personally am ok with it. And many of those let in stayed in and excelled.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
2017/11/23 04:15:47
Subject: Re:Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
When I went into the Service, GEDs were on the way out (the DoD changed their recruitment polices to require the minimum of a high school diploma). Being a high school drop-out was a disqualifier. Minor felonies and "infamous misdemeanors" were a no-go, as well as ANY drug conviction. Also, if you had a medical condition that required prescription medication, no matter how minor the condition, disqualified you (with the exception of prescription eyeglasses). And for enlisted ranks, your education level (High School Diploma verses Associates Degree in anything) determined your starting rank when completing Basic and how fast you got to E-5/E-6.
All of this was in a volunteer military during one of the most dangerous periods in history (the Cold War), and U.S. military forces being deployed around the globe. There is no excuse for lowering standards or lifting bans just to meet quotas.
One could argue that joining during active combat operations is objectively more dangerous than cold war era. The Army is at 10 divisions vs the 16 divisions it easily filled with those stricter standards. During recruiting operations to fill the numbers during the surge, at those standards we simply could not meet mission. At that time the 15 month deployments were the norm and if a kid who took ADHD medicine and maybe smoked a joint in highschool were allowed in to get everything under control then I personally am ok with it. And many of those let in stayed in and excelled.
Sure, active combat operations are far more dangerous to the individual warfighter. But the Cold War was far more dangerous historically because we lived under the shadow of MAD, and any perceived hostile action could've triggered the Third World War. The games of brinkmanship just made things worse. In fact, just four years before I enlisted, we nearly went to war with the Warsaw Pact because of Soviet paranoia surrounding Reagan's more aggressive policies directed toward the U.S.S.R. combined with the Able Archer exercises that had Moscow thinking that a NATO invasion of East Germany was imminent. We had a good reason to maintain the levels of personnel and equipment on the TO&E around the world that we did, and the Armed Forces managed to keep recruitment levels in the green (for the most part), even with the strict standards we had at the time.
Today, we have a severely downsized military that is a legacy of the post-Desert Storm era, when our force levels were cut back and re-organized after the end of the Cold War. The focus became more of peace keeping and playing globocop. Planners figured that operations against insurgencies and Third World holes would be best served by a smaller, more streamlined military. The problem with that, which we started seeing in Yugoslavia in the early Nineties, is that if you have too much on your plate at once, even a streamlined force tailored to fight in asymmetrical conflicts will be stretched thin. Now factor in all of the foolish policies on equipment acquisitions, further force cuts, and defense spending, over the last three Administrations, and you have a serious issue on your hands.
This wouldn't have been a problem with Cold War levels of force size we had back in the late 1980s and early 90's.
As far as meeting quotas, lowering standards isn't the way to maintain an operationally effective force. There have been reduced levels in recruitment in the past (the late 1970's/early 80's comes to mind here). And short of bringing back the draft (politically impossible in the aftermath of Vietnam, short of a major conflict), what did the DoD do? They offered more incentives for joining the Armed Forces. Re-tailor that to fit the current generation's quirks and it can work. And get rid of this crap of allowing non-citizens to serve as a path to citizenship, letting dopers and felons in, and allowing high-school dropouts to enlist. No matter how good military indoctrination and training is, the quality of your armed forces is maintained by the quality of your recruits. A modern, high-tech all volunteer force needs a country's best and brightest, go-getters, physically and mentally fit, and motivated, intelligent young people. Not slackers, the irresponsible, the entitled, and dregs of society. And not the physically and mentally unfit. Just because you have a few that manage to excel is no excuse to fill our force rosters with people recruited in a system of lowered standards. It's not worth it in the long term, in my view.
But this is just the opinion of somebody whose mindset is the product of another time and another clime. What the hell do I know, eh?
Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k
2017/11/23 12:39:29
Subject: Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
skyth wrote:The massive bad publicity of people having to pay back their enlistment bonuses years aftet the fact probably didn't help recruitment much either...
Yeah, that pissed me off no end. I spent a day writing letters to my Congressional critters. Several other members of my family that were veterans did the same.
I'm actually shocked at how many people I've met think that the VA is part of the Army. Shocked and embarrassed.
People voted in support of Obamacare repeal only to realize afterward that the ACA they were on IS Obamacare. To name one of many, many examples. If the masses are responding in an illogical way it's a safe bet that they are ignorant to the reality of the matter. This is extremely relevant to the military because the majority of voters don't seem to understand that 'increasing military spending' or 'reducing military spending' is so vague as to be useless since it fails to account for how that money is being spent. If one, say, increases or reduces the budget of the fire department it's pretty obvious how that will affect things. But that logic cannot be applied to the military, which is far larger and more complex in organisation. This leaves a disappointing number of people simply assuming that the increases/reductions will happen the way they would like them to, without ever checking into what actually happened. That this leads to massive inefficiency is the natural conclusion.
Maybe someday people will learn the fact that budgets allow savings from one cabinet level agency to be spend on a different cabinet level agency. To explain it in modern internet speak:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: I'm actually shocked at how many people I've met think that the VA is part of the Army. Shocked and embarrassed.
The worst case I have seen was from a coworker at the VA. She was very politically active, worked for the VA, and was an officer in the National Guard. Our conversation went like this (I don’t remember the original subject)
Me: That’s why the VA reports to the President.
Her: We don’t report to the President, we fall under the Secretary of Defense.
Me: .......We are a separate Department from the DoD. We have our own Secretary, who is part of the cabinet. We are part of the executive branch.
Her: No, we report to the DoD and we are part of the Administrative Branch of Government.
Me: *blinking and staring* That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard this year, and I’m going to walk away from this conversation now...
This woman works for both the DoD and the DoVA, and in addition of not knowing who she worked for she managed to invent a 4th branch of Government. She’s also the the lady who would tell me to go back to socialist Germany every time I told her to stop talking politics at work. I think she also investigated if I committed the crime of flag burning because I was a dual citizen participating in flag retirement ceremonies at the FD. She was a very strange woman.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 14:15:17
2017/11/25 14:16:55
Subject: Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
I'm actually shocked at how many people I've met think that the VA is part of the Army. Shocked and embarrassed.
I'm perfectly aware that the VA is not part of the Army. I'm not sure why the distinction needed to be spelled out - it's needlessly pedantic, like me pointing out the VA also isn't part of the the Marines, Air Force, and Navy, and so on, and not just "the Army" - see how that's just inane nitpicking that doesn't score any important point at all?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 14:24:25
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2017/11/25 14:48:30
Subject: Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
Maybe someday people will learn the fact that budgets allow savings from one cabinet level agency to be spend on a different cabinet level agency. To explain it in modern internet speak:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: I'm actually shocked at how many people I've met think that the VA is part of the Army. Shocked and embarrassed.
The worst case I have seen was from a coworker at the VA. She was very politically active, worked for the VA, and was an officer in the National Guard. Our conversation went like this (I don’t remember the original subject)
Me: That’s why the VA reports to the President.
Her: We don’t report to the President, we fall under the Secretary of Defense.
Me: .......We are a separate Department from the DoD. We have our own Secretary, who is part of the cabinet. We are part of the executive branch.
Her: No, we report to the DoD and we are part of the Administrative Branch of Government.
Me: *blinking and staring* That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard this year, and I’m going to walk away from this conversation now...
This woman works for both the DoD and the DoVA, and in addition of not knowing who she worked for she managed to invent a 4th branch of Government. She’s also the the lady who would tell me to go back to socialist Germany every time I told her to stop talking politics at work. I think she also investigated if I committed the crime of flag burning because I was a dual citizen participating in flag retirement ceremonies at the FD. She was a very strange woman.
Just to be pendantic here, I'd like to point out that the Navy literally has planes falling out of the sky right now because it doesn't have enough money.
The C-2 that crashed a few days ago and cost 3 lives, a total of 9 of the fleet of 33 can fly right now.
31% of the Navy's F/A-18's are FMC. Even less of the USMC's F-18 fleet. Our readiness is so sorely stretched right now, that active carriers are having to pull working aircraft from training units stateside, to keep a full operational compliment.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2017/11/25 15:12:13
Subject: Re:Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
My point remains that, much like how the problem with people starving isn't usually a lack of food but warlords controlling it, there is plenty of money in the budget, and a metric feth ton gets wasted when it could be spent taking better care of troops, both during and after conflicts - that would be a better selling point for recruitment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 15:14:16
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2017/11/25 17:43:39
Subject: Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
Maybe someday people will learn the fact that budgets allow savings from one cabinet level agency to be spend on a different cabinet level agency. To explain it in modern internet speak:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: I'm actually shocked at how many people I've met think that the VA is part of the Army. Shocked and embarrassed.
The worst case I have seen was from a coworker at the VA. She was very politically active, worked for the VA, and was an officer in the National Guard. Our conversation went like this (I don’t remember the original subject)
Me: That’s why the VA reports to the President.
Her: We don’t report to the President, we fall under the Secretary of Defense.
Me: .......We are a separate Department from the DoD. We have our own Secretary, who is part of the cabinet. We are part of the executive branch.
Her: No, we report to the DoD and we are part of the Administrative Branch of Government.
Me: *blinking and staring* That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard this year, and I’m going to walk away from this conversation now...
This woman works for both the DoD and the DoVA, and in addition of not knowing who she worked for she managed to invent a 4th branch of Government. She’s also the the lady who would tell me to go back to socialist Germany every time I told her to stop talking politics at work. I think she also investigated if I committed the crime of flag burning because I was a dual citizen participating in flag retirement ceremonies at the FD. She was a very strange woman.
Just to be pendantic here, I'd like to point out that the Navy literally has planes falling out of the sky right now because it doesn't have enough money.
The C-2 that crashed a few days ago and cost 3 lives, a total of 9 of the fleet of 33 can fly right now.
31% of the Navy's F/A-18's are FMC. Even less of the USMC's F-18 fleet. Our readiness is so sorely stretched right now, that active carriers are having to pull working aircraft from training units stateside, to keep a full operational compliment.
Well if they are flying monstrous creatures they should be able to enter hover mode so I don't see the problem.
Maybe someday people will learn the fact that budgets allow savings from one cabinet level agency to be spend on a different cabinet level agency. To explain it in modern internet speak:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: I'm actually shocked at how many people I've met think that the VA is part of the Army. Shocked and embarrassed.
The worst case I have seen was from a coworker at the VA. She was very politically active, worked for the VA, and was an officer in the National Guard. Our conversation went like this (I don’t remember the original subject)
Me: That’s why the VA reports to the President.
Her: We don’t report to the President, we fall under the Secretary of Defense.
Me: .......We are a separate Department from the DoD. We have our own Secretary, who is part of the cabinet. We are part of the executive branch.
Her: No, we report to the DoD and we are part of the Administrative Branch of Government.
Me: *blinking and staring* That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard this year, and I’m going to walk away from this conversation now...
This woman works for both the DoD and the DoVA, and in addition of not knowing who she worked for she managed to invent a 4th branch of Government. She’s also the the lady who would tell me to go back to socialist Germany every time I told her to stop talking politics at work. I think she also investigated if I committed the crime of flag burning because I was a dual citizen participating in flag retirement ceremonies at the FD. She was a very strange woman.
Just to be pendantic here, I'd like to point out that the Navy literally has planes falling out of the sky right now because it doesn't have enough money.
The C-2 that crashed a few days ago and cost 3 lives, a total of 9 of the fleet of 33 can fly right now.
31% of the Navy's F/A-18's are FMC. Even less of the USMC's F-18 fleet. Our readiness is so sorely stretched right now, that active carriers are having to pull working aircraft from training units stateside, to keep a full operational compliment.
Well if they are flying monstrous creatures they should be able to enter hover mode so I don't see the problem.
Fully Mission Capable, as opposed to PMC and NMC (Partially, and Non). Which means that they're capable of performing the mission they were built for, beyond just being able to take off and land. In terms of the USMC, 30% of their fleet is able to take off and land. How many of those are actually FMC, I haven't been able to find any numbers on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/25 18:10:39
Full Frontal Nerdity
2017/11/25 18:37:09
Subject: Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
My point remains that, much like how the problem with people starving isn't usually a lack of food but warlords controlling it, there is plenty of money in the budget, and a metric feth ton gets wasted when it could be spent taking better care of troops, both during and after conflicts - that would be a better selling point for recruitment.
Iirc the budget has never been higher in absolute amounts of dollars and stable give or take as a percentage of the actual federal budget over the years. But that mark-up is crazy, I guess its easy to get rich when nobody really cares to check in with reality before buying.
As for recruiting the "best and brightest", that's never really going to work. Even in the US where the military has a better societal reputation, its hard to recruit the best and brightest when the civilian sector offers better paying jobs at easier conditions. People have to join out of conviction or sense of duty as the military isn't greatly competitive due to what comes with the job. Which is why they have to lower standards, beggars can't be choosers.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/25 19:44:58
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
2017/11/25 21:47:05
Subject: Army lifts a few bans to meet recruitment goals
Honestly part of it is just that a lot of the fleet is old. You can replace parts sure but machines just break down over time. Problems build up. The Air force needed to seriously start replacing their planes a decade ago imo, but all the projects to do that have gone wildly over budget, are littered with technical issues, and have been dragging behind schedule since the 90s.
It's not really a budget problem at all. It's just plain mismanagement on multiple levels.
holes would be best served by a smaller, more streamlined military. The problem with that, which we started seeing in Yugoslavia in the early Nineties, is that if you have too much on your plate at once, even a streamlined force tailored to fight in asymmetrical conflicts will be stretched thin. Now factor in all of the foolish policies on equipment acquisitions, further force cuts, and defense spending, over the last three Administrations, and you have a serious issue on your hands.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City