7 ms·

> The annual tests have spurred eating disorder symptoms and other unhealthy behaviors in some military members. If someone is developing eating disorder sympt

> The annual tests have spurred eating disorder symptoms and other unhealthy behaviors in some military members. If someone is developing eating disorder symptoms they need to be chaptered and removed from military service. I don’t get why we would change the performance standards here. We’ve had fitness requirements in the military since forever. This isn’t a charity or a social club in college.

nradov 4y ago
What kind of physical performance standards should satellite communications technicians have?
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Minimal, but non-zero. There are minimum standards you have to maintain regardless of MOS.
  - Asraelite 4y ago
    Why? What's the concrete benefit?
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      You mean, beyond maintaining the discipline and health of a military branch?
      - Asraelite 4y ago
        Those can be tested for separately. Given a candidate that's otherwise already disciplined and healthy enough to work at a desk job, what benefit is there in specifically requiring fitness for its own sake?
        remarkEon 4y ago
        >Those can be tested for separately. These things are highly, highly correlated - especially so in the military. >Given a candidate that's otherwise already disciplined and healthy enough to work at a desk job Working a desk job negatively impacts ones health and fitness, that is a fact lamented on this very website quite often. Maintaining baseline fitness performance standards is as much about maintaining a fighting force able to actually engage in combat (unless you, for some reason, think that certain roles should just assume they never have to actually fight - Ukrainians might have something to say about that) as it is about ensuring your people are healthy. It's not "for it's own sake". Fitter people have more energy, are able to maintain higher levels of alertness, able to stay up for more hours in high stress jobs. All of which a satellite operator would be required to do.
        Asraelite 4y ago
        Alright fair enough.
        nradov 4y ago
        I agree that we ought to encourage more physical fitness, but realistically most Space Force Guardians are never going to deploy to a combat zone. Are you expecting a terrorist attack on Peterson Space Force Base or something? Many of the Space Force jobs aren't even really "military" in any meaningful sense; they could be done by civilian contractors but are put into a military branch for budgetary and security reasons. If someone has the aptitude to be a good satellite technician but can't meet fitness standards due to severe asthma or using a wheelchair or whatever, should they be turned away in the name of maintaining a fighting force? The military already has trouble filling recruiting quotas for some of the more technically demanding jobs, so paradoxically reducing fitness standards for certain non-combat MOS's might actually increase overall combat readiness.
        remarkEon 4y ago
        I disagree with basically your entire premise, here. First of all, the enemy gets a say in where you have to fight, and - forgetting that there have been terrorist attacks at major military installations in the recent past[1] - saying "realistically this is unlikely" isn't a meaningful way to prepare for war, in fact it's dangerous. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't "realistic", either, because of the same reason (distances involved, which is what you're implying by mentioning Peterson). >Many of the Space Force jobs aren't even really "military" in any meaningful sense; they could be done by civilian contractors but are put into a military branch for budgetary and security reasons. So? Neither are about half of the sustainment jobs in the Army, from mechanics to finance to human resources. >If someone has the aptitude to be a good satellite technician but can't meet fitness standards due to severe asthma or using a wheelchair or whatever, should they be turned away in the name of maintaining a fighting force? These folks are already turned away. Again, this is a military branch. It's not like I'm saying everyone in the Space Force has to be able to pass an RPFT, because it wouldn't make any sense to hold these people to the fitness standards of infantrymen. >The military already has trouble filling recruiting quotas for some of the more technically demanding jobs, so paradoxically reducing fitness standards for certain non-combat MOS's might actually increase overall combat readiness. This is an excuse, nothing more. Mean American fitness levels have dropped precipitously over the past 2 decades, and instead of addressing that problem, military leaders and policy makers seem to all say "well crap now we can't find anyone who can do 30 pushups, guess we should just lower standards". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting
halJordan 4y ago
> if someone is developing mental health issues due to the requirements of service we need to destroy their career. I thought we decided this path was abusive and counterproductive?
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Separating someone from service does not “destroy their career”. If they’re separated with a service connected disability they get a tax free check from the VA for life. Again, the military is not there as a charity.

nradov 4y ago

What kind of physical performance standards should satellite communications technicians have?

remarkEon 4y ago
Minimal, but non-zero. There are minimum standards you have to maintain regardless of MOS.
- Asraelite 4y ago
  Why? What's the concrete benefit?
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    You mean, beyond maintaining the discipline and health of a military branch?
    - Asraelite 4y ago
      Those can be tested for separately. Given a candidate that's otherwise already disciplined and healthy enough to work at a desk job, what benefit is there in specifically requiring fitness for its own sake?
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        >Those can be tested for separately. These things are highly, highly correlated - especially so in the military. >Given a candidate that's otherwise already disciplined and healthy enough to work at a desk job Working a desk job negatively impacts ones health and fitness, that is a fact lamented on this very website quite often. Maintaining baseline fitness performance standards is as much about maintaining a fighting force able to actually engage in combat (unless you, for some reason, think that certain roles should just assume they never have to actually fight - Ukrainians might have something to say about that) as it is about ensuring your people are healthy. It's not "for it's own sake". Fitter people have more energy, are able to maintain higher levels of alertness, able to stay up for more hours in high stress jobs. All of which a satellite operator would be required to do.
        Asraelite 4y ago
        Alright fair enough.
        nradov 4y ago
        I agree that we ought to encourage more physical fitness, but realistically most Space Force Guardians are never going to deploy to a combat zone. Are you expecting a terrorist attack on Peterson Space Force Base or something? Many of the Space Force jobs aren't even really "military" in any meaningful sense; they could be done by civilian contractors but are put into a military branch for budgetary and security reasons. If someone has the aptitude to be a good satellite technician but can't meet fitness standards due to severe asthma or using a wheelchair or whatever, should they be turned away in the name of maintaining a fighting force? The military already has trouble filling recruiting quotas for some of the more technically demanding jobs, so paradoxically reducing fitness standards for certain non-combat MOS's might actually increase overall combat readiness.
        remarkEon 4y ago
        I disagree with basically your entire premise, here. First of all, the enemy gets a say in where you have to fight, and - forgetting that there have been terrorist attacks at major military installations in the recent past[1] - saying "realistically this is unlikely" isn't a meaningful way to prepare for war, in fact it's dangerous. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't "realistic", either, because of the same reason (distances involved, which is what you're implying by mentioning Peterson). >Many of the Space Force jobs aren't even really "military" in any meaningful sense; they could be done by civilian contractors but are put into a military branch for budgetary and security reasons. So? Neither are about half of the sustainment jobs in the Army, from mechanics to finance to human resources. >If someone has the aptitude to be a good satellite technician but can't meet fitness standards due to severe asthma or using a wheelchair or whatever, should they be turned away in the name of maintaining a fighting force? These folks are already turned away. Again, this is a military branch. It's not like I'm saying everyone in the Space Force has to be able to pass an RPFT, because it wouldn't make any sense to hold these people to the fitness standards of infantrymen. >The military already has trouble filling recruiting quotas for some of the more technically demanding jobs, so paradoxically reducing fitness standards for certain non-combat MOS's might actually increase overall combat readiness. This is an excuse, nothing more. Mean American fitness levels have dropped precipitously over the past 2 decades, and instead of addressing that problem, military leaders and policy makers seem to all say "well crap now we can't find anyone who can do 30 pushups, guess we should just lower standards". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

halJordan 4y ago

> if someone is developing mental health issues due to the requirements of service we need to destroy their career. I thought we decided this path was abusive and counterproductive?

remarkEon 4y ago
Separating someone from service does not “destroy their career”. If they’re separated with a service connected disability they get a tax free check from the VA for life. Again, the military is not there as a charity.