5 ms·

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 sp

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
    - nradov 4y ago
      Is it an excuse or an acknowledgement of reality? I think everyone agrees that in principle, all else being equal, it would be good for uniformed Space Force Guardians to maintain high fitness standards. But the reality is that the service has to recruit from a population that's becoming steadily less fit. Military leaders don't have the ability to reverse that trend in the civilian population, so in order to maintain force levels at a politically acceptable funding level they have to make hard choices and compromise standards somewhere. So would you prefer that they keep fitness standards high but take recruits with lower ASVAB scores or less education or criminal records? Something has to give. The concerns about a sudden enemy or terrorist attack seem a little silly. We're talking about people who spend all day staring at screens, and don't even have weapons issued or close combat training. Base security will still be provided primarily by Air Force Security Forces (or civilian employees), and no one is proposing reducing fitness standards for them. https://www.spaceforce.com/military-careers https://www.spaceforce.com/military-careers
aerostable_slug 4y ago
Cost control is one: we spend more on health care than any other military category. The VA is a titanic cost sink, and the more we can encourage troops to be fit and promote good habits, the (hopefully) less likely it is that they'll be frequent flyers at their local VA after they're out of the service.

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
  - nradov 4y ago
    Is it an excuse or an acknowledgement of reality? I think everyone agrees that in principle, all else being equal, it would be good for uniformed Space Force Guardians to maintain high fitness standards. But the reality is that the service has to recruit from a population that's becoming steadily less fit. Military leaders don't have the ability to reverse that trend in the civilian population, so in order to maintain force levels at a politically acceptable funding level they have to make hard choices and compromise standards somewhere. So would you prefer that they keep fitness standards high but take recruits with lower ASVAB scores or less education or criminal records? Something has to give. The concerns about a sudden enemy or terrorist attack seem a little silly. We're talking about people who spend all day staring at screens, and don't even have weapons issued or close combat training. Base security will still be provided primarily by Air Force Security Forces (or civilian employees), and no one is proposing reducing fitness standards for them. https://www.spaceforce.com/military-careers https://www.spaceforce.com/military-careers

aerostable_slug 4y ago

Cost control is one: we spend more on health care than any other military category. The VA is a titanic cost sink, and the more we can encourage troops to be fit and promote good habits, the (hopefully) less likely it is that they'll be frequent flyers at their local VA after they're out of the service.