4 ms·

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 terro

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
- remarkEon 4y ago
  >it would be good for uniformed Space Force Guardians to maintain high fitness standards I'm literally not asking for that. I'm advocating for baseline levels of fitness. It isn't some herculean effort to do 30 push ups, some ab exercises, and shuffle step for 1.5 or 2 miles (or whatever the AF standard is) without passing out. If you can't do that yet, that's totally fine! That's what basic training is for, and no one should feel ashamed for not being able to do that as a civilian. You don't show up day zero and are expected to max your PT test. >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. Again, while it's likely that the facilities these people are operating in are far from the battlefield, and will be/are hardened, I don't see how saying "don't worry no war will find you, at least physically" is relevant to the other points I've made. You say that these people are rare, and their technical skills highly important to national security. And I agree with you, which is why the military should make sure they stay in shape, for their health and for them to be able to do their jobs better. It sounds like we're maybe making different arguments, and what you're really saying is that the Space Force should be mostly civilians, or people who feel like they're civilians but just wear a uniform 9-5, M-F. I disagree with this perspective, and I apologize if you aren't advocating for this. To address this question: >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. I prefer a draft.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The military is an at-will organization. If you don't want to do pushups then don't join the military.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Yes, and the push-ups requirement is one of several reasons why the military has been unable to meet target personnel levels in some critical non-combat jobs. Do you have a constructive, practical suggestion for fixing that problem?

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

remarkEon 4y ago
>it would be good for uniformed Space Force Guardians to maintain high fitness standards I'm literally not asking for that. I'm advocating for baseline levels of fitness. It isn't some herculean effort to do 30 push ups, some ab exercises, and shuffle step for 1.5 or 2 miles (or whatever the AF standard is) without passing out. If you can't do that yet, that's totally fine! That's what basic training is for, and no one should feel ashamed for not being able to do that as a civilian. You don't show up day zero and are expected to max your PT test. >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. Again, while it's likely that the facilities these people are operating in are far from the battlefield, and will be/are hardened, I don't see how saying "don't worry no war will find you, at least physically" is relevant to the other points I've made. You say that these people are rare, and their technical skills highly important to national security. And I agree with you, which is why the military should make sure they stay in shape, for their health and for them to be able to do their jobs better. It sounds like we're maybe making different arguments, and what you're really saying is that the Space Force should be mostly civilians, or people who feel like they're civilians but just wear a uniform 9-5, M-F. I disagree with this perspective, and I apologize if you aren't advocating for this. To address this question: >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. I prefer a draft.
mrguyorama 4y ago
The military is an at-will organization. If you don't want to do pushups then don't join the military.
- nradov 4y ago
  Yes, and the push-ups requirement is one of several reasons why the military has been unable to meet target personnel levels in some critical non-combat jobs. Do you have a constructive, practical suggestion for fixing that problem?