DoD: 75% of Americans aged 17 - 24 are unfit for service

I can't say anything about someone being overweight before going in the military, as I was around 215 lbs, and didn't work out much. I couldn't even run around a school 1/4 mile track without walking.

After the short basic training in the desert heat I was able to pass all the PT tests after I dropped about 30 lbs. After more training on my own, I could about max out all the fitness tests and was one of the fastest runners in my units and wieghed less than 170.

What can't be improved is base IQ. Those that are TSTL (too stupid to live) shouldn't even be able to enlist driving trucks or working supply. As far as character, I could see those who have been arrested for fighting (assault) not related to comminting crimes like robbery or rape, as having the neccessary fighting spirit. Any illegal, drug dealer, or other felon can join a missonary team if they want to serve their country.

 

I blame cable/satellite TV and video games. Young men today would rather "pretend" to be military playing hour after hour of "Battlefield" or "Call of Duty,"
but not take the necessary steps to get in physical shape to actually be in the military.

I'm admittedly overweight now, and I doubt I'd pass a military level PFT, but certainly in my youth, that was not the case.

Young people today, by and large (no pun intended) have extremely sedentary lifestyles between, smart phones, laptops and video game consoles and hundreds of TV channels. All requiring sitting on one's rear end for hours at a time, burning minimal calories and exercising minimal muscles.

 

Actually that quote you give says nothing about recruits, but "potential recruits" (in other words, ordinary civilians).

There is a huge difference between the two.

Yes, people today are certainly much less active then they were 20-30 years ago. I know that in the summer growing up I was always out somewhere doing something. Riding my bike in 100+ degree heat, hiking, boating, and skiing in the winter. Of course we had no computers, the most advanced game system we had was the Atari 2600, and most people had no more then 4-8 TV stations to watch. So it was only natural we went out and did something.

But there are many things that disqualify a large number of youth today. One of them I am hearing more of is drugs.

When you have the kind of "limited legalization" like we have in California, kids often think nothing of drug use. My own son has had over 15 tickets and arrests for drug possession. However, he has that card which says it is OK (his lastest medical reason was ingrown hairs). This may seem like no big deal, until they decide to go to a recruiter and join the military. Now suddenly they are ineligable because of a past drug history.

Others are ineligable because of gang affiliations, or tattoos, or body piercings. These can make somebody ineligable to join as well.

But without a doubt, being overweight is probably the single largest disqualifier for military service. And the saddest thing is this is both preventable, as well as solvable. Most of those overweight can loose it if they actually make the effort, but most never will. Just another example of how lazy they are, and why they should never be in the military in the first place.

 

The answer for that was anticipated in an earlier post:





Having said that, its no secret kids are getting fatter and stupider than in the past. Thank the last 50 years of liberal puke for that.

Last edited by Dware; 09-20-2011 at 07:23 AM.




As always, whenever there's a problem in society - what's the answer?


BLAME LIBERALS!


Of course, you've got to be stupid to believe it but that's how the drugged up far reich delusionals are!

 

Why is this an issue with our nuclear forces no major power would dare attack us to invade they would have to use a full scale nuclear strike to cripple and you know what our response would be. For our other needs we could get by on our fine professional military if they stopped launching them all over in useless conflicts in fact if we declared neutrality we could cut our forces in half and remove our presence from most of the other nations if not all and be fine. And get by on a far smaller military force.

 

America had a very similar isolationist view of the world following our intervention in World War I, Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia. Look what happened after that.

 

There is a case to be made if we didn't involve our nation in WW1 we would not have had a WW2. Japan was the only Imperial power Germany posed a threat only after being humiliated and forced to the table leaving Hitler free to rise up and the Russians turned communist only due to the prolonged war. The German alliance was losing and the other sides exhausting its our intervention that bolstered one side and made the war drag on. And without that Japan would have had to deal just with the USA and we on a single front war would have been unappealing to fight with the British and French ready to defend their territory.

My view still stands I care about OUR country we could divert military funding to getting off oil as a dependent item and be extremely safe from any primary threat, terrorists and the like we may have issues with but we should be only concerned with a mortal threat invasion of our nation or hemisphere. The ability to obliterate any such threat using the MAD principle works for dealing with that.

So if we need only a modest military we can have that, unfit people could be placed in support roles such as working in an officer if needed freeing a fit person for combat duties.

 

First thing- that is the absolute opposite of natural selection.

A minimalist military would not have many of the fit people in it, either. They could afford to have their standards be "if you are not in the top 5% physically or mentally we do not want you". However, that is minus two wars in the middle east and likely reduced support to allies (the United States has an aggressive version of the Monroe Doctrine going on).

 

The military currently has no issue getting enough recruits, in fact many qualified candidates are turned away. The wars and current political situation haven't hurt recruiting at all.

 

The day of the mass conscript army of the time of the Napoleonic wars through Vietnam are over. When the US put 12% of the population in uniform in world war II they couldn't have been all that selective. JFK had a genuinely bad back that would never let him in today.

General health (particularly weight) and criminality) are cultural issues far beyond the ability of government to handle, but the poor educational level is yet another indictment of the K-12 educational system. I doubt if today's military rejects could make it as 1943 cannon fodder.

 

Actually, JFK was rejected already by the Army. His father used his political influence to get him in the Navy, and to keep him in he was caught sleeping with a German spy in 1942. Anybody else would have more then likely lost their comission and spent the rest of the war pumping the bilges out of a mine sweeper, but his daddy's political influence simply saw him transfered to the bottom of the heap in terms of the Navy (PT boat duty).

 

Your wealth of knowledge is quite staggering Mushroom, I enjoy reading your posts.

 

That's sad.

 

Well, let's just say I am both a history and trivia nut. And I love reading and researching things that are not commonly known. I always found it interesting that the incident with Inga Arvad is so little known. In fact, there is not even a mention of it in the Wikipedia article about JFK.