If the Air Force goes away, I call first dibs on all the hot females to lateral over to the Coast Guard!
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Eliminate AF? NYT Op-Ed
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
Better watch it herc, if the AF goes away, the Coasties will be next on this guy's list to be absorbed by the Navy. You've got boats, we've got boats, why do we need two groups of dudes with boats?!
His national service for those of 18 years of age sounds a little like Heinlein's Star Ship Troopers. Only in Heinlein's mind service is always volunteer and never mandatory. Personally, I always kind of liked that idea. You don't have to be in the military but you can serve somewhere and be rewarded for it.
A couple scattershots. The height/weight thing--it's supposed to be a screening process. It would take a lot of man-hours to do a proper body fat analysis for everyone, so the ht/wt and tape make sure that individuals would could be fatties are brought up for further evaluation without wasting a lot of time. However in many commands there are attitudes along the lines of "officers don't go to the tape" and such, which make people bitter about the whole system.
There are WAY too many young people to gainfully employ doing national service. There are only so many projects for them to do. The writer says they could have helped in New Orleans. What are they supposed to do in the meantime? Sit around with their thumbs up their butts? It would be a system resembling the old USSR--everyone has a job, but nobody does any work.
If someone doesn't want to plant trees, serve in the military, work at a soup kitchen, or whatever, what would we do with them? What if they show up but don't work? Throw them in jail? Right. The reason draftees used to do what they were told was because of heavy discipline and the threat of physical punishment. That's not going to fly today, especially in the proposed civilian service.
Lastly, the USAF has some pretty good-to-go people in it. I've worked side-by-side with a lot of AFSOC guys, and they were almost all excellent. They are extremely technologically savvy throughout the service. They bring a lot to the table, especially at the operational and strategic levels of war. Granted, they go way overboard in the comfort and morale bit, but I honestly wish the Corps would adopt a small portion of their giving a crap about that stuff.
There are WAY too many young people to gainfully employ doing national service. There are only so many projects for them to do. The writer says they could have helped in New Orleans. What are they supposed to do in the meantime? Sit around with their thumbs up their butts? It would be a system resembling the old USSR--everyone has a job, but nobody does any work.
If someone doesn't want to plant trees, serve in the military, work at a soup kitchen, or whatever, what would we do with them? What if they show up but don't work? Throw them in jail? Right. The reason draftees used to do what they were told was because of heavy discipline and the threat of physical punishment. That's not going to fly today, especially in the proposed civilian service.
Lastly, the USAF has some pretty good-to-go people in it. I've worked side-by-side with a lot of AFSOC guys, and they were almost all excellent. They are extremely technologically savvy throughout the service. They bring a lot to the table, especially at the operational and strategic levels of war. Granted, they go way overboard in the comfort and morale bit, but I honestly wish the Corps would adopt a small portion of their giving a crap about that stuff.
How ironic that a guy from the only truly completely redundant service we have proposes that another one be eliminated.
That piece read like something written by a plebe, and poorly, too. It was a collection of random, disjointed arguments that proved nothing.
Even if you concede his argument that the AF isn't at war - which is simply asinine, but for argument's sake - proposing eliminating one of the armed forces because it's not being fully utilized right now is simply silly. It's never going to happen, so what's the point of debating it?
Second, his point about height-weight is so out of nowhere as to be a non-sequitur. It seems to be along the lines of "Fat people are worthless, the Air Force has fat people, ergo, the Air Force is worthless."
Third, the National Service thing has been bruted about for decades. The author did not even acknowledge the myriad problems such a system might cause (and are always a part of the debate), suggest why it's really necessary, or propose a workable method to make it happen.
So what the hell was the point? How did a piece of drivel like this get into the NYT?
Even if you concede his argument that the AF isn't at war - which is simply asinine, but for argument's sake - proposing eliminating one of the armed forces because it's not being fully utilized right now is simply silly. It's never going to happen, so what's the point of debating it?
Second, his point about height-weight is so out of nowhere as to be a non-sequitur. It seems to be along the lines of "Fat people are worthless, the Air Force has fat people, ergo, the Air Force is worthless."
Third, the National Service thing has been bruted about for decades. The author did not even acknowledge the myriad problems such a system might cause (and are always a part of the debate), suggest why it's really necessary, or propose a workable method to make it happen.
So what the hell was the point? How did a piece of drivel like this get into the NYT?
Call Marines anything you want, but don't ever call them redundant. They are truly unique, and if it had been left to the Army we would still be trying to take Iwo Jima - not to mention dozens of other Pacific Islands.
I don't pretend to know exactly how big the Marine Corps should be or how exactly it should be composed, but our nation needs one. And I am proud & grateful to be a part of the Sea Services (Navy/Marine Corps).
fastnumber15
TailSpin--classic low level
If were on the subject of cutting forces, to my knowledge the navy was about fighting other ships, which has not really happend in like....60 years. So they decided to launch some planes off a ship, in order to protect the fleet. So, i have not seen too many fleets trolling around lately, so why have Navy airplanes then??? Without the Air Force, who would conduct the long range strategic bombing? The AF does OCA, DCA, AI, CAS, etc...isnt that combat?
Nobody's saying that the guy has a point. But since you pointed it out - long range strategic bombing went out of fashion with Curt LeMay. The AF has had to adapt its tools to the missions, its missions to the tools and evolve, just like everybody else.
So the army is about fighting tanks, the air force is about fighting airplanes, and the Marines are about fighting ..... I dunno, sobriety?
Our Navy controls (and protects) the sea lanes that carry commerce, as well as the bulk of our logistics to deploy troops (and denies the same to our adversaries). It projects power ashore with those "Navy airplanes", and forms the third leg of our nuclear triad with the SSBN fleet.
You may now tick off your JPME block for the month.
FYI- Navy's rate is 17.
As a former Navy fitness trainer and current AF member, lets be real. The Marines are the only ones with respectable PT.
nikiterp86
Pro-rec'd INTEL!!!!!
That is hilarious
Be that as it may, the author's point was that the AF is out of shape, so we should get rid of it. Which is just stupid.