The Military Thread

Women could join British infantry by 2016

I wonder if this is to provide cover for personnel shortages...

edited 19th Dec '14 4:18:22 AM by Greenmantle

If so, it may do so until they start dropping out because they got knocked up to get out of the job.

No, this isn't misogynistic wild speculation, it happens all too often in the US armed forces nowadays even without full integration of women into combat arms, along with enticing the men into doing the "hard" stuff for them with suggestions of sexual favors, if not actually performing sexual favors in trade for the men allowing them to skate.

Of course, it may turn out to not be a problem that militaries can't fight, as the west has seemingly collectively decided that they don't want to fight to win any more, and are gradually coming around to surrendering to barbarism because it's easier than standing up and saying "no, this is wrong", and then doing something about it.

/rant

And come down hard on these people. Both the men and the women.

We're not hurting for applicants here in the US so there is no reason why we couldn't rain hell on them who decide to break the rules or act shady.

Get them out of the way so those who really do want to be there and want to do the work can.

Gabrael, I agree, but that's often not what happens.

In fraternization cases where there's no element of coercion involved, the guy may get thumped up to and including a Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge (especially if not a flag officer, but that's another rant) for fraternizing with a woman, but the woman frequently gets off without any punishment for their part in the relationship, even if they're the one that initiated contact.

Those who get knocked up are usually quietly shuffled to another command or shore duty (for deployed female sailors, since pregnancy and warship operations don't mix), leaving a hole in the unit's roster that has to be filled by those remaining.

Yes, and that's bullshit.

Regretfully, what needs to happen is often the last thing that does happen.

It's not like those regulations can't and won't change accordingly.

^ It's not that the regulations don't already cover things, it's that there's a selective enforcement of them that favors senior officers and women, driven by politics instead of justice.

That was my implication. Regulations in military service have a tendency to change according to various cultural evolutions that themselves are triggered by societal changes. DADT implementation and removal was influenced by the gay rights movement. Racial military integration was influenced by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sexual harassment prohibition was influenced by the various litigation cases coming out of the 60s and 70s.

Does that magically mean that people are going to stop giving blowjobs in exchange for leisure time? No, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As for the current state of world affairs, I'm not exactly missing the days when we went 300 on anyone who even remotely rubbed us the wrong way, 9/11 or not.

edited 19th Dec '14 9:53:29 AM by Aprilla

I think the actions of shitsticks like ISIS go a bit beyond "rubbed us the wrong way".

True, but it would behoove us to recall the last decade where we engaged in clear violations of civil liberties ^note  Tip: if a terrorist group is seeking to strike fear and paranoia in the hearts of your people, you probably shouldn't help prove their point by implementing a batshit crazy police-state policy like the Patriot Act , fearmongering, largely ineffective extraordinary rendition programs, going to war on two fronts under highly questionable motivations, predator drone operations that have probably created another generation of terrorists through sheer collateral damage and a host of other things that fall firmly into the category of "not a very good way to fight terrorism".

I have no problem with us declaring open season on Daesh just like I wouldn't mind us continuing our efforts on other terror groups like the Pakistani Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Boko Haram and domestic terrorist organizations. However, there is such a thing as overkill, and Americans aren't known for their lengthy attention spans...

That doesn't mean we should fight terrorism by getting everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but it also doesn't mean we should bomb Syria back to the 14th century (especially since that seems to be what some of these loons want).

edited 19th Dec '14 8:03:59 PM by Aprilla

When did the Do D become fully integrated? The Air Force was fully integrated by the summer of 1949.

EDIT: The Marine Corps didn't become fully integrated until 1960, but they had started on that around 1948. It looks like it was an uphill battle. The Navy desegregated at around the same time as the Air Force (both in response to an executive order from President Truman), while the Army dragged their feet until they took heavy casualties during the Korean War. Commanders decided they'd rather accept black reinforcements for their units rather than go into combat while undermanned due to heavy casualties.

edited 19th Dec '14 7:52:00 PM by AFP

Yeah, Truman made Executive Order 9981 in 1948, but I'm not finding anything on when the Department of Defense fully integrated.

Oh, so I found out that the building my new office is located in was originally a stable.

The Corps is stubborn to change. It is both good and bad. When it comes to certain changes it is a pain in the ass. When it comes to resisting bad ideas it is a god send.

I might have mentioned this before, but Eric Haney spoke highly of marines due to their simplicity and straightforward battlefield tactics. He notes that the marine "meathead" stereotype seems to be a side effect of marines coming off as overly basic and redundant in their planning and logistics.

I also recall Richard Marcinko wanting marines among Red Cell partially because of their keep-it-simple-get-it-done approach to fighting.

edited 19th Dec '14 10:35:56 PM by Aprilla

@ Aprila,to be fair if we somehow managed to send Syria back to the 14th century the country might actually be better off,what with the whole golden age of Islam thing going on.

Actually, I was being intentional in picking the 14th century mainly because of this guy. Having said that, using the shock-and-awe tactics from Gulf War II are probably not advisable given the current situation with the Arab Spring and fledgling democratization groups scurrying amongst the theocrats. Look at the aftermath of the Anbar Awakening to get a better idea of what I mean.

As for "golden age", uh, yeah...that's gonna depend on what you define as Islamic. As we're currently seeing with Daesh, you'll find yourself on the receiving end of a sectarian act of aggression if you don't fit their definition.

That's really the problem with Daesh and other radical Islamic groups. They have fallen in love with a reductivist view of religious and ethno-hegemonic history, and they've demonstrated that they have little regard for moderate democratic Muslims.

edited 20th Dec '14 7:43:07 PM by Aprilla

I mean in terms of the Ottoman empire,the first Caliphates and that stuff, I was more referring to how,somehow the US would develop some sort of time traveling bomb that would send an entire region back to the past,i.e it was a joke.

edited 20th Dec '14 8:00:33 PM by JackOLantern1337

Yeah, I figured that, but Daesh clearly doesn't give two shits about who gets invited to their golden age. It's a boy's club where the rules keep changing. That's all I meant.

I concur.

Tuskegee Airman Lowell Steward dies in California at 95

edited 21st Dec '14 8:07:25 AM by Aprilla

On another note, assuming that humanity survives long enough to enter a true "space age" where interplanetary — and perhaps even interstellar travel — becomes a casual aspect of human society, and eventually each of the world's space-faring powers creates a new military service for space warfare... What would be a good name for such a service? As logical as Super Dimension Fortress Macross's suggestion of "spacy"^note portmanteau contraction of "space navy". is, it's rather awkward sounding and dependent on the new service being explicitly modelled on a navy (which would only be plausible if Space Is an Ocean).

edited 22nd Dec '14 1:10:10 AM by MarqFJA

The thing about real-life "military-in-space" operations is that they'll likely be handled by the various Air Forces. So, probably simply "Space Forces".

But what if they undergo a split and the spacefaring service develop into a unique force, just like how the US Marine Corps split off from the US Navy and became quite distinct from all of the three main services, and at the same time becoming more than just "marines" by the standard international definition?

edited 22nd Dec '14 4:35:05 AM by MarqFJA

As much as nerds would love it to be 'star fleet', it'll likely be something like the space corps, space forces, or something along those lines.

I'm holding out for star fleet though.