1. "Drug use" probably includes soft drugs like cannabis.
2. Basically any diagnosis of a mental health condition, like ADHD, will block military service. This is true even if symptoms are well managed without medication. The rise of diagnosis of these conditions combined with digital records means a lot of people are prohibited to join due to mental health that would have been overlooked in previous decades.
3. This serves as the official excuse for why recruitment numbers are down. IMO recruitment numbers are down because Iraq/Afghanistan was such a shitshow.
Regarding #1, you can get a waiver for past cannabis use if you weren't a habitual user (by self admission) and never faced any legal action (distribution, possession, etc) in regards to cannabis. If you have ever distributed any drug (even so far as splitting the cost of drugs with a roommate) you cannot enlist. The enlistment screeners are surprisingly effective at getting people to admit things they did over a decade ago.
If you admit to ever using LSD or psychedelics, even one time, you will be automatically disqualified from serving in the military or law enforcement (go figure).
Interesting footage of US soldiers doing drills on LSD. It's really strange that someone learned about LSD and decided to see how well people can march in a parking lot while under the influence. Whoever designed the experiment really didn't understand LSD.
Is this a thing that requires testing? Do they have units run drills on all common recreational drugs? I could see some merit in evaluating stimulants, but what is the expected gain from most anything else?
They considered using L.S.D. as an aerosol on enemy troops, but IIRC there were problems with using it, don't remember exactly what. It would also incapacitate friendly troops or some agreement was signed forbidding its usage. Long time ago since I went down this rabbit hole last time...
Right, but there are known agents that are incredibly legal. I am still trying to imagine the scenario in which making the enemy ineffective was a superior option to dead. I guess the non lethal option lowers the risk of friendly fire?
If nothing else, the double edged sword application of chemical weapons was well known at this point.
The ideal scenario for a weapon is immediate, non-lethal, incapacitation. The holy grail of weapons technology is the stun setting on the Star Trek phaser.
> If you admit to ever using LSD or psychedelics, even one time, you will be automatically disqualified from serving in the military or law enforcement (go figure).
Well how many hits do you need to understand that everything we do could be construed as a game?
>If you admit to ever using LSD or psychedelics, even one time, you will be automatically disqualified from serving in the military or law enforcement (go figure).
Is this documented anywhere? I have gone on a psilocybin retreat and have considered a career in the air force in the distant future.
A quick google search says the Air Force's max enlistment age is 39, so I don't know how distant in the future you mean, but it's probably something to be aware of.
I'd be curious about some documentation too, but I suspect it's one of those things where a person who enjoys the odd psychedelic now and again is a poor cultural fit for the military, though the Air Force is by all accounts the least militant branch of the military from what I can tell. Certainly my grandfather had a good career there and he was about the least disciplinarian or serious person (personality speaking I mean; he did a good job as an officer and electrical engineer by any account) you'd ever meet. He certainly spoke highly of the Air Force and said on a few occasions that it helped him to meet one of his major life goals; to make more money retired than working.
Anecdotal from reliable sources, but it sounds like a holistic evaluation. If you’re a strong candidate otherwise, they will overlook drug experiments but not drug addictions.
I think the decade long wars in the middle east are a huge part PR wise, but theres more to it.
The military is a shitshow. The messaging alienated it's core recruitment base, namely white and black teenagers and young men. It alienates young American men in general, but those demographics in particular are historically the core of America's fighting force. Having to balance domestic recruitment PR to be politically correct while also wanting to reach tough young men and entice them is an impossible task.
It's a giant jobs program. People in the military can tell you, it's devolved from just being rules/procedures based chain of command, to being a full blown Brazil-esque (the movie) busybody bureaucracy.
> Having to balance domestic recruitment PR to be politically correct while also wanting to reach tough young men and entice them is an impossible task.
Can you explain what you mean by this? I feel like you're referring to something obliquely but I don't have the context.
Military service people are killers first and foremost. They're put through grueling test and training processes. It doesn't matter what kind of world you wish this was, those people are primarily going to be aggressive men. When you target other groups of people with your advertising, when you make such an environment that those type of men aren't welcome in the military, the military suffers, it's that simple.
i assume he's saying people who join the military are racist misogynists and because the military can't appeal to this anymore, people don't want to join anymore
You seem upset, as if what you said is blatantly false.
I wouldn't say racist (?? Black and white men fighting together are racist?) mysoginists, but tough men that aren't posterboys for your designated driver would probably be a good description.
If you want a competent fighting force, you have to appeal to tough young men. You don't do that by putting a dude in a dress on your promo material, to put it crassly. Men don't want to go into an environment supposedly to "get shit done" only to have to file paperwork and tippytoe on eggshells with everything they do or say. You don't have to like it but these are the facts. The military gets weaker when you alienate the most able bodied in your society, it's pretty straightforward.
Have you ever served? In combat? I have, USMC infantry. I want a professional fighting force with smart of professional fighters and support. Yes, you need mental toughness. But if you are so mentally weak that you can't handle a course on sexual harassment then you are not mentally tough. You need a "non-woke" safe-space.
What you describe is what Russia wants and needs. Look how well that is working out for them.
The military gets stronger by having a disciplined, smart fighting force. Not some frat-house where being "manly" is the only requirement.
2 has never mattered that much I don’t think. I enlisted in the Air Force in 2005 with an adhd AND depression diagnosis and I went in as Aircrew. I’m sure it required a waiver but it wasn’t an obstacle at all during the process. I got cleared at MEPS with no issues.
So many people I knew had waivers for random things I think it’s kind of a joke they’re saying they have to “lower” standards now or whatever.
Number 2 is also putting a dent in the supply of airline pilots. The FAA has a very large list of mental disorders it considers disqualifying, and ADHD is one of them. It’s nuanced, in that it depends on things like whether you require medication or not, but if you ever in your life had any kind of diagnosis, even mild anxiety, you need to disclose it on your medical application and they will dig in to it.
It is completely understandable IMO. As someone with severe ADHD I would not want to be entrusted with the operation of sensitive military machinery in a situation in which I may run out of medication. I won't even drive my car if I don't have adderall or at least the ability to self medicate with a high caffeine dosage.
I think this kind of screening is probably a good thing. Do you really want to entrust hundreds of lives to a pilot who struggles to concentrate? Or one who has depression and might be looking at that nearby mountain and thinking “I could just crash this plane into it and it would all be over”. I’m not sure these things ever really get cured, all it takes is a few bad life events (e.g maybe their spouse dies and they stop taking medication) and you’re at risk of a relapse
There is nothing particularly “soft” about cannabis. As mounting modern evidence shows, it suppresses REM sleep (and by extension the consolidation of procedural learning undertaken during the day) and it lowers executive function, concentration and motivation. These effects also persist for some time after use is stopped, even if they are eventually reversed.
Minus the concentration and motivation parts, so does does coffee, tea and other caffeine based products but you don’t see anyone clamouring to ban those.
I worked as a barista for years so I know a fair amount about coffee but the historical legality and prohibition of it is actually something I know very little about. Think I am going to do some Wikipedia browsing this afternoon!
I'm not particularly up to date on the literature, but it seems soft compared to other popular recreational drugs like illicit cocaine, methamphetamine, benzodiazepines and opiates. On the legal side it's clearly softer than alcohol, and probably less harmful than smoking tobacco.
For cannabis specifically it's worth also mentioning in many places you can consume it without interacting with criminals or being at risk of negative law enforcement interactions. This makes it socially softer than the illegal drugs.
It's "soft" relative to stuff like cocaine, heroin, crack, meth etc which muck you up more. It's probably kind of a par with alcohol in terms of problems caused.
On par? I mean, alcohol will literally kill you if you drink too much or have prolonged exposure. Alcohol makes you sick and fat.
If anything, alcohol is far worse than cannibas. Time will tell what effects it has on the wider population, but keep in mind cannibas use has been pretty wide spread for centuries and has been legal in many places in the US for over a decade.
ADHD is the weirdest diagnosis out there in my opinion. I know I can certainly concentrate better when I'm taking amphetamines of one sort or other. Does that mean that I have ADHD or does it just mean that that's what amphetamines do?
My belief is that amphetamines help everybody focus and the powers that be needed a story that’s just so to rationalize giving drugs to kids. But the benefit for people with ADHD is greater than the benefit to people with normal amounts of concentration/executive function.
What I want to know is do people “without adhd” also feel the sense of peace and calm with a cessation of the need to constantly fidget and move?
Good question. I'd say if you're drinking during work, it's a problem. If you're not, hopefully they have some way of proving you're abusing it rather than making unfounded accusations. It seems like people will believe anything these days.
> Everyone needs to take a look at the comments on the latest recruitment ad on YouTube to gauge the sentiment of young American men towards the government and military:
> It really is a sight to behold. You need to see it. An endless stream of condemnation.
Looks like a bunch of antisemites and racists found the video and hit it with their comments at once. The further down the page you get, the more concentrated it becomes, presumably because the more mask-off stuff is less ambiguous and appeals to a narrower audience. But anyhow, it goes from tongue-in-cheek jokes to SJWs to eventually anecdotes about unspecified 'subhumans' as you scroll down.
Given the fact that this is your only post and you have 'anon' in your name, I doubt you posted the link in good faith. The function of your comment, either way, is to direct attention to the views of those trolls and paint them as some kind of 'voice of a generation'. Pretty transparent. You're not subtle.
>Looks like a bunch of antisemites and racists found the video and hit it with their comments at once.
Not too sure about that. Seems like a positive sign that people are not putting up with all the BS surrounding Israel anymore. This is what gives me a shred of hope: that thanks to the internet, people are questioning existing alliances and asking why? In the distant future as terrible states such as Israel and Saudi Arabia continue to fail to rehabilitate their image my hope is that the tides will change in Western leadership in how they tolerate these states. They clearly do not practice western ideals so it makes no sense to waste, money, lives, and political reputation on them.
To be clear: I agree with the general anti-war attitude and I've never supported any decision the US has made to go to war in my lifetime. I think the US alliance with Saudi Arabia is disgraceful and I am an anti-Zionist.
But the comments on that video paint Israel not as a shameful alliance or a settler-colonial state but as an entity conspiratorially pulling the strings whenever the US is involved in a war elsewhere. It's not a substantive or veridical critique, and it would be alarming if that were in fact the predominant critique of US involvement in wars overseas as GP insinuates.
>But the comments on that video paint Israel not as a shameful alliance or a settler-colonial state but as an entity conspiratorially pulling the strings whenever the US is involved in a war elsewhere. It's not a substantive or veridical critique, and it would be alarming if that were in fact the predominant critique of US involvement in wars overseas as GP insinuates.
Israel definitely has some say in US foreign policy through their pull with the religious right and the influential pro-Israel lobby.
> Confirming 3, everyone needs to take a look at the comments on the latest recruitment ad on YouTube to gauge the sentiment of young American men towards the government and military:
Because we all know the vocal minority commenting on youtube videos is a sample-set free of biases.
All the ones commenting on youtube are the drug using overweight people you mean? The ones that actually wanted to serve “the country” already enlisted.
It's bad statistics to assume a sample is representative of a population unless the sample selection method is very strong. Comments left on a specific youtube video says almost nothing about the population of young Americans.
This reminds me of when I turned 18. I was pissed. Signing up for selective service while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were going strong. I was worried there could be a draft and I'd end up in jail. Recruiters would call my house and I'd bitch them out about how I wasn't going to go invade another country and murder civilians. Just typing this out really reminds me how much I despise our military. The US is a shithole country
My faith in humanity will never recover after Colin Powell died. No way to judge him anymore for agitating “definite proof of WMD” at the UN Security Council in 2003 which were not found on the field. Since the UN didn’t succeed to trial Colin Powell in time, I consider the UN itself is at fault.
How does our society accept the evil shit done in our name? Why do we participate in and encourage warmongering and violations of human rights throughout the world? Because we're selfish and benefit from it? Society is fucked
And while I'm ranting, one more thought. Republicans are so concerned about "groomers", go after the military recruiters in the schools. That needs to be shut down
I mean, only a fool would mistake Youtube comments for real life. Was is the pro-Nazi comments that resonated with you and made you feel like you weren't alone?
They don't think of service like that. The main important takeaway of military service for many is structure in your life (often a first for many), a feeling of brotherhood (often a first for many), and a tangible set of goals in life (often a first for many). The killing machine part is an abstraction that is easily ignored. After all, you're ultimately killing people that hate America, and that is obviously "a good thing."
Replace the brotherhood with a set of people with very different beliefs that ultimately wouldn't support each other and give them a mandate to work together to fight a common enemy. It just won't work that well.
That's probably what GP meant about the problems of woke.
It would be interesting to see how many of the remaining 23% are in the slice of society where a military career makes financial sense. When I joined the Army I was going from having been fired from McD's last month to making $1K a month with food and shelter taken care of. That made sense at the time. My kid is plenty skinny, mentally stable, and drug free, but he's also a successful college student and budding entrepreneur, so he's not going to be wearing a uniform unless we go full WW3 conscription.
I was speaking with an advertiser who was somehow involved in the return of "Be All You Can Be".
He stated that military recruitment is highly sensitive to unemployment rates. Unemployment is very low now, especially for entry level and service roles that would hire an unskilled 18 year old.
Joining the military means giving up most of your civilian rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, in exchange for pay and training. Historically, this has often been a pretty good deal for those without other economic options.
However, if you think the country's leaders are going to send you off to get killed in poorly thought-out and reckless adventures for dubious reasons, then giving up those rights starts looking less and less attractive. Given that's what happened in Afghanistan (which was somewhat justifiable, but could have been a six-month operation, rather than a 20-year one) and Iraq (completely unjustifiable, an epic disaster), it's not surprising that economic desperation is now the main motivator for military recruiting, nor is it surprising that applicants coming from that background aren't in the best mental or physical health.
Step one in regaining trust would involve purging the government and military leadership of the architects of the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, although that seems unlikely at present - these are the same neocon ideologues who are vigorously opposing a negotiated settlement in eastern Ukraine while also pushing for military confrontation with China.
What do you mean regarding Ukraine? Do you mean the US should have persuaded Ukraine to give up some of their land?
I don’t fully understand what you mean with ‘negotiated settlement’.
All I know is these ‘negotiating’ strategies don’t work with tyrannical regimes. Germany tried and failed. Trying to bring in China into the world economy also didn’t seem to make them give up their hunger to swallow Taiwan.
The mindset of these dictators is different… see Bill Browder’s writings on this subject.
He's taking the Kissinger approach with spheres of influence and allowing smaller nations to be held by "world powers" like poker chips to avoid M. A. D. situations, "you have your satellites and I have mine".
Personally I think that mode of thinking and the context that birthed it are long dead but some people still subscribe to it 30 years after the Soviet Union imploded for... some reason I'm sure.
If the Russian-speaking population of Crimea and eastern Ukraine doesn't want to be ruled by Kyiv, how is that any different from Texas not wanting to be a part of Mexico?
> "The Mexican-American War was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. It followed the 1845 American annexation of Texas, which Mexico still considered its territory..." (wiki)
Of course it's equally clear Ukrainian-speaking western Ukraine wants nothing to do with Moscow, so this points to where a negotiated settlement could draw a new geopolitical boundary.
Meanwhile, the USA has military forces in Syria supporting the Kurdish population, which doesn't seem to want to be ruled by Assad. How is that really any different (the geopolitical economics in that case appears mostly about not allowing Syria and Iran to cooperate economically and militarily, incidentally).
Let's try to have an adult-level understanding of these conflicts, not the propaganda-for-gullible-children version of events and motivations.
> how is that any different from Texas not wanting to be a part of Mexico?
Ok but to complete the scenario, the US would have needed to annex all of Mexico to be comparable right? That's what Russia is trying to do.
> the propaganda-for-gullible-children version
The adult version should include the extensive sowing of dissent, military support, and ethnic cleansing that occurs prior to asking those which country they want to belong to.
I have to think that especially the China/Taiwan issue has quite a bit of historical baggage, because it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process.
Can we imagine such a scenario applied to a Western nation? Imagine if the US Civil War ended up with a "stub Confederacy"-- a few counties in Virginia still answering to Jefferson Davis. Or if one German state decided to carry on as the DDR after 1990. Now reinforce this by having major world powers declare an effectively limitless economic and military backstop to preserve this remnant-- pretty explicitly as a counter to the "victorious" nation's increasing power and importance.
It would be a festering political issue for decades if not longer, no matter how many political and economic favours were splashed to "make up" for it.
Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago.
> it can be read as the slow-motion failure to finish the prosecution of a very "internal" political process.
This is just propaganda to lay support for irredentism. The Chinese civil war ended long ago and this process is certainly not "internal" by any means. That is just made up to make the PRC's current push to annex the ROC more palatable. It's easier to sell it that way than explaining to the mainland populace the truth that its simply an unnecessary war of conquest.
> Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago.
I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan.
How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?"
>> Taiwan was only "unified" (if you can call the China of that era "unified") with the mainland for about 4 years since 1895 and even that ended close to 75 years ago.
> I will admit to having only a highly cursory knowledge of the history, but I was under the impression the PRC/ROC split was directly connected to the ascendance of the Communists; they drove the Nationalists to the sea but were unable to achieve a complete surrender because their enemies remained holed up in Taiwan.
> How can you say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved" without making it sound to both the Chinese state and people like "You can never finish the job your grandparents started?" or worse yet "you sold out our national pride and honour for shiny economic baubles?"
My post was pretty short and (I'd claim) quite clear. When did I say "an independent Taiwan must be preserved"?
And it’s not clear how giving Putin all they want for no cost for merely waving the threat of war, one which didn’t even include US military personnel involvement, is supposed to convince Putin that getting more is not a great idea.
Especially when this game was already played before in 2014.
> I don’t fully understand what you mean with ‘negotiated settlement’.
He may be thinking of the agreement that Putin and Zelensky almost came to in the 2nd week of the war. The Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, initiated contact between the leaders and thinks they were nearly at a settlement when Washington/London intervened to block it. (From about time 2:20:00, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs)
That has been taken out of context. He later clarified that Washington and London were nudging Ukraine towards a peace deal, but after Bucha massacre was uncovered, they stopped doing that and instead increased military support for Ukraine. Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...
That article misrepresents what he said in the interview. He did not "later clarify" that Washington and London were supporting a peace deal. He insisted they were very cool to the whole idea. Also, in the interview, he said that the negotiations were killed at the 2-week point, and then Bucha happened at the 4-week point. He said that after Bucha, it was impossible to resume the negotiations (which had already been blocked).
> the same neocon ideologues who are vigorously opposing a negotiated settlement in eastern Ukraine
Please stop pushing absurd Russian propaganda talking points about US "preventing" Russia from signing peace agreement in Ukraine. If you are incapable of finding continuous statements of Russian officials that goals of "special military operation" remains the same (including "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine), then I can provide you with plenty of them. Also, you can verify on the map that Russian appetites in Ukraine are increased for much more than the east. And no, they said multiple times that they are not prepared to relinquish they claims on southern parts and of course Crimea.
The actual prize in the conflict is access to the European energy market, economically speaking. It's about Russian pipeline gas vs. US LNG tanker gas, and it's about where the money spent on those fossil fuels will be deposited - London & New York banks, or Moscow? This is why the Saudi war on Yemen has been ignored.
The reality is that if Putin had taken the deal offered in 2003 (Exxon buying >50% of Russian oil production) or had even signed onto petrodollar recycling, then the US media and Congress and the White House would be no more interested in a Russian land grab in eastern Ukraine (with the support of the Russian-speaking population) then in Yemen, they might even call it 'a justified intervention against neo-Nazi militias' or something like that.
The solution for Europe is of course to take neither Russian nor US gas, but instead eliminate fossil fuel dependency by massive investment in renewable energy (which is possible if more difficult than many realize). I don't think that's a "Russian propaganda talking point" though, and the US propaganda machine doesn't want this outcome either.
If the Mexican army raped and bombed their way across Texas towards California, should we just shrug and point out those lands were taken under historically dubious circumstances and we should let them have the U.S. Southwest?
Well, it was the American army that took over Texas, wasn't it?
A lot depends on what the local population wants, I think. The Vietnamese population didn't want to be ruled by a puppet government controlled by France the USA, hence the active armed resistance to the French and US miltary occupation (1950s-1970s). The Afghan population didn't want to be ruled by the Soviet Union, or by the United States, hence the active resistance to Russian control in the 1980s and to American control in the first two decades of this century.
Now, you could say the Americans in Vietnam tried to rape and beat the population into submission to imperial rule, and that the Soviets tried to do that in Afghanistan, and that's called wartime propaganda. The actual goals of both of those occupations were fundamentally economic in nature, but that's a taboo subject (starting a war for economic gain being a Class A War Crime in terms of international legal precedents).
It does seem pretty clear however that the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainian/Crimean population doesn't want to be ruled by Kyiv, doesn't it? So just draw a new border and end the conflict.
> It does seem pretty clear however that the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainian/Crimean population doesn't want to be ruled by Kyiv, doesn't it? So just draw a new border and end the conflict.
Umm, my dude, are you sure you are not familiar with typical Russian propaganda talking points as you declared in your previous reply? You seem to regurgitate them all too well to be honest with you!
So, first of all, as a person with half of my family coming from one the towns in eastern Ukraine that has been occupied occupied since 2014: No, it is absolutely not clear that the population of those regions that were there in 2014 "don't want to be ruled by Kyiv". By now, yes, people who didn't like the occupation are either left or dead. You are also seem to be wrong regarding Crimea [0].
Now, with that out of the way we need to discuss some other inconvenient facts regarding where Russians want to "draw a new border". The Russians also tried to occupy parts of northern Ukraine where, as I can assure you, they were _extremely_ not welcome. I don't have close friends or relatives from south, but I also got the impression that people on [1] or [2] or [3] are not too unfriendly towards Kyiv. Go figure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Even when on leave, a person can be reprimanded for publicly speaking against a commander order. Write a letter to a newspaper editor about a policy you find disagreeable, and get ready for a reprimand. And the courts aren't civilian.
I did note that there are more rules and responsibilities. I would be interested to see the article in the UCMJ or any court cases which cover your examples, though.
Not a big difference, but I note that this is without a waiver. There is a process for getting a waiver for each branch[1]. There aren't a ton of waivers issued - only between 50,000 and 80,000 [2]. But the DoD is reviewing what can be removed as disqualifying (at least 38 disqualifying conditions) and multiple reports have been issued signaling out ADHD and marijuana as potential criteria to eliminate[3].
Personally I think it should come down to the role and risk. There's plenty of jobs where you're not seeing combat or dealing with inherently risky or critical tasks, and thus shouldn't be held to the same standard as those doing critical tasks. Just as one obvious example, somebody with a desk job doesn't need legs.
Recommendation: "To mitigate the higher likelihood of adverse performance-related outcomes, require that waivered recruits and those with a documented history of marijuana or behavioral health issues have Tier 1 education status, have Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores in categories I–IIIA, or be age 22 or older."
"Tier I education status" means high school graduation. AFQT scores of IIIA or above means above the median intelligence for the military.
There's a qualification of some importance missing here:
77% of young Americans who applied ... were rejected for various reasons.
ie: Most young people who want to join the forces don't meet the minimum standards.
Perhaps the vast bulk of people that do meet those standards see no future for themselves in the US forces and don't apply.
And there's no easily teased out figure on the health of young Americans in general here w/out additional info about application rates and demographics.
The Marines slimmed my brother down but gave him a variety of mental health issues. I preferred him overweight, happy, and more functional.
These are self inflicted wounds, high level. They don’t qualify because of the system we’ve built. Want healthy candidates for soldiers? Optimize for affordable nutrition and universal healthcare/mental health access [1] [2] [3] [4]. Don’t? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Rampant obesity rates and drug use continues.
Everyone has their own experiences but I will say that joining the Marines was the best thing that ever happened to me and I would openly recommend it to any young man.
> Over 40,000 veterans are homeless on any given night
> Veterans are at 57% higher risk of suicide than those who haven't served.
> "Depending on branch, up to 31% of service members develop PTSD after returning from combat." ; "The rate of suicide for veterans in the LGBTQ+ community is up to 7x higher than for non-LGBTQ+ veterans." ; "More than 40% of female veterans report experiencing military sexual harassment or military sexual trauma."
Those numbers don't mean much in isolation. 81% of women broadly experience sexual harassment in their lifetimes. Veterinarians are 400% more likely to commit suicide than general population.
You have to put the risks of serving in context. Of course being a part of a military carries more risks than most/all desk jobs, but it's not the worst thing ever and helps a lot of people.
I have an uncle that has a great life because service, and a half-brother that hated it and washed out barely worse for wear. Anecdotes are just as good as random stats without context.
The United States made a choice to have a contract military after Vietnam, under Nixon - the "All Volunteer Force". We could revert to a national draft, which is my preference, for National Defense. I was in the Army and deployed to Afghanistan and have my own issues and my friends (dead and alive) have their own as well. I agree with you if your point is that the US Government doesn't do enough for veterans. In a morbid way, I understand why suicide is so high, because we fought those wars for mostly nothing.
> > "Suicides among post-9/11 veterans are four times as high as combat deaths, a new study finds."
I wonder if this is a factor of more effort spent to keep soldiers alive (e.g. just bomb the shit out of something, kill all the people in the house, instead of taking the risk that one of them is an insurgent). Which then eventually doesn’t matter since they still have to deal with the aftermath, and kill themselves as a result.
I know, oddly specific, and I don’t think I have any solid facts to base it on.
> For the most part — particularly the Army — the service is very expensive daycare for would-be homeless bums.
It's unfortunate you feel that way about young men and women who are looking for direction and a path to a better future. Whether or not it works out for them, most people join the military expecting to work hard and get something in return, which doesn't conjure "bum" to me.
Whatever health issues you may or may not have had before joining the military, it's often quite happy to give you a few new ones before you're out. Exposure to toxic chemicals, PTSD, or combat injuries, take your pick.
If someone is overweight, but otherwise healthy (which I suspect is the case for a lot of young people, as they haven't been overweight long enough for it to take a big toll on the body) can they not go ahead and enrol them and then whip them into shape during training? If they are really aren't able to meet their recruiting targets it seems like a missed opportunity.
It may depend how overweight and if the person is otherwise fit. A fat guy in my platoon had last name 'Lay' which led to hilarious potato chip and family history rants by instructors. He lost a lot of fat.
If there’s a proper war e.g an existential one like Ukraine is experiencing, all this goes out the window and it’s any man aged 16-65 that can stand and hold a gun.
The fact that this guy says that membership and veteran numbers are low is utterly insane. No where on this planet will you see more military bumperstickers, wounded warriors, etc than in the US. It wild how visible the military is in America, but apparently that's not good enough.
I wonder how much of this is due to outdated assessment criteria. If drone and remote control is the future of warfare there may not be too much need to do 20 push-ups on demand - the fat kid staring into the computer screen could quite feasibly the warrior of the next war.
Standards to join the US Military are flexible. When I enlisted, my recruiter explained that I could get a waiver for just about anything short of murder. I did get a couple waivers. How willing they are to give waivers depends completely on their recruitment goals.
The meat industry is so big and powerful that they have ag-gag laws that stop you from even reporting on them. Weird how the no-carb social media tribe acts like they’re the underdogs.
But this comment just seems like a way to force your favorite pet issue to e-fight over into the conversation.
Never thought that the solution to America's Military Industrial complex would be McDonalds. Now when the Joint Chiefs talk of megatons they are talking about recruits weight not weapon payload.
And then you have those with higher education and critical thinking capabilities who wouldn't ever join the military...
That aside, these stats are not surprising. Anyone from outside the US knows just how bad the education system is within. With red states outright banning books and knowledge, that number may just continue to climb.
People who remove books from libraries are scared pitiful people.
People who claim that removing some books from a library is akin to banning or will have any affect on the actual dissemination of knowledge are fools at best and liars almost surely.
Education is like everything else. If you believe it is someone or something else’s responsibility, you won’t have much of it.
Honestly, your comment makes me wonder if there is any kind of site or project keeping track of that (because there should be), because I saw a headline recently but can't remember any specifics.
Searching 'book banning' on news.google.com still returns a lot of results with towns still doing it.
I think what I was actually thinking of though, was I think Mississippi (I think) deciding to defund all libraries in retaliation for the library suing over book bans.
2. Basically any diagnosis of a mental health condition, like ADHD, will block military service. This is true even if symptoms are well managed without medication. The rise of diagnosis of these conditions combined with digital records means a lot of people are prohibited to join due to mental health that would have been overlooked in previous decades.
3. This serves as the official excuse for why recruitment numbers are down. IMO recruitment numbers are down because Iraq/Afghanistan was such a shitshow.