Recruiting problems mean many militaries of the world are understaffed. Is it worth lowering fitness standards if that's what it takes to keep the military from shrinking to an inpractical size?
Keeping in mind that society has gone soft, and the average young man can't get down and do fifty pushups anymore. Sort of a trade-off between a large, powerful deployable force and a small, elite professional defence force.
2007-07-02 17:44:59 · 10 answers · asked by Gotta have more explosions! 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
For non combat jobs yes. I know person that was in for 15 years, her could not do a push-up but he knew about ships radar system like the back of his hand. You make think that these marines a valuble, but the truth is they are consider worthless. You can give anyone a gun and have him run on a battlefield. But not everyone can be a tech. I spend over a year in school when I was in the navy study electronics. I can could not advance because I was over weight. I was to busy working and also there is no place for PT on a small. So I left the navy. At the Et were 30% undermanned. But they will keep a slim person who keep his shoes shined, his uniformed pressed but is dead weight.
I lose the weight when I got on, but would never consider going back.
2007-07-03 13:43:49 · answer #1 · answered by raynard20010 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Standards are standards for a reason. If you cant do the fifty push ups then you train until you can. How about the obligation each soldier has to the other to be physically fit enough to be able to pull his weight in the unit.
2007-07-02 19:30:03 · answer #2 · answered by epaq27 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People who can't do PT shouldn't be in the military. If they don't have the motivation or determination to get off the couch and work out once in a while, then they don't have what it takes to be a soldier. 50 push ups isn't alot, sure it may take alittle bit of training to get there, but if you can't do 50 push ups then how are you gonna pull your buddy out of a burning bradley. I'd rather have one squared away soldier, than a dozen gomer's anyday.
2007-07-03 08:01:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only thank you to handle this that's honest, sensible and incessant with equality is to make standards (of wellbeing or in any different case) a similar for the two genders. before everything the factors required would desire to be dictated with the aid of the demands of the interest and not the irrational, stupid and selfish demands of feminists and mangina politicians. Secondly it is going to be found out that in spite of the fact that this might make it harder for some women to be standard for particular jobs that are greater suitable proper to men, it might additionally be harder for some men to be standard for particular jobs that are greater suitable proper to women. In the two situations in spite of the fact that, individuals of the two genders have a suitable to observe and be seen the two and be standard in the event that they're stable adequate. it is equality, what the fuc,ok greater do those recommendations lifeless feminists choose for?
2016-09-28 23:32:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lowering standards is never a good idea. Look at what happened to public schools!
2007-07-02 18:08:02 · answer #5 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its not even fitness standards anymore its all standards, i've worked with someone in my MOS who was dumb as a rock, they are letting people slide by in some job areas that they never should have been given in the first place, i mean this guy couldn't even have been a scout or tanker (no offense, all you combat arms guys are cool with me but this guy would have made you look bad) he was just that pathetic
2007-07-02 18:03:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
hell no should they lower the standards. in fact they should raise them. If your average young man can't get down and do fifty push ups, boo ******* hoo. Maybe he should get up off of his *** and go to the gym, do some exercise and put down the ******* Twinkies.
SGT.
USMC
2007-07-02 19:17:15 · answer #7 · answered by King Of Battle 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think only those in combat roles in the Army should have above average level of fitness. There should be varying standards of fitness for those employed in the technical,IT, medical, administrative support,etc roles.
Ground fighting requires great stamina, both physical and mental strength, endurance. Just watch all the war movies on ground fighting and you can see how tough conditions every soldier has to bear.
2007-07-02 18:05:31 · answer #8 · answered by Dolphin-Bird Lover8-88 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't think they should lower the standards... but I also don't think they should kick people out for falling out of standards.. *a little bit*.
2007-07-02 17:49:57 · answer #9 · answered by MotherBear1975 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lower standards? Hell, no!
Who would you want next to you in a tight spot. ? Somewone you can count on and belongs there, or someone who got in because they lowered the standards.
2007-07-02 17:54:26 · answer #10 · answered by TedEx 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋