Help support TMP

"70% Of American Youths Are Not Fit To Serve In The..." Topic

24 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board

876 hits since 1 Sep 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Sep 2017 9:53 p.m. PST

…U.S. Military Because Of Obesity, Drugs, And Criminal Records.

"Americans continue to get fatter and it's delivering a huge blow to the country, both in higher health care costs and undercutting military recruiting, according to a huge new study.

The 14th annual State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America report from the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation bluntly reported that 70 percent of the nation is obese or overweight.

And while the rate of obesity growth is leveling off, the costs aren't. The report, for example, said additional health care for obese adults and children is $150 USD billion a year and billions of dollars more in lost worker productivity…"
Main page


VVV reply01 Sep 2017 11:24 p.m. PST

Its a choice.
Serving could be marketed as a fitness club.

Personal logo Ironwolf Supporting Member of TMP01 Sep 2017 11:36 p.m. PST

and a similar study on injures related to physical fitness estimated the cost at 93 billion, and billions of dollars more in lost worker productivity. This study did not take into account those injured or killed in sports related activity.

foxweasel02 Sep 2017 2:33 a.m. PST

And in other news, water is wet and night is a bit darker than day. It's always been like this.

mwindsorfw Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 6:05 a.m. PST

I'm not buying that. I see kids at high school, and the vast majority are fit enough to serve. My guess is that maybe 10-15 percent are too obese to start a PT program. The story's source, the Washington Examiner, has an agenda, and part of that agenda is to claim that American liberals are letting the country go to hell by letting kids get fat.

rvandusen Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 6:06 a.m. PST

The next war will be fought in armored mobility scooters. Morbid obesity and the origin of the Daleks.

USAFpilot Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 6:28 a.m. PST

That number of 70% seems too high. As the saying goes: Figures lie, and liars figure.

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 6:51 a.m. PST

Actually, no agenda here. It is merely a straight forward report of the study by a respected health organization without editorializing in the body fo the article. Straight reporting not a frontpage editorial disguised as a news item(take note nyt and wapo).

StarCruiser02 Sep 2017 7:25 a.m. PST

I live in Texas – which is considered to have a high percentage of overweight/morbidly obese than most states and…

I don't see THAT many really fat people, let alone kids. Yes, there are some (too many) but, no where near 70% – not even close.

Major Mike02 Sep 2017 7:37 a.m. PST

Having recruited for the military, I would say the report is close to the truth. People have to be mentally, morally and physically qualified to serve in the all volunteer military. A fair number of todays youths unfortunately fail to meet one or more of these standards. Failure to meet some standards can be overcome by obtaining a waiver, but, those are subject to the needs of the military. Moral waivers are probably the hardest to get (drug use fits here as well as a criminal record). Just think how relaxed drug laws concerning weed have impacted here. Mental waivers (to include graduating HS) again are subject to the needs of the military and standards usually stay high. It is still possible to find areas around the nation where over 20% of the freshmen starting HS will fail to graduate. Physical covers a wide range of areas from obscene tattoo's to asthma to overweight to being color blind and many other items. Some are flat out disqualifiers, others may be waived, but subject to the needs of the military. Standards stay high as the military has found that this reduces the failures at basic and advanced training and in discipline problems.

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 8:31 a.m. PST

MM – very good points.


Great War Ace Inactive Member02 Sep 2017 8:38 a.m. PST

For Mormons.

Great War Ace Inactive Member02 Sep 2017 8:42 a.m. PST

You who objected to the accuracy: you've overlooked the totality of the 70%; it isn't all obese people, but drug users, undereducated and criminals. Totaled, it equals c. 70%.

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 10:06 a.m. PST

Soon our people will become so mentally soft that we'll be hiring mercenaries (like Saudi Arabia's use of Pakistani and others) or creating our own foreign legion.


USAFpilot Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 10:12 a.m. PST

It will ultimately come down to the laws of supply and demand. It's like vision waivers in the Air Force to attend pilot training. If the Air Force doesn't have enough qualified applicants, they will loosen the standards to a certain degree. I didn't wear glasses when I started, but I wear them now and still fly. There is a waiver for just abut anything in the military.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2017 11:08 a.m. PST

Thanks Mayor Mike!…


doug redshirt02 Sep 2017 2:49 p.m. PST

From what I remember reading somewhere, in WWII a lot of men where determined unfit early in the war due to poor health caused by the great depression. At least a fat kid you can get in shape.

Lion in the Stars02 Sep 2017 6:13 p.m. PST

It took me a LONG time to get fit enough to start boot camp.

I admit, I was a lazy couch potato in HS an college. Man, I think I put on 30+lbs in college!

But I did get skinny enough to go, took me nearly a year of daily workouts (and I mean 7 days a week daily).

So, yeah, I don't doubt that 70% of Americans today are either too fat, too broken (pins/plates/screws is a permanent disqualifier, I am almost certain that one can't be waived to enter), criminal record, didn't graduate HS (NO, GEDs don't count), etc.

Good thing we only need about 2% of the population right now!

VVV reply03 Sep 2017 1:19 a.m. PST

"creating our own foreign legion."
An excellent idea and one I proposed years ago. Just the force the USA needs to fight foreign wars. We Brits have been using foreigners to fight our battles for hundreds of years.
Oh and in 1860 the British army established a Corps of physical training to bring recruits up to standard.

Dragon Gunner03 Sep 2017 9:01 a.m. PST

Too add to what Major Mike said I have been through MEPPS twice, once for the Navy and once for the Army. I started the day with the recruits that met the prescreening conditions conducted by their recruiter. As the day went on at each testing station we would lose several recruits. By the end of the day we had cut our starting numbers by about 25%.

I work with several young men and women in their 20's that have tried to get into the military all would have made fine recruits. The biggest disqualifier for millennials is tattoos even if they are not offensive. Perhaps the military should offer free tattoo removal laser surgery to new recruits. My coworkers cannot afford to have them removed and would in an instant if they could get in the military.

In regards to obesity I would dearly love to slap the idiots that came up with the formula that determined what is obese. I have seen body builders kicked out because their height weight ratios indicated they were obese. I saw too many good people kicked out because they "didn't look good in the uniform". I would like to see performance based testing instead of some "formula" that is divorced from reality. I recall one muscle bound infantryman kicked out of the 82nd Airborne while we kept guys that could not keep up or hump more than a basic rifleman's load.

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member03 Sep 2017 10:23 p.m. PST

Is it correct to say that an "obscene" tattoo is enough to be rejected from enlistment in the armed forces?

What if a serving soldier got one? Then what?

Did people get such tattoos during the draft years to avoid conscription/Vietnam?

Sorry, but the tattoo issue raised above set me to wondering. Especially when you consider how tattoos for seamen used to be a sort of common Navy thing.

Dragon Gunner03 Sep 2017 10:35 p.m. PST

The issue is where they get the tattoos, previous generations would have them concealed underneath their clothing. The current fad is to have them be exposed so everyone can see them. The forearms, neck and sometimes even face are becoming popular.

As far as wartime, standards go right out the window the military is not concerned with how "pretty" you look when they need a body to fill a slot.

coopman Supporting Member of TMP04 Sep 2017 11:46 a.m. PST

Are they not paying any attention to KJU? Perhaps they should be lowering their standards some & beefing up our forces before the missiles start flying.

Lion in the Stars05 Sep 2017 3:13 p.m. PST

Is it correct to say that an "obscene" tattoo is enough to be rejected from enlistment in the armed forces?

No, the current standard is any tattoo, regardless of what it is, is grounds for not being allowed to enlist.

If you had a tattoo when that standard was established, you were not allowed to re-enlist at the end of your contract.

That was not policy back as late as 1998, as I knew a lot of Marines with Semper Fi and Eagle, Globe, and Anchor tattoos then. Even the Marine Recruiters had those tats. Knew a lot of Sailors with ink, too, and several of the guys on my boat got new tats when we pulled into Hawaii in 2002.

The no-tat policy happened as Iraq was winding down and the various branches were looking to find ways to reduce their personnel count.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.