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

…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
link

Amicalement
Armand

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

MM – very good points.

Dave

link
For Mormons.

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%.

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.

Dan

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.

Thanks Mayor Mike!…

Amicalement
Armand

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.

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!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.