18
   

Obese Children a National Security Threat?

 
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 12:08 pm
@Setanta,
not much has ever stopped me
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 12:10 pm
Yeah . . . but nobody ever reads your posts . . . i know i don't.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 12:10 pm
@Setanta,
Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
Swimpy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 01:04 pm
@djjd62,
They ARE here to replace us.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 01:23 pm
I think the original failure of critical thought comes from the generals who labeled flabby teenagers as a threat to national security. When college professors complain that a large percentage of students coming out of high school don't have the critical thinking and language skills to succeed in college English we don't say that that's a threat to the national education system. It just means that it takes more time and effort to remediate them. Likewise, overweight soldiers means more work for the military, not the end of the free world. Ms. Obama's fault was to pick up this bit of hyperbole without subjecting it to a sanity check. Maybe our fault is in blowing a throw-away line completely out of proportion. No one is beating on children and we all want an improvement in childhood obesity rates.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 01:27 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
When college professors complain that a large percentage of students coming out of high school don't have the critical thinking and language skills to succeed in college English we don't say that that's a threat to the national education system.


Hmm, I dunno. The college educational system serves to EDUCATE those who choose to purchase their services. The military serves to DEFEND our country from threats (ostensibly lol). The purpose of the military isn't to directly benefit the soldier themselves but the country as a whole.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but there' s a real difference between those two goals.

Her statement was a little hyperbolic, but hardly objectionable or inaccurate.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 01:28 pm
By the time the civil war after the assassination of Caesar as over, the Roman legions were pretty well exhausted, and recruiting was down. Gradually, over the next century, they re-established many of the legions in Gaul, and the "French" heavy infantry became the standard of the Empire. Later, when a Gothic army obliterated an entire consular army, the Romans adopted heavy cavalry, and the legions became largely German.

I suggest we send recruiting officers to Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, and our kids can go back to Twinkies and X-box.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 01:44 pm
@Setanta,
Turn the x-boxes into controller for robot weapons so our children can serve their time eating Twinkies and killings our enemies from the comforts of their bedrooms.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 01:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
My point is that the military in the US will not grind to a halt if they have to extend boot camp any more than our universities will burn to the ground if they have to offer a couple of sections of remedial English. The military mind set that says the sky is falling if we don't make all our children recruiting material is the same mind set that says we shouldn't offer military members a GI bill because then they might leave the service. Yes, the incoming pool of players is less capable, but you adapt and move on. Should we reduce childhood obesity? Yes. Is the threat of a failure in national security driving my concern? No. Do I have a hard spot with Ms. Obama including it in her speech? Not really, but not because I think she is correct, I just don't think it's worth the emotional units being spent.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 01:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Her statement was a little hyperbolic, but hardly objectionable or inaccurate.

No, it's pretty stupid. Here's what she said:

Quote:
And from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well.

Now, if we were drafting over 75% of our young people to serve in the military, then it might be a problem that one in four of the country's youngsters is too gigantic to serve. But we're not -- not even close. My guess is that less than 1% of service-aged individuals are in the military. Consequently, even if the military can only pick from 75% of all military-aged youths, it still has plenty to choose from. So there's no need to worry about all the fatties opening us up to Communist subversion and endangering our precious bodily fluids. There are plenty of scrawny minority kids still willing to serve and die for sub-minimum wage.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 02:04 pm
@engineer,
The report seemed to be saying that they had to turn them away completely. That's different from just spending more time with the recruits, but I'm not sure how that works. (Could they start spending time with them rather than turning them away completely? Dunno.)

At any rate, I'm willing to cede some ground here. I'm in zoom mode (lots going on) and was rattling off responses at high speed.

Personally, I think the remark was understandable and unoffensive. I'm glad that attention is being paid to childhood obesity (which is different from adult obesity in a few ways, especially how much control others have over it) and especially school lunches. (I've been involved locally in improving the [currently abysmal] quality of school lunches.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 02:07 pm
@joefromchicago,
I dunno, a shortage of qualified new military recruits is one of the arguments I've seen re: DADT -- that they are having a hard time finding people and so opening it up to gay and lesbian people would help a lot. While estimates of the percentage of the gays and lesbians in the population vary, none approach 25%.

edit, found this for example:

Quote:
The Army, which has met its manpower goals every year since 1990, has fallen behind in 2005. Through the first five months of a budget year that begins in October, the Army is about six percent behind schedule toward fulfilling this year’s goal.

The Army National Guard is having even greater difficulty. The Guard wanted to recruit 63,000 new members this year, in part to make up for a shortfall in 2004. However, four months into the budget year, by the end of January, it had signed up only 12,800 men and women, 24 percent below its target.

The Marine Corps failed to meet its recruiting goal for the second straight month in February, the first time it has fallen short for two successive months in more than a decade. The Marines missed their February objective by some 6.5 percent. A spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command told a journalist, “It is a challenging recruiting environment right now.”


http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1896.shtml

(from January 2010)
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 02:20 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

I dunno, a shortage of qualified new military recruits is one of the arguments I've seen re: DADT -- that they are having a hard time finding people and so opening it up to gay and lesbian people would help a lot.

Yeah, that's one of those claims that, I think, can safely be categorized, in technical terms, as "bullshit." I'm all in favor of repealing DADT, but to suggest that there is a tsunami of gay recruits eagerly waiting to enlist once DADT is repealed is a pure pipe dream.

sozobe wrote:
edit, found this for example:

Quote:
The Army, which has met its manpower goals every year since 1990, has fallen behind in 2005. Through the first five months of a budget year that begins in October, the Army is about six percent behind schedule toward fulfilling this year’s goal.

I'm pretty confident that's not because of all the fatties out there. It's because there are a couple of wars going on, and would-be recruits are smart enough to figure out that, if they sign up for military service, they might get sent to fight in one of those wars. I would add, however, that recessions generally boost enlistment, so I'd be interested in seeing more recent numbers.
Green Witch
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 02:44 pm
My neighbor's son was turned down by the Marines when he went to enlist. They told him he first had to lose about 30lbs (at least that in my opinion). He did lose some weight and ended up in the army. Bootcamp and a year in Iraq did wonders for his figure. He's now looking very fit and fine at this point. Maybe the gov't should start a pre-fat camp Biggest Loser type program for those overweight young people who want to enlist.

Araella, if you want to find out why this is such a problem I suggest you look at this. Fat kids = fat adults:
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html

sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:01 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
I'm pretty confident that's not because of all the fatties out there. It's because there are a couple of wars going on, and would-be recruits are smart enough to figure out that, if they sign up for military service, they might get sent to fight in one of those wars.


I'm sure that's a huge part of it and maybe the main part of it. However that can coexist with the fact that there are fewer recruits available because too many of them are overweight. As in, the fact that too many potential recruits are overweight is not THE reason that the military is having a hard time getting enough people; however, the military is having a hard time getting enough people, and the fact that too many potential recruits are overweight surely doesn't help.

Quote:
I would add, however, that recessions generally boost enlistment, so I'd be interested in seeing more recent numbers.


January 2010 was pretty well into the recession.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:08 pm
@Green Witch,
And my skinny cousin bulked up in the rangers, but the bulk was all (or seemed all) muscle..
I haven't talked to him lately, but it seemed from here that his experience in the rangers was beneficial for his maturing/development, despite or maybe somewhat because of his being in the gulf war forefront, and despite some personal woes of his. I was anti gulf war, feeling a bit lonely in that at the time, so I'm not pro war as a way to mature and get muscles - but those things coincided.

On the thread argument, I get why M. Obama said what she did in paraphrase, saw the list of all the military personnel who signed up on the issue (I haven't searched past what I see on the thread), think her comment could have been worded better, if only about the numbers: 25% or 40%, the numbers weren't all due to obesity; just that a majority of the medical refusals were due to that, if I read things correctly.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:24 pm
@sozobe,
This article has more recent numbers (August 2010) and said that it looked like the military would meet recruitment goals this year, and does mention the recession as being helpful (within the context of how that won't be a permanent fix). It also talks about the obesity problem and how recent it is.

Quote:
And up to 9 million Americans ages 17 to 24 -- or nearly 27 percent of the prime military recruiting age demographic -- are "too fat to serve in the military," according to an April study from Mission: Readiness, a non-profit group composed of senior retired military officials. The report cited obesity as the leading medical reason for candidates being deferred from the service, calling the epidemic "a potential threat to our national security."

According to the study, more than 140,000 individuals failed their military entrance physicals between 1995 and 2008 because of weight problems -- a 70 percent increase over that same period.

Through his military career, Seip has seen the nation's obesity numbers boom: In 1990, no state had an obesity rate of more than 15 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control. But by 2009, only two areas -- Colorado and the District of Columbia -- boasted an obesity rate of less than 20 percent, while 33 states had rates greater than 25 percent and nine more had an obesity prevalence beyond 30 percent.

"It's taken us years to get to where we are [with the obesity epidemic], and it's gonna take years to get us back [to normal]," Siep said.

And with the military annually discharging more than 1,200 first-time enlistees before their contract expirations because of weight problems, according to the report, obesity imposes a hefty $60 million price tag for the military to recruit and train replacements.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/military-recruitment-grapples-obesity-epidemic/story?id=11431486&page=1
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 03:28 pm
@sozobe,
Thanks for the quote..
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:06 pm
@sozobe,
I think attributing those problems cited in your data to obseity is more than a stretch. If recruiting is down, small wonder given the public reaction to the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2005. The allure of military service has been badly tarnished by allegations of torture and war crimes, and in addition, the allegations that troops are committed without sufficient equipment. That's even more of a problem with the Army National Guard, given the cavalier way the Bush administration treated them, both with regard to frequent rotation into Iraq and a lack of proper equipment, notably in body armor and armored vehicles.

I can see many reasons why recruiting would be down which have absolutely nothing to do with childhood obesity.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 04:12 pm
According to the Wikipedia article i found when searching for "U.S. Army manpower," the total manpower of all the armed services is somewhat less than one and one half million, with somewhat less than 10% that number in the Reserves. The same article lists just less than 60,000,000 men and 60,000,000 women fit and within the age range for military service. That's 80 times as may potential recruits as the total manpower figure.

I'd look elsewhere than the alleged obseity of children to explain why the armed forces find it difficult to maintain an armed force of less than 1,500,000 from a pool of nearly 120,000,000.

 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 01:52:44