US Army May Relax Physical Requirements To Recruit Cyber Warriors

HughPickens.com writes Clifford Davis reports that only 30% of young people between the ages of 17 and 24 are qualified to become soldiers. This is primarily due to three issues: obesity or health problems; lack of a high school education; and criminal histories. While cognitive and moral disqualifications have held steady, weight issues account for 18% of disqualifications, and the number is rising steadily. It's projected to hit 25% by 2025. The current Army policy is that every recruit, whether enlisting for infantry or graphic design, has to meet the same physical requirements to join — but that requirement may be changing. "Today, we need cyber warriors, so we're starting to recruit for Army Cyber," says Major General Allen Batschelet. "One of the things we're considering is that your [mission] as a cyber warrior is different. Maybe you're not the Ranger who can do 100 pushups, 100 sit-ups and run the 2-mile inside of 10 minutes, but you can crack a data system of an enemy." "We're looking for America's best and brightest just like any Fortune 500 company out there," says Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg. "We're looking for those men and women who excel in science, technology, engineering and math." Batschelet admits that a drastic change in physical requirements for recruits may be hard for some to swallow. "That's going to be an institutional, cultural change for us to be able to get our heads around that is kind of a different definition of quality," says Batschelet. "I would say it's a modernizing, or defining in a more precise way, what is considered quality for soldiers."

Comments

Good luck with that

[DoofusOfDeath]

I left the DoD as a software developer largely because they couldn't get their heads out of their asses. The paperwork, mandatory training, and total risk aversion meant I developed code at maybe 25% of the speed that I did before, and after, in the private sector. And the stock options in the DoD were nothing to write home about.

I really don't see how the DoD can win any cyber fight. It would take losing a ground war on U.S. soil for them to give up their worship of bureaucracy.

Re:Good luck with that

[EmeraldBot]

I left the DoD as a software developer largely because they couldn't get their heads out of their asses. The paperwork, mandatory training, and total risk aversion meant I developed code at maybe 25% of the speed that I did before, and after, in the private sector. And the stock options in the DoD were nothing to write home about.

I really don't see how the DoD can win any cyber fight. It would take losing a ground war on U.S. soil for them to give up their worship of bureaucracy.

What do you mean by "risk aversion"? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:Good luck with that

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Do you think that they'd be able to settle for the "Buy it for 250% the cost of doing it in house from the contractor with the most congressmen" compromise if we lost a land war somewhere else?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume "Zero Tolerance" type environment. Anything bad on books puts serious issues on career advancement.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" taken to the extreme.

Re:Good luck with that

[ziggystarsky]

Mandatory unit testing.

Re:Good luck with that

[khasim]

Not only that but if they change the physical requirements it's going to have a lot of repercussions.

First off, Basic Training. Is there going to be a "cyber warrior only" camp for that?

Secondly, promotions. Will the promotion points for Physical Training be altered for "cyber warriors"?

Also, you have to pass Physical Training tests every year to stay in. Will the guy who cooks the food the "cyber warrior" eats be held to a higher physical standard than the "cyber warrior" is?

I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.

Re:Good luck with that

[Rich0]

And it's not as if this isn't for good reason either - the Army learned some hard lessons in the Korean war with out of shape soldiers; and if anything, the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have further blurred the lines are between combat and non-combat MOS's.

I can buy that if you're talking about somebody who is in a supply train which is vulnerable to attack.

On the other hand, the biggest hazard facing a cyber warrior is likely to be the morning commute.

Re:Good luck with that

[Kjella]

What do you mean by "risk aversion"? I'm genuinely curious.

I can't speak for the grandparent but generally in de facto non-profit monopolies - there's nobody else competing to be the US army for example - there's very little risk in not pushing boundaries. Projects might run over time and over budget but at the end of the day the politicians have to fund the army next year too and you don't get the fat bonuses like when your software makes money for the company. Obvious flops on the other hand might require scapegoats and if you make your superiors look bad, well they're likely to be a step or two up in seniority for the rest of your career in the same "company". That will permeate the entire environment making any kind of change hard, nobody wants to be the one signing off on anything without a drawn out change process.

Here in Norway the craziest example at the moment is the police. In 2005 our politicians made fairly big changes to the penal code, which would go into effect when the police systems were able to handle it. Well, now it's 2014 and it's still not in effect. But what can you do, not fund the police? No matter how much the schedules slip and it goes over budget we have to keep throwing money at them. If they were a commercial company they'd be out of business long ago. Sometimes I wonder if it would be cheaper if we awarded two companies the contract to write the same module with a bonus to the winner, just to get the competition.

Re:Good luck with that

[EmeraldBot]

What do you mean by "risk aversion"? I'm genuinely curious.

I can't speak for the grandparent but generally in de facto non-profit monopolies - there's nobody else competing to be the US army for example - there's very little risk in not pushing boundaries. Projects might run over time and over budget but at the end of the day the politicians have to fund the army next year too and you don't get the fat bonuses like when your software makes money for the company. Obvious flops on the other hand might require scapegoats and if you make your superiors look bad, well they're likely to be a step or two up in seniority for the rest of your career in the same "company". That will permeate the entire environment making any kind of change hard, nobody wants to be the one signing off on anything without a drawn out change process.

Here in Norway the craziest example at the moment is the police. In 2005 our politicians made fairly big changes to the penal code, which would go into effect when the police systems were able to handle it. Well, now it's 2014 and it's still not in effect. But what can you do, not fund the police? No matter how much the schedules slip and it goes over budget we have to keep throwing money at them. If they were a commercial company they'd be out of business long ago. Sometimes I wonder if it would be cheaper if we awarded two companies the contract to write the same module with a bonus to the winner, just to get the competition.

That's an interesting idea! I do think that here in the United States, our government's a little bit too business friendly, but using two companies would be a good way to pit competition to (hopefully) produce a better result. Or maybe not, what do I know :P I certainly think it's an idea worth trying, though.

Re:Good luck with that

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.

Arguably, the bigger problem is that the concept of 'cyber warrior' is an iffy fit for the army at best; and just plain incoherent nonsense at worst.

Obviously, now that electronic systems are valuable enough to be worth attacking, defending, and spying on, it's perfectly plausible that somebody is going to end up doing that job; but that's quite different than inferring the existence of 'cyber warriors', much less ones sufficiently closely analogous to conventional warriors that the army would be a logical outfit to have some(not that the Air Force, which seems to be the branch making the most noise about it, is an obviously better fit). Whatever Tron might have told you, 'cyber war' isn't going to be physical combat except more neon...

If the army is serious about a mandate broad enough that 'cyber warrior' actually fits, they are going to have to suck it up and, yes, accept that their current arrangements for training, evaluation, promotion, etc. include elements that are either supported by outdated assumptions or mere nostalgia.

If they aren't, they should get over whatever territorial pissing contest and/or painful misunderstanding of 'cyber war' has them trying to search for a supply of cutting edge IT and security people who are willing to put up with a system bent on evaluating their ability to pick up a rifle when necessary and either contract it or develop a non-dysfunctional relationship with an agency actually suited to the task(ostensibly the NSA, if somebody could pry them away from our email for a few minutes).

They are just going to have to choose: if they want to have one-size-fits-all processes(whether justified by the theory that all their people might actually need combat skills, or by cultural and institutional cohesion considerations), then they just aren't going to get to do everything, at least not well. If they want to do a wide variety of fairly disparate things, they just don't get to keep all their existing practices, at least not well(the only thing that would depress enthusiasts of boot camp and physical training more than just exempting some people from it entirely would be watering the requirements down enough that any pudgy keyboard jockey would be minimally inconvenienced by meeting them...)

Re:Good luck with that

[maz2331]

Why not simply hire them as civilian employees?

Re:Good luck with that

[Cederic]

the only differences are your gender and your age.

Which is clearly discriminatory.

Why should I, as a fat unfit man, have to attain a higher standard of fitness than a fat unfit woman. Either we can both run the same distance and lift the same weights or we can't fulfil the same duties.

Similarly age, why should I as an old person be allowed to damage the effectiveness of the regiment and slow down the youngsters?

Re:Good luck with that

[AHuxley]

The US has a few issues with civilian employees and its deeper .mil networks.
In the past 10 or so years the numbers of people in the US with some form of security clearance has expanded.
In the wild rush to get new language skills, cloud computing, reduce the walls between different areas of the mil and gov networks and other ideas a lot of staff where hired.
Staff with older security clearance paper work that was updated by a contractor or boss or firm, security clearance options given to staff who might be kind of dual citizens, new citizens or have no real connection with the USA.
Everything they see is sent back to their real country while been advanced deeper into cleared US projects over many years..
Thats 10 plus years of random strangers with rapid digital background work providing perfect paper work and clearances wondering around the contractor and private sector getting into any US mil work offered. Great for the boss, great for the investors, great for no bid contracts.
Some in the US mil seem to understand that this rapid uptake of random new people is not good long term and needs to be understood and story of life background work done each new and existing staff member.
Civilian employees or gov or mil all have to be cleared. What the US hired over the past 10 years was more a language and skill set hunt.
A lot of interesting people now have jobs for life, hidden faiths, hidden loyalties but the US gov has no real idea who they are, why their private sector boss cleared them or if any or some digital database work was really done on them. That is interesting over the productive life, many result and academic advancements.
Who really knows where a lot of the new gov cleared staff will end up in 30 years?
Smart people in the US gov have seen all this before in other nations and over history. A flood of new staff without deep background work allows a lot of people to get protected deep penetration agents in for decades and over many different projects.
A lot got in, a few will be found decades later.

Re: Good luck with that

[fyngyrz]

The Obama haters are decidedly more butt-hurt, whiny, and ignorant of actual data than the Bush haters that preceded them.

Funny how that goes. :)

Re:Good luck with that

[JerryLove]

I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.

Or, and bear with me on this: perhaps the desire to win a cyber-war is the paramount priority over and above ideal morale conditions.

Of course it's also possible they have a plan to accomplish both.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

By "risk aversion" the GP is probably referring to strict adherence to information security policies without analyzing and managing risk. It's easier to say no and cite policy than to weigh risk and benefit. Even if the cited policy doesn't really apply.
Some risk is acceptable and some introduced risk can be mitigated elsewhere. But when low level security minions are left to make decisions, it's rarely about risk as often as it is about rules. It's true that there is an exception to every rule, even in DoD's secure environments.

Re:Good luck with that

[Krishnoid]

First off, Basic Training. Is there going to be a "cyber warrior only" camp for that?

Possibly. But we should absolutely get an animated series about it.

Re:Good luck with that

[starless]

Will the promotion points for Physical Training be altered for "cyber warriors"?

I think they just change the spelling slightly, and make it promotion points for Physics Training...

Re:Good luck with that

[afxgrin]

They want people who are willing to kill by hacking a computer. Also - Snowden.

Re:Good luck with that

[Cyberdyne]

Not only that but if they change the physical requirements it's going to have a lot of repercussions.

First off, Basic Training. Is there going to be a "cyber warrior only" camp for that?

Secondly, promotions. Will the promotion points for Physical Training be altered for "cyber warriors"?

Also, you have to pass Physical Training tests every year to stay in. Will the guy who cooks the food the "cyber warrior" eats be held to a higher physical standard than the "cyber warrior" is?

I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.

Should the cook be held to "physical standards" which aren't relevant to the actual job either? Outside movies like Under Siege, shooting at people really isn't part of the chef's job either. (As an Air Force cadet, I was pretty good at Escape & Evasion - and if I'd gone on to be an actual fighter pilot, that could well have been a vital skill if shot down over enemy territory. As a drone pilot, eight time zones from the action where the biggest threat is road rage on the daily commute? Not a chance.)

Supposing Stephen Hawking were a computing genius, rather than a physicist. Does it really make sense to anyone to reject his brilliant contribution, just because he can't do pushups? Isn't it a better army if it includes that talent?

Re:Good luck with that

[SylvesterTheCat]

A lot of interesting people now have jobs for life, hidden faiths, hidden loyalties but the US gov has no real idea who they are, why their private sector boss cleared them or if any or some digital database work was really done on them. That is interesting over the productive life, many result and academic advancements.

I don't really believe what you say. Clearances are handled by independent investigators, not rubber stamped by the people who need code written.

Non US citizens don't get clearances.

Exactly. The GP seems to have little understanding of how contracting works. I've worked in it from both the government's and the contractor's perspective. I also found the GP's comment to be a series of incoherent, rambling thoughts independent of their errors.

Re:Good luck with that

[nabsltd]

On the other hand, the biggest hazard facing a cyber warrior is likely to be the morning commute.

There are a lot of computer attacks that must be done from inside a network, either because it isn't connected to anything else or because firewalls are good enough to stop outside attacks. This might require being on the ground somewhere that being shot at is possible.

The solution is to relax the physical requirements, not toss them out completely. The military could allow someone to join who doesn't meet standards, but every year after that, they would have to get closer to the standard, and maybe even eventually meet the same ones as every other soldier.

Re:Good luck with that

[mattr]

Battle Programmer Shirase (BPS)
might be more realistic.
It might draw more talent? :/

Re:Good luck with that

[jjbenz]

Yeah, they would do better to pay them under a civilian pay scale. The barracks I stayed in where actually pretty nice, and the food at the mess hall was for the most part pretty good.

Re:Good luck with that

[Whorhay]

I always thought it was funny that my being fat, while still able to beat the other PT standards, was a big enough deal to possibly get an Admin discharge. Meanwhile so long as you could shoot something like 28% with the M16A2 everything was honky dorry. I qualified expert every damn time I went to the range and when someone actually challeneged me I shot 98% in a timed test, with one misfire and two stoppages. In an organization where shooting at other people is a real possibility, the only reward for being a good marksman is a ribbon for bragging rights.

Re:Good luck with that

[Hodr]

All good points, but the fact is that we already treat people differently based on their gender. I.E. you must run this fast, for this long, to be an effective soldier, unless you are female, then you can be slower and quit sooner. The answer is that we don't put women into the positions that are too physically demanding for them. This is the same concept, if you happen to have an MOS that doesn't require you to be physically active, then as along as you can complete your mission you should be fine.

And why not separate camps for cyber warriors? If that is actually the term, then maybe they should have a cyber camp and a cyber uniform too. If they dress in business casual and work in offices then they would look just like the contractors they are meant to replace.

Re:Good luck with that

[jeffmeden]

Sometimes I wonder if it would be cheaper if we awarded two companies the contract to write the same module with a bonus to the winner, just to get the competition.

See all the money that was thrown at the Joint Strike Fighter "competition" for a good example of how even a simple idea like that can end up completely FUBAR at the hands of the DoD.

Re:Good luck with that

[ShanghaiBill]

I assume "Zero Tolerance" type environment.

When I was in the military (twenty years ago) they used annual "fitness reports" that had a range of ratings: outstanding, excellent, above average, average, below average, and unsatisfactory. 90% of fitness reports were "outstanding". An "excellent" report was considered a black mark, and an "above average" was a career ender. So the best way to succeed is to keep your head down, don't rock the boat, and blend in with the 90%. There is NO reason to take a risk, or innovate, since failure can end your career, while success will not make you stand out from the other 90%, since they are all at the top together. The military's officer corps is the biggest group of "yes men" and bureaucratic rule followers I have ever encountered.

Re:Good luck with that

[Lord Lemur]

There are other benefits, and I don't think I ever ment an enlisted Communications troop then spent a day as an E1 or E2 unless they got in trouble.

Re:Good luck with that

[Rich0]

Sometimes the morning commute is in Kabul.

Sure, and for somebody who is forward-deployed the physical standards make a lot more sense, along with the rest of basic training, weapons proficiency, etc.

Somebody else pointed out that they really should tailor the requirements to the job, and not to the person. If the job required being able to run a mile in n minutes, then make those the requirements, and don't relax them for different genders, age, etc. If the job doesn't require that, then don't require it.

I imagine that you'd want some groups that are purely domestic-based, and you might want other "special operations" cyber warfare groups that are actually designed to be deployable. That shouldn't be done just so that the general can admire his tent full of guys with laptops - it should be done because the mission requires it (maybe the enemy is jamming satellite communications so nobody can talk to the USA and you need guys to mount "cyber attacks" locally. That certainly doesn't describe any situation the US has been in recently, but...

Re:Good luck with that

[Christopher_T.]

> The US government is not monolithic, especially on it's policy stances, procedures and especially agency or department culture. You also have the problem of turf fights. The military has conflicting mandates. They are supposed to win wars. They are also supposed to avoid enviromental damage when training, hence the move to steel rather than lead bullets (for fear of lead poisoning) and the banning or curtailing of testing sonar systems (for fear of messing up dolphin and whale hearing). Also in the military, there has been such a push for zero-tolerance of any failure of subordinates that the officers are taking over functions traditionally (and arguably) best left to the chie's and sergeants.

Re:Good luck with that

[david_thornley]

The job of the cook isn't necessarily just to prepare food. Since cooks will be close to the front lines, they might well be caught up in the fighting. This attitude proved useful to the Marines on Guadalcanal in WWII. Cyberwarriors won't be in danger, in general.

Re:Good luck with that

[Rich0]

On the other hand, the biggest hazard facing a cyber warrior is likely to be the morning commute.

There are a lot of computer attacks that must be done from inside a network, either because it isn't connected to anything else or because firewalls are good enough to stop outside attacks. This might require being on the ground somewhere that being shot at is possible.

The solution is to relax the physical requirements, not toss them out completely. The military could allow someone to join who doesn't meet standards, but every year after that, they would have to get closer to the standard, and maybe even eventually meet the same ones as every other soldier.

It would make more sense to have different divisions/etc for different purposes. You can't pilot a fighter jet safely in combat without excellent vision, but that doesn't mean that you can't refuel one without excellent vision, or plan a mission back at the Pentagon, or maybe even ferry one across the ocean. The solution to that isn't to insist that air force members steadily improve their vision either. You just don't let people without good vision become combat fighter pilots.

By all means have squads that are intended for infiltration, and they should have strict requirements, of which fitness is just one. The guys who set up their laptops don't need to meet the same requirements, and they're probably even more important to the mission since I doubt that the infiltrators are going to write their software from scratch while in the middle of an enemy facility. They may very well have to improvise, but if they don't have the right equipment they'll do as well as a special forces soldier with a gun that doesn't work.

Re: Good luck with that

[Talderas]

Doesn't feature Jack Black, however if you us John Candy as a stand in for Jack Black it works.

What a great idea!

[EmeraldBot]

...three issues: obesity or health problems; lack of a high school education; and criminal histories.

Yes, let's put people with repeated criminal offenses in positions of great power! It's not like they'd ever abuse it, would they?

Re:What a great idea!

[istartedi]

I think "criminal histories" in this case is probably just a code-phrase for "smoked weed".

Re:What a great idea!

[DoofusOfDeath]

Yes, let's put people with repeated criminal offenses in positions of great power! It's not like they'd ever abuse it, would they?

So how well are the squeaky-clean hiring standards for the NSA, CIA, FBI, and IRS working for us?

Re:What a great idea!

[bjwest]

Did you read past the first sentence in the summery? They're talking about relaxing the physical requirements. High school education and criminal histories will still considered as they are now. Hell, that was made clear in the second sentence.

Re:What a great idea!

[Fire_Wraith]

None of that would disqualify you, unless you had a conviction. In that case depending on what it was, you might be able to secure a waiver. (This was a lot easier to do when they were having trouble meeting recruiting goals during the Iraq war). You'd need to disclose it for any Security Clearance, which any sort of 'Cyber' MOS will undoubtedly require, but all they care about there is that you were honest and can't be blackmailed about it, and that you aren't still using weed/etc.

Re:What a great idea!

[The Ickle Jones]

Don't get caught, no consequences.

What are they supposed to do, disqualify everyone merely because they might have committed some crime (even though most people don't commit any serious crimes)? Not going with that little strategy doesn't seem like it would do a very good job of guaranteeing sociopaths.

Re:What a great idea!

[darkain]

"since a lot of products of the public (and private) education system are just rote memorization drones"

I take it you're not all that familiar with military training then, are you?

Re:What a great idea!

[The Ickle Jones]

Nice anecdotal evidence.

Re:What a great idea!

[The Ickle Jones]

Of course, just about anything can be addictive. It largely depends on the person.

Re:What a great idea!

[CaptainDork]

Perhaps the Army will use the same contractor for the vetting process as they did with Snowden and perhaps the Army will allow Lady Gaga DVDs as it did with Manning and stuff.

Re:What a great idea!

[ArcadeNut]

Yes, let's put people with repeated criminal offenses in positions of great power! It's not like they'd ever abuse it, would they?

Well, vote them out next time...

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh... sorry, thought you were talking about the OTHER criminals...

Re:What a great idea!

[stephanruby]

I think "criminal histories" in this case is probably just a code-phrase for "smoked weed".

Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg makes it sound like the military is relaxing its recruiting standards over criminal records because it needs "hackers".

But the truth of the matter is, the military has already relaxed its recruiting standards over criminal records. It did it for Vietnam and Korea when nobody else wanted to go. And it did it again ever since the war in Iraq got started, even formerly convicted felons have been able to get in (not just former weed smokers).

I'd say don't believe the hype regarding their need for hackers. The military is notoriously bad at matching recruits with jobs according to their existing technical abilities. If you want to do cyber warfare, get yourself a bachelor of art in something, anything, so that you get yourself recruited as an officer at the very least, to increase your chances -- not guarantee them mind you. If you enter the military without a degree because you like programming, or worse because you like playing video games, expect to be used as IED fodder in the Middle East, for the jobs that no one else wants to do.

Re:What a great idea!

[SylvesterTheCat]

Any large organization is always going to have a certain percentage of people who fail to meet and live up to that organization's standards.

Re:What a great idea!

[SylvesterTheCat]

How long ago was that?

Replying with "no" is an option.

My understanding when I enlisted (over 20 years ago) and through now has been, that an admission of usage was itself not an issue, if there was no longer any current usage and drug test results were negative. One of the primary issues (maybe the only?) of concern was the ability of someone to blackmail the service member for (classified) information by threatening to make drug usage known to the chain of command. If the service member admits to usage prior to enlistment / contracting, there is no ability to blackmail.

It is possibly that has changed over the years. I can also see that if there is no arrest record or nobody to dime you out, answering "no" is the simplest answer.

Re:What a great idea!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unfortunately, it's sometimes the people who most enthusiastically live up to the organization's standards that you have to watch out for.

Re:What a great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes, unlike the guys with the munchies will deny, pot is addictive... er, "habit forming" like cigarettes.

As an ex-smoker, ex-toker, ex-drinker and ex-cokehead, I believe I am qualified to say that you're full of shit.

Quitting dope was simply a matter of getting tired of dry-mouth and paranoia, and saying, 'fuck that, I've had enough.' Quitting coke was a similar matter. Quitting alcohol involved getting sick for a few days and working hard to readjust my life so that bars didn't feature at the end of every working day. Quitting cigarettes left me feeling like shit for a month, half-mad with irrational rage for a week of that, and it only happened because my partner basically told me she was leaving me if I didn't quit, because she wasn't willing to let the children see me die an early death. Seven months later, I still pine for a cigarette every single day.

Dope, tobacco and alcohol are each very, very different. Tobacco is the most addictive of all the addictive substances I've ever tried. Dope doesn't merit the word.

Re:What a great idea!

[antifoidulus]

My former boss smoked weed(at Microsoft of all places) and basically had to write an essay when she applied for her clearance that basically said, "Weed is bad, I won't smoke weed anymore". Sort of a 3rd-grade level punishment but

Re:What a great idea!

[SylvesterTheCat]

Unfortunately, it's sometimes the people who most enthusiastically live up to the organization's standards that you have to watch out for.

I don't understand that how that could be an issue unless the organization's standards are themselves immoral or illegal.

Please explain.

Re:What a great idea!

[TechyImmigrant]

That's the most messed up thing I've read in a long time.

Re:What a great idea!

[budgenator]

I used to get hit with "random" urinalaysis something like every other month for 3 years straight before they either got the idea I don't do that anymore, or who ever was trying to get me transfered.

Re:What a great idea!

[budgenator]

It proves your able to play the game when you decide to play the game, very important in the military.

Re:What a great idea!

[RyoShin]

I enlisted in late 2009, right before the Army significantly raised the enlistment requirements, and before going in for the pre-enlistment stuff (urinalysis, medical check, etc.) my recruiter had myself and others going to enlist fill out a yes/no questionnaire. After that they took us into the office, closed the door, and told us that if we didn't answer "No" to every one of those questions (which included prior drug use) we would be turned away from the military.[1] So I was a good little lemming, did so, and went to Basic four months later.[2] While I never thought to poll my fellow enlisted, I would not be surprised if this was a common thing.

[1] And then said that he would outright deny ever saying that if we told anyone. In hindsight, this should have been a red flag to me.
[2] I have no prior drug use, but I did answer yes to things on the recruiter's questionnaire, like if I had seasonal allergies

Hmmm.

[o_ferguson]

I wonder if they'll be as strict as the FBI about not hiring people who've "pirated" music or TV shows.

FUBAR Deluxe

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a "cyberwarrior" (whatever the FUCK that is), who is having trouble with military discipline. The chain of command then starts fucking with him. Sooner or later, he does something really stupid. Then the bastards send him to a line unit. HOW THE FUCK is that motherfucker going to cope there?

This is some seriously fucked up shit.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[Anonymous Coward]

These so called cyber warriors are too intelligent, too thinking, to be soldiers. The army needs near mindless animals in order to fulfill .issions. I'm sorry, but that's what armys and police need.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[drinkypoo]

Then the bastards send him to a line unit. HOW THE FUCK is that motherfucker going to cope there?

They're not going to send him to a line unit unless they need cannon fodder, and then he'll get what he deserves. They'll just give him a DD and send him back to bumfuck, boringville.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[Huge_UID]

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I know where you stand. It might help if you would use some more "fuck"s to convey your thoughts.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this is a really stupid idea. Congress needs to step up and create a digital military organization with its own rules and hierarchy to act alongside the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Yes, the Army could have some cyberwarriors too for when needed, just like all the branches have planes and boats even if that's not their focus, but trying to wedge this shift in warfare into the Army is asinine, and I would bet it's just that they want to get there first so that they get all the funding for it in the future.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[drinkypoo]

A programmer or IT guy, being a programmer or an IT guy in the only way they can be competent deserves death in your opinion?

No. Anyone who signs up for a paycheck for being a murderer (or murderer support staff) does that. We all die, but those who decide to kill people for money actually deserve it. The people who turn murder into a vocation are the sick fucks. And if you go into IT for the military, your job one is murder, or murder support.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[whodunit]

The United States Army does not punish people by sending them to the "Russian Front." Nor do they have Commisars, nor do they machine-gun anyone trying to retreat. This is nonsense.

There are no shortage of desk jobs in the US military. For every fighting man in the field there are three forklift drivers involved in moving the tons of supplies he consumes, and a desk jockey to do the paperwork for each.

We ar fighting in an age where entire warships can be disabled by computer failures and many enemies are slain by remote controlled drones. We can no longer afford to shut our best and brightest out of the military based on rumors, fear-mongering, pig-headed tradition or machismo.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[gl4ss]

line unit? as if. doesn't work like the eastern front shit in ww2.

now, I got a perfectly good response to this, just draft them from google, ms etc. oh what do you mean that you need cyber warriors for the army BUT YOU AREN'T IN WAR?

is cyber warriors in this context also the push button drone guys? for that you don't need physical attributes, just the attribute to press a button on dubious justifications(remember, you're not in an actual war with any state), sometimes two times.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, no-one in the military has ever done anything good. There has never been a case of soldiers defending the weaker from the stronger. Nor have they ever defended their own country and civilians from external aggression. All soldiers are murderers and that's all they have ever wanted to be.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The math is simple. At 2 miles per hour, it takes a fat programmer 1 hour to go ten miles.

Their ranger in a game, however, can probably do it in 6 on a horse. Or their non-superspeed hero in City of Heroes (RIP) in 3 1/4 minutes as they ran at 37 mph. In their Eve ship from a dead stop, maybe 30s, for a bloated one.

My 5 inch wide slug railguns oh baby how many level 95s do you have in WoW?

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[saneconservative]

I have a feeling that you have no military experience at all.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[drinkypoo]

Yup, no-one in the military has ever done anything good.

That's not how it works. You have to look at the balance. And in the balance, most militaries spend most of their time oppressing people. And if you join that military, then you're supporting it. And if you're doing it just for a paycheck, then you're especially low scum. See how it works?

Sooo.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean the Army will procure quantities of military issue Diet Coke, Hot Pockets and Twinkies in camouflage packaging?

Re:Sooo.....

[Anonymous Coward]

What about emergency cheeto rations?

Re:Sooo.....

[ColdWetDog]

Been to a PBX recently? What do you think they stock - carrots and lettuce?

Re:Sooo.....

[saneconservative]

BX/PX is like Walmart or Target and Commissary is like a grocery store. The D-FAC has already prepared food like a cafeteria.

Avatars

[vortex2.71]

Really, they should just be recruiting an army of nerds to sit in a room driving avatars, whether they be drones, remote tanks, or humanoid robots.

What a great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

J-walking, smoking weed, and downloading unlicensed copies of music online are illegal activities. If you want the best and brightest, it's not a good idea to disqualify 96% for no good reason.

Bad idea?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Think of the risks...

Who needs a knife in a nuke fight

[halfdan the black]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

just like a fortune 500 company except...

[Anonymous Coward]

love it that they say they look for the same requirements as a fortune 500 company ... except they will only pay you a fraction of what you would earn at one of those fortune 500 companies

Physical requirements are not all that tough

[SgtAaron]

When I enlisted in 1990 you only had to be able to complete something like 13 pushups to be assigned to a basic training unit. Those that couldn't were put into a "remedial physical training" unit, where of course they were roundly laughed at by those in real basic. Passing the actual PT test at the end of basic is different, but at 18 were only had to do around 45 pushups and 60 situps in two minutes, and run two miles in less than 17 minutes or thereabouts--don't recall precisely. And as you get older, the requirements lessen. Upon enlistment all we had to do was lift 40 pounds above your head on a weight machine. I was 5'3" and 115 pounds back then (still 5'3", beer has added a bit of weight over time :-)

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

When I enlisted in 1990 you only had to be able to complete something like 13 pushups to be assigned to a basic training unit.

I'd have failed that. Sure, I probably could have spent a lot of time working out and gotten to that point, but what's the point?

Anytime you introduce a selective pressure for one attribute, you're unwittingly selecting AGAINST other attributes. Do you want the best "cyber warrior" you can find, or the best "cyber warrior" who also happens to be able to do 13 pushups too? If the bad guys aren't so picky, she might find herself outclassed...

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[khasim]

I got out in 1990 after serving for 7 years.

Sure, I probably could have spent a lot of time working out and gotten to that point, but what's the point?

So that the other people in your unit know that they can depend upon you to perform the physical requirements of being in a war zone.

Anytime you introduce a selective pressure for one attribute, you're unwittingly selecting AGAINST other attributes.

And I agree with that. 100%. Dr. Hawking wouldn't be physically able to serve (even if he wanted to). But you would want him working on your side.

Do you want the best "cyber warrior" you can find, or the best "cyber warrior" who also happens to be able to do 13 pushups too?

I prefer to substitute "Facebook" for "cyber" in these articles. It puts them in perspective.

But that isn't the question. The question is whether these "Facebook warriors" will ever be deployed to a war zone.

If yes, then they need to meet the physical requirements the same as every other soldier.

If no, then hire them as civilians. Skip Basic and AIT and everything else. Classify them along with all the other GS-whatevers.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Anonymous Coward]

There are good reasons to have minimum fitness standards.

I don't know how old you are, but 13 pushups is not a lot. I'm 59 and have no problem doing twice that many. Anyone who doesn't have a physical disability should be able to do that. It's not much of a requirement really, but there does need to be some minimal level of "can move under one's own power" requirement for military service, even if it's primarily a desk job. Sometimes those turn into non-desk jobs.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Skidborg]

"a lot of time" in this case equal about six weeks of try to do 13 push ups a day. You're literally disqualifying yourself because you don't want to spend two hours TOTAL exercising.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Skidborg]

Basic physical fitness helps with a lot of things, mental acuity included. It requires next to no effort to reach the baseline laid out there. It could be compared to brushing your teeth or washing you clothes occasionally. A basic inconvenience that's part of being a functional human being.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

"a lot of time" in this case equal about six weeks of try to do 13 push ups a day. You're literally disqualifying yourself because you don't want to spend two hours TOTAL exercising.

Somehow I doubt it takes only two hours total. But, whatever. Honestly, I could really care less whether I can do a pushup. :) My current employer doesn't really have a problem with that, and I don't have a problem with accepting their paycheck.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

Basic physical fitness helps with a lot of things, mental acuity included.

Well, if what you care about is mental acuity, then why not just measure that? Playing a musical instrument is often correlated with intelligence, but I've yet to be asked to bring an instrument to a job interview.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

I don't know how old you are, but 13 pushups is not a lot. I'm 59 and have no problem doing twice that many.

I'd probably have a hard time doing one, and I'm not obese (for whatever BMI is worth). I have no problem doing stuff with software, math, and the physical sciences that 99.99% of the population who can do a pushup probably couldn't do with a year of coaching. I'm hardly the brightest coder around, either.

You have to choose your priorities if you want the "best" for a particular job. Do you want the best, or the best of what's left?

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

When I enlisted in 1990 you only had to be able to complete something like 13 pushups to be assigned to a basic training unit.

I'd have failed that.

Really? I'm 45, overweight, horribly out of shape, and even I can do 13 pushups. What the hell was wrong with you?

Perhaps you should ask somebody who knows something about physiology. I was not diagnosed with any medical abnormalities that I'm aware of. I can't say when the last time I tried to do a pushup was, but I doubt I could do 13 of them today.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[The Ickle Jones]

Not correcting that if you can is a sign that you don't care about yourself or living.

If they didn't care about living, they likely would have died already. How about you not decide how others feel based on your own arbitrary standards?

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[The Ickle Jones]

Playing a musical instrument is often correlated with intelligence

Correlated with things that have arbitrarily been deemed to be intelligence, you mean. There's a difference.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

Don't get me wrong - having physical requirements for anybody who is deployed anywhere near a combat zone or who is responsible for providing physical security is a no-brainer. If the mission requires having a "cyber warrior" join a team that will infiltrate some facility then they certainly should be able to meet the physical qualifications, use a gun, etc.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

FYI, doing a few push-ups is not working out. It's a basic functionality your body should have. Like standing or walking for extended periods.

Not everybody can stand or walk for extended periods either.

You're of course welcome to choose what sorts of people you hang around with. I certainly don't find it difficult to gain employment, or socialize with colleagues.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

Playing a musical instrument is often correlated with intelligence

Correlated with things that have arbitrarily been deemed to be intelligence, you mean. There's a difference.

Sure, and correlation also is of limited importance as well. But, I imagine that asking a candidate to play a song is about as useful a predictor of job performance as asking them to do pushups.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Dahamma]

It's a sign that you can't do 13 push-ups. Maybe you like doing other things instead of working out.

An 18 year old doing 13 push ups in 3 minutes is not "working out". 13 push ups in 2 minutes is "not being morbidly obese and a heart attack waiting to happen."

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Dahamma]

If you are in your early 20's and otherwise pass the basic health requirements, but can't do a dozen push ups in 2 minutes or stand for an hour, you probably should *not* be in the Army.

If you don't have any other health issues besides being so out of shape you can't accomplish those, then yes, I think spending the month or so it would take to get in a bit better shape to pass it would be a good sign of someone who might actually take pride and responsibility in their work.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Dahamma]

If you have no other health issues besides being that out of shape, you'd be surprised how easily you can get in at least basic enough shape to meet those requirements. I'm surprised how low the current Army requirements are, really, I could easily do them all and I haven't gone near a gym in 15 years.

Back when I was working out, my initial pull up (MUCH harder than push ups, of course) count was a big zero. After a month I could do 5, and after 2 months 10-15. The *Army Ranger* requirement is 6 (regular PFT doesn't require any, I think).

The *best* would have no problem spending 30 minutes a day (or even every other day) for a month or so to meet those minimal requirements. Especially if you actually *wanted* the job - if not, then who cares? All it takes is a very small amount of willpower and commitment, something the Army should be looking for.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[RobertLTux]

besides being able to wrangle a loaded rack server into place at combat speed could come in handy someday.

Or run a 100 foot network cable

Or throw a ssd to some grunt to plug it into a rack

but then again any DI that can't get a geek into shape in decent time needs to hang up his smokey bear hat

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Cederic]

I have very weak arms relative to body weight. Always have done. 13 push-ups has never been easy for me, even when I could do 100 sit ups in a minute and run 2 miles in under 12.

I can however benchpress my own weight. Different muscle groups..

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[k6mfw]

I know someone who joined the Navy in 1970s, he learned proper military posture and attitude very quickly. He answered "yes" and was slugged in the gut. He was told to answer "Yes SIR!" and followed by "On your feet boy! and I mean like now!" He managed to get up, and stand up straight (cough cough, yes cough sir cough).

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[PrincipoAzzurro]

It's a sign that you can't do 13 push-ups. Maybe you like doing other things instead of working out.

But here, let me put forth a little 'rule' that's just as arbitrarily as the bullshit you spewed forth: If you can't dig a giant hole in the ground with a spoon, for me that's a sign that you do not care about yourself, and that's a major problem.

Can't do 13 pushups? Stay out of my Army. Next thing you know, the feces hit the fan in some God-forsaken third world country and I'm stuck in a firefight with a bunch of pasty nerds who can't go for a brisk walk with their M4's and a few liters of water.

This is not a game. We have standards for a reason.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[khasim]

I think I'm agreeing with you.

If the mission requires having a "cyber warrior" join a team that will infiltrate some facility then they certainly should be able to meet the physical qualifications, use a gun, etc.

Yup! But that "Facebook warrior" would probably have a different MOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_occupation_code

But the "Facebook warrior" who will never be deployed and will never see actual combat would be a GS-something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_(US_civil_service_pay_scale)

The problem (IMO) is with the military officers trying to bulk up their careers by being associated with a new division or whatever. No matter how bad the idea is or how much it hurts morale.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[SgtAaron]

We all have our talents. First and foremost that's the thing to remember. Here I go starting this thread talking about being able to do push-ups, when my brother is a ballroom dance instructor and has talent enough to take a piece of clay and turn it into Patrick Stewart. Umm, btw, even in my best years you'd have beat me in sit-ups.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Dahamma]

I can however benchpress my own weight. Different muscle groups..

Well, if you even know what a benchpress is you are ahead of the game on /. apparently... Any good trainer could get you doing > 20-30 push ups in 2 minutes in a month. Those muscle groups may not start big but they follow the same biological principles as anyone else's :)

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

If you are in your early 20's and otherwise pass the basic health requirements, but can't do a dozen push ups in 2 minutes or stand for an hour, you probably should *not* be in the Army.

We're talking about a "cyber warfare" division of the Army. Your statement is like saying that grunts who don't know what an opcode is probably should *not* be in the Army. Both types belong in the new Army, but not in the same roles.

If you don't have any other health issues besides being so out of shape you can't accomplish those, then yes, I think spending the month or so it would take to get in a bit better shape to pass it would be a good sign of someone who might actually take pride and responsibility in their work.

You're more than welcome to think that. You may even take pride and responsibility in your work. Clearly though you're not a very good judge of character, though, so you'd definitely not be on my interview team. :)

If you want to know whether somebody takes pride in their work, then take a look at their work. Now, if the job you're hiring them for is highly physical, then their muscles will be a part of that work. If you're hiring a baker, then you probably should be caring more about whether they spend their spare time making cakes. :)

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

The *best* would have no problem spending 30 minutes a day (or even every other day) for a month or so to meet those minimal requirements. Especially if you actually *wanted* the job - if not, then who cares? All it takes is a very small amount of willpower and commitment, something the Army should be looking for.

So your point is to require arbitrary commitments in order to weed out people who don't waste their time doing pointless work because they're desperate to have the job? I'm not sure that you're going to find a lot of great candidates for your "cyber warrior" division.

The thing is that the typical "cyber warrior" probably isn't some kid who doesn't have any other options (especially if they don't want to recruit people with criminal backgrounds, etc). If you want the best then it is the employer who really needs to be bending over backwards to prove that they have the willpower and commitment to hire the best. If you merely want mediocre to less, then by all means make your candidates jump through hoops, in this case almost literally.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[tibit]

I hate to sort of point out the obvious, but the muscles useful for push-ups are not necessarily useful for much else. I do all of my own house renovation, going up and down scaffoldings, carrying materials (including 90lb buckets of concrete), sanding drywall (best workout ever), I fix my cars including wrangling engines and transmissions around, etc. I can't do push ups, it wasn't something I ever had a need to do. It seems like a skill for its own sake.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[tibit]

I'm sure I could pull off a brisk walk with plenty of gear. What's that got to do with fucking push-ups that everyone is so fixated with?

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[jjbenz]

I remember seeing the guys in remedial PT at Fort Knox, they had to wear yellow shorts and shirts. I remember them being referred to as the "banana boys". The physical requirements of the PT tests we took could be easily achieved by most people.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[kilfarsnar]

When I enlisted in 1990 you only had to be able to complete something like 13 pushups to be assigned to a basic training unit. Those that couldn't were put into a "remedial physical training" unit...

This is kind of what I was thinking. Can't you just get some of these overweight recruits into training and whip them into shape? After all, you control their exercise and diet. Maybe they need to bring Bob Harper on as a consultant.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Whorhay]

Woah, woah, woah there!

If you hire them as civil servants that'll cost a lot more money. The salaries aren't anywhere near similiar. And while a civilian has to pay for some of their healthcare and retirement benefits you can bet the cost is much lower for military members. And if they actually have the gall to save for their retirement you then have to do some matching.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[budgenator]

The PFT is scored, the numbers that are being thrown around are the minimum passing score. When you have done as many pushups as you can in two minutes, followed by as many situps as you can in two minutes, followed by running 2 miles as fast as you can is quite a bit more challenging than doing any of them in isolation would be. Pushups work the pecs and the abs, the situps work the abs and hip flexors, and of course running works the hip flexors quite a bit. Having good PFT scores effect your ratings, your promotability and even whether you services will still be required, so there is considerable pressure to not just pass but to achieve the maximum scores.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[david_thornley]

Look, I have, in the past, worked hard on my upper body strength. It still sucked. For much less effort, I could max out the weights on every exercise machine that relied on muscles below my diaphragm. I never found out why I had limited upper body strength, but it really hasn't impeded my life significantly.

Something wrong with those numbers

[Chuckstar]

There's something wrong with their numbers.

There's no way that only 30% of Americans are high school graduates who are not obese and don't have criminal records. It's just not possible.

The U.S. high school graduation rate is 80%. About 30% of the population have been arrested. Many of those will be found innocent, charges never pressed, or convicted of very minor charges, such that 8.5% of the population ends up with felony convictions. Does obesity account for all the rest?

The stats they are using are ages 17-24. Is it possible they are skewed by the fact that many 17 and 18-year-olds simply haven't finished high school yet (even if they are on track to do so)?

Re:Something wrong with those numbers

[Rich0]

The U.S. high school graduation rate is 80%. About 30% of the population have been arrested.

Well, if that alone isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is. Think about the implications of that in a society where you have a good chance of being unemployable even if you have a college degree...

Re:Something wrong with those numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well, if that alone isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is

Given that young people are arrested for possession of alcohol if they're under 21, for driving with an expired license, or for insisting on filming police at a peaceful protest on a public street, it's not shocking. I was arrested before I was 20 for wearing a dark coat and resembling a description of a mugger. The coat was the wrong color,, and both of the officers who arrested me apologized for the sergeant who'd insisted I was a suspect.

When they drove onto the MIT campus to drop me off at class, it made my day.But *lord*, I was glad that I was white, I had ID, and I knew enough to be very, very polite with police. I was not actually who deals with that kind of suspicion every day for living in the wrong neighborhood.

Re:Something wrong with those numbers

[Bite The Pillow]

72% are not obesity related. Obviously your numbers are suspect.

"While cognitive and moral disqualifications have held steady, weight issues account for 18% of disqualifications, and the number is rising steadily, according to Batschelet."

If your back of a nonexistent napkin attempt is that far off, do you really conclude that the article is the wrong one?

Re:Something wrong with those numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way that only 30% of Americans are high school graduates who are not obese and don't have criminal records. It's just not possible.

Not 30% of all Americans. 30% of the military's core recruitment demographic. We're not talking about no Senator's son, we're talking about the poor or prospectless.

Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the Chief"
Oh, they point the cannon at you

Re:Something wrong with those numbers

[Rich0]

> Well, if that alone isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is

Given that young people are arrested for possession of alcohol if they're under 21, for driving with an expired license, or for insisting on filming police at a peaceful protest on a public street, it's not shocking.

Sure, and I wasn't suggesting that the problem was that the right sort of people weren't being born. I doubt the population of newborns today is somehow less virtuous than those who were born 50 years ago. The problem obviously lies in the laws, and by extension the public school system and the parents.

Re:Something wrong with those numbers

[c]

Does obesity account for all the rest?

The summary specifically said "obesity or health problems". I assume that would include things like asthma, diabetes, vision problems, etc. I'd have to wonder if anyone taking medication would immediately be flagged as "unhealthy", automatically excluding anyone diagnosed with ADHD and many other behavioural disorders?

That's why they have the draft

[pubwvj]

That's why they have the draft.
If you won't work for low pay, they'll force you to work for low pay. And get shot and killed. Most Fortune 500 companies don't require that last little bit...

Re:That's why they have the draft

[Hognoxious]

Shhh! Don't give them ideas.

Re:That's why they have the draft

[Deadstick]

That's why they have the draft.

Congratulations on your successful thawing. When did they freeze you?

Re:That's why they have the draft

[pubwvj]

I take it you're not aware that the draft is still in the laws, although not currently used, and only a signature away. Don't get complacent jack(ass).

Re:That's why they have the draft

[Deadstick]

The Selective Service System is still in the law. A "draft" is not in effect, and it's not just a signature away: it's an act of Congress away, Jack. You can look these things up.

Ob: Animal House

[Hognoxious]

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Not in civvy street, anyway.

Re:Why do they need to be in the Military?

[SgtAaron]

Why can't they just be hired to do specific work like millions of other federal employees? This seems a bit stupid.

I can think of a couple of reasons, there may be more. A new army recruit is probably going to be payed less than a civilian government employee. Also, in the military, you can work 18+ hrs a day and there is no such thing as overtime. Civilians are also not subject to the uniform code of military justice, which means punishing bad guys--or, heh, good guys doing bad--is always made easier than dealing with messy civilian justice.

Does this imply ...

[CaptainDork]

... that DoD has determined that geeks are typically fat and stuff?

We would forgive you, Snowden ...

[CaptainDork]

... if you'd just bulk up a little.

Re:Why not train?

[SylvesterTheCat]

As a taxpayer, is that really how you want tax dollars spent?

Do you really want them to hire someone who does not meet the physical requirements to then pay them to get into the required level of physical fitness over enlisting / contracting (an enlistment is a contract) someone who does meet all the requirements?

Bringing the term, "friendly fire," ...

[CaptainDork]

... to a military computer near you.

Re:Capable people don't want to be involved.

[Skidborg]

The most violent on earth? By what metric?

Does the USN or USAF do this

[CQDX]

AFAIK they recruit excellent engineers that meet their fitness requirements so what is so different about the USA?

Really, anyone who isn't disciplined enough to stay somewhat fit, or to get fit enough for basic, really isn't military material IMHO. Physical discipline and mental discipline go hand-in-hand. Are cyber-warriors allowed to stuff their faces at the DEFAC? Will they be excused from all field exercises? Will never be deployed in country, attached to MI units?

Re:Does the USN or USAF do this

[Rich0]

AFAIK they recruit excellent engineers that meet their fitness requirements so what is so different about the USA?

Well, do you want the best, or do you merely want "excellent?" There can only be 10 top-10 anythings in the world, and maybe they aren't good at pushups?

I couldn't tell you what if any differences exist in the current physical standards between the branches of the US military.

Re:Does the USN or USAF do this

[Dahamma]

The enlisted aren't really "engineers" from an academic perspective, they are very specifically trained techs. The actual engineers (with a BS) would mostly be officers who went through ROTC or some such and so had to go through plenty of military and physical training in college already.

I agree that if you can't manage 30-ish push ups in 2 minutes you may want to consider another job - many (even technically minded) young people can already do that, and almost anyone in otherwise good health can get there with a couple months of fairly trivial exercising. Just seems like a pretty low bar to judge their commitment to wanting the job...

Re:Capable people don't want to be involved.

[ColdWetDog]

Son, we use American units here, none of this 'metric' bullshit.

Now, your question again?

Another Service?

[Jawnn]

I don't believe the mission nor the culture of a "cyber warrior" (yes, whatever the fuck that is) lends itself to the military. Sorry, no. Not even close. What makes those guys (and yes, it is mostly guys, by far) tick is utterly foreign to military culture. It's a bad fit.

Re:they will have problems on the tech side too

[ColdWetDog]

Nurse! Gramps isn't taking his meds again!

An unintended consequence of the war on some drugs

[Eunuchswear]

AKA the war on young black men.

Geeks..

[graphius]

So they are looking for pasty scrawny geeks to fly their drones? (My son's comment upon reading the headlines...)

Re:Geeks..

[Rich0]

So they are looking for pasty scrawny geeks to fly their drones?

Hardly. I believe that they require drone pilots to be qualified as ordinary aircraft pilots, and they make them wear flight suits while they're piloting drones.

Idiotic, but it is a culture thing. There is certainly an overlap of skills in piloting a drone and a manned aircraft, but there are lots of things exclusive to either. Maybe your next ace drone pilot is afraid of heights and you wash him out in training. :)

Re:Geeks..

[graphius]

Wow, Interesting. But wearing a flight suit? If I had not commented, I would mod you very informative...

Re:they will have problems on the tech side too

[Dahamma]

I think for this kind of role you want people who understand technology down to the metal. Transistors up.

Totally unnecessary. The best hackers are usually extreme specialists, not generalists, and often not college educated, so I bet very few of them could explain the difference between PNP and NPN. Intelligence, self-motivation, and reverse engineering are a lot more useful to hacking than electrical engineering.

Raising the standard isn't going to get the Army the best and brightest "cyber warriors" - they are going to have to raise the pay grade...

Otherwise, it's the tech equivalent of hiring Army Rangers who are too fat to do a single pushup.

That also raises the question - where the hell did that "100 push up, 100 sit up, 2 miles in 10 minutes" for Army Rangers quote come from? The minimum scores are about 1/2 that, and the recommended about 3/4 that. Hell, the Ranger recommended score (and the general Army PFT maximum score) is only 2 miles in 13:00 - I could do that easily in my early 20's (and was doing that since Jr High) and I didn't even particularly like running.

The existing regular Army minimums are actually (for men) 35 push ups, 47 sit ups (each in 2 minutes) and 16:36 for a 2 mile run. It *is* seriously pitiful that at least 1/2 of the kids graduating from high school can't achieve those...

http://www.military.com/milita...

Great news for Kim DotCom

[haruchai]

he can apply for amnesty, change his name to General Lardass and asked to be put in charge of Cyber Command.

Wrong solution

[Livius]

Why not simply order then to undergo physical training until they are no longer obese? Most of them would thank you for it.

(Yes, I know obesity is not that simple, but surely it could be one part of the solution.)

Re:Wrong solution

[Bite The Pillow]

Because people who do not qualify cannot be ordered. You have to lower the criteria, and accept the previously unacceptable, before you can order then to undergo physical training until they are no longer obese.

Criminal history was mentioned as part of this. You can't basic train someone's arrest for hacking or weed out of the record. So there goes your plan. Try again.

Re:Wrong solution

[Livius]

You could create some kind of conditional enlistment, it would be nearly the same thing.

Re:Hire civilians?

[Dahamma]

Then they might have to pay them a competitive civilian salary.

Re:Lowering the Bar

[Dahamma]

Have courses at West Point, the Air Force Academy, or whatever on compsci, programming, and make a course specifically on black hat hacking.

The military academies already have computer science (and most other engineering) degree programs. And I'd bet you anything they have courses in computer security of various forms.

Encourage CompSci majors to join ROTC, give out perks and automatically higher rank to CompSci majors

No need to - they go through ROTC and they will already join as a 2nd Lt. If they prove themselves, they will be promoted, that's how the whole thing works...

Re:Why do they need to be in the Military?

[k6mfw]

Why can't they just be hired to do specific work like millions of other federal employees? This seems a bit stupid.

in many ways it already is, i.e. contractor workforce. Much of Army jobs (mess hall, janitorial, guards, etc.) is contracted out. So much for standing guard duty at some gate that rarely has visitors, put on KP for next 30 days, cleaning floors with a tooth brush. that's why military budget is so huge and yet a very small percentage of all people have any involvement with military services (ask anyone what's the difference between a SSGT and a LTC? Googling is cheating).

Re:Hire civilians?

[AHuxley]

Re why not hire civilians for 'cyber warrior' positions?
With US mil staff they can be kept on base, called up, sent on any mission, given meds, kept in remote, hot or cold locations on low pay. Their base and social lives can be understood, controlled, legally shaped and corrected. Their internet use logged, the calls listened in on. No escape form any task over years after the skill set has been learned.
With civilians they have real rights, real lawyers, can sort of still say no to meds and remote locations for years, can report crimes, bosses who may or may not apply for a contract, may have limited digital only background clearances.
The mil ends up with someone who has the private sector skills and a computer has a trail of data that says they lived in the US, went to school in the US, has US parents and has no strange reading or web use habits.
In the past their schools, friends, family around the US would have been found, interviewed and life story fully investigated.
The US mil wants the kind of staff the NSA and GCHQ had in the 1950's. Any location, any task, no questions, no lawyers.

Re:Plenty of recruits out there

[AHuxley]

The NSA always looked after the wider educational needs of its staff due to hidden funding. The GCHQ had finally learned the reason why staff need to be taken care of with good conditions, more educational support and wages by the 1960-80's.
It really depends on how much the US gov wants to pay, the conditions offered in hot and cold parts of the world and the quality of long term higher education support offered to each person.
If not many other nations will be ready to listen, support and offer funding to any cleared US staff member who feels unhappy and needs a new friend.
Or just get their own people digitally cleared as new US cyberwarriors. Over many years a few will make it to the top of cyberwarrior command.

No, they're not looking...

[PrincipoAzzurro]

TL;DR: The Army gives zero consideration to a soldier's preference or educational background when assigning careers, even when highly-qualified soldiers are available. ********* From the Article: "We're looking for America's best and brightest just like any Fortune 500 company out there," said Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg, head of the Jacksonville-based 2nd Recruiting Brigade. "We're looking for those men and women who excel in science, technology, engineering and math." ****** Hmmm. I'm among the enlisted soldiers with a STEM degree from the civilian world (BS - Mechanical Engineering) and 4 years industry experience. I can say for a fact that I received zero incentive to join the military beyond that of a 18 year old high school grad with a 2.0 GPA (save an automatic promotion to E-4 grade which would normally happen in about a year or so after enlistment). Today, 2.5 years into my military career, I have had not one conversation about how my skills from the civilian world could be used to benefit the Army. There is about as much substance to Pigg's argument as there is to the STEM shortage myth in the civilian world. Lt. Col. Pigg presumably wants to use this as a reason to throw more money at the problem in the form of bonus pay and enlistment bonuses, or perhaps to relax the already generous minimum standards for physical fitness instead of utilizing the best and brightest within the ranks who perhaps would be more productive behind a computer than behind the steering wheel of a cargo truck. Another example: I speak Italian and German fluently, yet this is not at all taken into consideration when deciding which soldiers will be stationed in Germany or Italy. Neither is the soldier's preference considered. The Army has a long transition ahead to change an organization of interchangeable warm bodies into an organization of non-interchangeable professionals with dissimilar skill sets and career goals. Any kind of incentive to attract more outside talent would only be a small piece of the puzzle. NOTE: I'm in combat arms because I joined to blow stuff up and play in the mud. If I wanted to sit behind a computer, I could bring in a lot more $$$ and put up with a lot less s*** as a civilian.

different basic training already for doctors...

[erikscott]

Not that different from Doctors (MDs), actually. Their basic is two weeks. Makes sense when you figure their basic probably costs $2-3 per minute.

Army should be part of the solution

[iamacat]

Declare lack of academic and physical fitness of young people a national security problem on par with terrorism. Allocate trillions of budget accordingly to sponsor high quality educational and athletic programs to anyone willing to participate, including free healthy meals. A cost of enrolling all children in a state would be like half of a modern stealth plane.

Next, reach out to women, LGBT and other unrepresented demographics to consider enlisting. Experience instant boost in highly qualified recruits due to pent up demand just waiting for the right signal.

As a bonus, this approach will enormously boost the image and respect for US military both at home and abroad. Outcome of a war depends not only on strength of weapons, but also on how scared and traumatized majority of population in war zone perceives american soldiers. If you get outstanding people to enlist, the war will be won without firing many shots.

Re:Army should be part of the solution

[Animats]

Declare lack of academic and physical fitness of young people a national security problem on par with terrorism.

That was done in the 1950s and 1960s. I give you the Youth Fitness Song, sent to every school in America in 1960.

This.

[tlambert]

If they wanted to lose weight, they could have done so long ago.
You can filter out those that are unwilling, but then you risk potentially filtering out the best "cyber warriors".

This.

OCD people can generally accomplish anything they become obsessive about. They typically do not obsess about physical fitness, because it does not engage your brain.

Re:This.

[McCat]

What do you mean, "[physical fitness] does not engage your brain"?

Re:This.

[tlambert]

What do you mean, "[physical fitness] does not engage your brain"?

It's all muscle memory, once you have your routine down. It doesn't require thinking to accomplish. It's like the cross-country running I did in High School in order to get out of a PE credit so I could take the first CS class that was offered there. I did it because I had to, not because I wanted to.

If you're into the endorphins/runners high, great. If you're in a team sport that requires strategy and tactics, great. If you're sitting at a Nautilus machine going through a workout routine, you might as well get totally stoned first, because it's going to be your medulla doing all the thinking about moving your muscles; there's no higher brain function involved.

Some of us find it rather impossible to "just zone out".

Re:This.

[mr.mctibbs]

Many of us who exercise regularly don't do it for the runner's high, but because it can be meditative. Speaking as somebody with ADD, having even a small portion of my brain dedicated exclusively to one task gives me a kind of clarity I haven't found anywhere else.

Re:This.

[PPalmgren]

I'm gonna have to agree with what the GP posted since this line was quite succint:

Some of us find it rather impossible to "just zone out".

This is the problem I have with exercise. I agree that it can be meditative, but for me it rarely is and my brain already has to be mush from something else that day. I simply can't turn my mind off. It can make exercise unbearable, not for the phsyical reasons but for the mental reasons. Its very frustrating. I've tried listening to music, but my preferrerd choice of music typically has a high BPM and if I don't watch out, I tend to sync my breathing to the music and hyperventilate.

Also, I can feel my mental ability leaving me as I exercise and my blood flow gets diverted. Its a really creepy and unnerving feeling.

You're thinking about this wrong.

[tlambert]

It's almost that simple. If the caloric intake is limited and the P.T. requirements met, I guarantee *anyone* would slim up in time. In the army they can control what you eat just as much as how much P.T. you do, so the usual laundry list of excuses for obesity don't matter.

You're thinking about this wrong.

Cardio myopathy? Heart murmur? Arterial-venous malformation? Scoliosis? Spina bifida? Multiple Sclerosis? Myasthenia Gravis? Hypertension? Etc.?

There are many medical reasons for turning inward to concentrate on ones intellect which I will freaking guarantee that you will dedicate yourself to the task, and without the help of Jesus personally laying hands on you, will preclude you from becoming physically fit.

Way to address the 18% and not the 82%!

[tlambert]

Way to address the 18% and not the 82%!

Given that you're not OK with the 70% remaining people that are currently unqualified, that'll get you another 12.6% overall, instead of 57.4% overall. Way to go for the 22% solution to the 100% of the problem there! Let's see... that'll give you a "C+" grade, on the standard scale... way to overachieve!

Perhaps you need to hire some otherwise unqualified STEM people to do your math for you, before you start making policy decisions based on your back of the envelope calculations...

I applied, but...

[antdude]

... They didn't want people with disabilities back when I was younger and applying for IT jobs with them. :(

Re:I applied, but...

[Joe_Dragon]

also up or out rules and other BS makes it better to have this not part of the old system. Maybe tech / IT should be on it's own for all of the us gov IT needs.

Re:I applied, but...

[antdude]

Yep. FYI, it's = it (i/ha)s. ;)

2-mile run in under 10 minutes?

[PrincipoAzzurro]

No. 40-minute 5 mile is their standard. I've never met a soldier who can run that fast.

Its about more recruits being available for combat

[drnb]

... "Buy it for 250% the cost of doing it in house from the contractor with the most congressmen" compromise ...

While that is a factor it is exaggerated. The bigger factor, and the military's motivation, in turning to contractors is that fewer recruits have to be used for support and logistics, so more are available for combat specialties. We are seeing the exact same thing here. Highly technical roles filled by those physically unfit for combat, freeing up those recruits who are physically fit for combat specialties. In some ways it is a little bit parallel to the various WW2 Women's Auxiliaries for the various services. The idea at that time was to free a man from a desk job so he could go to the field.

Similar to WW2 Women's Auxiliaries ...

[drnb]

In some ways it is similar to the WW2 Women's Auxiliaries that the various services had. The idea back then was to free up a man from a "desk job" so he could be sent to "the front".

That said, if we need a cyber whatever it could be an entirely different branch of service. These specialists could be placed with the military as needed.

Speaking as a Soldier...

[McCat]

I can understand the logic behind this decision, but I don't think it is the best way to achieve what they want to accomplish. Cyber warfare is the next big up-and-coming thing. It is officially considered one of the "theaters of operation" for warfare now and it seems like every week we hear about some new virus, exploit, or hackers from China breaking into US businesses' networks. Because of this, it makes strategic sense to recruit "cyber warriors" if you will. What doesn't make sense is how it is necessary to loosen the already lax (IMHO) physical standards. I don't consider myself to be a paragon of physical athleticism, but I got a 295/300 on my last PT test. My MOS also requires that I spend almost all of my time sitting at a desk. Despite that, I still keep myself in good shape. Why? Because it's healthy. Because it's good for my body and for my brain. Because there is a certain pride associated with knowing that even though I am a "desk jockey" I can still run, ruck and keep up with the rest of the operational Army. And because if all I did was meet the minimum standard for height/weight and PT, I would quite honestly just be outright fat. Instead of lowering barriers to entry and decreasing the quality of our armed forces, incentivise people. Offer them enlistment bonuses or give them monthly MOS-specific pay for special skills. It will cost more, maybe. But what really has the higher cost: lazy soldiers or better-paid soldiers?

sounds like

[doug141]

it's time for a new branch of the military.

Re:sounds like

[dcw3]

it's time for a new branch of the military.

Maybe you mean a joint command? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Re:they will have problems on the tech side too

[drinkypoo]

The existing regular Army minimums are actually (for men) 35 push ups, 47 sit ups (each in 2 minutes) and 16:36 for a 2 mile run. It *is* seriously pitiful that at least 1/2 of the kids graduating from high school can't achieve those...

I have asthma, but I'm a pretty good simulator pilot. Check your assumptions before you say anything else seriously pitiful

Air Force is Kicking People Out

[loimprevisto]

The USAF is reducing their forces and kicking out thousands of communications maintenance troops with more than a decade of experience. They're so aggressive about drawing down that they are going after people with very minor 'quality of force indicators', including difficulty with PT tests. Some of these people had already completed the cyber curriculum or were looking to cross train into the new "cyber operations" career field.

The military will hire people with network exploitation skills as contractors or full time civilians, or they will recruit from their communications troops and through a bunch of money at them for additional training. Right now the individual services have some interesting doctrine being written, but there are very few discussions about their actual strategy for constructing military units in anything but the traditional way of military members sent to schoolhouses supplemented with commercial training.

The 'good idea faeries' at the DoD talk about recruiting experts who already do this stuff every day to keep US cyberwarfighting ahead of our enemies yet there hasn't been a single actionable plan to actually recruit these people as military members.

Sounds good to me

[amyckono]

Current field soldiers don't need to perform especially well on logic/intelligence tests, so why would a "cyber warrior" need to do especially well in demonstrating physical ability? Won't this make it so people with physical disabilities (amputees for instance) can help defend and maintain this country? I've always personally been interested in military service, but a congenital heart condition ruled that out. I had tested in the 99th percentile on the ASVAB (do they still use those these days?) and actually met with recruiters from the Marines and the Air Force. It was disappointing to find out that the heart problem we thought had resolved itself in early childhood was still present. I'm not at risk of dying, but it does affect physical performance with the lack of oxygenation holding me back. I wonder if someone like me can now join the Army and contribute despite being physically underwhelming.

Re:Sounds good to me

[BrokenSoldier]

Reminds me of the recruitment trip in "Starship Troopers". You may not qualify for much, but they will find SOMETHING for you to do to serve and eventually gain franchise, if you so desire.

Nothing changes except cost of recruit training

[drnb]

Because people who do not qualify cannot be ordered. You have to lower the criteria, and accept the previously unacceptable, before you can order then to undergo physical training until they are no longer obese.

Lowering the criteria to enter recruit training and maintaining the current criteria for completing recruit training would not change the capabilities of those entering the service. The only real change is higher costs for recruit training. The marginal would just spend more time in recruit training. In the past the services could reduce costs by weeding out the marginal rather than habilitating them. That strategy may not be their best option right now.

Re:Most countries invaded and/or bombed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the 11,000,000, I've seen numbers like that as well.
It's mostly nonsense. Things is how their logic goes:
The USA is responsible for all the dead in the Korean war because that was the USA's fault by being there was taunting the communists and caused them to invade the south.

The USA is responsible for all the people killed by the Khmer Rouge because by Cambodia being next door to Vietnam it was destabilized.

The USA is blamed for the India-Pakistan war and the separation of Bangladesh because guns were used or something like that. I honestly don't understand why USA gets blamed for a Hindu-Muslim war that had been going on since the 1200's in a British colony.

The USA is responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because Jimmy Carter willed it by tricking those ever-gullible Soviets. So, all the people killed by the Soviets are really the USA's fault. and the war-monger Jimmy Carter

The USA is responsible for everyone killed by South American governments because they're neighbors and wanted them to kill their own people in case they might be communists.

The USA is responsible for all the wars in Africa in the post WWII European de-colonialization era because. Well, once again I don't see why USA is blamed for Europeans actions in Africa.

However, there's still some big numbers accrued to the USA.
The Vietnam War numbers I can accept, because, well, if theyhad walked away it would have been over much sooner.
The first Desert Storm Iraq war? NO, Saddam gets those numbers, not the USA.
The second US Iraq invasion?- those numbers are indeed all on the USA's account.
Afghanistan? The Taliban and al Qaeda were poking a hornet's nest and got what they deserved. Still, goes to the USA's account

Weight issues.

[Chas]

If the military wasn't still using the idiotic BMI, they'd have almost NO weight issues.

But they've got a standard table of weight and height ratios, as well as tape lengths. This has been formulated against a prototypical 5'6" man with a mesomorphic body type. All they do is scale up and down. Unfortunately this makes several WRONG assumptions about the square/cube effect on human physiology, not to mention it assumes a universal sameness of lean muscle tissue versus skeletal type and other tissue mass.

Never mind that more than 2/3rds of people simply don't fit the body type standardized upon for the BMI calculations.

So you have guys with weightlifter physiques who are failing weigh ins and tape tests being assigned "remedial PT". Which only bulks them up MORE.
Conversely, you have guys with "matchstick" physiques who are actually OVERWEIGHT if they're at their BMI-mandated weight. So they're just being told to "bulk up". Regardless of the fact that they simply CANNOT put on that type of muscle mass, and that they're actually HEALTHIER at a lower weight.

Even now, 20 years later, this sort of thing still irritates the crap outta me.

Re:Weight issues.

[dcw3]

They've been aware of that issue since I was in back in the 70s. Don't know how it's handled these days, but back then, you'd just go to see the doctor, and get a waiver. It wasn't a big deal.

Re:2-mile run in under 10 minutes?

[Chas]

No. 40-minute 5 mile is their standard. I've never met a soldier who can run that fast.

Huh? That's 8 minutes a mile. The standard PT-test 2 mile run is around 16 minutes for someone in their late teens and early 20's.

As for 5 minute miles (2 miles in 10 minutes)? I've known a couple soldiers that could. But these were guys who were built for running, to the point they actually scored lower in the pushup and situp tests than average.

The fastest I EVER got was 2 miles in 13. Of course, I was over in Korea at the time and spent the next 20 minutes gacking crap up outta my lungs.

like Alan Turing?

[clovis]

They know there are people like Alan Turing and the men and women codebreakers that performed such a valuable service in WWII
I read that although Alan was rather athletic, his personality was quite shy and it was unlikely he would thrive as an infantryman.

From wikipedia and borrowed from other places,
"Winston Churchill said that Turing made the single biggest contribution to Allied victory in the war against Nazi Germany.Turing's pivotal role in cracking intercepted coded messages enabled the Allies to defeat the Nazis in several crucial battles. It has been estimated that Turing's work shortened the war in Europe by as many as two to four years."

Hopefully, this time around they will be treated better.
And hopefully they won't produce another Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

Re:That'll do

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant:

"That'll do, Lt. Col. Pigg. That'll do." -Brig. Gen. A. Hoggett

Might be Time to re-enlist

[thejuggler]

I am no longer the lean mean fighting machine of my youth, but I would still love to serve my county. I wonder if I could get back into the Navy now?

Re:Lowering the Bar

[Dahamma]

It's definitely true and public knowledge...

But you make a key point as far as salaries - I have never been in the military but I have been in the tech industry for 20 years and techies generally don't care about "rank" and hate hierarchy and bureaucracy, two particular specialties of the military. It's amazing how the US government is fine with paying $300 million for a fighter jet or $1.5M for a single cruise missile but they think paying $60k a year to a Captain with 5 years of experience is adequate to recruit smart engineers out of college...

Re:Lowering the Bar

[Dahamma]

Ok replying to myself... but maybe they should think of it this way. $1.5M for one cruise missile that probably takes out a building a a few terrorists. Well, cyber warfare doesn't work like that, you can't just blindly spend on a "hacking program" (despite the promise of Neuromancer ;) - the human is actually doing most of the work, so maybe they should be considered a valuable asset...

Re:they will have problems on the tech side too

[Dahamma]

And asthma is often a disqualification for military service. I have seen people have asthma attacks just sitting around, if by mentioning simulators are saying you should be piloting drones launching cruise missiles I'm not sure that's the best idea (especially since all of the drone pilots are also *real* trained military pilots).

But I guess I didn't put an important clarification in this post - I was clearer in another one when I said *with no other health issues*. And I only said "1/2 of the kids graduating from high school", so, big deal, you are one of the other 1/2, nothing personal implied, obviously.

Besides, do you *want* to join the Army and get paid $35k a year doing mostly more boring things that I assume you are getting paid multiples of that for more interesting work? (that's an assumption, again, that you are an intelligent technically minded person, apologies if that's not true). If not, then please stop pretending you are being discriminated against for something you have no interest in doing.

Army Irony?

[MickWilson7208]

Who says the US Army has no discernible sense of humor? The irony of having Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg quoted regarding the US Army's recruitment of fat hackers cannot be accidental.

Why does the US army have "cyperwarriors"?

[Karmashock]

I seriously don't even get the point of that. Wouldn't it make more sense to just patch the NSA into the operation? I mean... why does every branch have to half ass something another branch is better at? Every branch has to have its own soldiers, its own planes, its own boats, its own tanks. Totally unreasonable to just call the other branch in to cooperate... right?

I don't care if the army is having a hard time recruiting computer literate people. That's not their job. If you need to hack something, call the NSA. Enough of this stupidity.

Re:Why does the US army have "cyperwarriors"?

[dcw3]

You're almost right, but...

The United States Cyber Command is a joint (all armed forces) operation. One guess where it operates.

Re:they will have problems on the tech side too

[drinkypoo]

And asthma is often a disqualification for military service.

Sure, and it should be, if you're going to be anywhere near a warzone.

I have seen people have asthma attacks just sitting around,

Yeah, but I don't do that. I have activity-induced bronchial asthma. As long as I don't try to do anything too active or get involved with one of my major allergens then I'm fine.

(especially since all of the drone pilots are also *real* trained military pilots).

Yes, but it's the training that's relevant, not the ability to handle the physical aspect.

Besides, do you *want* to join the Army and get paid $35k a year doing mostly more boring things that I assume you are getting paid multiples of that for more interesting work?

No, and anyone who does is a murderer, by proxy at best. That's not the point.

If not, then please stop pretending you are being discriminated against for something you have no interest in doing.

I didn't suggest that I was being discriminated against, I suggested that it was discriminatory, and used myself as an example of someone who could perform useful duties.

Re:they will have problems on the tech side too

[Richard_at_work]

You are a great simulator pilot - its a pity that simulators dont give you the full experience, as you would soon realise that pilots have to be fit, fighter pilots more so than pilots of other types, and fighter pilots generally have to give up their profession around their mid-30s due to failing bodies (neck, arm and shoulder muscles and joints).

Piloting in the military is no push over.

Re:they will have problems on the tech side too

[drinkypoo]

You are a great simulator pilot - its a pity that simulators dont give you the full experience, as you would soon realise that pilots have to be fit, fighter pilots more so than pilots of other types, and fighter pilots generally have to give up their profession around their mid-30s due to failing bodies (neck, arm and shoulder muscles and joints).

Okay. Show me where I suggested that someone like me should be a fighter pilot.

Piloting in the military is no push over.

You forgot drones exist. Piloting a chair is a push over.

How could this go wrong?

[CFBMoo1]

Dork 1: LOL, I just invaded the Afghanistan instance! Look at em run! LOL!!111
Dork 2: OMG, I zoned in to the Russian instance! I'm so d3ad!!!1

Dork2 has died!
Russian dorks are invading Alaska!

Dork3: Guyz! WTH u m3ss w/teh Russians?!!1 OMG mah base!111LOL
Dork1: U got pwnd! LOL!!11

*Some generals face palm somewhere before the fan gets really dirty*

Re:Why not train?

[SylvesterTheCat]

You post has some good points and I thank you for posting it.

then if physical fitness needs to be fixed the taxpayers can fund it -- call it a perk of the job from a personal health perspective.

I think that I disagree with this part of your point. If they were capable of being fit to the level required for entry into the military service, they would probably have done it already. Really, the physical fitness level required for entry is NOT that high. Obviously, the original story says this is a problem.

My alternative is to take that money and invest it into a sharp junior NCO to make them into a warrent officer. I see a lot of the key cyber positions being intel and signal warrent officers. You get the benefit of a know quantity of a junior NCO, you are giving them a career track to grow into, and you get deployability inherent as a prior servicemember. The military also gets the inherent benefit of the warrent officer as a career professional who stays within their specialty as opposed to commissioned officers whose assignments go between one associated with their basic branch and "broadening" ones.

It is also important to understand why those physical any physical fitness standards exist. Yes, it is in large part to ensure the service member is capable of performing their job. Another reason is the ability to deploy world-wide. At any given time, a certain percentage of the armed forces is non-deployable for any number of reasons. The higher the percentage of non-deployable service members, the larger the required size of the standing force.

Deployable means being sent to places within a wide range of conditions, from the higher-echelon HQs and units (mostly above Division-level) that are within well-established fixed locations with permanent facilities at one end of the spectrum to the most austere environments at the other end and everything in between.

A counter argument then follows of "do they really need to be deployable?" Maybe, maybe not. If we want to deviate from a standard that applies to the bulk of the force, so be it. I am not necessarily opposed to that, I am pointing out that such a deviation should only be done after careful consideration for the second / third order effects.

To some extend, I do believe that there is some differences with how medical professionals are handled. I am referring to specialized medical professionals. They also have a whole separate accession process and perhaps that would be the appropriate model for the cyber field. As far as I know, the same physical and physical fitness requirements still apply to those medical specialties.

I hope this has been relatively coherent. Time for me to go to work... :)

If we all get fat there will be nobody to fight

[hexboris]

Gimme that bacon. For world peace!

Not everyone needs to be an athelete

[wcrowe]

I was in the Navy from the early 80's until the early 90's. When I joined, there seemed to be an understanding that most sailors were, basically, technicians, so once they passed a basic level of fitness, they merely were expected to do their jobs. Then, beginning about 1983 or so, there started to be this concept that everyone needed to get in better shape. Pretty understandable. But by the 90's, that had changed into, "everyone needs to be an athelete". Ridiculous. We need to recognize that the vast majority of the jobs in the military are support or tech roles that do not require excessive stamina or fitness. You cannot on the one hand say that everyone needs to be an athelete, and at the same time say, we're friendly to pregnant females.

Fat Geeks are already in the military

[docwatson223]

They call them 'The US Air Force!"

Re:Why not train?

[rjstanford]

Do you really want people so un-dedicated to working for their country that they can't be bothered to get in shape in order to do the job in front of them?

Especially when you're in an environment that places value on physical fitness, getting into reasonable shape is more a matter of discipline and habit than anything else. If someone's unwilling to make that "sacrifice," just like someone who doesn't want to cut their hair they probably don't belong in any unit depending on a certain esprit de corps to continue.

It's because of additional restrictions

[dlenmn]

From what I've read, that number is right, but it's because of additional restrictions. For example, there are restrictions on visible tattoos:

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...

IIRC, all people who need to take medication every day are also out. (I know that I'm out for medical reasons, even though I could handle those physical requirements.)

All the restrictions put together really limits the eligible pool.

Re:Why do they need to be in the Military?

[saneconservative]

I think the abbreviation for Staff Sergeant is SSG. And who really cares about short colonels?

Re:Why not train?

[Slider451]

Good post. Wish I had mod points.

Bottom line: If they don't maintain the same standards as regular soldiers they will not be seen as soldiers by the larger force.

Some occupations get no respect (on the hooah scale) regardless of their adherence to military standards. Musicians and cooks come to mind. Yet they are still seen as soldiers because they take the same APFT, fire at the same ranges, and compete for promotion the same way as everyone else.

Credibility is important in the military. If cyber warriors are really needed in uniform then they need to qualify to wear that uniform. Otherwise just make them DoD civilians or NSA techs.

Equal Opportunity!

[tmjva]

Why stop at criminal "background" ? They can use criminal "foreground"! They can recruit people CURRENTLY in prison. Additionally it solves any AWOL problem, as they can have 100% supervision, all the time (24/7)! They can also dispense with the expense of firearms training and having to pick up all that brass!

And what's with all this talk of putting people in positions of power? A cyber-private first-class is no position of power.

Re:Why not train?

[budgenator]

BCT is kinda like football 2-a-days, but lasting for 10 weeks, almost nobody is physically qualified for that. The enterence requirements are more about having a chance at passing BCT than being physically qualified. There was a rule on post where if you marched for 13 or more miles you didn't have to do Physical Training, we didn't do much PT.

Re:Why do they need to be in the Military?

[david_thornley]

In which case I doubt many competent people are going to enlist.

Re:they will have problems on the tech side too

[drinkypoo]

Flying a fighter jet is a VERY physical activity

And slashdotting is a very mental activity, which is why you should leave it to those people who are equipped with a brain

Re:they will have problems on the tech side too

[drinkypoo]

Be civil or be insulting, but don't be half-assed, man.

Like likes like.

Some people have the brains, some the body, unfortunately apparently you have neither.

Says the coward who can't read?