Slashdot Mirror
US Army Could Waive Combat Training For Hackers
An anonymous reader sends word that the U.S. Army may adjust some of its training practices and rules in order to attract the best "cyber warriors" available. "New U.S. Army cyber warriors could be spared the rigors of combat training to help the Pentagon attract badly needed recruits from the ponytail wearing Google generation, a top American general has suggested. Lt Gen Brown, commander of the US Army Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, said: 'We need to give serious consideration to how the US Army could combine the technical expertise of the "Google" generation with its more traditional military skills. In order to gain an intellectual advantage over adversaries in cyberspace, we will need to tap into a talent pool that may not fit the stereotypical soldier profile. Our goal is to recruit the best talent possible.'" This is not the first time there has been talk about loosening requirements to fill these roles.
They can be under much tighter control while in uniform. For example civilian is allowed to say 'no' without legal problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_(US_civil_service_pay_scale)
100% agreement.
If they are NOT going to be deployed then hire them as GS whatever.
If they ARE going to be deployed to a situation where they can be shot then they need combat training.
Will they also let the "ponytail wearing Google generation" wear their ponytails? How about their bespoke frontiersman beards?
The Army is already a 2nd tier service with lower standards. Short of creating an entirely new branch of the service, they aren't going to get away from the fact that they are the Army and get whatever cultural baggage comes along with that.
Watering down bootcamp is really not going to address the real problem.
They spun off the Air Corps and there wasn't nearly as much of a culture gap going on there.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You say that indifferent to the fact that the CIA does such things without being under military rules at all.
And you say such things despite the NSA hacking away at things without being under military rules. A member of the NSA can quit at any time. Just resign and go home.
Same is true of all the military contractors that design and build the fighter planes, the submarines, the missiles, etc.
Just because you work for pay does not mean you are without honor or that it is unethical to do the work.
The men that built the atomic bomb were not members of the military.
You perhaps do not know your military history... please take no offense... do you know that mercenary armies used to be the most common means of waging war? You had your police force which was paid by the state and you had a royal guard of sorts which was very much like the modern military. However, the actual armies were considered too expensive to maintain in those days so instead of maintaining an army, you would rent one.
This had pros and cons. They were very cheap over time. Even though during war they were quite expensive, during times of peace they cost nothing at all.
The disadvantage of a mercenary army was that they lacked loyalty and a willingness to die for their client. If they were routed they would run away.
Professional armies owned by the host nation would win in most cases against a mercenary army because the mercenary army would break and run.
What further ended such armies was that professional armies could be much larger. Mercenary armies could fight little wars. They might have a few thousand men in them but they rarely got any larger then that. While as you know, professional armies can number in the hundreds of thousands.
This hacking issue however brings the whole thing full circle. There is no question of a hacker running away because he fears for his life in a hack. There is no question of the money really. And the free hackers tend to be a great deal more competent then those under conscription.
As such, a flexible mind will see that hiring them as mercenaries actually makes perfect sense.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This is part of it (you give up a *lot* of constitutional protections while in uniform), but there is another, far more important reason: Every member of a given military branch is fully expected to be capable of fighting. The Marines have a saying "Every Marine is a rifleman", and it holds true for every branch (even as a USAF electronics/avionics technician, I was still trained to use, strip, assemble and clean an M-16, and I had to maintain a minimum proficiency of marksmanship with it.)
This has its roots in one aspect of combat - a salient of enemy soldiers breaking through the front. Even as late as the Battle of The Bulge (WWII), rear-echelon troops such as cooks and mechanics had to quickly stop what they were doing and start shooting back. Most of them sucked at it, but without the combat training they did get? They would have been even easier pickings, and likely would have allowed Germany to prolong the war for years longer than it had lasted.
I see no problems with requiring a basic level of combat ability and readiness. It instills a sense of physical fitness, a level of discipline (a slob generally cannot run 5 miles, aim a weapon worth a damn, etc), and gives them at least some modicum of stature with their fellow soldiers (who would otherwise consider them to be far, far worse than a POG. We give each other crap as it is, but at least everyone knows that everyone else had at least some level of martial training.)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
That's the funny part - you never know where you're going to wind up.
I originally figured that as a flightline grunt in the Air Force, I'd never, ever have to see a combat zone. Then this happened, they send a few of us and our jets to Howard AFB, and that's where a young kid with a uniform and a multimeter discovered that Panama is a really, really tiny country.
While the operation was short and sweet, the odds of sent to some war zone isn't as remote as it seems. With respect to OP, consider that satellites have built-in lag, and that undersea cables can easily be cut. Suddenly, your hacker corps has to go to where they can get a network connection...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I don't think women should have to meet the same standards as men due to some crazy lack of faith in science...
I believe they should have to do it because the gear that has to be carried doesn't know or care that it is a woman that is hauling it...
A M-16 is the same size and weight for a woman as it is for a man. 300 rounds of NATO 556 is the same size and weight for a woman as it is for a man.
The distance between point A and point B is the same, etc...
So the quals should be the same. I have no problem with a woman doing ANY job in the military, so long as they meet the standard, whatever it is, for men.
I have no doubt there are many women out there who could kick my butt, that's fine, let them try out for any MOS. If they make it, more power to them.