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.
How hard is it for a twenty something year old to get into basic fitness? Perhaps if there is a good candidate but would otherwise fall out because of fitness, work with them in 'pre basic' to get up to speed. It needn't be punative - might be the best thing that happened to them. For really handicapped people (say someone with paralysis), perhaps a medical waiver.
But to have a whole group of 'different' Army folks - not such a good idea.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
They can be under much tighter control while in uniform. For example civilian is allowed to say 'no' without legal problems.
Bear in mind this is already done for medical recruits. You don't seriously think they make neurosurgeons undergo the rigors of basic training do you? When last I heard MD recruits had a 3 week familiarization course on military customs and courtesy.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
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?
Why not just have the white/black hats be a separate division completely, as opposed to attached to the AF, Army, or whatnot?
First of all, there is a loss of esprit de corps if the white/black hats are brought in and given rank without seeing boot camp. Pretty much similar to the same contempt that enlisted people have about a butter bar.
Sure. Instead of calling them SEALs we can call the WHALES (White Hat and Leviathan Exploit Syndicate). They can have their own Fedora and everything.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The USA was pretty uncivilized toward Japan as well.
Please put down the crack pipe.
Of the 19,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only 216 were taken prisoner. The official line was "hey, they all committed suicide", but if you talk to the people that were there, they will tell you that is not true. We regularly shot Japanese soldiers attempting to surrender.
Yes, we did shoot a lot of them pretending to surrender. Way too many times prior, starting on Guadalcanal and moving on to Tarawa, Japanese soldiers would pretend to surrender, waiving the white flag, then when they got close they would pull the pin on a grenade and take an American soldier with him.
When things like that happen as often as not, it becomes very hard to take prisoners. In addition, Japanese soldiers would often, once they had run out of ammo, put on their bayonets and charge into the US line, directly into machine gun fire.
Off Okinawa, 32 warships were lost to Kamikaze pilots and many more were damaged. About 5,000 US sailors lost their lives at sea from suicide pilots in 92 days of fighting off Okinawa.
The intentional white phosphorus firebombing of Japanese civilians wasn't so civilized either.
It was an effort to end the war, other options were not working. In truth, the idea was sound but for some reason, people don't respond to 200,000 people being killed over 2 days via 1,000 bombers dropping a million tons of bombs, yet they DO respond to 200,000 people being killed in 5 minutes via 2 bombers and 2 bombs.
Don't ask me why, but it seems to make a difference.
---
Oh, and lest you think that we started all of it, keep in mind that Japan started that war and they considered surrender dishonorable. If you don't know that, then you don't understand the war and really shouldn't comment on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...