Yes, that is very true. The USMC is the closest we have ever had to what you are proposing.

I think that merely changing the organization for service-oriented (i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) to one service with "specialty branches" (or whatever you want to call them) would not change anything. Sure, it may offer some small amount of consolidation, but that is what DoD was created to do. (Yeah, I know... obvious jokes will follow). Seriously, though, as long as the combined size is about the same and the respective size of the service branches (or "specialty branches") stays the same, all you will have done is to (slightly) rearrange the deck chairs.

On a positive note, having been in the Army National Guard for over 25 years (including overseas deployments), I have worked with both the Navy and the Air Force. I cannot speak specifically to the "historical antagonism" the gf mentioned, but I can say that overall, everybody I worked with generally wanted to do a good job without deference to service branch. That especially includes a USAF NCO who I knew for a short period of time and was killed by the enemy.

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

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... :)

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

Please explain.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Do you really think they see that as a problem?

I had the PRK as well. I don't remember the "band-aid" contact, but that was almost 20 years ago. I do remember the different eye drops and how I would set my watch to multiple alarms through the day so that I would remember to use them. I was warned that the most common cause of post-op complications was failure to use the drops, so I took that seriously. I had no serious complications, other than halo effect at night, but that diminished over time.

I do remember two things when they did the procedure. The first was the strong hands on either side of my head that prevented from moving and the smell. It took me a moment to realize that was my eyeball tissue being vaporized.

I had my eye surgery done around 1996. Initially, I did have significant halo / diffraction spikes at night, but those diminished over time. I would guess that within 6 months to a year, they were pretty much gone. It may have been shorter than that, though. My memory is kind of fuzzy. (Yes, that was a pun.)

Seriously, I have no regrets about having it done.

I was warned of the same thing. Now, almost 20 years later, I am noticing a little deterioration in my distance sight. I first started noticing that I was unable to read street signs at a distance that others in the car could read.

I am thinking about looking into having it done again. I am now in my late 40s and if I can get similar results would consider it money well spent.

Replying to undo moderation error.

No. You are flat-out wrong.
As a Title 32 Soldier, I do not answer to the Title 10 US Army, period.
By default, I am under the authority of the Govenor, period.

No. Until I am placed under Title 10 orders, I am not a "federal troop." If I am placed on Title 10 orders, then yes, things do change. One of those things is that Posse Comitatus then applies, as funwithBSD points out.

That would certainly be true when cost is compared to the original cost of the petroleum used to produce the plastic. Depending on the current price of oil, it may or may not be true now and in the future.

My best friend had a E85 pickup and he experimented with E85 and non-ethanol gasoline. He found that E85 was cheaper by the gallon and more expensive by the mile, at least according to the fuel prices at that time.

Sure. That -would- be neat, but then you couldn't buy shirts off the rack anymore.

Yes. Also UAVs / UASs are not limited to only military applications and even within military applications only a few are weaponized. They just happen to get most of the media attention.