[extropy-chat] Re: Army re-enlistment ahead of schedule

[David Lubkin]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>     •The Navy will meet its marker of 39,700 enlisted recruits, as it
>has for every year in recent memory, except 1998. The branch might miss
>the goal for 11,000 new naval reservists, partly because active duty
>retention rates are so high the pool of available recruits is shrinking
>for certain skills.

One data point -- my sister just chose to leave the Navy. She is an 
Annapolis grad, trained on nuclear reactors, who has served on an Aegis 
cruiser and two aircraft carriers. I was surprised the Navy let her go, 
especially since she recently got her master's, paid by the Navy. (Usually 
paid degrees require an additional service commitment.) She told me that, 
to the contrary, the Navy encouraged her to leave.

I assume it's an issue of adjusting the active duty skill mix. And perhaps 
they want her skills in the reserves.

I hadn't heard about the Blue to Green program. It will be interesting to 
see how well it works out. Reminds me of Starship Troopers, Chapter 13 --

>A man can't buck for Sky Marshal unless he has commanded both a regiment 
>and a capital ship -- go through M. I. and take his lumps and then become 
>a Naval officer (I think little Birdie had that in mind), or first become 
>an astrogator-pilot and follow it with Camp Currie, etc.
>
>I'll listen respectfully to any man who has done both.

I wonder how that would work in practice. The Goldwater-Nichols requirement 
of joint operations duty is a step towards this, but doesn't ensure that 
the officer has all the skills expected of officers from other services.

We do have people talented and motivated enough for multiple bootcamps, 
e.g., M.D./J.D.'s, Navy Seals, astronaut after becoming doctor or test 
pilot, etc.


-- David Lubkin.