This story appeared on BBC News and has spread through the web like a cold. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8655651.stm

Most of the responses are along the lines of, 'Every cloud has a silver lining', and 'Something positive about obesity.

I haven't found this on any US News sites, and wonder of any of our American members have read it.

But one point that seems to have not been mentioned so far is the audacity of these military types.

What they are saying, in effect, is that the US Federal government should intervien in the upbringing and care of US children to make them better warriors when they grow up.

The parralels with Nazi Germany are astonishing.

Is the direction of the US in any way as alarming to those in the US  as it is to the rest of the world?

That's interesting Spacial, I hadn't thought of that connotation. I read it along the lines of yet another obesity disaster that is hitting the USA, and other parts of the world.

I read it with pain; thinking that many of these kids are going to die at a very young age - but not from war

I now agree with your thoughts about the comment. However having a military weak USA is not a good thing in my opinion. Having one with Presidents that are worthy of the office is also a necessity.


Cindy

This article ran in the US a few weeks ago.  As astonishing as you may find it, school lunches were originally provided because the military said US children were too malnourished to serve in the military...  back in the 1940's.  This kind of thing is nothing new, sadly

The undertone I detected is slightly different.

It's more along the lines of "why is that it's taking for obesity to threaten our military readiness for our government to care about school lunches?

Quote from: Kieri on May 02, 2010, 08:51:39 AM
This article ran in the US a few weeks ago.  As astonishing as you may find it, school lunches were originally provided because the military said US children were too malnourished to serve in the military...  back in the 1940's.  This kind of thing is nothing new, sadly

Yeah, I read about this on CNN.com recently.

Well there was a weapon in WWII known as Big Boy. Made a mess when dropped in Japan. Could be a whole knew arse anal  sorry couldn't resist

Cindy

QuoteThere is already a sizable stack of research that examines the connections between physical characteristics and the labor market. Economists have found, for example, that every inch of additional height is associated with a nearly 2 percent increase in earnings; that employees rated beautiful tended to earn 5 percent more an hour than an average-looking person, while those rated as plain earned 9 percent less; that obesity can cause a drop in white women's earnings.

They want to bring the dratf back. People of the USA must fight back. Or do you want draft back?
What does Mr. Obama think?

"They" don't.  Instituting the draft is political suicide.

It ain't happening.  Period.

I think the trend is that children become obeser in rich countries whereas gaunter in poor countries. Going to the two extremes.

I am not quite sure about the potential enemies of the US, but if they would be some rich countries, then children there also become obeser, not so much threat by obseity to the U.S. If they would be other poor countries like North Korea, then still no serious problem as N Korean people suffer from malnutrition. Food supply is essentially the most important weapon during the war.

For asymmetric warfares such as terrorism, special elite forces consisting of well trained, and of course very slim soldiers would be more effective than regular large armies.

So, what is the problem?

Barbie~~

Quote from: barbie on May 12, 2010, 12:20:28 AM
I think the trend is that children become obeser in rich countries whereas gaunter in poor countries. Going to the two extremes.

That would make sense if there were a lot of very heavy children.

However, inspite of the apparent statistics, I don't think there are. Those numbers there are are exagerated.

I've seen a lot of heavy people in Africa.

Quote from: Kaelin on May 11, 2010, 11:58:14 PM
"They" don't.  Instituting the draft is political suicide.

It ain't happening.  Period.

They do not have too. All they will do is sell goods made in China and put everyone out of work and the Government will be the only game in town.

---

Post Merge: May 20, 2010, 02:43:28 PM

---

QuoteI think the trend is that children become obeser in rich countries whereas gaunter in poor countries. Going to the two extremes.

Have you looked at Haiti? Poor countries get all the corporate food that makes you unhealthy and fat.

Driving up unemployment also tends to make winning re-election difficult, and making the US insolvent is going to make it difficult to deliver on many campaign promises.  Even for politicians primarily concerned with their own self-interest, sabotaging the economy in order to expand a military by an indeterminate amount (and expanding that military will cost the government even more money that it will not have) is a rather poor strategy.

If the US really wants more fighters, it'll be more cost-effective to hire contractors (something the US has already done) than destroy jobs. 

If the US really wants more fighters, it'll be more cost-effective to hire contractors (something the US has already done) than destroy jobs

That and political types are held responsible for the deaths of soldiers, and those deaths are heroic/tragic.  The deaths of mercenaries has always been little more than a statistic.

I guess there will be no traditional wars like world war II or Korean war. I think the viet nam war was a kind of transition from symmetric to asymmetric moden warfares. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. needs a new type of soliders who can effectively engage in both regular and irregular battles. This is really a challenge to the U.S. Army, and certainly require a huge pool of youngsters with strong training and physique.

In this country, the government say that a North Korea torpedo sank down the naval battle ship. However, we can not strike North Korea, even technically we have > 10 times militar strength than N. Korea. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/21/south.korea.clinton.warship/

We know very well that, if a war once starts, both N. and S. Korea will go back to the stone age within a month, whoever wins. Only way of retaliation is an economic sanction or a same type of counter-attack (sinking down a bigger North Korean battleship would be fine, but N. Korea does not have such big ships).

Barbie~~

10 times militar strength than N. Korea.

Yeah, but the North has about 2 million men at arms who would be fanatical about dying for their 'dear leader' and it would be hard to stop that kind of force without major devastation.

There was an analysis in the newspaper here that dear leader was under threat from the military, and that the torpedo attack may have been more internal than external. Even though SK citizens were killed. I know NK is so secretive that it's difficult to have information.
Barbie, have you heard of that scenario?
BTW Hun you are looking great

Cindy

Sounds like a General hoping someone will listen to him if he makes enough noise. Given good enough recruits maybe he thinks that the standard can be lifted at least a bit, without having to have conscription.

Without wishing to sound chauvanistic, and coming from a family with several generations in the Army, the average American soldier is unfortunately very,very average. The USMC are more capable than the Army, but are still not as good as Americans seem to think.


Among America's allies the most effective troops man for man are the South Koreans, New Zealanders, Australians, and some of the elite German and British troops.  It's been that way since WW1.

We could nuke them from outer space though.  That's still scares people.

Quote from: tekla on May 21, 2010, 01:21:08 PM
Yeah, but the North has about 2 million men at arms who would be fanatical about dying for their 'dear leader' and it would be hard to stop that kind of force without major devastation.

Yes. But 2 million men per se is not a serious threat. On the other hand, N. Korea has a special force of 100 thousand men, which is indeed a threat, together with their atomic bombs. As their conventional artilleries alone are enough to annihilate a half of S. Korean population within 3 days, we do not think their atomic bombs target S. Korea. Their nuclear weapons, delivered by intercontinental ballistic missiles, certainly target Japan and the U.S.

If yesterday's statement alleged by our government is true, then it means that a dozen special unit soldiers in a cheap and small-size (140 tons) submarine equipped with one or two torpedoes (250 kg, about 1.2 million US dollar), escaped the modern monitoring and detection system to sink down the S. Korean 1,200 ton frigate. This is a typical asymmetric warfare. Allegedly, N. Korea can dispatch their special troops to every important cities in S. Korea, through light airplanes while avoiding the radar, and through underground tunnels which can not be detected.

Of course, to be a solider for special forces, physical fitness and strength is essential. How many young soldiers can the U.S. recruit for special forces? I mean N. Korea has 100,000 men from their 20 million population, which is the highest ratio in the world.

---

Post Merge: May 22, 2010, 02:14:50 PM

---

Quote from: CindyJames on May 22, 2010, 03:11:42 AM
There was an analysis in the newspaper here that dear leader was under threat from the military, and that the torpedo attack may have been more internal than external. Even though SK citizens were killed. I know NK is so secretive that it's difficult to have information.
Barbie, have you heard of that scenario?
BTW Hun you are looking great

Cindy

Yes. Anybody is alowed to say anything!

Yesterday's official statement made by our government regarding the cause of the ship sink is actually a most plausible one among the initial several scenarios I heard 2 months ago, just a day after the incident. All rumours and scenarios were produced and circulated within one or two days after the incident through the internet and cellular phone message. Those wild guesses were later proved true. For example, just one day after the incident, I heard that there was a joint military training between the U.S. and S. Korean navy when the incident happened, which I did not know or was not interested in, but it was later confirmed by the government and also by the media.

Those guesses are now produced and circulated by western media, too (e.g., NY times): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/asia/23korea.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Here nobody believes our government, except some types of imbeciles  .

Barbie~~