Mothers in Combat

[Tsyroc]

Can't the SGLI be bumped up to more than $200,000. I thought they gave you an option to increase it a certain amount. Granted you have to pay more each month but I didn't think it was that bad.

[Dargos]

Currently the SGLI is $250,000 coverage for the service member. A new program also offers a $100,000 coverage for spouses of service members.

Not bad for only paying around $20 bucks a month...at least I think its around that much. Need to dig up last months LES.

As to single mothers/fathers in the military. In a modern war against a modern adversary there is NO front line. No matter where you are you will be in danger. When women become pregnant in the US Army they can be seperated from the service if they wish to be. If they want out they can get out. Single fathers can also request to be seperated but it is not very commen.

The facts remain that the US military is a 100% voulenteer force. Militarys are there to fight wars/defend nation. A war zone can be a rather unhealthy place to be. So if the single mother/father don't like the pressure they should get out and not expect "special" treatment due their family circumstances.

[Dargos]

oh..and as to this little quote

Linda Chavez, who heads the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank, said the military should not equate fatherhood with motherhood.

``As tragic as the death of a father is in a young child's life, it simply can't compare to the loss of a mother,'' she wrote in a recent commentary.
Still, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America, another conservative group, said that with the victory in Iraq still in fresh in Americans' minds, it may be too soon for policy-makers to reopen the debate.

``It's an issue that will have to be handled very carefully,'' she said. ``I expect the Bush administration will address it, or else be in trouble with some very basic parts of their constituency.''

Typical line of the "WE WANT EQUALITY BUT ALSO TO BE TREATED DIFFERNTLY BECAUSE WE ARE WOMEN" bullshit. [/quote]

[StarshipTitanic]

That should probably be fixed.

Which part, the not letting single parents enlist, or the letting them stay?

I certainly don't think Single Parents (either gender) should be allowed to stay in Frontline positions. So if they become a single parent they should be given a rear echelon position (the easing on the time commitment and duties should give them more time with the kids as well).

What he said.

[Nova Andromeda]

There is'nt a fixed price for the death of a loved one, and while one million sounds good to me, 200 grand is also nothing to laugh at.

--I would use considerations such as how much money they would have made during the rest of their life if they were not killed plus a fixed emotional loss amount (probably not terribly high though). Even at $20k/year plus $100k for emotional loss that comes to around $900k. One could deduct the other benefits from this amount, but I bet the number would still be much higher than $200k. In addition, I don't like the idea of using insurance since it means that the idiots don't get compensated for the same sacrafice.

[Rob Wilson]

Considering how often the reserves have been activated in the last 10+ years I would think a lot more people would look more closely about being in the reserves.

That was Tsyroc, not me.

[Rob Wilson]

--The first thing that needs to happen is for military people to be properly compensated for the work they do. If they die in combat the rest of the nation should compensate their next of kin for the loss. If that happens then I see no problem putting the best people on the front line regardless of who they are.

This is not a case of compensation, it's a case of rthe children losing their only parent. Going off to live with Grnadparents or legal Guardians doesn't even come close to repairing the loss of the Mother/Father and Monetary compensation, though nice, means fuck all to the kids at that time.

Yes the Armed Forces are grossly underpaid and under compensated, we know that and still do our jobs. Take into consideration the sheer size of the Army (just excluding the other branches for this part), and then try and work out how much extra in taxes you'd have to pay to ensure they got a decent wage. Forget about Parliament (or Congress for our American cousins) not wasting money on other things, that'll never happen, so it's either a tax increase, or you get to choose which other Tax paid for services take a budget cut. And that's just for the Army, if you raised the Airforce and Navy up there too, the tax increase goes right on up with it.

Yes the MOD pays out a War Widows pension or a dependants pension, but it also comes out of Taxes, and so many service personnel take out supplimentary Insurance policies, on top of that we make contributions to the Royal British Legion - because although Civvies are always very vocal about wanting the services compensated for their losses on behalf of the nation, when you ask them to dig into thieir pockets to show it properly, they nearly all disappear, so it comes out of our pockets instead.

[Stormbringer]

With the exception of single parents, I say let 'em serve. If they signed up then I think they should have the right to serve. To hell with the cringing conservatives who want war to remain a macho, chest thumping endeavour. Losing a mother is a shame, but then again so is loosing a father. I don't think that should be a reason to keep them out of uniform or combat.

[Knife]

There is'nt a fixed price for the death of a loved one, and while one million sounds good to me, 200 grand is also nothing to laugh at.

i also agree 1 million sounds good, but have paying that for each and every soldier killed will forced the Pentagon and Congress to be evening more wary of casualties and gives even more reason for them to use robots exlusively instead of combat personnal.

I think I misspoke myself, I intended to imply that very point in my post but it seems that I failed.

I would not turn down the million, BUT 200 grand is nothing to laugh at either for most people in the military (or simular economic status)

[Nova Andromeda]

--The first thing that needs to happen is for military people to be properly compensated for the work they do. If they die in combat the rest of the nation should compensate their next of kin for the loss. If that happens then I see no problem putting the best people on the front line regardless of who they are.

This is not a case of compensation, it's a case of rthe children losing their only parent. Going off to live with Grnadparents or legal Guardians doesn't even come close to repairing the loss of the Mother/Father and Monetary compensation, though nice, means fuck all to the kids at that time.

Yes the Armed Forces are grossly underpaid and under compensated, we know that and still do our jobs. Take into consideration the sheer size of the Army (just excluding the other branches for this part), and then try and work out how much extra in taxes you'd have to pay to ensure they got a decent wage. Forget about Parliament (or Congress for our American cousins) not wasting money on other things, that'll never happen, so it's either a tax increase, or you get to choose which other Tax paid for services take a budget cut. And that's just for the Army, if you raised the Airforce and Navy up there too, the tax increase goes right on up with it.

Yes the MOD pays out a War Widows pension or a dependants pension, but it also comes out of Taxes, and so many service personnel take out supplimentary Insurance policies, on top of that we make contributions to the Royal British Legion - because although Civvies are always very vocal about wanting the services compensated for their losses on behalf of the nation, when you ask them to dig into thieir pockets to show it properly, they nearly all disappear, so it comes out of our pockets instead.

--It seems you agree then that military personel should be properly compensated. The fact that people don't want to pay for it is beside the point. War puts a terrible burden on a nation and it should be shared by that nation and not just the poor bastards fighting it. I would support the cost in taxs to accomplish fair compensation.

[Nova Andromeda]

There is'nt a fixed price for the death of a loved one, and while one million sounds good to me, 200 grand is also nothing to laugh at.

i also agree 1 million sounds good, but have paying that for each and every soldier killed will forced the Pentagon and Congress to be evening more wary of casualties and gives even more reason for them to use robots exlusively instead of combat personnal.

--I don't see a problem with using robots instead of real people if the robots can get the job done.

[Coyote]

I still wonder how come I don't see the so-called "feminists" marching on Washington and demanding the right to be placed on the Selective Service rolls....

[Sea Skimmer]

--I don't see a problem with using robots instead of real people if the robots can get the job done.

Nothing like a Tomahawk for securing a building. There are a great many things robots cannont do now and wont be able to for some time. FCS and other programs are getting rid of exposed scouts and such in favor of ground and air drones but thats about the limit.

[Rubberanvil]

I think I misspoke myself, I intended to imply that very point in my post but it seems that I failed.

I didn't mean to insult you, but just pointing out a problem to everyone. Sorry about that.

I would not turn down the million, BUT 200 grand is nothing to laugh at either for most people in the military (or simular economic status)

True

[Rubberanvil]

I don't see a problem with using robots instead of real people if the robots can get the job done.

It will force an arms race to either either build better robots, and gives far more incentive for the enemy to kill the operators via missile strikes or with conventional or special forces, and to destroyed and/or capturing the control centers especially if they're land based.

[Coyote]

All the more reason for submarine-based control centers.

[Rubberanvil]

All the more reason for submarine-based control centers.

Doesn't do jack for the rest of the logistics train which becomes even more of a target then the control centers.

[Coyote]

Or Orbital-based control centers.

Log chains have always been targets of prime opportunity; no change there. We need to train supply troops with mor ewarfighting, and provide vehicles that have a bit more survivability. Fiberglass and aluminum trucks won't cut it anymore...