My MOS has been declared politically incorrect

What are you talking about?

The Tu-160 (Blackjack) is already a nuclear capable cruise missile platform. And it is accepted as such in the US-USSR/Soviet arms treaties. However, they only have 16 of them left, so nobody worries to much about them anymore.

The Tu-22M (Backfire) is also a key part of the Russian nuclear defense system (it is similar to the US B-1 Lancer). They have around 100 in inventory, it is also designed and designated to carry Russian cruise missiles, both nuclear and conventional.

And yea, Russia has tactical nuclear bombs as well. They can mount them on most of their aircraft, just as we can mount them on most of ours. So what is the point exactly, other then paranoia and fear?

Fear My C-5 Galaxy, it can do far more damage then your petty Su-24.

 

Apologies in advance, as I'm jumping into the conversation without really knowing the context of why the C-5 is mentioned. So this comment may seem out of place.

The problem with the C-5 is that it has the highest operating cost of any US Air Force weapon system, with high maintenance demands as well as poor fuel economy. Making the situation even worse are the availability rates routinely hovering near 50%.

To add insult to injury, the Russians not only built a bigger plane (the AN-124), they sold it off at the end of the Cold War to semi-private operators, turning it into a commercial success whose customer list now includes…(drumroll) NATO.

Meanwhile, we, the US, still need long-range, heavy load airlift. The AN-124’s commercial success may get its production line restarted, but the C-5 has no such hope.

Boeing’s smaller C-17s cost more than $200 million per plane. That’s about the cost of a 747-8 freighter, for much higher availability rates than the C-5, and a longer lifespan.

Personally, I don't know why the Air Force doesn't start buying "off the shelf" 747-8 freighters to gradually replace the C-5. The 747-8 "Cargolux" is a high-capacity aircraft that offers the lowest operating cost and best economics of any freighter airplane on the market. Much of the maintenance duties can be outsourced to civilian companies saving even more money with fewer personnel.

 

I brought it up, because if I am going to worry about the Russians converting the 15 Naval versions of the Bear Bomber being turned back into launching cruise missiles, then they had better worry about us throwing ICBMs into our transport aircraft.

Yea, I am being silly, and throwing back a silly claim at another silly claim. But remember, my silly claim has more merit.

As far as I am aware, there is no treaty prohibiting the launch of ICBMs from cargo aircraft.
There are no treaties limiting the number of cargo aircraft we can have.

However, refurbishing the 15 Russian aircraft mentioned would violate US-Russian treaties, never a smart action.

But we can and have launched ICBMs from cargo aircraft.

[video=youtube;96A0wb1Ov9k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96A0wb1Ov9k[/video]

And you know how ticked off I get when people make really silly-stupid claims, without even bothering to do any research before they make them. I was wondering if Quester would even bother to research the missile capabilities of the C-5.

 

Got it, yes the C-5's cargo hold is certainly big enough to hold an ICBM. Sort of a mobile launch platform was the idea behind it. The missile weighs 86,000lbs and max payload is around 240,000lbs...so the weight wasn't an issue.

 

Exactly. And it rather pisses me off when somebody jumps into a debate, and is to lazy to do even basic research. They then just throw out random claims, not even knowing if what they are saying is real or not.

Dude, like the Backfire and Blackjack bombers are roughly the equivelent to the American B-1 bombers. And both are accepted in the treaties as Nuclear Bombers. They were built with the concept of launching cruise missiles, and nuclear cruise missiles from them.

So why even mention "be modified to do so", unless the poster had absolutely no idea what they were talking about?

 

How is it "politically correct" to change an inaccurate term to an accurate one?

Is a female soldier a "man"? No. So how is it sensible to call her one in the job description?

 

So now instead of calling myself a human, I should call myself a huperson?

I myself find it an incredible waste of time, resources, money, and common sense to be running around about such a nonsensical thing. I mean, seriously, should we now have individuals go through every military manual, looking for references to "unmanned", and converting them to "unpersoned"?

And god forbid, that Neil Armstrong said "man" and "mankind" when he stepped on the moon. Instead of "person" and "personkind". Because obviously he was a sexist who felt nothing for women and womenkind when he said those famous remarks.

Sorry, whenever I see something like "Is a female soldier a "man"?", I get this urge to start breaking things. Yes, a female soldier is a man. If the female is a Warrant Officer (or a Naval Officer), "Mister" would also be a 100% correct form of address.

Yep, that's right. In the Navy, "Mister" is genderless. And even such a pioneer as Gene Roddenberry knew this. A great many times in Star Trek you specifically hear female officers addressed as "Mister". Think I am kidding? Fast forward to 1:30:

[video=youtube;lKogc14hHtQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKogc14hHtQ[/video]

To me, the gender address is meaningless. When I address a bunch of soldiers, I may call them "men", I may call them "people". I may even address them as a bunch of waste of taxpayer money, depending on my mood. But I could not care less what their gender is, and if I address a bunch of them as "men" and there is a female in the bunch that takes offense, then she had better just grow up and put on her big girl panties. Because I could not care less.

 

No. Just like "woman" isn't a problem. The three-word string "man" isn't an issue in any sense. It's just when you use the word "man" to describe a job that is no longer performed solely by men. Is it a giant, huge priority to change it? No. Is there a reason NOT to change it to something more accurate? No.

*Shrug*. There are people for whom this is their job. The military is constantly editing and rewriting its publications. Updating terminology is a natural part of that, and not quite as significant an investment of resources as you seem to think.

I think the biggest problem is that many proposed alternatives are simply clunky on the ear. "unpersoned", for instance. But "unoccupied" or "unstaffed" or something like that is better. Important enough to try to *force* people to change the way they talk? No. But again, clearer, more accurate language is a fine thing. The change in terminology will be gradual. I bet that 40 years from now, everyone in the military will use words like "staffed" instead of "manned" without a second thought.

Effect on military readiness? Zero.

You are being hypersensitive. For one thing, he was speaking in the 1960s. For another, there aren't many people who are offended by "mankind".

That said, if he had said "humankind", it would have been just fine. And if he were landing today, that is probably what he would say.

*Shrug*. I was in the Army. I don't remember fetishizing male pronouns. Is that something that happens on long, lonely deployments on male-only ships?

And even Star Trek changed it's opening line between 1967 and TNG in the 1980s. It went from "where no man has gone before" to "where no one has gone before." Simple change, no big deal, still sounds fine.

Which is fine, and I agree. But that doesn't make it wrong for the people whose job it is to name MOS's, to change those titles and descriptions when the job or the people who perform it change.

 

The Russians claim that the San Box has a 2,000 lb. "semi armor piercing warhead." What does that mean ? Either something is armor piercing or not.

No cruise missile is armor piercing. No reason for them after the Iowa's were decommissioned. Today's warships no longer have armor protection.

Soviet/Russian naval tactics was believed to be that the ships would launch their missiles in salvos. There were naysayers but as we just recently saw in Syria that's what the Russians are capable of doing it and it's exactly what they did.

It's believed that the Russians tactics for attacking an American carrier and it's escorts would be that a Slava class cruiser would launch 1/2 of it's 16 San Box missiles, a 8 round salvo of Sand Box anti ship missiles. Four would target the carrier the other four targeting the escorts. All eight missiles are to hit their targets all at the same time.

But it's just not the Slava cruiser launching it's missiles but the cruisers destroyer and frigate escorts firing Ship Wreck anti-ships missiles and usually there's a submarine part of the group that is also launching it's anti ship missiles.

All of these missiles are suppose to hit their targets at the same time.

 

"The Marine Corps builds men" Remember that recruiting slogan ? illegal today, it's politically incorrect and if used, you will find yourself "standing before the man." Wait a minute, "standing before the man" aka office hours aka an Article 15 under the UCMJ is also politically incorrect.


"Sergent, how many man hours of maintenance does it take to keep this plane flying for every hour it's in the air ?"

"General, you said a bad word, you used the "M" word, that's politically incorrect and sexist. I'm going to report you to the diversity officer and she's going to call Valerie Jarrett who's going to tell Barack Obama to fire your obvious virgin ass and you are going to be purged from the military."

 

"Politically correct" has nothing to do with it. It's simply inaccurate.

I don't quite understand this insistence that we use an inaccurate term to describe the situation.

Or to put it another way: how about we just change all instances of "man" or "men" to "girl" or girls". After all, getting upset about such meaningless terminology would be P.C., right?

Or maybe "squirrels." Or "dancers."

That wouldn't make sense, you say? Well, Bingo! Just like it doesn't make any particular sense to use "man" for a job being done by both sexes.

Good Lord, for a bunch of supposedly hard-core vets, you guys are easily frightened.

 

And the Navy still has corpsmen, airmen, seamen, yeomen, hospitalmen, etc. I'm sure they're all on the chopping block, or in some form of planned revision.

 

All of this cultural-marxism PC crap began during the early 1970's. The first thing they (liberals) went after were manhole covers. Calling a manhole cover a manhole cover was politically incorrect.

 

Right now Obama's orders are that any job description title that has the word "man" that stands alone can no longer be used. But remember, this all began over fortyfive years ago with a manhole cover being called politically incorrect.

You can bet rifleman is next to become politically incorrect.

What should be the new PC term for a rifleman ? rifleperson, riflepeople, riflesoldier, riflemarine ? Those aren't even real words found in Webster's.

 

I notice you don't even address my point.

Can replacement terms be stupid and awkward? Sure. Just like anything. It doesn't mean trying to rename something is a bad idea. It just means there are good and bad ways to go about it.

That said, I suspect your story is apocryphal, or at least isolated. None of those terms ever made it into common usage.

For instance, the current term for "manhole cover" is ... wait for it ... "manhole cover." Largely because we haven't found a decent replacement term yet.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/washington-state-gets-rid-sexist-language-162549523.html

But if we can find a gender-neutral replacement that people will actually use, why not? There's nothing sacred about a word that uses male-only terms. Why NOT change it?

 

*Shrug.* Until rifles were invented, neither was "rifleman."

We were able to change "fireman" to "firefighter", "man-at-arms" to "soldier", "policeman" to "police officer" -- what's the big deal?

There are already plenty of examples of gender-neutral terms in the military. For instance, we don't say "machine-gun man", we say "machine-gunner." We don't say "sniperman." We say "sniper".

Perhaps we can do the same thing for "rifleman" -- make it "rifler" or something. Or just skip it all together (all soldiers are riflemen at base), and call them "infantry", or "ground-pounder" or "grunt" or "foot soldier." Or "musketeer". Or "gunner". Or even something cool like "legionary". Yeah!

Will there be some ill-considered attempts to foist awkward terms? Sure. But those attempts will fail. Eventually we'll hit on non-awkward alternatives that actually get adopted.

And then this non-issue will once again be a non-issue.

 

Gender-neutral body bags. gender-neutral pistols like the M-9 pea shooter that replaced the man stopper, the M-1911 A1. That's rights, todays individual weapons must be gender-neutral.

What's next, gender-neutral artillery rounds ?

Are you aware if the Iowa class battleships were still active in the fleet today, the Obama administration would have labeled the 16"50 guns as politically incorrect.

When a 16" projectile that weighs 2,750 lb. has to be moved from the magazine to the gun turret there's a phase where the 2,750 projectile has to be moved by hand. It usually takes two sailors to do it. You do it the same way you would move a 55 gal. barrel that weighs 380 lbs. slightly tipping the barrel on it's bottom edge and rotating it by using your hands.

Do you know what sailors fear most serving on a warship that has women serving aboard ? The ship being hit by enemy fire ot just a fire aboard the ship. Female sailors can't perform the damage control procedures that are required by every member of the ships crew.

 

Your first two paragraphs are incoherent fantasy, and nothing you wrote has anything to do with terminology.

You don't like women serving in front line positions; that much is clear.

I agree that if they can't do the work, they shouldn't be in the job.

But objecting to terms changing is just silly.

 

I remember when you had policemen and a policewomen. It wan't the police women back then who were demanding that they be called a police officer, it was PC liberals who demanded a change. It seems the multi-marxist have a problem with the word "man."

It's wasn't women who were serving in the military who were demanding that the word "man" be removed from MOS job titles but by those PC liberals who have never served.

I remember the good old days, back when America was great when you would board a Boeing 707 and it wasn't like a cattle car or treated like cattle and you had airline stewardesses. All were hot looking young women. When was the last time have you heard the term airline stewardess being used ? Today it's flight attendant because you have some fairies doing a woman's job and was offended being called a stewardess.

Soldiers,sailors, Marines and airmen have more important things to be dealing with than being used for liberal social engineering experimentations.

 

Very persuasive. :eye roll:

I honestly can't think of anything I need to say in response. Your post discredits itself.

 

How does someone qualify with firearms now? They can't achieve the level of marksman! haha

 

You never addressed a warrant as "Mister"? Strange, I have done it many times. Not sure of the exact year, but when I first joined it was highly common. And way back then, "Mister" was in all the manuals on how to address them.

I guess the Army felt like it needed to change, to be more "hip" and "modern". In the Naval Service (both Navy and Marine Corps), we put much more on tradition then in current fads. But yea, I have heard female Warrants addressed as "Mister" in the last several years, so even some in the Army still follow the old traditions.

Ultimately, it all boils down to one thing.

Does this make the military more effective in completing it's mission?

If the answer is no, it is a waste of time, resources, and a silly stupid feel-good change that actually accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Changing a word from man to person does not a damned thing to help the military accomplish it's mission.

Well, why not insist that all ships, boats, and other various military craft are no longer addressed in the feminine?

In all my years, I have never heard a male pronoun given to a ship, even if the ship has a "male name". One Marine I served with had previously been on the Abe Lincoln. Yet he would still say things like "She was the finest ship I ever served on".

Yea, let's now force such other changes, stomp out all forms of gender in the military. And at the same time, get rid of unisexual showers and bathrooms. And in order to be fair to all, why not give men the option to wear skits in dress uniform?

And gotta love how at the same time somebody is insisting it is a "non-issue", is insisting that these changes have to be made.

Then people wonder why I have little respect for far to many civilians. Who let their own bias and prejudices interfere with the military and how it accomplishes it's mission.

 

That deserves a separate thread. What in hell has happened to America's military marksmanship over the past twelve or so years ? It's gone into the crapper.

The Marine Corps can't figure it out. There rifle marksmanship training has worked for over 200 year turning out trhe best marksmen in the world.

The Corps and also the Army conducted a study and found that todays Marines are only able to hit a human size target at 500 meters 30% of the time. The Army was even worse at 20% of the time.

A rifle marksman should be able to hit a human target 50% of the time from 500 meters. A sharpshooter would do better while a rifle expert would hit the target 90% or 100% of the time.

A rifle or handgun effective range is determined at what distance can a basic marksman hit a human size target 50% of the time.

The 03-Springfield maximum effective range was 600 yards. The M-1 Garand and M-14 was 500 yarfds. The M-16 A1 was 400 meters. The M-16 A1 was 500 meters. The .45 ACP M-1011 A1 was 50 yards.

If only 30% of Marines and 20% of soldiers are only hitting the target at 500 meters 50% or better at a time, that would mean that the M-16 A2 maximum effective range isn't 500 meters but less.

Americans going back to colonial times have been known world wide as being marksmen.

Look at the battle at the Alamo. 1,800 Mexicans attacked 185 Americans. The Americans killed 600 Mexicans and wounded another 400.

The Marine Corps doesn't know what the problem is. They are using the same rifle marksmanship training that has been used for over 100 years and produced sharpshooter and rifle experts by the tens of thousands every year.

Some have suggested the changing demographics of the military today even though that wouldn't be politically correct to say that.

 

I was in during the late 80s and early 90s. I was a tanker, and I don't recall ever encountering a warrant in conversation. The few times I rode in a Blackhawk, I imagine the pilot was a warrant.

What I remember is that warrants were to be treated like officers, so you'd call them "sir." Except I was an LT, so I technically outranked them, and wouldn't do that. I've heard chief warrants referred to as "chief", but I doubt that's an official term. So maybe "mister" was the official title.

(Some Googling later):

Yep, seems like all three are acceptable. And just like "sir" was expanded to include "ma'am", "Mister" has expanded to include "Miss" or "Ms".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_officer_(United_States)#Ranks

Regardless of rank, Army warrant officers are officially addressed as Mister (Mrs., Miss, Ms.).[11] All warrant officers, WO1 through CW5 are addressed as "sir" or "ma'am." Unofficially, the informal title of "Chief" is often used as a familiar form of address.

You still have not addressed the main point here: how is moving from an inaccurate term to a more accurate term a "fad", or being "hip" and "modern"?

FFS, you guys are SO traditional, but the fact is that Navy terms change all the time. Do you still have powder monkeys? Loblolly boys? IBM operators?

There's nothing special about the male-centric terms for various jobs, and you have yet to show otherwise. You just act as if everything the Navy did yesterday it should still do tomorrow because "tradition". Tradition can be important, but you have yet to make a cogent argument for why gender-based terms should be considered a meaningful tradition -- indeed, you seem to be confusing "tradition" with "inertia." Inertia is a lousy argument in favor of a practice.

Insisting on calling a female warrant "mister" isn't honoring some meaningful tradition; it's just being wrong. And kind of a dick as well.

According to your logic, then, changing "loblolly boy" to "corpsman" should never have happened, because clearly changing that term didn't do a damned thing to help the military accomplish its mission.

Or changing the term "IBM operator" to "information systems technician."

Never mind that if it doesn't harm or hurt the accomplishment of the mission, then it's highly illogical for you to get as worked up about it as you are.

But you're also wrong. Constantly striving to make your terminology precise and accurate DOES help the military accomplish its mission, by reducing confusion, which kills. Which is why the military is CONSTANTLY changing terminology.

Um ... vehicles aren't people. It doesn't matter what gender you assign to them. Never mind that gendering ships is tradition, not policy. There is no Navy regulation I'm aware of that says ships have to be referred to as "she".

I referred to my tank as "she" sometimes. I imagine other tankers used different pronouns. None of it mattered.

I do, however, find it funny when a ship with a name like "Ronald Reagan" or "Eisenhower" is referred to as "she".

Depends on the Navy. The Russian Navy refers to their ships as "he".

But it doesn't matter, regardless. There is nothing wrong with assigning whatever gender you want to inanimate objects.

Stop being dramatic. Next you'll fall into a swoon on your fainting couch.

Nobody is "stomping out gender". For instance, "sir" or "ma'am" doesn't "stomp out gender". It simply provides an appropriate form of address for each gender.

That said, it's often a good idea to find a single, simple term for something, and eliminating gender distinctions helps with that. "Sniper" is a way better job description than deciding we should have "snipermen" and "sniperwomen."

So if you can do that without the alternative being hopelessly clunk, why wouldn't you?

You know what drives me nuts? People who call APCs "tanks". Because they're not. Different history, different purpose, different usage, different capabilities.

I don't think we should just call everything that has treads a "tank". Why? Because precision is important.

Why should gender-based terms be an exception to this effort to be precise?

See above. And watch out for that fainting couch.

*Shrug*. As I said, I don't think they're a giant priority. I think they can be made gradually. But more-precise language is almost always better than less-precise. So getting rid of antiquated gender-based terms should be part of the same process that gets rid of other antiquated terms that serve no useful purpose.

Um, WHO is letting their bias and prejudices interfere? You're throwing a (*)(*)(*)(*)-fit about some terms becoming more accurate, as if "rifleman" is some sort of sacred word with a long, meaningful tradition that helps bind the military together.

It's bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Just like "loblolly boy" changed to "corpsman", gender-based terms can change to terms that aren't gender-based. Nothing important will be lost, and something will be gained: terminology that more accurately reflects reality.

 

And you have continued to skirt around the simple fact. How does doing this make the military better able to accomplish it's mission?

"You guys"? Errr, I have never been in the Navy. And both when I was in PATRIOT, as well as now that I am in S-6 I have run across a lot of Warrants. And more then once heard female Warrants addressed as "Mister".

Yes, in the Army. In the 21st century.