On 10/23/2017 2:47 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:13:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.


How would the Navy be if married sailors had to remain on shore duty? (Had that thought on the way
home from doctor.)



It was never that way in the Navy nor will it ever be. I was thinking
more of combat, "boots on the ground" types. The US Navy is the
strongest branch of the services in terms of total fire power but the
number of sailors actually on the ground in combat situations are few.
The Navy depends more on technology based systems nowadays.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/23/2017 2:47 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:13:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.


How would the Navy be if married sailors had to remain on shore duty? (Had that thought on the way
home from doctor.)



It was never that way in the Navy nor will it ever be. I was thinking
more of combat, "boots on the ground" types. The US Navy is the
strongest branch of the services in terms of total fire power but the
number of sailors actually on the ground in combat situations are few.
The Navy depends more on technology based systems nowadays.


When the Navy has "boots on the ground" they are either SEALs or on
liberty.
"Ships on the ground" is another whole thing ;-)
Captains tend to stay ashore after that.

That was always the conundrum. Would you rather crawl around in the
mud or be offshore in a ship. It sounds like an easy choice until you
think about drowning or being eaten by sharks.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 2:47 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:13:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.


How would the Navy be if married sailors had to remain on shore duty? (Had that thought on the way
home from doctor.)



It was never that way in the Navy nor will it ever be. I was thinking
more of combat, "boots on the ground" types. The US Navy is the
strongest branch of the services in terms of total fire power but the
number of sailors actually on the ground in combat situations are few.
The Navy depends more on technology based systems nowadays.


I know. But if we have one big enough to take out some ships, the question then applies. I think
we're in agreement it wouldn't work. The population of 'unmarried' is just too small.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:17:17 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/23/2017 2:47 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:13:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.


How would the Navy be if married sailors had to remain on shore duty? (Had that thought on the way
home from doctor.)



It was never that way in the Navy nor will it ever be. I was thinking
more of combat, "boots on the ground" types. The US Navy is the
strongest branch of the services in terms of total fire power but the
number of sailors actually on the ground in combat situations are few.
The Navy depends more on technology based systems nowadays.


When the Navy has "boots on the ground" they are either SEALs or on
liberty.
"Ships on the ground" is another whole thing ;-)
Captains tend to stay ashore after that.

That was always the conundrum. Would you rather crawl around in the
mud or be offshore in a ship. It sounds like an easy choice until you
think about drowning or being eaten by sharks.

Which, nowadays, is pretty rare. Sailing on ships, visiting foreign ports, great food, no forced
marches...all those things make the Navy sound much better than the Army.

Which is why Navy continues to beat Army in football.

On 10/24/2017 8:16 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 2:47 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:13:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.


How would the Navy be if married sailors had to remain on shore duty? (Had that thought on the way
home from doctor.)



It was never that way in the Navy nor will it ever be. I was thinking
more of combat, "boots on the ground" types. The US Navy is the
strongest branch of the services in terms of total fire power but the
number of sailors actually on the ground in combat situations are few.
The Navy depends more on technology based systems nowadays.


I know. But if we have one big enough to take out some ships, the question then applies. I think
we're in agreement it wouldn't work. The population of 'unmarried' is just too small.



Then again, many who are married might volunteer. :-)

On 10/24/2017 8:21 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:17:17 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/23/2017 2:47 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:13:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.


How would the Navy be if married sailors had to remain on shore duty? (Had that thought on the way
home from doctor.)



It was never that way in the Navy nor will it ever be. I was thinking
more of combat, "boots on the ground" types. The US Navy is the
strongest branch of the services in terms of total fire power but the
number of sailors actually on the ground in combat situations are few.
The Navy depends more on technology based systems nowadays.


When the Navy has "boots on the ground" they are either SEALs or on
liberty.
"Ships on the ground" is another whole thing ;-)
Captains tend to stay ashore after that.

That was always the conundrum. Would you rather crawl around in the
mud or be offshore in a ship. It sounds like an easy choice until you
think about drowning or being eaten by sharks.

Which, nowadays, is pretty rare. Sailing on ships, visiting foreign ports, great food, no forced
marches...all those things make the Navy sound much better than the Army.

Which is why Navy continues to beat Army in football.



Some may disagree about the "great food", at least aboard the smaller
Navy ships.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:27:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/24/2017 8:21 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:17:17 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/23/2017 2:47 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:13:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.


How would the Navy be if married sailors had to remain on shore duty? (Had that thought on the way
home from doctor.)



It was never that way in the Navy nor will it ever be. I was thinking
more of combat, "boots on the ground" types. The US Navy is the
strongest branch of the services in terms of total fire power but the
number of sailors actually on the ground in combat situations are few.
The Navy depends more on technology based systems nowadays.


When the Navy has "boots on the ground" they are either SEALs or on
liberty.
"Ships on the ground" is another whole thing ;-)
Captains tend to stay ashore after that.

That was always the conundrum. Would you rather crawl around in the
mud or be offshore in a ship. It sounds like an easy choice until you
think about drowning or being eaten by sharks.

Which, nowadays, is pretty rare. Sailing on ships, visiting foreign ports, great food, no forced
marches...all those things make the Navy sound much better than the Army.

Which is why Navy continues to beat Army in football.



Some may disagree about the "great food", at least aboard the smaller
Navy ships.


Probably true, but small ships are not what's portrayed. Besides, it wouldn't take much to beat
MRE's.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:25:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/24/2017 8:16 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:37:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 2:47 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:13:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/23/2017 9:55 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:05:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


I am not sure how I feel about my own thoughts on this, but here goes:

After reading about military members ... especially special forces types
... who were killed in combat leaving a wife and kids behind I was
thinking that considering that we have an all volunteer force,
consideration should be given to banning married with children types
from serving in a war zone or area known to have terrorist activities.

Their wives need them to help raise the kids they have. When they are
killed, that responsibility goes to others, or perhaps not to anyone at
all. One recently deceased soldier left behind a wife and 5 kids.

We have plenty of unmarried, gung-ho types who can serve in those
critical areas.

Also. The loss of a father or husband is atrocious, and I'm not attempting to demean it. This is for
information:

The surviving spouse and children are not left with nothing. The following are some of the benefits
given:

$100,000 death gratuity
$1257.95/month Dependancy and Indemnity Compensation - plus $311.64 for each child 18
$270/month Two year transition benefit
$1041/month education expense for spouse and each child (up to 45 months)
Tricare medical care for life unless remarried, and for children to age 21
Basic Allowance for Housing for one year - $2,691/mo for the wife of an E-7 with child(ren)
Survivors Pension - varies dependant on income and children (this looks like the rates were
established during World War One.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/sur...pension.html#2

When my SIL went to Iraq and then to Afghanistan, I gave them a gift of a $800,000 term life
insurance policy with daughter as beneficiary. Yeah, sounds cold, but they both understood and
appreciated it.

But, with five fatherless kids, life's a bitch. Hope she's got a lot of family support in addition
to the above.


It's good those left behind are well taken care of. It was just a
thought. I am old school, I guess. Still have a tough time with women
in combat also.


How would the Navy be if married sailors had to remain on shore duty? (Had that thought on the way
home from doctor.)



It was never that way in the Navy nor will it ever be. I was thinking
more of combat, "boots on the ground" types. The US Navy is the
strongest branch of the services in terms of total fire power but the
number of sailors actually on the ground in combat situations are few.
The Navy depends more on technology based systems nowadays.


I know. But if we have one big enough to take out some ships, the question then applies. I think
we're in agreement it wouldn't work. The population of 'unmarried' is just too small.



Then again, many who are married might volunteer. :-)


All Special Forces dudes are volunteers!

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:27:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/24/2017 8:21 AM, John H wrote:

That was always the conundrum. Would you rather crawl around in the
mud or be offshore in a ship. It sounds like an easy choice until you
think about drowning or being eaten by sharks.

Which, nowadays, is pretty rare. Sailing on ships, visiting foreign ports, great food, no forced
marches...all those things make the Navy sound much better than the Army.

Which is why Navy continues to beat Army in football.



Some may disagree about the "great food", at least aboard the smaller
Navy ships.

I was OK with the food on the CG ships which tended to be the smallest
WWII surplus vessels. (AVPs mostly)
I suppose it is all in how they present it and how discriminating your
palate is. We were at sea for well over a month at a time, never
seeing land. It seemed like real food to me although I can't say I
remember a single dish. We did have real eggs tho.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:39:48 -0400, John H
wrote:

Then again, many who are married might volunteer. :-)


All Special Forces dudes are volunteers!

These days they are all volunteers but back in the day, you were
drafted into the Army and then you volunteered for special forces, if
they would take you.

My buddy joined the Marines but he still had to bust his ass to be
accepted into the Recon program. The other Marines I knew were just
regular grunts.