Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.

Married military with kids ..
 

On 10/23/17 3:16 AM, 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.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.



I think we should take old farts like you, Luddite, Herring, et al,
uniform you up and send you to Niger or wherever. Your lives are pretty
much over, age-wise, and no one depends on you.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.


No.

- It would be unfair to the single soldiers. (Would probably increase the number of marriages
though!)

- Over 50% of Army soldiers are married, and just under 50% have children.

- The higher the rank, the more married. E1-E4 - 35.6%, E7-E9 - 82.8%

- Enlisted leadership of soldiers in combat cannot be demanded only of the 17.2% single NCOs.

I'm in a rush or I'd go on.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:46:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/23/17 3:16 AM, 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.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.



I think we should take old farts like you, Luddite, Herring, et al,
uniform you up and send you to Niger or wherever. Your lives are pretty
much over, age-wise, and no one depends on you.

It is a better idea to just ask why the **** are we in Niger in the
first place and come home.
Virtually all of the terrorism here can be traced back to military
misadventures in 3d world **** holes where we really had no compelling
national interest.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.)

Married military with kids ..
 

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:49:28 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:46:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/23/17 3:16 AM, 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.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.



I think we should take old farts like you, Luddite, Herring, et al,
uniform you up and send you to Niger or wherever. Your lives are pretty
much over, age-wise, and no one depends on you.

It is a better idea to just ask why the **** are we in Niger in the
first place and come home.
Virtually all of the terrorism here can be traced back to military
misadventures in 3d world **** holes where we really had no compelling
national interest.

Why grace his stupid f'ing comment with a response?

As to third world ********s, should we just let China have all of Africa?

Married military with kids ..
 

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:50:33 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:49:28 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:46:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/23/17 3:16 AM, 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.

Military folks would point out operational experience is the key to
advancement, particularly the officers. I agree that these things are
really better done by single guys but that is not who is in the
military these days.



I think we should take old farts like you, Luddite, Herring, et al,
uniform you up and send you to Niger or wherever. Your lives are pretty
much over, age-wise, and no one depends on you.

It is a better idea to just ask why the **** are we in Niger in the
first place and come home.
Virtually all of the terrorism here can be traced back to military
misadventures in 3d world **** holes where we really had no compelling
national interest.

Why grace his stupid f'ing comment with a response?

As to third world ********s, should we just let China have all of Africa?

I would not be all that upset with it. Let them deal with those
terrorists and military dictators. They know how and do not worry
about whether they are nice enough about it.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

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. :-)

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

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!

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

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.

Married military with kids ..
 

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:36:16 -0400, wrote:

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.

Special Forces volunteer more than once!

Married military with kids ..
 

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:53:20 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:36:16 -0400, wrote:

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.

Special Forces volunteer more than once!

Yup, In special ops training you really volunteer every day because if
you have had enough, they send you back to a regular unit, with a
little stink on you. At least that is the way it is in Marine Recon.
(SEALs too).
The Green Baret I knew was one of those volunteer all the way guys
too. He signed up with that in mind, very early in the program.
He never really talked about it that much other than to say the
training was intense. (more than just running, jumping out of planes,
swimming and learning how to kill people).
In Recon, that is pretty much what it was. The Recon guys said they
were not nation building, they are killing people and blowing **** up.
My Recon buddy was in the grass just about every day of his tour doing
things he never wanted to talk about. He had PTSD before they admitted
it was a thing and I don't think the VA did much for him. Seven years
in the Maryland penal system did not help much either.

Married military with kids ..
 

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:51:17 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:53:20 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:36:16 -0400, wrote:

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.

Special Forces volunteer more than once!

Yup, In special ops training you really volunteer every day because if
you have had enough, they send you back to a regular unit, with a
little stink on you. At least that is the way it is in Marine Recon.
(SEALs too).
The Green Baret I knew was one of those volunteer all the way guys
too. He signed up with that in mind, very early in the program.
He never really talked about it that much other than to say the
training was intense. (more than just running, jumping out of planes,
swimming and learning how to kill people).
In Recon, that is pretty much what it was. The Recon guys said they
were not nation building, they are killing people and blowing **** up.
My Recon buddy was in the grass just about every day of his tour doing
things he never wanted to talk about. He had PTSD before they admitted
it was a thing and I don't think the VA did much for him. Seven years
in the Maryland penal system did not help much either.

I knew only one SF guy, my brother. He spent three tours in Vietnam, then the policy came out
reducing the maximum number of tours to two. He was then reassigned to Okinawa, from where he would
go temporary duty (TDY) to Vietnam for 90 days, back for 14, then back for 90. Did that twice.