Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
-
Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
Hi.. It's me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I'd argue that it's not. I'd also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you're protecting from "racism".
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don't know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn't fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the "black" (quoting this because it's inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can't get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can't get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I've said terms like "profile" and "medically evaluated", none of these things innately remove you from service unless it's extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn't clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here's the rub though, you can't have soldiers that can't put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It's a basic core task. War is war, it's nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is "Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don't work" is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem... And in my time, I've seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article "The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This "rule" is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don't really see an alternative that doesn't potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user...
Reason: Misinformation, dog whistles, and holding water for fascists
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation...
I appreciate the help navigating around the clickbait.
-
The funny part is that I said basically this exact same thing in another thread, and got shouted down with “lul gas masks seal fine over a beard” types of comments.
I had a beard while in (Norwegian combat engineer). You can pull the mask as tight as a homophobic preachers sphincter in a pride parade and it will never be completely sealed. After the first time it was voluntary to pull off the mask while testing using CS, I used to take it off as I was exposed already. In a war situation I would be smooth as Flipper in a second
-
Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
Hi.. It's me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I'd argue that it's not. I'd also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you're protecting from "racism".
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don't know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn't fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the "black" (quoting this because it's inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can't get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can't get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I've said terms like "profile" and "medically evaluated", none of these things innately remove you from service unless it's extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn't clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here's the rub though, you can't have soldiers that can't put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It's a basic core task. War is war, it's nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is "Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don't work" is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem... And in my time, I've seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article "The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This "rule" is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don't really see an alternative that doesn't potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user...
Reason: Misinformation, dog whistles, and holding water for fascists
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation...
Here’s the rub though, you can’t have soldiers that can’t put on NBC masks and keep them deployable.
There are plenty of jobs to be done away from front lines, are there not? I have never served, but it seems like there ought to be lots and lots of jobs where people are cogs in a machine in offices and the like. Please inform me why soldiers can't get rotated to such positions to keep them employed.
-
Here’s the rub though, you can’t have soldiers that can’t put on NBC masks and keep them deployable.
There are plenty of jobs to be done away from front lines, are there not? I have never served, but it seems like there ought to be lots and lots of jobs where people are cogs in a machine in offices and the like. Please inform me why soldiers can't get rotated to such positions to keep them employed.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]All soldiers undergo basic training. Basics of infantry because everyone is considered first and foremost infantry. After that you're trained in your selected job position. For the Army this is AIT (Advanced Individual Training), your AIT is based on the job you took (MOS). I was initially a 13M, I shot rockets out of a tracked vehicle called MLRS. I then reclassed to Unit Supply (92Y) for a myriad of personal reasons.
Your selected MOS puts you in specific training to do that job. A wheel vehicle mechanic knows different things than a track vehicle mechanic. So even positions that seem on paper closely related can have wildly different training. This makes it hard to simply swap people without retraining which is a massive cost.
Unit supply is trained on different regulations than the IT people running even though they're often side by side at headquarters. Different processes, papers, and regulations for different paper pushing jobs. "paper pushing" jobs are often not trained in advanced warfighting operations like clearing villages vs clearing singular rooms shown in basic training. Or operating heavier weaponry vs just what you get during US weapons training in basic.
But ultimately everyone is (in a perfect world situation) deployable... even the totally not combat related chef (Culinary Specialist 92G) gets deployed to warzones because soldiers need to be fed. Do you want to disadvantage the guy working a non-combat job in a warzone in case the FOB or base gets bombed/gassed?
It's kind of a fucked position to say that anyone at any time can be deployed... but this specific group will be at a much higher risk of dying because a physical condition can't be accommodated for reasonably... But you're going anyway!
The alternative is to say a specific group can't be deployed because of the a condition and thus they get to fill stateside slots permanently which now affects everyone else quite negatively as they will need to deploy more often.There is no "win" here, nor reasonable equity to be had without accepting that people will die because of the position. Now, personally, I'm in the position where I want to see less of my people die wherever possible... In this case the only answer that makes sense is to not put them in dangers way from the get-go, but that makes them unemployable... which ultimately means they shouldn't be in service at all. Which sucks as a position. But I don't see an alternative answer.
And to make a note... The article is specifically referencing Marines... They're a much more extreme version of this... Even the logistics/operational MOS is trained to be infantry first and foremost and expected to maintain infantry readiness much more so than other branches of the military. In the Army, most non-combat positions are expected to lose a lot of combat effectiveness over time as they train those skills much less.
Edit: I guess TL;DR, we don't build units to be non-deployable as that's counter to the job/point of the military... And we don't get to pick and choose what the enemy attacks. My FOB was attacked a bunch (mortared at least every other day), and we weren't near anything that I would consider "front lines".
-
Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
Hi.. It's me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I'd argue that it's not. I'd also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you're protecting from "racism".
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don't know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn't fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the "black" (quoting this because it's inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can't get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can't get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I've said terms like "profile" and "medically evaluated", none of these things innately remove you from service unless it's extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn't clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here's the rub though, you can't have soldiers that can't put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It's a basic core task. War is war, it's nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is "Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don't work" is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem... And in my time, I've seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article "The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This "rule" is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don't really see an alternative that doesn't potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user...
Reason: Misinformation, dog whistles, and holding water for fascists
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation...
Thank you.
-
Thank you.
Don't thank me... Thank my recruiter.
-
Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
Hi.. It's me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I'd argue that it's not. I'd also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you're protecting from "racism".
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don't know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn't fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the "black" (quoting this because it's inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can't get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can't get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I've said terms like "profile" and "medically evaluated", none of these things innately remove you from service unless it's extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn't clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here's the rub though, you can't have soldiers that can't put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It's a basic core task. War is war, it's nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is "Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don't work" is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem... And in my time, I've seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article "The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This "rule" is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don't really see an alternative that doesn't potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user...
Reason: Misinformation, dog whistles, and holding water for fascists
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation...
wrote on last edited by [email protected]No thank you for your service.
-
No thank you for your service.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Good for you I guess? I fail to see how this adds anything of merit to the conversation.
Edit: They've edited their comment...
"No thank you for your service. I hate you"
-
No thank you for your service.
The fuck is wrong with you? If you have an opinion about war, write your senator. Being disrespectful to a person that served and otherwise did nothing wrong is disgraceful.
-
Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
Hi.. It's me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I'd argue that it's not. I'd also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you're protecting from "racism".
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don't know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn't fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the "black" (quoting this because it's inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can't get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can't get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I've said terms like "profile" and "medically evaluated", none of these things innately remove you from service unless it's extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn't clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here's the rub though, you can't have soldiers that can't put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It's a basic core task. War is war, it's nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is "Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don't work" is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem... And in my time, I've seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article "The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This "rule" is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don't really see an alternative that doesn't potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user...
Reason: Misinformation, dog whistles, and holding water for fascists
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation...
So you're saying there's a gender that are generally worse shots and their bodies don't tend to fit gas masks very well? Why would we let those people serve in the military?
-
The funny part is that I said basically this exact same thing in another thread, and got shouted down with “lul gas masks seal fine over a beard” types of comments.
Fucking men thinking they should be the ones fighting wars. They're worse shots, they can't wear gas masks, they take up more space in transports...
-
So you're saying there's a gender that are generally worse shots and their bodies don't tend to fit gas masks very well? Why would we let those people serve in the military?
I didn't say or reference anything about gender. Go troll someone else. I met and married my wife while in service. We're both veterans.
-
I didn't say or reference anything about gender. Go troll someone else. I met and married my wife while in service. We're both veterans.
Well, trans people aren't allowed anymore, and women tend to have a lot less and finer facial hair.
It's not your main point, but is it untrue?
-
Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
Hi.. It's me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I'd argue that it's not. I'd also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you're protecting from "racism".
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don't know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn't fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the "black" (quoting this because it's inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can't get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can't get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I've said terms like "profile" and "medically evaluated", none of these things innately remove you from service unless it's extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn't clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here's the rub though, you can't have soldiers that can't put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It's a basic core task. War is war, it's nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is "Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don't work" is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem... And in my time, I've seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article "The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This "rule" is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don't really see an alternative that doesn't potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user...
Reason: Misinformation, dog whistles, and holding water for fascists
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation...
Wild how its never been an issue since WW2 and now ALL of a sudden it is an issue. When I was in folks had waivers. We did the gas chambers fine. But mmmkay its clearly not anything to do with a race of people who get razor bumps like crazy.
-
All soldiers undergo basic training. Basics of infantry because everyone is considered first and foremost infantry. After that you're trained in your selected job position. For the Army this is AIT (Advanced Individual Training), your AIT is based on the job you took (MOS). I was initially a 13M, I shot rockets out of a tracked vehicle called MLRS. I then reclassed to Unit Supply (92Y) for a myriad of personal reasons.
Your selected MOS puts you in specific training to do that job. A wheel vehicle mechanic knows different things than a track vehicle mechanic. So even positions that seem on paper closely related can have wildly different training. This makes it hard to simply swap people without retraining which is a massive cost.
Unit supply is trained on different regulations than the IT people running even though they're often side by side at headquarters. Different processes, papers, and regulations for different paper pushing jobs. "paper pushing" jobs are often not trained in advanced warfighting operations like clearing villages vs clearing singular rooms shown in basic training. Or operating heavier weaponry vs just what you get during US weapons training in basic.
But ultimately everyone is (in a perfect world situation) deployable... even the totally not combat related chef (Culinary Specialist 92G) gets deployed to warzones because soldiers need to be fed. Do you want to disadvantage the guy working a non-combat job in a warzone in case the FOB or base gets bombed/gassed?
It's kind of a fucked position to say that anyone at any time can be deployed... but this specific group will be at a much higher risk of dying because a physical condition can't be accommodated for reasonably... But you're going anyway!
The alternative is to say a specific group can't be deployed because of the a condition and thus they get to fill stateside slots permanently which now affects everyone else quite negatively as they will need to deploy more often.There is no "win" here, nor reasonable equity to be had without accepting that people will die because of the position. Now, personally, I'm in the position where I want to see less of my people die wherever possible... In this case the only answer that makes sense is to not put them in dangers way from the get-go, but that makes them unemployable... which ultimately means they shouldn't be in service at all. Which sucks as a position. But I don't see an alternative answer.
And to make a note... The article is specifically referencing Marines... They're a much more extreme version of this... Even the logistics/operational MOS is trained to be infantry first and foremost and expected to maintain infantry readiness much more so than other branches of the military. In the Army, most non-combat positions are expected to lose a lot of combat effectiveness over time as they train those skills much less.
Edit: I guess TL;DR, we don't build units to be non-deployable as that's counter to the job/point of the military... And we don't get to pick and choose what the enemy attacks. My FOB was attacked a bunch (mortared at least every other day), and we weren't near anything that I would consider "front lines".
This is a detailed and considerate response. Thanks. I can absolutely see where you're coming from now.
-
Well, trans people aren't allowed anymore, and women tend to have a lot less and finer facial hair.
It's not your main point, but is it untrue?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]What does that have to do with a beard being a problem for wearing gas masks? Can you articulate any reasonable link between "a lot less and finer facial hair." to a full beard being a problem?
Edit: Ran into your other comment... Are you claiming that Women shoot better than men and fit gas masks better? It seems unclear what your intent is here.
-
Wild how its never been an issue since WW2 and now ALL of a sudden it is an issue. When I was in folks had waivers. We did the gas chambers fine. But mmmkay its clearly not anything to do with a race of people who get razor bumps like crazy.
So you're under some mythical belief that gas warfare hasn't been a problem since WW2... That's wild. So if it's such a non-issue... Why did you get the training?
-
Yet another "anti-military" article from people who clearly don't understand the military.
Hi.. It's me again. Army Veteran. Showing up in the comments of another military article because there is clear and obvious reasons why this is happening that has nothing to do with Trump (Not sure why so many other commenters jump on this every time). Claiming that this is racist is crazy when the purpose and reason for it is innately to stop people from dying unnecessarily. If you think this is racism, I'd argue that it's not. I'd also argue that ignoring the medical problem can actually kill those you think you're protecting from "racism".
This is not new. While I was in (primarily under Obama) people with problematic beard hair would need to be medically evaluated. At one point I was evaluated as razor bumps kept coming up for a little while (cleared up eventually though). The primary reason for the military caring about it is because NBC masks need to fit particularly well in order for them to do their jobs. For those who don't know what NBC means, gas masks. Nothing sucks more than doing gas chamber training and getting a mask that doesn't fit well. Considering the current world capabilities, it would be a disaster to send a unit out and have them all get nailed with mustard gas and have just the "black" (quoting this because it's inaccurate, I saw many people need a profile over bad shaves. a plurality were actually black) people die because with hair, you can't get a good seal, and with the bumps, you can't get a good seal.
Now up to this point, I've said terms like "profile" and "medically evaluated", none of these things innately remove you from service unless it's extreme (or fails to clear up over significant time). The only thing moving forward is that if it doesn't clear up they want to medically discharge you from service. Here's the rub though, you can't have soldiers that can't put on NBC masks and keep them deployable. It's a basic core task. War is war, it's nasty. The headline that gets written in the worst case scenario is "Black soldiers die in mass NBC attack because mask seals don't work" is the alternative here. This consideration HAS to be addressed when you expect war to kick up (Iran, anyone?). This is a problem... And in my time, I've seen a handful (very few) people hide behind this condition to do less work than their peers, especially to dodge deployable statuses and NBC chamber training.
Lastly, if you read the article "The recent policy update under Brig. Gen. David R. Everly reversed a 2022 rule". This "rule" is very new and was likely found to harm wartime readiness after trying it out. The people getting kicked out would be relatively new recruits in their first enlistment. I can only imagine how much worse their experience was in many training exercises because of the ill-fitting masks, and honestly, I don't really see an alternative that doesn't potentially sacrifice their lives should they deploy. These soldiers will have already served sufficiently to obtain their benefits and it would be a medical discharge, which is not a dishonorable discharge. They would keep any benefits that they had obtained through their service.
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
Edit: Typo
Edit2: Reported by a blahaj.zone user...
Reason: Misinformation, dog whistles, and holding water for fascists
Lmfao. Apparently pointing out that this was a thing for a long time and restating information in the article itself is misinformation...
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
You are conflating razor bumps with a 1/8" beard. There aren't studies that evaluate mask fittings with razor bumps, you're just adding that to suit your argument.
"While many military leaders defending the beard prohibition have repeated the claim that beards break gas mask seals, one Air Force doctor has found no direct scientific evidence to support it.
“It’s an unsubstantiated claim,” said Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, a dermatologist who last year published a study on the beard prohibition’s discriminatory effect on Black airmen. While supporters of current Air Force policy “may have anecdotal evidence of one to five people who they see fail the fit test,” he said, “that can’t be extrapolated to hundreds of thousands of airmen.”
I've never been in the military, but I can guarantee I've had to wear a full face respirator rated for organic solvents more often than you. Imo beards have minimal effects on getting a decent seal. My hospital makes us do a fit test every 3-4 weeks, and I've passed with a beard longer than a 1/4" plenty of times.
In reality the shape of your face and the brand of your mask has a lot more to do with passing a fit test more than anything. I can guarantee that razor bumps aren't going to make a difference.
-
What does that have to do with a beard being a problem for wearing gas masks? Can you articulate any reasonable link between "a lot less and finer facial hair." to a full beard being a problem?
Edit: Ran into your other comment... Are you claiming that Women shoot better than men and fit gas masks better? It seems unclear what your intent is here.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Women don't tend to have, at military age, noticable beards at all.
Plus are generally better shots.
We could talk about trans people, but the us military already has a ban.
I'm sure a big strapping young man can swing a sword wonderfully, but that just doesn't mean as much in modern war as the ability to sleep comfortably in a smaller bunk, reliably don a gas mask, or accurately hit a target with a gun.
I think this sop to masculine vanity is hurting the readiness of our armed forces, and it's silly. People who are not suitable and not useful should not serve, and we shouldn't waste tax money appeasing their egos.
-
And to preempt an argument... "there's no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks"... There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it's understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people's lives.
You are conflating razor bumps with a 1/8" beard. There aren't studies that evaluate mask fittings with razor bumps, you're just adding that to suit your argument.
"While many military leaders defending the beard prohibition have repeated the claim that beards break gas mask seals, one Air Force doctor has found no direct scientific evidence to support it.
“It’s an unsubstantiated claim,” said Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie, a dermatologist who last year published a study on the beard prohibition’s discriminatory effect on Black airmen. While supporters of current Air Force policy “may have anecdotal evidence of one to five people who they see fail the fit test,” he said, “that can’t be extrapolated to hundreds of thousands of airmen.”
I've never been in the military, but I can guarantee I've had to wear a full face respirator rated for organic solvents more often than you. Imo beards have minimal effects on getting a decent seal. My hospital makes us do a fit test every 3-4 weeks, and I've passed with a beard longer than a 1/4" plenty of times.
In reality the shape of your face and the brand of your mask has a lot more to do with passing a fit test more than anything. I can guarantee that razor bumps aren't going to make a difference.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I’ve never been in the military,
So then you have no clue what the M50 respirator fits like then...
but I can guarantee I’ve had to wear a full face respirator rated for organic solvents more often than you.
Weird guarantee to make when you have no fucking clue who I am or what I do... I even told you from my post that I have a full face respirator still. Would be weird to have one and not be using it no? But now this devolves into a pissing contest, which I'm not particularly interested in participating in.
Edit: Additionally... the risk of whatever you're doing in the hospital is much lower than Sarin gas or other wartime gaseous weapons. A bad seal for you might make you a little dizzy or you have to take a break and re-seal/replace your respirator, where a bad seal on the battle field would simply mean death.
