Should a 2LT salute a 1LT?

Should a Sgt? Cause you're still a private in a sense to us...

I joined the Army Reserve in 1988. I was a Combat Support nurse. I served in two wars. My X was in the military, my father was military, I want the military to retain all the regulations it has always had, traditions and rules, stop trying fix something that wasn't broken until snowflakes and Obama and LGBT community got hold of it.

That is a stupid question, it is like asking should pre schoolers salute a 2nd grader

Wow. Is this really even an issue?
You salute officers of higher rank than you. 2nd LT Salutes 1st LT.
LTC Salute Full Bird. Majors Salute LTC. Color of your rank or having similar words in the rank don’t matter. Military courtesy is essential. The color of your bar or oak leaf should not have any confusion. Officers should lead by example. Least that’s how it was done back in the 80’s. Just my 2 cents.

The rendering of a salute exists solely to demonstrate respect to the authority of a senior rank and the greater authority and responsibility that comes with it. It has nothing to do with the person who wears the rank. As all officers know, the source of that authority comes from the President of the United States himself first in the form of a commission and then subsequently through promotion. Though the conveyance of that authority has become mostly ceremonial since the nationalization of U.S. armed forces around the turn of the last century, the legal basis of that authority remains unchanged, which is why the rendering of a salute to officers of higher rank is mandated by regulation and not optional. Therefore, the salute is both a tradition and a conformance to military regulation. As with all traditions formalize by regulation, the salute exists to serve as a frequent reminder of military rank structure and supports maintenance of good order and discipline without regard for the character of the person wearing the rank, which is a concept that runs counter to today's culture and may be hard for many to accept. However, the harsh realities of armed conflict and the UCMJ that holds it together remain unchanged. Disrespect for the offices of elected leaders based on a dislike of the office holder has become so commonplace and pervasive that it has nearly become a tradition of its own, and unfortunately, that has also led to blatant disrespect for civil authorities as well.
In a society that is becoming less formal and where enlisted personnel are taking on greater roles commensurate with expertise developed through years of training and experience, the rendering of a salute to officers of higher rank is actually becoming increasingly more important and not less important as a reminder of the military requirement to submit to authority and render respect for it regardless of personal opinions. At the same time, the acknowledgement of authority and responsibility does not supersede the need for the office-holder to practice good leadership and constantly develop the influence skills necessary to build strong teams and earn the respect of those in his/her charge, but none-the-less in a business where one human being has the authority (and sometimes the responsibility) of ordering another person to his/her near certain death, there can be no conflation of leadership skill, personal respect and personality that rises above that of basic military rank structure. Unfortunately, Hollywood has perpetuated that myth in nearly every military movie made since the end of the Vietnam War. The bottom line is that the authority that comes with rank derived from the President's commission remains firmly rooted in law.
Where our military administrators have created this problem over the last century lies in the merger of rank and pay grade. Combining this factor with an all-volunteer force and the development of both officer and enlisted career paths that require growth in pay grade to remain employed, the administrators of our armed forces have undermined the value of at least small differences in rank especially where time-in-grade is the sole requirement for promotion. The underlying problem in the entire system has been the albatross of the military pension system established over 100 years ago when we did not have an all-volunteer force and a society that has smashed nearly all social barriers both good and bad. 40 years into maintaining a fully volunteer standing military, the DoD has recognized that the legacy pension system fails to meet the needs of most modern service members and has made positive changes to develop a more flexible structure that requires a person complete at least 20 years of service to derive pension-like benefits. Therefore the career planning that supported that pension system must change, too. Only when the services abandon the "move up or move out" mindset that requires significant increases in rank (and supposedly authority) to maintain longevity of employment will the services rank structure begin to make sense again. Far too many people are being promoted to positions of authority above their abilities or character. People are being promoted largely because it is their time as long as the person checks the right boxes and has not messed up according the an ever-changing standard. The net result has been lack of respect for the rank and lack of accountability for failures. One needs only to look at the absence of accountability being applied to the officers and senior enlisted of MCCAIN AND FITZGERALD whose negligence to maintain even the most modest standard of "safety of navigation" and responsibility of the role led to the deaths of over 25 people in their charge without the incarceration of a single person. This stands as a clear example of what happens when rank and responsibility are given to people who lack the character qualities to assume roles of increasing responsibility but are being moved in career paths by a system that is more concerned about checking boxes than building competence - people in authority are not held responsible for the results of their actions or inactions, which further serves to undermine the respect for the rank that these people hold. Loss of 1/2 pay for 3 months and the end of employment in return for the loss of over a dozen lives due to that person's negligence is neither justice for those lives nor accountability for the authority these people have been given, but the net result has surely lowered the confidence of enlisted sailors and the American people in their officers who are supposed to maintain "the highest standards" of duty, honor and loyalty. It is no wonder that our men and women in uniform of all ranks are having a difficult time understanding why the rendering of a salute is required and relevant in the modern era.

Must be running out of subjects to discuss. The answer is in your question. If senior, salute.

The usage in the Navy is a bit different, as in ships or squadrons we often see the same people many times a day and saluting all the time becomes both tedious and interfers with performing assigned duties in some cases. Typically we salute at the first meeting of the day with a particular person, and never when uncovered. If we are on a base of another service we follow thier protocol.

Yes, always!

If there is any doubt in your mind salute! You will never be wrong to salute a senior officer. He/she earned the rank and respect accordingly! LTC Shewbert stated why you should salute.

i agree that a 2LT should salute a 1LT, but what i have a problem with is if my hands are full or i just did not see the Officer why make a big deal about it. if my hands are full i still give the greetings of the day to show respect but if i did not see you there is nothing i could do and i feel that it does not take anything away from that Officer, i have had Officers get attitudes because my hands are full or i just did not notice them and yes it makes me angry because it was never intentional.