Why don't all members of the Air Force have to be fully qualified to be a rifleman in case of hostile events?

I was a Airman in the late 70's, we fired the M 16 only once during Basic and had to qualify if we went Overseas. Essentially we were the weapons, I was a weapons loader for the F-4 E fighters at Osan Airbase ROK. Loading bombs and missiles so the pilots could do their job. Besides the Air Force personnel we had both the Marines and Army stationed there so we did not need to carry weapons. It maybe different now with our conflicts overseas, I don't see any reason why Airman should not be qualified to shoot a rifle if the need arises. That being said, there are people in all branches that should not be armed due to personal issues.

My initial training was as an Army troop back during the Viet Nam War. After my service was up and a ten year break I returned to the ANG for an additional 22 years. My last and best job there was as a CATM Instructor. I also was shooting service rifle competition for the Guard (M-14). I saw many, many airmen come through my classes that were incompetent even after several remedial classes, and have always felt that those folks shouldn't be in service. The Conflicts we have fought in since WW II should have taught us that Air Force units will be deployed to areas where it is possible for an enemy to infiltrate and attack, and I have stressed that ALL personnel IMHO ought to be proficient in the use of weapons. Not a popular opinion w/ most commanders as it means more training time and $$'s spent on only a possibility.

I ENLISTED AFTER THE KOREAN WAR BEGAN 1950. I already knew how toaim and fire a rifle. I A agree that Airman should train with arms . But that was then and Now is Now ! Lighten up!

As a whole every Air Force person that was on my Joint TO&E at Balat Air Base in Iraq was not qualified on their personal weapon. Did not know how to properly load nor clear those weapons let alone fire at a target and hit it. When I first experienced the problems of transiting a checkpoint where weapons were required to be cleared we regularly had at least one AF negligent discharge. My OIC was an AF 0-6 and he had at least three NDs I know about. He and I had a meeting to figure out a solution to prevent this from happening because no mater how many times proper clearing procedures were taught ND still occurred regularly. Finally we had to enforce a policy that the senior Army, Navy, or USMC NCO in each vehicle had to clear every weapon in the vehicle. After we started this technique we only had one ND in the remaining nine months in Iraq. That person received a field grade Art 15 because the newly arrived CSM in charge of the post said NDs will no longer be tolerated and the automatic punishment would be Field Grade Art 15 or Courts Marshal if the Art 15 was refused. ND still occasionally occurred but at a very reduced rate compared to earlier in the deployment. AF Senior NCOs told us when we asked them that they had not fired their weapon for record in several years because it was not required. Nor did higher level leaders believe it was important to prepare AF personnel to defend themselves prior to the deployment even though it was stated that part of our mission was convoy operations to other posts to perform sight surveys for equipment upgrades and refurbishment of worn out systems. In my opinion the Air Force as a hole is broken when it come to weapons.

It is because of the Korean War. Only infantry had weapons training. Cooks, Admin personnel and any other MOS were not required to be range quailified

I too believe that all members of the forces, with the exception of medical personnel (non combatants) should at least know how to fire the M16 or what it is now days they are using (M16 when I was in Security Forces also) and then if the medical person wants to be qualified, then they ask to be. But if not mistaken, if you are in medical you work under the red cross.

Good question and my short answer is that is it is not an effective use of resources. When I first went in, in the early 90s, we had our basic training instruction on the M-16. After that it was may once a year then every 3 years. Since I was in medical I was considered a non-combatant anyway. As much as I loved firing and had my own personal guns, I didn't really see the point in the Air Force only having us go every three years. Now if I was in Security Forces, I would want some range time at least monthly. I mean either justify it and have us get really trained or make us familiar with the weapon in case of an extreme situation. That is pretty much the route AF leadership went. I think our regular jobs were demanding enough and some are extremely technical, but I would have given the effort to be proficient if ordered to. I just never was. Oh and I am not saying the Army doesn't have some extremely difficult MOS's either.

In the Coast Guard, if you are on a Shore unit, you qualify regularly, or supposed to. Usually at the Nearest Army Base, When I was at Cape Cod Canal, it was Ft. Devons. Until I got Deployed to Vietnam, it was with the Colt Model 1911 .45 and M1 Garand. On the way to Nam, I was introduced to the Mattel special ( M16 ). Although the CG is NOT under the DoD, it does maintain a military prescience. Aboard ship you are constantly running drills and once a year you get to spend two weeks in sunny GITMO and run through the wringer by the Navy. Hopefully you get the big "E" across the board. Shore units ( Lifeboat Stations and such ) they usually run something called "Operation Webfoot". The goal of the aggressors is to sabotage the station. Our goal was to make sure they didn't. Not a good feeling to go down to the boats in the morning and find a mock up up a bundle of Dynamite and a note that says, "BOOM !!!!". I have heard that they used Navy Seals for that, but not real sure of that. I am of a mind that they were just Navy Divers, but possibly CG divers for that matter. Web Foot, GITMO, Longest two weeks of my life. In Vietnam, we operated under ComWesPac 7th Fleet.

As an enlisted military policeman (1950 to (1958) I can agree with the argument that every airman should qualify with a rifle at lease once a year. Later (1967), as an officer in Vietnam, I was shot at - but was not allowed a weapon to return fire. That was sad. Fortunately, the army and marines drove the Viet Cong off the base. Now, I believe that every American citizen should qualify with a rifle. (provided they are physically and mentally able). Atomic bombs are for a different war than a take-over of American cities such as Washington D.C. experienced on Jan 6, 2021. If they were qualified with a weapon, their attitude gun ownership would also change.

If you're crew and lose your aircraft (mechanical, enemy fire), it still is necessary to be competent in handling combat arms to find your way to safety