Follow the latest on RallyPoint. Get insights from the top online professional network for service members and veterans.

New Discussions

0
0
0
Current Needs of the Army MOS for reclass? Should be heading to meps next week looking to see if any prior service or recruiters know the general needs of the army jobs right now for reclassing
Posted in these groups: 090710-a-3251c-006 Reclass
You're a Trailblazer. Be the first to respond to this discussion.
Avatar_small
0
0
0
One said you can change your Mos After 4 years and it will be hard, but the other one said after 1 year and it will be easy.He mentioned because you know Farsi you can use this skill and change your Mos because the Army needs this language.
4 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
6
6
0
Posted in these groups: Vote Voting616f56d7 Identity Theft
14 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
57
57
0
Over the past few months I, along with several other User Admins, have been hit with complaints about people's behavior. Most of these reports come out of people acting disrespectfully towards another normally centered around a political post. Every day, countless posts from both sides of the political line are posted. I was hoping that after the election was over and people settled back into their routines these posts would start to dwindle in number but sadly, that isn't the case. In fact, I think people's reactions only made people want to share more. Other social media sites are covered as well but here I think it's different.

I understand that for many of you, this is your one stop shop for social media actives. And I understand that you have the write to voice your thoughts and concerns but what I don't get and what I will not tolerate is the name calling and personal attacks. I think for some of you, you are so wrapped up on what others have said or done that you yourself are losing touch with reality. Rather than finding a healthy way to express your feelings you are just so hyper-focus that it's causing damage to yourself. Some of the actions I've seen here are simply not healthy.

When RallyPoint first started. it was started to a place where service members and veterans can come to get connected with others and get answers to their questions. Now, with over 1.1 million members we are still that place but have this dirty shadow following us.

So the question I have for you, as one of the original members and as one of the Senior User Admins of this site; why are you here? Are you here to connect with your brothers and sisters-in-arms and to help provide meaningful answers to questions or are you here in some effort to spread your ideals onto others? Why do some of you feel the need to attack others just based on the fact that they voted for someone different? When will you pause and step away to realize that no one person can make American great again, to do that takes all of us. It takes all of us to come together, support the powers to be and hold them accountable as a collective body.
66 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
6
6
0
My grandfather is a retired Army Master Sergeant. The thing he only talks about is the Vietnam war. He was an Army medic for a total of twenty two years and I want to find a good way to honor him. Some background details is that his too highest awards were the Bronze Star and the Legion of Merit. If anyone could help my figure this out that would be great. Thank you!
Posted in these groups: Scan0009 VietnamVietnam_service_ribbon Vietnam WarRecognition_logo Recognition
9 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
3
3
0
Cf72a391
9b5d70cd
The CSA selection for the next Army Staff Senior Warrant Officer (ARSTAF SWO) is CW4 Billy L. Frittz. He is the CSA Assistant Executive Officer (AXO) and will serve concurrently as the ARSTAF SWO and advocate for Warrant Officers on behalf of the Army Senior Warrant Officer Council (ASWOC). He will work closely with the ASWOC to advise the CSA on the training, military and civilian education.
2 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
Rp-logo-flat-shadow
Command Post What is this?
8
8
0
Bf334dd0
Disagree

One sweeping statement deserves another: war is never inevitable. Fundamentally, war requires two or more willing participants, and so long as one participant is unwilling to resort to conflict, options can be found to avoid war (of course this would most likely require unpalatable compromises). Regardless, in the Pacific no nation should view war as inevitable. Such a conflict would have tremendous, negative global implications. Adversary nations cannot be the aggressor for fear of the conflict widening uncontrollably, just as allied nations will not be the aggressors so long as their interests are preserved. To view war as an inevitability is to assume that the methods and protocols for avoiding war, both within sovereign nations and global institutions, have broken down, or that at least one party is acting irrationally (according to internationally accepted norms of behavior). Absent an unpredictable, catastrophic event to upset the current strategic environment, war in the Pacific is far from inevitable.

The Pacific is home to more than 50% of the world’s population, and almost half of the Earth’s surface. The world’s three largest economies hail from, or border the Pacific, and vast amounts of global trade goods traverse its waters. The world’s largest militaries, and also three of the (legitimate) nuclear powers operate within the Pacific theater. There are of course territorial, ethnic, and religious disputes, as well as threats from insurgency, piracy, organized crime, and nuclear proliferation. But the last major war, that risked becoming a global conflict was more than 60 years ago. Since then, most Pacific leaning nations have become adroit at avoiding general war, either out of necessity or in favor of more subtle means of coercion.

The Korean peninsula provides a case study in this dynamic. The North Korean (nK) leadership blusters and provokes, but stops short of initiating war with South Korea. Despite the rhetoric, aggressive actions, and seeming irrationality, the nK leadership has one major interest, which is to remain in power. In a war, to remain in power, the nK leadership must have the backing of their patron, China. China desires stability, and will not condone any action that leads to conflict. South Korea, by contrast, also desires stability so that it can continue to grow and prosper. Though it would certainly pay a high price in any conflict, the South is capable of defeating the North, or at the very least inflicting punishment of its own. The United States (U.S.), though acting as a deterrent to nK aggression, also acts as a restraint upon South Korea.

Any war on the Korean peninsula would involve more than just the two Koreas. It would be disruptive on a global scale. China, the U.S., and most likely their respective allies, and the United Nations (UN) would all be drawn in. It would potentially disrupt the first, second, third, and eleventh ranked economies in the world. It carries the threat of escalation through the unsanctioned use of weapons of mass destruction. No nation wants war on the Korean peninsula, therefore it does not happen. The Korean conflict has been actively managed for more than 60 years, and war has yet to resume, even in spite of extreme provocations that would have justified war in earlier eras.

More recently, events in the South China Sea have presented new concerns over the potential for conflict in the Pacific. Chinese territorial claims conflict with those of its neighbors, threaten a major ocean shipping route, and defy international law. However war there is not inevitable. There is simply too much at stake politically, economically, and militarily for all parties in a conflict that would escalate uncontrollably. As rational actors, all nations concerned, should recognize the folly of resorting to war and seek viable alternatives to safeguard the interests of the region, and the global commons. In addition to the individual nations, also, are the international institutions, and global alliances that were established at the end of WWII, and during the Cold War, to prevent just such a conflict occurring.

Each separate nation, with claims rival to China’s, could negotiate a separate compromise that would avoid conflict (this is naturally China’s preferred course). The U.S., with UN and allied cooperation, could continue to guarantee freedom of navigation, and serve as a check upon China, but also as a hedge against military build-up by other nations. Alternative ports could be built up over time, and shipping deliberately routed around the contested area, thereby removing a point of leverage from the Chinese. No nation wants war in the South China Sea, therefore it will not happen. Absent events such as a sharp decline in U.S. power, or an unprecedented diplomatic coup resulting in all concerned nations deferring to China, events in the South China Sea will be managed at levels below the threshold for war.

None of this is to say that war is not possible, or that other forms of conflict (e.g. economic sanctions, diplomatic censure, etc.), will not, and do not take place, especially at the aforementioned points. There is always a chance that a confrontation or misunderstanding will escalate out of control. But such events cannot be predicted. Constant vigilance by rational leaders is needed to identify such events as they occur, and that mechanisms which are in place to manage them function as designed. It is a fallacy, therefore, to claim that war is inevitable. For any war to be inevitable, it would inherently mean that the modern world order has unexpectedly and catastrophically broken down. It is in the interests of all nations to never let that happen, and thereby avoid the unpredictable spectre of war.

----------
Nathan Wike is an officer in the U.S. Army and a member of the Military Writer’s Guild. The opinions expressed are his alone, and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

----------
This topic was taken from the list “Fifty-One Strategic Debates Worth Having”, from the U.S. Military Academy’s Modern War Institute (http://mwi.usma.edu/).

----------
COVER IMAGE
“It is nice in the surf, but what about the men in the trenches?” Australian First World War recruitment poster , Australian War Memorial
8 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
5
5
0
This made our local rag out here in the sticks. It bypasses the problem of dealing with base access. However Vets without base access essentially are boosting the revenue that supports MWR activities for ADs, Retired, etc.

https://www.shopmyexchange.com/veterans
7 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
4
4
0
Many Rally Point members have likely encountered visiting cadets from ROTC programs or Service Academies who are shadowing a 2LT for CTLT. In your experiences, what has this been like for the cadet and for the unit? In general, is it considered disruptive or inconsequential? I'm on my way to an Infantry unit at Fort Lewis this summer and want to get the most benefit possible out of the experience.
6 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
12
12
0
When President Obama won, there was a deluge of complaints, the birther movement, a different brand of "Not my president." Now that President Trump has won office, there's similar sentiment. On either side, there is a lot of aggression being thrown around. Do you feel Service Members have a higher responsibility to be respectful of the American voters, regardless of their choice?

Respect of the POTUS is a given, we're expected, as service members, to render that. My question is more in line with respecting the fellow Americans that voted; it seems antithetical to me to be aggressive and hurtful to fellow Americans, especially those that have dissenting opinions from ours, for exercising one of the fundamental rights we swore to uphold and defend.
42 people commented on this discussion.
Avatar_small
Seg?add=7750261&t=2