Aussies too fat to fight

[Nina~ 431]

More than a third of Australian troops not fit for war

By Ben Packham From: Herald Sun June 18, 2010 12:00am

• 13,000 soldiers not battle ready
  
• About 7300 failed basic fitness
  
• More than 2000 had poor teeth
  

MORE than a third of Australian army troops could not be sent to war because of poor or uncertain fitness, bad teeth or a lack of recent weapons training.

A new Auditor-General's report reveals more than 13,000 soldiers are not considered battle ready.

About 7300 had either failed the basic fitness test - the most arduous element of which is a 2.4km run - or hadn't done the test in the last six months.

More than 1500 soldiers were classed as medically unfit and about 2140 had such poor dental health they could not be deployed.

Thousands more were overdue for medical and dental checks, while Army dentists reported soldiers often missed scheduled appointments.

About 5800 Diggers failed weapons proficiency tests or were overdue for refreshers.

The Auditor-General found only 18,900 soldiers, about 53 per cent of troops, were ready to go at short notice.

Defence Minister John Faulkner said the level of readiness was appropriate.

"Army, at all times, maintains a level of organisational readiness that reflects the degree of urgency of any potential response," he said.

The Auditor-General recommended a review of readiness requirements, including the frequency of physical and weapons checks, which Senator Faulkner said was under way.

More than 3240 soldiers were exempt from readiness requirements, including 2373 on operations.

Exemptions are also available for pregnant women and soldiers unable to meet requirements "but whose continued services" was in the Army's best interests.

Failure to comply with one or more requirements means a soldier cannot be deployed.

Soldiers must be physically fit and pass regular medical and dental examinations.

Soldiers can face disciplinary action if they fail to maintain readiness.

link

[SMOKE 1,426]

The Auditor-General found only 18,900 soldiers, about 53 per cent of troops, were ready to go at short notice.

am i reading this correctly? australian army only has 36,000 troops?

[natty bumppo 297]

am i reading this correctly? australian army only has 36,000 troops?

"In the 2008–09 financial year the Army had an average strength of 44,892 personnel, including 27,828 permanent (regular) and 17,064 active reservists (part-time).^[11] In addition there are another 12,496 members of the Standby Reserve.^[12] The regular Army is targeted to expand to 30,500 personnel by 2016"

http://en.wikipedia....Australian_Army

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's only about 4 million people in the entire country, isn't there?

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

About 7300 had either failed the basic fitness test - the most arduous element of which is a 2.4km run - or hadn't done the test in the last six months.

poor dears, in the us army it's a 2 mile run standard.

[Heracles 417]

A limited number of people join the army there, basically the redneck equivalents, so it's not a surprise.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Booyah!

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

A limited number of people join the army there, basically the redneck equivalents, so it's not a surprise.

running down your own military eh?

[Heracles 417]

running down your own military eh?

The rest of the first world doesn't make a career out of the military nor pumps trillions into it. Probably why they are wealthy.

Half the country here is dirt poor, yet you guys are paranoid that someone is coming to get you. Get what? The trailer parks, the ghettos or maybe the run down cities.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All major nations have large defence budgets.

[Heracles 417]

All major nations have large defence budgets.

There is a fine line between having a military, to pumping a large portion of your budget into it; yet crying murder when it comes to assisting your citizens. We all saw what happened to the Soviet Union who was a master at this. Al Qaeda is now using this to bleed America dry themselves.

America's biggest issues (threats) are now domestic in nature (like poverty), therefore, that is where the focus needs to be aimed. Doing so would also results in fewer people hating the country abroad, which results in reducing the need for so much protection.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's certainly a BY analysis?

BY don't got no time for geopolitical.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

The rest of the first world doesn't make a career out of the military nor pumps trillions into it. Probably why they are wealthy.

Half the country here is dirt poor, yet you guys are paranoid that someone is coming to get you. Get what? The trailer parks, the ghettos or maybe the run down cities.

just remember you get what you pay for with the military.

[SMOKE 1,426]

A limited number of people join the army there, basically the redneck equivalents, so it's not a surprise.

dude, i'm not trying to run australia down or anything. but, thats f'ed up. what if someone decides to invade australia? they don't stand a chance. they got nukes?

Edited June 17, 2010 by SMOKE

[Heracles 417]

just remember you get what you pay for with the military.

Totally agree, but if I was one of the millions of homeless Americans, I would not be too interested in the protection of troops from foreign invaders.

[Heracles 417]

dude, i'm not trying to run australia down or anything. but, thats f'ed up. what if someone decides to invade australia? they don't stand a chance. they got nukes?

The question is who? This is 2010, excluding NK or Iran, most other countries are trying to improve their country. Heck, even Russia learned from this huge mistake the Soviet Union made. You realize if they had not wasted all of their money on their military, the Soviet Union would probably be wealthier as a country than the US now.

It's truly interesting how so many people in middle America still think America is the envy of the world and many are out to get the country.