I am thinking about joining the Air Force

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the considerations and implications of joining the Air Force ROTC program at the University of Arizona. Participants share their thoughts on the benefits, challenges, and potential career paths associated with military service, particularly in the context of education and future employment in STEM fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that joining the Air Force ROTC can lead to significant opportunities, especially for those pursuing a career in STEM fields.
  • Others caution that military service may become a long-term commitment rather than a short-term obligation, highlighting the potential for a career in the military.
  • A few participants express skepticism about the motivations behind military engagements, particularly regarding geopolitical interests.
  • Concerns are raised about the balance between ROTC commitments and academic responsibilities, with some noting that ROTC obligations may interfere with college coursework.
  • There are discussions about the potential for graduate education and career paths in astrophysics and cosmology, with participants weighing the benefits of Air Force versus Navy ROTC programs.
  • Some participants share personal anecdotes about the educational benefits provided by military service and the demand for military-trained graduates in civilian jobs.
  • One participant mentions the flexibility of ROTC programs, indicating that students may have options to reconsider their commitment early in their college experience.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the implications of joining the Air Force ROTC. While some see it as a beneficial path for education and career opportunities, others raise concerns about the long-term commitments and the nature of military service.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions about military service, including the nature of commitments associated with education and the potential for career paths post-service. There are also differing views on the motivations behind military actions and the implications for those serving.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals considering military service through ROTC programs, particularly those interested in STEM fields, as well as for students weighing the balance between academic commitments and military obligations.

  • #61
dotman said:
In fact, this is a very real concern. Recall this recent news:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/index.html"

The U.S. official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the information

Howcome we don't have some CIA agent just execute those 'US officials'? They are traitors and have no business being in the loop if they spill the beans to the media. There is a reason why we have sensitive, classified, secret and top secret designations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
You all make very great points about how Unmanned is superior to manned flight. And I do agree with most of them but, you can't match human wit and ingenuity with a computer during a dogfight. There is a lot going on that can't really be thought up by a computer.
 
  • #63
MotoH said:
You all make very great points about how Unmanned is superior to manned flight. And I do agree with most of them but, you can't match human wit and ingenuity with a computer during a dogfight. There is a lot going on that can't really be thought up by a computer.

Ask yourself this question.. what is the point of a 'dogfight'. If you can destroy an enemy aircraft from 70 mile range, and without any consequences to your own unmanned aircraft, why would you risk a pilot's life to do it from few hundred feet away?
 
  • #64
MotoH said:
You all make very great points about how Unmanned is superior to manned flight. And I do agree with most of them but, you can't match human wit and ingenuity with a computer during a dogfight. There is a lot going on that can't really be thought up by a computer.
There are still humans operating the drones, and they can take risks that pilots in manned aircraft could not. A properly-designed drone can execute maneuvers that no manned aircraft could without blacking out or even killing its pilot. Computers don't operate drones - they are interfaces for humans to interact with and operate the drones.
 
  • #65
The U.S. official, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the information

cronxeh said:
Howcome we don't have some CIA agent just execute those 'US officials'? They are traitors and have no business being in the loop if they spill the beans to the media. There is a reason why we have sensitive, classified, secret and top secret designations.

Not being 'authorized to discuss the information' does not mean the information was classified. It simply means that the official is not in the public relations department, and is not normally tasked with speaking to the media, or supposed to relate the department's message to the people.

People who disclose classified information are investigated and prosecuted by the FBI. This is very rare. People who disclose non-classified information they are not supposed to discuss are sometimes investigated by their department, and possibly reprimanded or fired. They are not generally criminally prosecuted.

Finally, the CIA does not operate on American soil (legally, at least). They are not assassins who kill Americans. They are talented individuals who work their hardest to protect us from terrorist threats abroad, and we owe them a lot.

I'm sure many of them would find your statement horribly offensive.
 
  • #66
dotman said:
Finally, the CIA does not operate on American soil (legally, at least). They are not assassins who kill Americans. They are talented individuals who work their hardest to protect us from terrorist threats abroad, and we owe them a lot.

I'm sure many of them would find your statement horribly offensive.

I was not suggesting there be an investigation. I simply suggested the traitors get their due by people who do these things already to terrorists. We are at war, and no 'US official' has any business running their mouth to the media - it does not benefit them, and it does not benefit the public
 
  • #67
cronxeh said:
Howcome we don't have some CIA agent just execute those 'US officials'? They are traitors and have no business being in the loop if they spill the beans to the media. There is a reason why we have sensitive, classified, secret and top secret designations.

it's probably just COTS stuff, anyway. as soon as one gets shot down and salvaged, the whole thing would be figured out in a week.
 
  • #68
Proton Soup said:
it's probably just COTS stuff, anyway. as soon as one gets shot down and salvaged, the whole thing would be figured out in a week.

The only UAV's that are even remotely in harms way at the moment are the MQ-1 predators who have attached hellfire missiles, and their operating altitude is around 28,000 feet. I am pretty sure the combat that is currently going on, and will continue to go on, IE insurgency does not have the technology to knock any of these suckers out of the sky.

If we were to go up against an actual country that had SAM batteries or other AA installments there would just have to be a jammer sent up to scramble the radar signal, or with the advancements in stealth, we could make a UAV have similar characteristics to the F117 nighthawk with the radar absorbing paint and the geometric body panels. This combined with how small the actual UAVs are would be nearly no radio signal at all, since if I remember correctly the radar signature of the F117 is like the size of a tennis racket.
 
  • #69
MotoH said:
The only UAV's that are even remotely in harms way at the moment are the MQ-1 predators who have attached hellfire missiles, and their operating altitude is around 28,000 feet. I am pretty sure the combat that is currently going on, and will continue to go on, IE insurgency does not have the technology to knock any of these suckers out of the sky.

If we were to go up against an actual country that had SAM batteries or other AA installments there would just have to be a jammer sent up to scramble the radar signal, or with the advancements in stealth, we could make a UAV have similar characteristics to the F117 nighthawk with the radar absorbing paint and the geometric body panels. This combined with how small the actual UAVs are would be nearly no radio signal at all, since if I remember correctly the radar signature of the F117 is like the size of a tennis racket.

yeah, just a bunch of bumpkins there. it's not like any other governments might have an interest in trade here.
 
  • #70
all of our supposed "enemies" that are not insurgent oriented already have UAVs, which are capable of anything the United States UAVs can do. North Korea has UAVs from Europe for example.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
2K