Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Instant E7 or O6?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,812
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post

    So again... why not make them warrant officers?

    Because warrant officers are selected based on merit & the Warrant Officer Corps is not currently diverse enough to satisfy the Marxist ideologue's agenda ( which is to diversify the military's senior ranks). There's no actual military purpose or necessity for it.

    http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/m...rmen/24505205/


    "The plan before Carter would direct each of the services to establish goals for race, ethnicity and gender among the officers it commissions to “reflect the diverse population in the United States eligible to serve in our military"."

  2. #22
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USN - Retired View Post
    Such as?? Why would someone sitting in front of a computer need to be uniformed military?

    I'll be more specific,... why would a cyber warfare specialist need to be uniformed military?
    Basically, the difference between Title 50 and Title 10 authorities. ie. The Senior Operations Officer on the NSA Watchfloor is either a GS-15 or an O6, the Director of Cyber Operations at the NSA NTOC is either a GS-15 or an O6, the Cyber Battle Captain at USCYBERCOM has to be a uniformed military officer (billeted as an O5) to execute Title 10 missions for DoD ... a contractor or GS cannot do it per law.

    Even though it is via a computer, conduct of offensive operations is an execution of war power.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #23
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    BS.

    The same argument (inherently governmental function) was made & for all intents ignored when we outsourced a huge number of our IC core positions to private industry. For instance at one point the forward deployed billets of IC in Afghanistan were probably running 80% contracted. Legally pretty much everything but a Contracting Officer and the very senior decision maker positions can be outsourced.

    However, if that's the concern than the vast majority of these positions can be filled with Federal employees can perform these functions at an equivalent salary to an E-7 or an 0-6.
    Conduct of intel operations and offensive warfare (kinetic or non-kinetic) operations is different.

    Non kinetic isn't as cool or sexy and kinetic ... but based on legal interpretation of war, degrading or destroying something that doesn't belong to us (US) is an execution of war power.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  4. #24
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkHeart View Post
    This is the only way I see this working without too much foaming at the mouth from the Mess, though I don't think they could stand someone coming out of Great Lakes as a CPO no matter their skill set.

    Maybe bring on just enough personnel for a period of 3-5 years to build a Cyber Warfare community akin to Navy Medicine while training existing CTs and the like to take over with little to no direct accessions from the civilian sector after that period. Excepting the few individuals with skill and experience the Navy can't easily get from the inside.
    A program kinda like that is already being done in the Navy (Cyber Warfare Engineers), start as O1, promote through O3, MUST offramp at O3 to something else. They can come on without a degree or if they complete a degree before mandatory offramp they can laterally transfer to another community (most likely IW or Intel)
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  5. #25
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Here's another possibility: why not make Cyber Warfare jobs a warrant officer program, where people can join as a warrant officer? SECDEF would have to force the Air Force's hand to bring back warrant officers to make this happen, but I don't think anyone but Air Force Generals would be bitching.

    Many, if not most, warrant officers are not in charge of anyone away. They exist mostly, and many cases solely, for their technical expertise. Stuff like this is specifically what warrant officers were designed for.

    So again... why not make them warrant officers?
    Not a bad idea. A friend of a friend whose friend told him ... there is too much disparity between what would warrant someone brought on as an E5 and someone brought on as an O3/4 to make it work well. Allowing it for E4-O6 enables them to more appropriately place someone based on their qualifications they bring from the outside.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #26
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Because warrant officers are selected based on merit & the Warrant Officer Corps is not currently diverse enough to satisfy the Marxist ideologue's agenda ( which is to diversify the military's senior ranks). There's no actual military purpose or necessity for it.
    Most of the time ... however the Army selects Warrant Officers for aviation duty as straight/entry level accessions.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  7. #27
    Senior Member USN - Retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ewa Beach, Hawaii
    Posts
    699
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Basically, the difference between Title 50 and Title 10 authorities. ie. The Senior Operations Officer on the NSA Watchfloor is either a GS-15 or an O6, the Director of Cyber Operations at the NSA NTOC is either a GS-15 or an O6, the Cyber Battle Captain at USCYBERCOM has to be a uniformed military officer (billeted as an O5) to execute Title 10 missions for DoD ... a contractor or GS cannot do it per law.

    Even though it is via a computer, conduct of offensive operations is an execution of war power.
    You are dodging the question.

    First of all, a law is not a commandment. Laws can be changed. Secondly, this discussion is about the cyber warfare specialists, i.e. the people who actually do the work. We're not talking about some dumbshit O-5 or O-6 who just sits around drinking coffee and taking credit for all the work that other people are doing. Third, do you really think that that the CIA is not already heavily involved in cyberwarfare, including offensive cyber operations?

    In 1960, Francis Gary Powers was sitting in a U-2 over the Soviet Union, and he was not "uniformed military" at that time.
    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others

  8. #28
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USN - Retired View Post
    You are dodging the question.

    First of all, a law is not a commandment. Laws can be changed. Secondly, this discussion is about the cyber warfare specialists, i.e. the people who actually do the work. We're not talking about some dumbshit O-5 or O-6 who just sits around drinking coffee and taking credit for all the work that other people are doing. Third, do you really think that that the CIA is not already heavily involved in cyberwarfare, including offensive cyber operations?

    In 1960, Francis Gary Powers was sitting in a U-2 over the Soviet Union, and he was not "uniformed military" at that time.
    I am not avoiding your question, I have to be vague because of the platform we are communicating on ... plain and simple.

    A couple of points:

    Yes, laws are not commandments ... but we are (supposed to be) a society of laws.

    I would imagine, that the CIA already is involved in cyber operations, they would be conducting covert operations. Title 50

    No, Francis Gary Powers was not a uniformed officer, he was not conducting an offensive mission either ... he was conducting an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance mission. Covert operations. Title 50

    Offensive Cyber Operations by the U.S. Military are overt military operations. Title 10
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  9. #29
    Senior Member USN - Retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ewa Beach, Hawaii
    Posts
    699
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I am not avoiding your question, I have to be vague because of the platform we are communicating on ... plain and simple.

    A couple of points:

    Yes, laws are not commandments ... but we are (supposed to be) a society of laws.

    I would imagine, that the CIA already is involved in cyber operations, they would be conducting covert operations. Title 50

    No, Francis Gary Powers was not a uniformed officer, he was not conducting an offensive mission either ... he was conducting an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance mission. Covert operations. Title 50

    Offensive Cyber Operations by the U.S. Military are overt military operations. Title 10
    The point that I am making, and the point that you are avoiding, is that the cyber warfare specialists, i.e. the worker bees, can be civilians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I would imagine, that the CIA already is involved in cyber operations, they would be conducting covert operations. Title 50

    Offensive Cyber Operations by the U.S. Military are overt military operations. Title 10
    Do you really believe that the CIA is not conducting Offensive Cyber Operations, especially against ISIS?
    Last edited by USN - Retired; 06-22-2016 at 05:38 PM.
    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others

  10. #30
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,812
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Right. Collecting Intel via certain sources is also an inherently governmental function and yet it's currently being done by contractors and has been for years. Why? Because we said we could.

    Cyber attacks are now an act of war. Why? Because, we said they are.

    This is what happens when the state becomes infested with neocon/neolib parasites and pollutes itself with corporate lackeys the likes of Ash Carter and Debbie James

    Unfortunately, the young generation will pay a heavy price for their insanity/corruption (and that of the quisling generals who go along with it)

    But, the good news is that these political hack officers they appoint will be among the first to get fragged in the coming WW3!
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 06-23-2016 at 06:00 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •