Talk:United States Navy SEALs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Navy SEALs article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Other Specops Groups

I'd love to see someone with more knowledge than myself put together a general special operations warfare page with links to this article as well as any about German, Russian, and other groups (Flotilla 13 anyone?)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MtB (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 November 2004.

Special forces, commando, list of special forces. —Joseph | Talk 05:04, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Spun off UDT

I've spun off the information regarding the UDTs to Underwater Demolition Team. This is in hopes that since their official tasks were different from the SEALs that some background into their specialties and differences will be discussed. Alkivar 05:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The UDT page still needs alot of work. At the moment, the information is highly confusing. When did the UDT and SEALs become seperate? Can someone familiar with this topic help.Lex Kitten 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The leading offensive force in the world"

I've reverted this, but even as it is, it could do with some backing up. For example: "according to Janes, one of the leading offensive force in the world" (I have no idea whether or not Janes actually say this). --stochata 17:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you guys would quit changing the page, stating that the SEALs are among the best, i got those articles from the offical SEAL page from www.navy.com and from the SEAL Encyclopedia written by a Green Beret, US Army Special Forces, so do research before you change (deleted) you don't know about (deleted).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 February 2005.

Listen (deleted) whoever is changing the page is pissing me off, according to www.navy.com, on their SEAL page, it states the SEALs are the leading offensive force in the world. "The Encyclopedia of the Navy SEALs" , written by a Green Beret and the First SEAL Roy Boehm, it states that the SEALs are the most well equiped, and best special operations/counter-terrorist unit ever assembled.

quit changing (deleted) before you do research, so now you know—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 15 February 2005.

Why are the first two paragraphs of this article identical to text on [1] ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 February 2005.

those two articles are taken from the SEALs' home page at navy.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 February 2005.

Don't you think direct propaganda is a little out of place? It needs to be made a quote.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.229.196 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 16 February 2005.

I've reverted the re-addition of the "leading offensive force" bit. For one, it's redundant; we already have it (cited) in the first body piece, which is much better. No point in saying it twice. Second, it's POV to just go ahead and say it. No way around it. I don't mind saying "So-and-so says they're the best", but I do mind saying "Everyone thinks they're the best". Finally, it adds nothing to the article to have it in the intro. See the pages on avoiding weasel words/peacock terms and the NPOV page for more. Deltabeignet 04:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the first paragraph in this article. Everyone thinks their special forces are "the best in the world". Avalon 12:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't say that the SEALs absolutely ARE the best in the world unless they indeed are. The Navy SEAL website alone is not a trustworthy source. Of course the SEALs think the SEALs are the best. The fact that there is any debate at all means that you have to say "one of the best" or something along the lines of that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 14 October 2005.

Consider the number of botched operations at critical moments before you sing this song, please. Look at the history; examine the invasion of Grenada, the history speaks plainly. Look at the invasion of Panama under the same light. I visited the official SEAL site recently (I believe it was the official site) and they say the SEALs have learned from these mistakes and I believe that statement. I’m sure the modern operations are/were much better coordinated in the Gulf conflicts but the operational record should be examined as a whole before anyone makes a claim that the SEALs are superior to say the British SAS. There is no personal bias against the Navy Seals from me, just a bias of this ridicules claim. joliver375 (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you can't justify the Seals as being the most effective group in the world on the basis that their website says so. Otherwise I'm rewriting the Trinidad and Tobago account on the basis that my friend Tim thinks that it's got the strongest economy in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.199 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] France?

"Each team can deploy anywhere in the world or France with 4 hours notice by sea, air, or land."

anywhere in the world, OR France!?

That sentence didnt make any sense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.38.88.137 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 July 2005.


'or France' -hahah. The information also incorrect. It's actually within 24 hours.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 14 October 2005.


hmmm.... maybe it was supposed to be something like "anywhere in 24 hours and france in 4"....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 14 October 2005.

LOL good one--Mimbster 16:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] protected

I have protected this page since it appears that this edit war has no sign of ending soon and has degraded into IP's throwing profanity laden edit summaries at each other. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected, hopefully people will stop edit warring now. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] seal nickname

seals are not called "sharkmen" they are called "frogmen"...why do you think their called "tadpoles" in buds???(please change)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.210.179 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 October 2005.

Are SEALs really referred to as "Frogmen"? Certainly SEAL history can be traced to Frogmen units, but I was under the impression that Frogmen were ONLY Navy divers, whereas the SEALs branch into a seperate combat branch of diving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.68.161 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 26 February 2006.

Where does the word SEAL come from anyway? And why is it always capitalised? If it's an acronym, then shouldn't the full name be noted on this site?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 14 October 2005.

SEAL stands for Sea Air Land. You wouldn't call them the Navy Sea Air Land. The acronym is explained in the article I believe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubbleboys (talk • contribs) 12:02, 14 October 2005.

[edit] Coral sneakers

What are "coral" sneakers? coral colored?--24.94.189.89 05:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

They are called "coral" sneakers because you can walk on sharp coral with them without cutting your feet Swatjester 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Females...

...need not apply, correct? Perhaps taken for granted, but maybe we should mention its men only (assuming what I remember reading on the topic is true). Marskell 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. Women are not allowed despite what GI Jane might tell you.Swatjester 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we change it to "Currently" only me are recruited into the SEAL? I for one think it might be dropped all together.

                            Traith

[edit] quality standards?

I've never seen why the navy seals page had hte quality tag. I would say its up in the top 5% of pages in terms of quality. There are many more pages which don't meet wikipedia quality standards.

Look at this talk page. That should tell you enough Swatjester 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So...the talk page tells me absolutely nothing I don't know. If anything, this article is like I've mentioned before one of the better pages on Wikipedia. Just go to a random page. Click random article a few times and I guarentee you, you will find at least one page which is more in need of quality standards than this article.Bubbleboys 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Top 5%? Look at the featured articles and tell me this can compare. This page CONSTANTLY has factually incorrect information, and the writing style needs work. Swatjester 08:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for you Swatjester. WHAT WIKIPEDIA ARE YOU BROWSING??? Because it sure as hell isn't this wikipedia. Bubbleboys 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Did you even look at the feature article's? GO ahead, submit this one for peer review. It'll get slaughtered and a half. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navy SEALs

There is no SEAL Team Six anymore, it decomissioned a while ago. There is DEVGRU, which from what the public knows, is most likely just like SEAL Team Six.

===there were at least 5 seal operators in mogadishu...i know 5 names for sure, there could have been one or two more even, but im positive there were 5 and not 4. wasdin, olsen, nearpass, kaiser, gay.

There is a could reason SEAL is always capatilized. A seal or Seal is the animal. A SEAL is a member from the Naval Special Warfare.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 January 2006.

Actually it's restricted capitalized because it's an acronym ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's restricted? What are you talking about?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 February 2006.

oops. Don't know where restricted came up. I meant to say capitalized. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


No SOF unit is the best, they're all elite in their own ways. A unit like the Army Rangers may (not saying they are) be better on ground, but Navy SEALs can beat any SOF unit in the water. No SOF unit is better - they all have their own specialties.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 January 2006.

[edit] Discussion "Funny Platoon" transferred to Delta Force

[edit] LASIK/PRK

Both LASIK and PRK are acceptable for current and prospective members of NSW/SO, including the Navy SEALS. Reference NAVMED P-117, Manual of the Medical Department at http://navymedicine.med.navy.mil/Files/Media/directives/MANMED%20CHANGE%20126.pdf.

[edit] What happened to SEAL Team NINE?

What happened to SEAL Team NINE? Anthony Appleyard 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1,3,5,7 on the west coast 2,4,8,10 on the east cost

4 in each. 9 isn't commissioned yet.

SEAL TEAM SIX is decommisioned, however recent news article mentions a murder/self defense trial commited by member of TEAM SIX.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taikei (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 April 2006.

[edit] These are the scores that trainees are frequently urged toward by instructors:

Does this seem oddly phrased or out of place to anyone else? Every instructor urges their trainees to higher standards, do they not? I haven't been to BUD/s but I'd be willing to bet that the instructors urge the trainees to sit at the bottom of the pool for 4 days straight too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joliver11b1p (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 March 2006.

[edit] Weapons List

It's a little pointless since we a) don't know what they do and don't use and b) they have a lot of individual discretion anyway. Lets just delete this list and put in a paragraph that says they are given great leeway in their selection of weapons and hence are not bound to the standard issue in the US Military. Notable uses like their adoption of the Stoner 63 series might deserve a mention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 4 May 2006.

[edit] Two notes

First - where's the source for use of MARPAT? Given the Corp's (what some might call fanatical) attachment to it's beloved Eagle/Globe/Anchor, would they let the SEALs use it? I want to see a factual source on this.

Second - Despite what people will tell you, Jesse Ventura is NOT a SEAL and never was - he was in the UDT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.87.124 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 May 2006.

Incorrect- Although Ventura served his active duty time at UDT, he served his reserve time at SEAL Team ONE. He earned the Budweiser, he's a SEAL. Roundeyesamurai 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAID Camo

I de-linked the "RAID" camoflauge link because it forwarded to the IT term (Redundant Arry of Independent Disks) and I have no idea where to link it otherwise. Perhaps we need a "For other uses of RAID..." link at the top of the IT term's page? JD79 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda names and redirects

Please note wikipedia policies: Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other).. There is no need to keep them here unless propaganda is the topic. Thank you. Añoranza 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

oh lookey, it found a new page to cite, although only the parts that apply to its own agenda ← Ecophreek 21:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not get dragged into anything, be bold Ecophreek, if you see something you think needs to be edited, do so. I will be on the look out for the same. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this user will participate in the discussion on the page, instead of selectively quoting an ongoing talk. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, of course, I shouldn't let the actions of a ... whatever, get me uptight. Thank you for reminding me ← ΣcoPhreek contribstalk→ 22:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You are again misrepresenting facts in order to discredit me, User:Zer0faults. As the link clearly shows, I did not "selectively quote an ongoing talk." I quoted an established policy. Añoranza 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
YOu are quoting a policy on article titles if you did not understand what you are quoting, its established in the first 6 words. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore I ask you do not accuse me of anything again, as we are to be assuming good faith. Also please I ask you again to participate in the discussion at WP:MILHIST talk page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, as the link clearly shows, I did not "selectively quote an ongoing talk." I quoted an established policy. I ask you to leave it and try to get a consensus if you want to change policies. Your continued perfidious tactics attempting to discredit other users have been noted at your RFC. Añoranza 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again the policy is not related to what you are attempting to change, why are you failing to see that the policy is in regard to article titles, its the 5th and 6th words in the quote you keep using. It does not have to do with operation names in articles, just titles ... Again I ask you to participate in the discussion on the WP:MILHIST page. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you selectively quoted an established policy of a Wikipedia Project dedicated to military history, not an actual Wikipedia Policy. The sentence after that which you quoted states: "This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy." And further, your interpretation is wrong. It does not even imply there is no need to keep them unless the topic is propaganda, but instead touches on the point that operation names generally are poor descriptors of the actual event. Also note the words "should" and "generally" rather than "must" and "always." However, in the case of this, we are not even talking about what to name the articles themselves. It appears you are editing out the operation names from an article dealing with the US Navy SEALs. It is appropriate to do the links in the style of [[Iraq War|Operation Iraqi Freedom]] because we are dealing with one side and their participation in different conflicts. To call this POV is wrong, it is contextually supported and appropriate. Rangeley 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that we are describing one side of the conflict does not mean we need to use the propaganda of that side. You are right, operation names generally are poor descriptors of the actual event, that is part of why we need to avoid them wherever possible. Añoranza 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The link is self descriptive. As per the discussion as long as the link goes to the appropriate location, it is fine to use the operation name without the need for even a footnote. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"As per discussion"? As you know very well, several users think that propaganda names need to be avoided for the sake of neutrality. Añoranza 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason you do not want to participate in a discussion on the WP:MILHIST page? A centralized discussion on the issue is more appropriate then 38 on various talk pages. Please participate in it, it was created in hopes of addressing your concerns, and of the greater issue. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
When I last looked at it, the issue you see had not even brought up. The policy as it is supports my position. Añoranza 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried, your unwillingness to participate does not negate the results of it. I hope you will not complain afterwards if it does not go in your favor. Furthermore, for the final time, you are quoting policy on article names ... I however believe that you know this as its been pointed out numerous times, and the 6th word in the quote is titles. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The reasoning of the policy as well as NPOV support my position, please leave it. Añoranza 23:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my above statement. And I will not participate further as you are clearly ignoring that your quote is not about the topic. If you choose to bring up something more then, the quote which is about titles, I will be more then happy to continue, unfortunatly this is just the same back and forth with different text. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree to disagree, discussion pages are so that a consensus can be reached and to quote you yourself: "I just tell you that wikipedia does not work if single editors like you decide that all others are stupid and should be ignored" ← Ecophreek 00:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the quote made by Añoranza at the top of this discussion section is from the Military history WikiProject Guidelines — it is not "Policy". Specifically, that quote is from a subsection of the main "Guidelines" section. The Guidelines section states (verbatim quote):

"The guidelines presented in this section are intended to be guidelines only; while they are well-suited for the vast majority of military history articles, there exist a number of peculiar cases where, for lack of a better solution, alternate approaches have been taken. These exceptions are often the result of protracted negotiation; if something seems unusual or out-of-place, it may be worthwhile to ask before attempting to change it, as there might reasons for the oddity that are not immediately obvious!"

So, it is clear that this guideline recognizes exceptions and the need for consensus. Therefore, the need for discussion on this topic is not obviated by the guideline. Also, note that since this issue is applicable to many articles, there is a main discussion, as pointed out above. —ERcheck (talk) @ 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed

As the neutrality of naming conflicts by propagandistic operation names when there is no need for it is disputed, the tags need to stay. Añoranza 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing neutrality dispute tags is vandalism. Añoranza 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
So is misuse of tags. --Mmx1 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a dispute, so the tag is correct: Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism: Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Añoranza 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the conclusion they came to is that operation names were fine for military operations if the operation name links directly to a location that doesnt have the operation name as a title. So these are fine cause I fixed the redirects. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to keep operation names that were decided to be only redirects for the sake of neutrality in a list where other conflicts have common names. Añoranza 04:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrectly summarizing the consensus that has been reached on this page. Operational names are appropriate for use in miliary articles. — ERcheck (talk) @ 04:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I see no consensus here and I was not summarizing any, just stating my opinion that it is not neutral to use propagandistic operation names. This is backed by the fact that those I removed were renamed to neutral descriptive titles. Añoranza 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up References and External links

An anonIP deleted, without edit comment, a number of external links. I've restored them. But, it has lead to the observation that there are a lot of links that may not be necessary. The External link section is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of all online references. I'd like to request that the major contributors to this article review the External links, references, etc. and format per MOS. Thanks. —ERcheck (talk) @ 15:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The first external link on the page was as listed below. It has been part of the article since its creation on 2002-02-25. The URL no longer exist. However, there is a copy on archive.org, which I have substituted. The most recent date in the archive is 2006-03-03.
—ERcheck (talk) @ 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed two external links that redirected to commercial catalog websites. There are probably more inappropriate commercial links since I didn't check them all. Smc64130 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Kar

The Cyrus Kar article indicates he was a SEAL, as do approximately half of the webpages I have seen about him. The habeas petition put together by the ACLU does not mention his status as a SEAL and indicates he only served three years.

Is he a SEAL? If so, should he be included on this page? Erechtheus 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I found one letter [2] that seems to indicate the seal thing was constructed. I don't know about the navy in general. --24.94.189.11 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a team?

"A Navy SEAL Platoon consists of 16 men (2 officers, 14 enlisted men). This can be easily split into 2 squads or four 4-man fire teams for operational purposes. The size of each SEAL “Team” is larger, ranging between eight to ten Boat Teams per SEAL Team."

This confuses me. The team in quotes represents support staff? Are the support staff not part of the platoon? --24.94.189.11 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] pull-ups

i was just wondering weather SEAL's have to complete over-arm or under-arm pull-ups, as royal marine commandos have to complete 16 over-arms pull ups. As the master chief stated to us before taking the test, "there are no such things as under-arm pull-ups" They are all over arm ;) Jmsseal 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a standard for "famous" under "Famous Navy SEALs"?

And if there's a standard definition of "famous", does Chris Osman qualify? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Chris Osman - CEO of Tactical Assault Gear, a California based military and police equipment manufaturer

[edit] Sanity-check, please

Does anyone know if this edit is reasonable? My impulse is to be suspicious of any uncommented, uncited edit by an anonymous user, which just changes random numbers in an article. As a more general thing, would it be possible for someone to add references for these training figures? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

These seem very reasonable. As a Naval officer I can tell you the the PRT maximums are 101/101 (for men) so it would seem very reasonable that a "competitive score" for SEAL candidates at BUD/S to have this. Keep. --ProdigySportsman 03:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the list is not complete, what is there is an up-to-date chart. Jmsseal 03:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I did find the tests on http://www.navyseals.com/community/navyseals/navysealworkout_main.cfm and they seem to match.

[edit] Non-POV in introduction paragraphy

"They are considered second only to USMC Force Recon." is most definately non-POV and will be removed shortly. --ProdigySportsman 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've again removed the "considered second best statement". This uses weasel words and is POV and potentially inaccurate. Who considers it second best? What is the criteria for this statment? What about those that disagree? Where are the citations and refrences? Etc. Please don't put it back in without clearing up these issues. NeoFreak 08:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Admittance

Unless I missed it, what are the qualifications? Do you need to be a natural born citizen of the United States? Jachra 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The physical qualifications are listed in the article. According to the navy.com website, the citizenship requirement is that one be a US citizen - although they don't specifically say so on the website, naturalized US citizens can be SEALs. CruiserBob 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the text about the SEALs being better than SAS needs to be 86'd. What's the basis for that claim?

[edit] Motto

We have a couple of "unofficial" mottos, but are there any official mottos--Editmonkey 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like someone's been fooling around with this article a bit. We have a "future Navy SEAL" listed under the famous persons, incorrect grammar in most of the sections describing terrain, and so on. 10:39 06 June 2007 (CT)

[edit] Area of operations

The AOR section has been butchered. The new sections, while larger, are pretty much fanboyish and POV. It's grammatically sound and seemingly factual but there are no cites and, as I've said, it reads like a Copy & Paste essay entry from a Special Operations groupie site. Unless someone expresses some interest in a total rewrite with cites I'm going to revert to the older version. NeoFreak 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics beyond creed and motto

Although Marchenko's Rogue Warrior books are fictional, they are based upon his actual experiences to a degree, and in one of the books I recall him writing about how a mission was intentionally crafted in order to give some new recruits the opportunity to make their first kills. One of the Seal Team Seven novels -- again, fictional but supposedly based upon knowledge of the Seals -- has a sequence in which Seal members execute some wounded because, it is said, they don't take prisoners. Although WP:NPOV needs to be maintained in an article like this, and properly sourced, etc., I think it's actually POV to sugarcoat what Seals are often trained to do. Now, the two examples I cite above may not reflect reality: Marchenko was writing a novel inspired by his excperiences, while Seal Team Seven was a series of books like The Executioner. Neither are what you'd call non-fiction works. But I think more could be added to this article discussing the psychological make-up of Seals, how issues such as killing are handled, and if the situation described regarding the Seal Team Seven books is close to reality. (To be fair, similar discussion could and should be added to the law enforcement equivalent of Seals, SWAT.) 68.146.47.196 15:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


I can say, from my own training and experiences in the Military that on some missions it is not possible to take prisoners. I can also say the unspoken orders concerning these missions are 'Do not give the enemy the opportunity to surrender'. An example would be a deep penetration ambush. The enemy moves into the ‘Killzone’ and the ambushers let fly. Since the relatively small ambush team cannot afford the luxury of transporting one or several prisoners back to friendly lines or they may have further mission objectives to accomplish, that ‘Killzone’ will be raked and raked and raked until all the enemy is well on their way to the promised land, such are the realities of war. Now kill a surrendered and captured prisoner, that’s not being hardcore and going the extra mile for the team that’s coldblooded murder. Even in the world of special operations that’s a no-no or at least was and I hope still is. – Joliver375 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wash out rate

Obviosly the cause of this high wash out rate is they transfer a sailor into soldier .--Max Mayr 07:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


That is incorrect. SEALs do not need to be sailors to enter BUD/S, and they are not turned into soldiers. The high attrite rate is because of the difficulty, both physical and mental, of BUD/S, as well as a high number of injuries there which force prospective SEALS to drop out. 66.189.27.50 (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


To my understanding the vast majority of the 'Servicemen' who enter BUD/S come straight from Navy Boot camp. The infamous dropout rate seems a greatly inflated figure when compared to the dropout rates the Ranger Indoctrination Program, for example. Considering the RIP Volunteer has been through Army Boot Camp, Infantry School and Airborne School before even being considered for RIP training. Naturally the wash out rates will be lower as your dealing with seasoned and better trained 'Servicemen' from day 1. If someone knows different, inform me please. - Joliver375 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking, but not reading. Your understanding is flawed. One needs a rating (like an MOS) to go to BUD/S and you don't have that straight out of boot camp, at least as an enlisted. Academy and OCS grads may be a different story.

I didn't have a chance to read about ratings as there is no mention of them in the training requirements listed. Perhaps you can point me in some direction where I can learn about them or someone with a greater knowledge of the Navy than I can add them to the article. Also, the training requirements simply mentions passing the ASVAB, you used to have to pass the ASVAB just to get into the military. Are there some specific scores required? The test used to be broken down into sub scores but I forget the various catagories. Saying you just need to pass it is akin to stating you need to be in the service in general. Maybe someone can add to this requrement who knows better than I. joliver375 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


While we're talking about the washout rate, can someone correct this sentence:

The first phase is most well known for 'Hell Week', which usually occurs duritly drop on request (DOR), from the course.

I would correct it myself but I am unsure what it is supposed to say. joshua.green (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Training

It's writen '50,000 push-ups in 2 minutes'. I doubt about this. Please, if someone is qualified about this matter could he check it? Thanks. Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOVE?

Why was this page moved? United States Navy Sea Air and Land Forces is not the formal name. Outdawg (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)