These qualification standards are insane and have almost nothing to do with battlefield conditions, even behind the lines ops. They are mainly bonding initiation rituals and torture endurance if captured training. Elite forces are no harder to kill when spotted than any other fighting force. I want to see figures on Seals, Rangers, Delta Force and Green Beret actions that show them to be worth the expense in training. If you want mountain troops, train them in mountains. If you want desert troops, snow troops, UDT troops, air insertion troops, etc., train them for the job. You try to train one person in all the above, you get a very expensive asset just as capable of being lit up by an IR drone as any other normally trained asset.
After their active duty service is up and they civilianize, guess who drops by with a pay check- all the private security details for the fat cats and bankers who start these conflicts. We are basically training bodyguards and mercenaries for the globalist monopolist aristocracy, the people we fought a revolution and founded this country against.
The standards are NOT insane. They provide the nation with a level of security based on strong minds and endurance.
There would have been NO USA with your level of understanding.
Are your observations and ideas based on your own experience, or just some logical analysis? I certainly agree from my own combat experience as a reconnaissance platoon leader and a rifle commander that it’s very unlikely to encounter conditions that are encountered at Ranger School.
But the purpose of Ranger School is to train leaders for the stress that present in actual combat conditions without actually shooting at students. The overwhelming opinion of combat veterans leaders is that Ranger School is the best training available for that purpose. Ranger School graduates serves throughout the Army combat branches, not just in Special Forces and the Ranger Regiment, so your argument does even not apply to this particular course.