Women in Combat

Combat isn't just about strength. It's strategy, expediency, competence, cunningness, and there are women totally willing and able. Yet, I do think its a much less percentage then men.

 

I totally agree with this statement, beside if a woman can meet the same standards as men why bar them? Also women might even make the new standards for the military - as in I'm sure women will bring something to the table unforeseen and perhaps our standards might eventually be a benchmark of ability from both of the sexes.

 

Finally, somebody who knows something about the military side of this!

 

There were times I walked into my home, and my mom would be practicing time in her gas mask because she had upcoming tests in a chamber. She was clostrophbic so the mask really freaked her out. She served in the Gulf War in 1990 as a nurse. There were many training sessions with M-16s (or something like that). Whether on the offense or defense, women can still be killed. That makes them pretty equal. She retired as a Lt Col from the Army Reserves.

 

What experience are you speaking from?

Strength and endurance play a very big part of it. I served with females who could run faster and further than me, do more pull-ups, and more crunches. By every standard of measure my branch had they were perfect. The problem? Put any sort of combat equipment on them and they were useless. They couldn't keep up when combat loads were applied. Yes, smarts are a big part of it as well, but without the physical ability to go along with them you are useless.

 

I'm just kind of using common sense. Useless. Really? Perhaps a variation of combat equipment is in order. Maybe a big dumb burly brute could run beside them and carry the equipment.

 

Common sense? Hardly. You are being naive. It doesn't work that way in combat units. This isn't a game. Take a rifle squad, for example. When I served in one I not only carried enough equipment (ammo, rifle, grenades, water, medical kit, food, helmet, flak vest, etc....) for myself, but I also carried additional ammo drums for our SAW, as well as additional batteries for our radio.

If we make the military change the way it fights to accommodate those who are physically unfit (ie having someone else carry their equipment), then we sacrifice military efficiency and readiness on the alter of political correctness. Your of thinking is going to get people killed.

 

Don't be so angry dude. It's a fucking discussion. The military is adapting all the time to new ways to fight wars. It used to be about trenches. It's about chemistry and biologicals and suicide bombs and technology. But yeah, thanks for your service.

 

I am not angry at all. I apologize for making you think I was.

Yes, the military adapts all the time to the changing face of war (ie new weapons, and so on). However, that isn't what you are calling for. You are asking it to change, for the worse, because of some social motive.

 

I was a bit tongue in cheek about the strong brute running beside the weakling service woman. Both are sterotypes....of which I normally don't object to.....but it seems so ironic right now. The move to put women in combat isn't social. Or it shouldn't be.

 

OP: a civilized society doesn't go to war in the first place.

 

What is it, then, in your opinion?

 

I agree.

Common sense says let anyone who wants to do it and is fit and able to do it, do it, but if they can't, no excuses, that's it.

 

I agree.
Isn't it the case that if you are male and able to get into the army (etc) you are able to fight on the frontline?
If you are female and able to get into the army (etc) you can't fight on the frontline (at the moment)?
So, a different standard is used for the frontline than to get into the army (etc)?
Would it not be equitable if you are not able to get into the army (etc) you are not able to fight on the frontline?
Every female in the army (etc) has passed the test to get into the army (etc) - so why can't they fight in the frontline?
The only real difference in the British army is how many push-ups you can do.

 

Don't women already take up combat roles already? I'm not a vet (fortunately) but it's this just formalizing what has been happening since 2002 anyway?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...27406/women_combat_experiences_literature.pdfSummary
This review was unable to identify any empirical, scientific data examining the effects of
women in close combat teams, especially within the UK Armed Forces, and it appears
currently that no such information exists.
Many countries do employ women successfully in mixed gender combat teams, the
numbers are very small, and therefore, where research is feasible the small sample sizes
would call into question the viability of statistically significant measurements in relation
to cohesion and the impact on operational effectiveness

 

Fixed. Sorry couldnt resist that one

 

You could if you wanted to.

 

If you put an honoury male place in the Olympic womens 100m final. 99.9% of the worlds male population would still finish last if given that spot.

In something like a special forces unit, sure 99.5% of women may not have the stamina, physical attributes to handle that, the endurance to carry the loads he is talking about. But thats not going to be the case for ALL females.

Even if you got the most experienced guy on here you could find, with decades in the toughest combat units, saying the same kind of thing. That experience would still just mean he's never had one of that 0.5% or 0.1% in the same unit.

Theres not one female on the planet that could kick his ass?

 

Have you seen the newest story?

Wall Street Journal: Women Shouldn’t Be In Combat Because Men Poop



http://thinkprogress.org/security/2...cant-be-in-combat-because-men-poop/?mobile=nc