Women in Combat? Why?

The military should "cater" to the best man for the job and not the economics, even if that man is a woman.

 

If the military takes 1000 women and 200 men and trains them equally, they picks the best 100 of these 1200 individuals and ONE of them is a woman, then that is what they should do. Economics SHOULD play no part in getting the most capable people for our military.

 

If ONE woman who wants to can do ANY job in the military and is capable of meeting the requirements of that job, then She should be allowed to do that job, PERIOD. That says NOTHING about any general characteristics of any women in general.
I SERIOUSLY doubt that MOST men could defeat any of several women of the WWE in a wrestling match.
Not all men are qualified for military service, nor are all women, but those that ARE QUALIFIED, should be allowed to serve.

 

I have seen both men and women killed in combat. While I did NOT enjoy it, neither the death of a man or woman kept me from performing my duties. If the death of any soldier would keep you from doing your duties, then you should not be in the service. I am sure we can find plenty of good qualified women to take your place.
By the way, the stupidity about a male and female falling for one another in a particular unit is ALREADY covered by military rules and regulations. Your foolish prejudice against women, just like that of those against gays is just that, bigoted prejudice. It makes NO difference of you couch it in "care and understanding, facts and figures", It boils down to bigoted prejudice.
In WW2 people with similar outlooks to yours, Said "blacks just are not capable of doing a proper job in combat". They were wrong and so are you.

 

Ignored for cause!

 

Because some of them wish to be in combat.

 

What foolishness some people come up with to support their personal prejudices.

 

Ignored for cause!

 

I am not bothering to quote your post, since it had no validity at all.
The discussion is NOT about people, male or female that cannot do the job, it is about WOMEN that CAN do the job.

 

What nonsense. Just about any war can be one today with one plane and a couple of nukes. The infantry has a place, just like armor and air power. But, the INFANTRY is not the only way to win a war as my example proved.

 

People who "think" like this shouldn't be voting.

 

I'm not in support of women in ground combat units, but
I think the argument needs to get away from one based upon male bravado
sneering at the mere mention of a female in the infantry...such slight and delicate
creatures afterall have no place in the rough and tumble world of the infantry; so they say.

While certainly not a female...I present
Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier during WWII.
He was awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor along
with 32 additional U.S. and foreign medals and citations.

The Marines and Army paratroopers turned him down because he was deemed
"too slight" for the task. Even the Navy turned him down...
though he stood 5' 5" tall and weighed 110 lbs., finally the Army accepted him
as a basic infantryman.

He earned earned the Silver Star twice in three days, two Bronze Star Medals, three Purple Hearts,
the Distinguished Service Cross, and the aforementioned Medal of Honor.

Give me an Army of Audie Murphys any day...all 110 lbs. of him.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog....

 

Name me a single war that was won based only on air power. Just give me one, please.

And sure, this can be true, if you are talking about solving all conflicts with thermonuclear warheads. And that is the most frightening and idiotic theory on conflict resolution I have ever heard.

 

From what I'm getting from you and others (Andromoduh, etc.) is for the sake of political correctness, women should be allowed in now, and if many extra lives and military objectives are lost it is just "collateral damage" of little consequence.

What tests would any of you construct to prove your point of women being able to do any of the hardcore infantry combat roles that you so wish be intergrated?

Even our best infantry fighting men are suffering from increased joint and stress injuries from hauling around all the heavy gear---and you think women would fare even as well?

Yes, women fought in Vietnam and the Soviet Union as snipers, etc. They weren't hauling all the heavy gear either. Socialists will sacrifice their men or women without a second thought. Their ideas sound so familiar.

 

The argument for opening up direct ground combat units to women isn't so much
based on establishing a quota for them...but more so opening up the opportunity
to qualify for it.

Keep the standards exactly as they are, not a separate one strictly for females...
and if women can hack it and meet all the standards...I don't see any reason
they shouldn't be allowed to try for it.

I think what is being asked is just the opportunity, more so than affirmative
action which is putting them there, not based upon merit, but upon the fact they're
female.

I know many special operations schools typically wash out 70% - 80% of applicants;
so that only the most qualified move on to the job.

Why not the same for infantry...don't give the women any special treatment and if they
can hack it, why not give them a chance.

We already have women in combat roles and serving in combat areas...I don't think
it's such a huge stretch to give them the chance at serving in direct ground combat...and
hey, don't kid a kidder...I've seen some skinny guys in armor units...at least back
in Gulf War I in Kuwait. Why can't a woman drive a tank? if they can't meet
the standards in training for that MOS, then wash them out like any other candidate
who can't meet the standards; but I see no reason not to give them a chance.

Heart and desire counts for something, regardless of gender.

Small guys often do well in direct ground combat...Audie Murphy as I mentioned
before. The Marines, Navy and Army paratroopers wrote him off as too small and too weak...
and yeah 32 medals and citations later, a Congressional Medal of Honor...the most decorated
soldier in WWII...maybe folks should be given at least a chance to prove themselves.

Y'all might be surprised, and worst case scenairo, they wash-out and try another military occupation they
are better qualified for.

Just my two cents.

 

Well there we have it, I'm just wrong cause you say so.

Yes you could take 1000 females and 200 men and at least one female will be up to the task. But at what cost? It would cost an insane amount of money to train 1000 females only to have 90% fail.

Yes they have rules agianst men and women fraternizing, doesnt mean it doesn't happen.

As for me, I could handle seeing a woman killed right next to me and continue the fight on to the objective just like if it was a male, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be different emotionally when it was all said and done.

The gear is a huge deal. I was in the best shape of my life when I first got in, now I've got multiple bulging discs from my neck down to my lower back, hip is all jacked up, among other things. Average, gear was around 90 lbs, most I ever humped through the mountians was 155lbs.

A majority of women are not up for the task, and in order to train 100 to get 2, would cost a lot of money. Many women also just don't have that violent instinct that keeps us alive in dire situations.

 

Thats absolute nonsense. You get the most capable force for the cheapest price possible. Instead of training 1200 women to get 1 capable of infantry....they could train 200 men and get 140 for 1/6th the cost. The military operates on budgets too and economy of force is always an important component to combat and non combat operations.

 

You're completely and utterly wrong. If we could use nukes and planes to win a war why did we have to fight on the ground in the Gulf War....both times? Why didn't we use Nukes in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Panama, and various other conflicts? Anyone with a modicum of understanding of modern military operations would laugh at you. Ultimately, when you break it all down, every branch and job in the military ultimately SUPPORTs the Infantry. Infantrymen are the guys that can go into you're enemies house, bunker, or trenchline and kill them or make them come to the bargaining table.

 

Special Forces units can have an 80% washout rate because they're small and elite. Having that high of a rate is very expensive. Its costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to train each man. Allowing women in would require a washout rate probably in excess of 80% (without changing the standards). That is increibly expensive. I also know that the P/C crowd and higher brass will end up "tweaking" the standards to allow more women to pass. Then when you mix in the whole sexual harrassement issue and nondeployability (pregnancy) you're going to be pissing away a lot of money and effectiveness.

Also don't forget that most men pass the requirements to be Infantry by a lot. There's the "official" standards and then the "unofficial" standards that are much higher in actual units. The women that scrap by the official standards will more likely than not crumble under the unofficial standards. This means less effective infantry.

Tank drivers have to help break track, lug heavy shells, and do various other very physically demanding jobs. Also, as direct ground combatants they are expected to operate as riflemen in a pinch. In Iraq/Afghanistan today many tankers are deploying as provisional rifle units.

 

I looked up a tankers's MOS and indeed it's rated as heavy lifting, so I stand corrected there....

Women already are serving in combat, and already are part of mixed sex units...
just not direct ground combat units...

If a recruit can meet the standards required in an MOS, I don't see why it matters
what is between their legs.

Female combat medic who served in Iraq, also licensed to drive the Army's Stryker vehicle.

 

I think you an I both may agree though, that driving a stryker, and hummping 80lb gear, while having the ability to pull the tigger when face to face with the enemy on a regular basis....is incomparable.

 

I have no theories on "conflict resolution". I am in favor of winning any war the fastest way possible, with the least loss of American lives. Be it AirPower Armor, Nukes or just dropping rabid squirrels on them. Any use of force to save American lives is MY method. Conflict Resolution is claptrap political doublespeak.

 

Who said anything about theories of conflict resolution? I acked you a very simple question, in response to a claim you made.

You said infantry is not needed, since wars have been won with nothing but air power. And I asked you to give me a single example of where this happened.

Nothing about theory, or such garbage. If you can answer the challenge to your statement, do so. If you can't, then kindly withdraw it.

And I am sorry, you really do need to get some lessons on the military.

First of all, you need to know that nukes are not military weapons. No more then chemical weapons are military weapons. They are both political weapons. Their goal is not to defeat military troups, but to intimidate the nation or people of the country you are in conflict with.

And I seriously question the sanity of anybody that casually suggests that they be used in any situation other then last resort in response to an attack with the same weapons.

 

You think Truman was insane?

 

He never causally suggested nukes. They were used as a last resort.