Women in Combat? Why?

But not "in response to an attack with the same weapons."

Beyond that, had we had the same nuclear capability in December of 1941, what would have been wrong with doing by the end of that month what Truman ended up doing on 8/6/45?

 

Because by using nukes, you will have many many more civilians killed. Nukes are not something you use right off the bat unless you are attacked with nukes first, which we have never been. They are always a last resort.

I really don't even know why I have to explain something that is comon sense.

 

According to our constitution, we all have certain rights, one of those rights is to NOT be discriminated against because of gender. It is just plain RIGHT and LEGAL to allow a woman to do any job she is capable of and qualified for and wants to do. To discriminate because she is a woman is idiocy, illegal, and means not getting the best for the job.
Personally, I believe the draft should be reinstated for ALL Americans (Male and Female) when they turn 18. And each given a job that their talents fit them for. If that job is digging latrines, building nuclear power plants or carrying a pack in combat, that is what they should be doing. That is NOT political correctness, it is what I believe should happen. Our kids today have no idea what responsibility to the nation is. Everyone should be required to serve the nation or not be allowed to vote, PERIOD.

 

If by sending 1200 through training, you find 1 that is going to be a better soldier than by sending 140 through training, then that is what should be done. The military should not be staffed by the cheapest people you can get, but by the best. Make Cheaper bombs, planes and tanks, use canvas for packs instead of more expensive materials, but, don't cut expenses on the staffing of the military.

You want to hire the cheapest, I prefer to hire the best.

 

I served on M-48a3c's, M60's and M60a1's. I never saw any tanker do anything that literally millions of women are not capable of doing.

By the way, washing out of such an elite training as infantry does NOT mean that someone is out of the army, they can still be drivers, cooks, clerks, radio operators and any of hundreds of other jobs in the infantry.

By the way, did you know that those with the lowest grades on the army batter of exams, get the elite job of Infantry training? hmmm, Could this fear of women be actually a fear they will lose their jobs to someone smarter and better qualified?

 

Exactly.

This is a good example of "last resort". And the use of the 2 atomic weapons that ended WWII saved over 6 million lives.

Because it does not matter. Even if we had the capability of dropping an atomic bomb in 1941, we still could not have used it until late 1944-early 1945 anyways. And this is for several reasons.

The first bottleneck in the dropping of such a weapon is the aircraft. The bomber required to drop the first bombs was the B-29 Superfortress. And this was not introduced into service until May 1944. So no matter what, prior to then we did not have an aircraft capable of carrying the bomb.

Then we had to wait until we had control of an airfield within range of the Japanese Home Islands. And that happened to have been Tinian, which was not secured until August 1944.

So even if we had the capability of the atomic bomb in 1941, we still could not have used it until late 1944 at the earliest.

 

Even replacing a broken track?

 

Good thing you're not in a position to implement that policy. You'd bankrupt our defense budget and end up with half the military capability we have. It's all about getting the best force possible for whatever given amount of money has been designated by Congress for defense.

 

I saw tankers acting as infantrymen in Iraq.

Even without these female soldiers completey leaving the military the cost would be massive.

You don't "get" a job you pick one. Basic infantry (0311) in the Marine Corps generally has a lower ASVAB score requirment but is actually NOT the lowest. The weapons guys, TOW gunners and assault men, actually have one of the higher GT score requirements. I think you'll find that some of the country's most intelligent and educated soliders/Marines are in Infantry units, especially Special Forces Units. Many men join the military for the specific challenge only infantry can provide before going on to college. Many also join with their degrees. I had one Lance Corporal in my platoon who had graduated from Upenn and left his investment banking job to join the Marine Corps. He did his 4 years and is now getting his masters at GeorgeTown. That said, the Infantry definitely has its fair share of rocks.

 

And you would still have to take said female washouts and retrain them to be cooks, drivers, clerks, RTOs, etc etc and spend that much more money.

As for the ignorant comment on Infantry being the dumbest, is far from the truth and if you actually spent time as an Infantryman, you'd know that. Do you have statistics to back that lame assumption?

BTW I scored in the top 12% on my ASVAB.

 

If the casualty figures in wikipedia for Hiroshima and Tokyo are reasonbly accurate, this is worthless hyperbole.

You don't. If you need to explain something, it's why nuking Hiroshima saved lives in 1945, but would not have saved even more lives in 1941.

Obviously no such right is enumerated in the Constitution, nor is it an unalienable right - especially as regards employment by the federal government, since the relevant 14A provisions can only be applied against the states.

You are hung up on semantics. To my way of thinking, "the same nuclear capability" implies the ability to deliver the weapon on target. Beyond that, I didn't ask whether it could be done, I asked what would be wrong with doing it.

 

It has nothing to do with their ability to accomplish a given role. It has everything to do with UNIT COHESION. The individual is irrelevant in an infantry UNIT. They are a COLLECTIVE. If one person is negatively impacting the cohesiveness of the tightly knit unit, then they are a liability, despite whatever individual skills they might possess.

Take it from people who have actually been there and done that.

 

It depends. The IDF snipers are not like the Marine snipers, who ARE trained infantrymen. The IDF snipers are more akin to a SWAT sniper, whereas a Marine sniper is a trained infantryman with combat sniper training.

 

Of course you think his point is valid. Most people who haven't served a single day in an infantry unit would think that. But when you actually live the life, you see things differently.

 

There are plenty of reasons, reasons which have been given by experienced infantrymen dozens of times throughout this thread. People always talk about respecting the troops, but when it comes to actually running the military, they never listen to us. Such irony!

Soldier? How much soldiering was she doing in an ROTC unit?

 

Israel's military's primary concern is domestic defense. They rarely deploy to forward areas, and when they do it is not for extended periods of time like our military. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

 

Women have demonstrated they are more than capable of filling certain roles within the military, some of them combat roles. Many women pilots have done great things for the boys on the ground and yet someone who has never spent a single day in uniform wants to tell us how to run things? Get lost, buddy.

 

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

-Barry Goldwater (R)

As long as they can meet the standards, why not? And while we're at it, we should also require them to register for selective service.

The standards should be the same. They exist for a reason. This same argument should be applied to law enforcement, fire fighting, etc., any occupation where lives are on the line. There are some women who can meet the standards. Most can not. Those who can should not be prevented from serving.

Because they are citizens and have the same rights and obligations as men. If they can meet the standards, there is no reason they should not be able to serve and be required to register for selective service just like their male counterparts. Funny, I've never seen the feminists pushing for that last one. LOL.

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of segregating the genders. While I believe there are some women who, as I've already suggested, can meet the standards to serve in combat, I doubt any could pass the extremely-rigorous standards for the elite combat forces like the Rangers or the SEALs. Frankly, I doubt most female Marines could even approach the standards of their male counterparts.

 

Sure, but nothing male pilots couldn't have done every bit as well, and that without all the complications that accompany the male-female sexual dynamic.

In case you've forgotten, rules for governing the US Armed Forces are made by civilians; and those civilians who had authority to make such rules when women were deemed fit for combat roles did not make rules to that effect to increase battle readiness.

 

Those selected for any AIT training are seasoned and experienced NCOs, who all score very high on their evaluations. And they tend to have higher then normal ASVAB scores.

And I have to take exception on the comment also. The first time I took the ASVAB (1982), I scored high enough that I could have had any job in the military I wanted. The Navy wanted me for their nuclear power program, but I did not want to spend a career in subs.

I had to retake it in 2006, and this time scored even higher. My MOS in the National Guard would have been as a GIS specialist, but that fell through. But I had no problem qualifying for PATRIOT.

Trust me, from all my experience, the "rocks" generally find themselves in fairly safe MOSs. Fueler, truck driver, cook, things along those lines. Job fields where if they make a stupid call, it is rare that anybody dies.

And yea, we had rocks in my grunt unit. They were the ones that never went out on OP/LP detail. They were never put on point. And they never rose above Lance Corporal. We just stuck them in the middle of the squad, so all they had to do was follow everybody else.

They were also often used for filling sand bags and digging foxholes.

 

Actually no, I am not. Because for it to happen as you say, the entire war would have to be re-written.

In 1941, we had absolutely no capability to send a nuke to Japan. We had no aircraft that could carry it, and no bases within range to get it there.

You might as well say "If we had the F-15 and M-1 tank, would it have been easier to win WWII?"

However, I believe that the use of such a weapon at that time would have been the right decision. Although I would have recommended it's use in Europe first. That was by far the worst theatre.

 

Infantry is not only vital to counter-insurgency operations, but also in conventional warfare. I'll take a well trained, well motivated, highly disciplined, tactically proficient, tough and smart infantryman any day over a tank or B-52 bomber, even in a conventional war. Good, smart infantry tactics can always circumvent and defeat overwhelming firepower, technology and machines. Technology, machines and overwhelming firepower can never be used as a substitute for solid, tactically proficient infantrymen. No amount of firepower, technology or machines can ever be a substitute for tactical proficiency. People under-estimate and mistakenly discount the value of the most valuable asset to the military: infantry. Infantry is extremely important and sadly at times neglected and not understood properly in the context of fighting and winning wars. It is ultimately the infantry that determine victory or defeat and thus is crucial and vital to the military and any neglect of the infantry by the military could very costly for not just the military, but our nation that the military has sworn an oath to defend. The infantry is the foundation of the military. It's why I am big on healthy food for troops (healthy diet is very important for the infantry) and training all the time and training using the best and smartest tactics.

 

In my mind, the infantry should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the military. Infantry should always be held to the highest standard and nothing less than being the best of the best is acceptable for an infantryman. That means a lot of sweat and training. The infantry carry a lot of weight and responsibility on their shoulders so nothing less than being the best of the best is acceptable.

 

Umm...not really. That's why the US is making all of the bases joint operations bases and training us all together now (not basic yet, just for our jobs)...because one branch really cannot win a war. It's a team effort.

If your infantry goes out there without support, first off the enemy air force is going to blow them away, secondly the opposing army will have superior fire power. You take a beach or a coastal area, your infantry will get blown away by entrenched combat positions.

Your views on infantry are relative to about the time of WW1. The infantry isn't anything without the rest of us....

 

No more than the rest of us lol. Just interested, do you actually have any military experience? I can't see anyone who has served saying this sort of thing to be honest....