Women in Combat? Why?

This is a good argument. I'd be willing to say with time that most support and rear echelon functions will be performed by women. Engineers, motor pool mechanics, flight line directors and crew chiefs, etc.

It's not inconceivable in 30 years to see a large feminized military with a male infantry corps. There isn't any reason a woman can't shoot an artillery rocket, etc.

Armor and artillery are great places for women to enter combat roles.

We'll never see large numbers of women infantrymen, etc.. but there is no reason a woman can't operate a tank or aircraft or truck, etc with the same skill as a man. These units require large base facilities that could easily accomodate female personnel.

 

Great, freedom, isnt it?

 

If women can complete the physical tests I see no reason why they should not be allowed to serve in a frontline unit.

 

Exactly. I totally agree that is how it should be.

 

I've said this over and over again. You're all ignoring the costs. 1 in 60 women are physically capable of being trained as infantrymen. 60 out of 100 men are capable of being trained as infantrymen. Training costs would rise dramatically. Thousands of women would flock to infantry training to try and join. Weeding out the tiny minority would costs millions and millions. The few women that were capable of passing the training wouuld on average be physically inferior to their average male counterpart. What you end up doing is spending 10 times as much for an inferior product. You can't just administer a PT test, they're not reflective of life as an infantrymen. I'll also tell you that in active infantry battalions the "minimum" male standards are no where near acceptable. A women just scraping by these standards would show up to her unit and get blown away.

When you mix in sexual harrassement issues and the need for seperate facilites the costs become extreme....all for no increase in military effectiveness (probably a decrease). Also, this debate we're having about gays in the military. I see many of the same posters saying how integrating gays into bathroom/showers isn't the SAME as doing it with different genders. For women to become infantry men they will have to shower with men.

 

Is there any reason a woman can't be a general? And if not, would you be OK with an all female JCS?

 

There are dozens of female flag officers.

 

Why not? What are women vulnerable to that men are not?

So what? At best you are arguing that women should have the exact same physical standards as men for strength and endurance.

I have met women that are stronger than most men I know.

 

That makes no sense at all.

Simply have an initial test which gives a rough estimate of strength and endurance...those that pass can go to the "real" test. Problem solved, and very cheaply.

You're making it harder than it would need to be.

 

Good. For a second I thought there would be a serious obstacle to alllowing women to join infantry units. Simply set the minimum requirements at the needed level and both men and women who pass will be ready to join.

 

I dont get why that would not be immediately obvious to anyone on this issue. Standardized physical requirements would solve that issue completely.

Yes, there are women who could meet them.

 

Don't know the number as of today, but in '08
there were 57 active-duty women serving as generals or admirals.

and another factoid to trhow out there...of about 2,600 combat fighter pilots in
USAF, 71 are female. Supposedly one of them posts here.

.

 

would you be OK with an all female JCS?​

Scary question, I guess.

 

Did you not bother to read the rest of my paragraph? You can't just give them a test. How come they make Navy Seals go through BUDs and years of training? Why don't they just give them a "rough estimate of strength and endurance" and accept them. BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH MORE TO IT.

 

What about the costs? Who wants to pay the millions? Why do we want inferior female infantry?

 

Women are much more prone to stress injuries too. That doesn't come up in any test.

 

The Pentagon's policy now is barring women from being assigned to units
whose primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat.

I don't think that policy should change, for reasons already alluded,
physical strength, unit cohesion etc...

Bear in mind that the wars that U.S. troops are fighting today and in the best decade or so, don't have frontlines.
Anyone in uniform can get caught up in combat, including the thousands of women who have served already in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I mean anyone. I know a JAG officer who received a purple heart after getting a severe
shrapnel wound caused by a mortar. IED's are another hazard that
do not discriminate between combat and combat support either.

For example, over 39 female troops have been killed in Iraq since '03.

Women are veterans too, and for those who argue otherwise...
I'd say they are more man than you'll ever be. (affectionately of course)

*end of rant*

 

Of course. Women have an important role to play in the military. Unfortunately, people can't distinguish between being in combat and being an infantryman/tanker/artyman in combat.

 

I don't think most women who enlist or are commissioned even want those
areas...unless a commissioned officer is looking for a faster track to promotion.
Combat arms tends to promote quicker. I don't think the policy should change,
but they should be no slight against women. They serve a vital role as they are,
and are not totally excluded from combat. We have women combat pilots
and MPs as examples. A female MP was awarded a silver star.

 

Let me repeat what I wrote earlier. Set the standards at the real level and not the low level they are now. The women who pass will be able to function in an infantry unit because they will be no different from the men who also pass (they mau even be more motivated because it will be challenging for them to pass).

 

Did you bother to read mine? If you had, you would not have said this:

Of course you can. You can give them a quick preliminary test to see if they have a real chance of passing the "real" test. Any high school gym teacher could do it. Its not rocket science.

This will weed out all the the applicants that you claim will overwhelm the system. Only the women who have a real chance to pass it will go on.

Explain to me why you think this will not work.

How come all soldiers are not Navy Seals? Could it be that standards are not the same for all men in combat?

We are not talking about making women Navy Seals. We are talking about women in combat in general. They do not need to meet special forces standards for that. Just like men dont.

Females who can do everything the men can do would not be inferior by definition.

Source?

Are you trying to claim that ALL women are more prone to stress than the weakest man that has seen combat?

No one is saying women should be allowed in combat roles simply because they are women and it is "fair". They are saying women should be allow to TRY for combat roles. If they must meet the exact same standards as men, why is that a problem?

If it doesnt come up in any test, how did you determine that women are more prone to stress?

Even if that were true, it would not necessarily be a reason to exclude women. There are doubtless many women out there that are less prone to stress than many men. It is not an absolute.

 

The "real level" is passing infantry training (3 months) and a work up for deployment (6-10months). That's a year of training. You can't just make some arbitrary test. Plenty of men make it through infantry training then prove themselves less than satisfactory during the work up once they get to their units. These guys are usually tossed into desk jobs or other mundane positions. I gurrantee you that a significant amount of women who passed infantry training would end up behind desks.

 

Admit it, you get off on all the machoism, don't you?

LOL

 

There's no simple physical test to pass that could realistically show they're capable. There are professional atheletes/college atheletes who go into Special Forces training and FAIL. These guys are the top 1% of physical specimens but they fail. A test doesn't work. It serves as a good starting point but its far from comprehensive. And yes, a regular woman making it into infantry would be akin to a regular man making it into the SEALs.

The minimum physical standards set are the MINIMUM. Go to an active duty light infantry unit and make them all run a PFT. You'll find that almost every single guy will more than double the minimum requirments. So, while less than 2% of women can pass the minimum standards, probably .001% can pass the established median score of an infantry unit. Do you get that? Weeding out that .001% wouldn't make any economic sense whatsoever.

When I say stress injuries I mean things like shin splits, stress fractures etc. Women have less dense bones and are more prone to injury. You'll notice that females have a significantly higher injury rate in basic training than males.

 

Again, we're not talking about special forces. We are talking about combat roles in general. You dont need to be in special forces to be in a combat role.

I'd like to see your source for those figures. If that is the premise of your argument.

I know. Thats what I assumed you meant. I havnt seen a source for that claim either.

So what? Asian men are on average a lot smaller than black men. Should we exclude them from combat as well?

Your main argument against women in combat seems to be that it is expensive to weed out all the ones who cant qualify to find the acceptable ones (and you appear to accept that "acceptable ones" exist). But you have not provided any actual data to back that up. It seems to be a simple assumption you are making.