Women in combat policy to change

[GoldenRivet]

regardless of the position one holds in the discussion... Human kind should try to rid itself of war... not search for new ways to add more people to it.

It is a costly endeavor - costly in life and capitol - and in the end it really accomplishes very little for the price.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

regardless of the position one holds in the discussion... Human kind should try to rid itself of war... not search for new ways to add more people to it.

It is a costly endeavor - costly in life and capitol - and in the end it really accomplishes very little for the price.

Now that's a message I can get behind!

As far as women's rights and opportunities, I personally find it very unfortunate that all of this has ended up in political agendas and political correctness. There are definitely issues of discrimination to address, but the way in which they have been has in some ways made the situation worse. There is a difference between the language of opportunity and affirmative action, and I fear that because of politics much of this ends up slipping into the latter. Nothing new about military ranks being a field for political play, sadly.

[Stealhead]

In my experience in the USAF honestly the sex of the person made little difference there where woman that where just as good at the job which in my case was mechanical as any man.There where both men and women that where good and ones that sucked for one reason or another.As to the whole psychical strength part I think many only get half the picture there are plenty of males in the military that could not meet the requirements but simply had their buddy lie for them and say they did x amount of x in order to pass.I don't think it is a political thing to have allowed women in the military in fact after they stopped the draft and went to all volunteer they knew that they would not get enough males so they wisely choose back then to allow women to do 90% of the military jobs.

And to be honest the whole capture situation is silly to the truth is if they want to they will make you talk to some extent this fact was proven during Vietnam where most of the POWs did say something but you cant really blame them when you consider the things done to them.As a matter of fact they actually changed the code of conduct after Vietnam because some men died because they refused to talk and died from the torture the US military felt this was a waste of life because there was no information they could have given that would have been of much value.Also in the modern military only a very small amount of troops are ever in real danger so if your job is to be a mechanic or a radio operator something like this you are never going to see combat anyway.

The Soviets used so many women because they needed the manpower er human power that they provided modern armed forces have women for the same reason they need the manpower that they provide the US will never go back to the draft short of a world ending event occurring and there simply are not enough people willing to join the military as is right now women included to be honest if we did not have women right now wed have a much weaker military simple truth we need them like it or not.

"Or bring back the draft with no exemptions. That way, war would not be such an easy option for our fascist warmongering government. I want some congressmans sons to die in these endeavors, more than anything." that is never going to happen and you know it.


GoldenRivet has a nice idea ridding the world of war but we human beings have a long way to go before we get to that point if we ever do.

[August]

My big problem with women in combat, aside from the strength limitations, is that a mixed gender combat force is a distracted combat force.

Our troops have enough to worry about in combat without adding sexual tension to the mix, and lets be honest, anytime you have a group of young men and women in close quarters there will be sexual tension and it will be a huge distraction.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

My big problem with women in combat, aside from the strength limitations, is that a mixed gender combat force is a distracted combat force.

Our troops have enough to worry about in combat without adding sexual tension to the mix, and lets be honest, anytime you have a group of young men and women in close quarters there will be sexual tension and it will be a huge distraction.

I will not add to it, simply agree and applaud.


A focused force.

Very good.

[Skybird]

In principle there is nothing to say against women in combat forces. The devil hides in the details.

But the criterions by which candidates are qualifying for this or for that kind of job, both physically and mentally/intelklkectually, need to be set by the realities set by war, not by gender quota policies.

There need to be implemented a general rule of equality also - no privileges or eased duties for any gender.

Special measures causing increased logicstical efforts implemented due to both women and men serving in especially close or difficult quarter, like small diesel submarines for example, are not to be allowed. That in an already small and crowded environment plltical correctenss now demands efforts distracted to inlcude separate quarters or routines becasue there may be a woman on board, is total nonsense for me.

I have ni problem with imagining wsomen in combat roles, and in all ranks up to generals - if they qualify by the same standards as male candidates. These standards are NOT to be reduced for women or even for both sexes just to make it easier for women.

The erotic tension that August refers to as a distraction, is hard to judge for an outside rlike me. I know that in WWII, the Russians had not had such problems, and that the Germans feared female Russian snipers more than males. From israel there were reprts I read someyears ago that a mixed composition of forces even eased tensionbs in units and led to more discipline. I assume it helps in times of war, and more becomes a problem in times of peace.

Women in fighter jet cockpits, as snipers, generals, combat troops? Yes, if they qualify by the same standards as males, and they can be integrated without too much of a hassle. Women aboard small submarines, in commando teams, as combat divers? I donb'ÄT think that is a good idea.

Also, in wartimes, there is a chance that warriors are being taken as prisoners. A women joining armed forces should give that some serious thoughts, I think I must not explain the implications especially if the enemy is no "civilised" faction following international rules of warfare, but a barbaric faction from a tribal patriarchalic culture with high ressentiments against women anyway.

Obverall, the combat efficiency of any branch of the armed forces shall in no way be negatively effected or complicated by letting women in. Soldiering is not just like any other job. The business is to wage war, or to prepare for doing so. Any candidate thinking about a military career should have not the smallest illusions about that.

The military is not there to boost your later civil business chances or your political career, it is not there to provide you with some years of adventure or letting you see some shares of ther world, and it also has not the function to give you a job and an income where else you would be unemployed - all these things are only (unimportant) side-effects. The military is there to fight battles and wage wars, and to prepare for this by training in peacetime. This, and nothing else.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The military is not there to boost your later civil business chances or your political career, it is not there to provide you with some years of adventure or letting you see some shares of ther world, and it also has not the function to give you a job and an income where else you would be unemployed - all these things are only (unimportant) side-effects. The military is there to fight battles and wage wars, and to prepare for this by training in peacetime. This, and nothing else.

Then it may be a good idea for the US armed forces to stop advertising military service as such. They've been telling it to America's youth for the better part of 60 years. "Be all that you can be. Get an edge on life in the Army."

No one I have ever talked to said they were mis-led to enlist.
Some said they did not understand the commitment and regreted it.
But that's thier fault as far as I care to listen to excuses.
So the crap you see on TV makes it 'look' Cool.
As a thinking person? Who ever buys into all the crap deserves what they get!

We were given a brain for a reason!!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Then it may be a good idea for the US armed forces to stop advertising military service as such. They've been telling it to America's youth for the better part of 60 years. "Be all that you can be. Get an edge on life in the Army."

Indeed. Most people over here find this habit and the relative aggressiveness by which it is pushed at schools (and schools even demanded to give the military postal adresses of their students, I think) nothing else but despicable. I saw them repeatedly in TV docus that they even approached 12 year old kids on public events like fairgrounds, attracting them and starting their interest with entertaining game desks where they could shoot at something or crawl around in tanks or such. And of course it is meant to get interst for the military becoming anchored in their minds as early as possible.

If this is needed to cover the personnell needs of the armed forces, then I think mandatory conscription for both sexes and of a sufficiently long time would be the far more honest and less underhanded way to go.

Being a soldier or memeber of the armed forces is njust not just like any other job, even if end up in a calm office at a desk. You are still enagged in issues of war. And that is what makes all military jobs not just jobs. Either you feel called for living a warrior'S life, or you don't. In cas eof the first - do it then, but do not have any romantic illusions. In case of the latter insist on your right to not be tried to be lured into service. And stop brainwashing kids.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by August

My big problem with women in combat, aside from the strength limitations, is that a mixed gender combat force is a distracted combat force.

People once said the same about whites and blacks in America.

Perhaps we should have all female combat units.

they say that any group of women who stay together for long enough a period of time synchronize their menstrual cycles.

This could provide advantageous.

If we could mobilize an entire female fighting force during that time of the month... they could probably wrap up just about any armed conflict in a matter of days if not hours.


and furthermore aihglkjduh


Sorry gentlemen... Goldenrivet had to be eliminated

Yours,

The girflriend

[August]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

People once said the same about whites and blacks in America.

I don't see it as the same thing but I wonder how many names are on the Vietnam Memorial because of racial tension? I know when I joined in 1977 there was still a lot of racial incidents.

Sorry gentlemen... Goldenrivet had to be eliminated

Yours,

The girflriend

What are you wearing?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

My big problem with women in combat, aside from the strength limitations, is that a mixed gender combat force is a distracted combat force.

Our troops have enough to worry about in combat without adding sexual tension to the mix, and lets be honest, anytime you have a group of young men and women in close quarters there will be sexual tension and it will be a huge distraction.

Now, I saw the movie "Starship Troops" and it worked out in that. We should be okay.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Now, I saw the movie "Starship Troops" and it worked out in that. We should be okay.

Another thing many people not in the military may not be aware of is that male or female some troops will meet and other troops will exceed and others will greatly exceed the set standards.Of the airmen I supervised it was actually a female one who most greatly exceeded the standards in fact she beat the set male standards as well I would say that this woman was "not trying to be one of the guys" she just happened to be in good shape and my troops never cheated because I was the one counting their numbers of push ups and sit ups and run times so there where no games.

"Caracal" is nothing new Haganah units had women in them though they did keep them out of direct combat units for some time after.

I tend to agree with CCIP on the whole distraction issue combat units are a little different than other units but in any unit I was in there was never much of a serious problem with males getting distracted sure guys might say to the others that chick is hot but that was as far as it went in my experience. Besides not every woman in the military is super attractive either there are quite a few dog faces out there.

[CaptainMattJ.]

The Air force is a much more detached military fighting group in today's wars.

A fighter pilot doesnt have to stare down the sights of a rifle and watch the victim's head get shot off. Not to say that fighter pilots shouldnt and dont have the feeling of remorse, or the sense that they just took someones life, but its one thing to see it in the air, then to see it happen before your eyes. Same goes for the Navy. At this point in history, when the major military powers are at peace with each other, and full scale naval/air/ground combat is not a reality, Personnel in the Navy and Air force are extremely critical, but less of a liability for woman when the underlying areas of concern arise.

The USAAF and the Navy is a much more suitable area for woman to play their role in. Pushing through all the political correctness, the army and marines are destructive, dangerous, and very taxing fields. Theres too much potential for abuse. Assuming we allow them to serve frontline, we cannot cave in, and make sure that physical requirements do not change simply because of the fact that some cant meet them.

Woman obviuosly have the ability. But you cant ignore the problems that may arise when woman are put in the thick. Make sure they are fit, like every military personnel, and make sure that abuse does not take place.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

The Air force is a much more detached military fighting group in today's wars.

A fighter pilot doesnt have to stare down the sights of a rifle and watch the victim's head get shot off. Not to say that fighter pilots shouldnt and dont have the feeling of remorse, or the sense that they just took someones life, but its one thing to see it in the air, then to see it happen before your eyes. Same goes for the Navy. At this point in history, when the major military powers are at peace with each other, and full scale naval/air/ground combat is not a reality, Personnel in the Navy and Air force are extremely critical, but less of a liability for woman when the underlying areas of concern arise.

The USAAF and the Navy is a much more suitable area for woman to play their role in. Pushing through all the political correctness, the army and marines are destructive, dangerous, and very taxing fields. Theres too much potential for abuse. Assuming we allow them to serve frontline, we cannot cave in, and make sure that physical requirements do not change simply because of the fact that some cant meet them.

Woman obviuosly have the ability. But you cant ignore the problems that may arise when woman are put in the thick. Make sure they are fit, like every military personnel, and make sure that abuse does not take place.

Much of what you said does not really make that much sense.The USAF and US Navy are by a massive margin more destructive than Army and Marines because they both are part of the nuclear arm.I would also disagree on the combat pilots as well it all depends on where they are and the risks I have massive respect for anyone who flew against North Vietnam if you think that was not dangerous and stressful to any Air Force Navy or Marine pilot or air crew.Not to mention the great risks that Navy and Air Force air rescue units risked.Or the men that flew in B-17s and B-24s that was war just as much as it was to any infantry man getting body parts and heads blown off by flak and enemy aircraft cannon shells what an easy and envious job oh and they also have to wait 5,6,7 hours to even get any real medical aid at least the infantry man got aid fairly rapidly in most cases.And most infantry men do not actually see a person head get blown off that is very Hollywood they do see the results after the battle true.

You seem to be confused by what dangerous is combat is dangerous but so is working with heavy and complex machinery or working on a flight line(x 10 on a carrier) and EOD when fighting a foe that makes heavy use of IEDs is very dangerous.In my very much rear line job in the Air Force I was nearly killed or seriously injured by either being crushed,getting burned alive by a stuck aircraft counter measures flare and I was never near any enemy.I find your opinion that the Air Force and the Navy are not "taxing" as if all of the jobs are easy trust me they are not.If you had to do my old Air Force job for one day first you'd sleep for a day or two afterwords then you'd wake up and say, "Man that was taxing!" this would be true for many non combat jobs in the military Air Force and Navy included.I hate to say this but I bet that any of the female airman that I knew in my job in the Air Force would put you in your place real fast I'd love to you try and pull a 6 ton aircraft jack and hook it the back of a truck like anyone in my old job has to do or pull and hook up any other equipment to a truck and you have to this all day for 9 hours(12 in a war zone) by yourself lets not even mention all the knuckle busting wrench turning you have to do it is such hard work you dont need to go bench press or do curls at the gym you just did it all day.Sorry but your post really screams out your level naivety to me I can think of many jobs in military that you probably think are easy that in fact require very hard work.Sure an Army or Marine Infantryman has a hard job but so are many of the jobs that support them.

As I said women are already in EOD a very dangerous and difficult field and field in which basically you have no half wits or partly capable members.

Honestly I do not really care what the color of a persons skin or their creed or their sex if they want to do something in the military and they can pass the training I say let them do it.Before I was in the military I felt very different about women to be honest what I saw from most in the military greatly changed my mind it is the persons mindset their desire to work hard not what color they are or what sex they are.I can recall once when I was training this young woman the in and outs of flight line duty she was very small and I thought to myself "This one is going to flake for sure" we get a call for 4 of the 6 ton aircraft jacks which only have these giant casters for wheels and weigh a good bit you can hook up to 3 of them to the back of a truck (the 6 tons is the load that it can take but many of you know just how much a shop car jack weighs so you can guess what a jack that holds up of C-5 might weigh) She asked how you transported the jacks and I said "watch me" I walked up and pulled one up the truck and I figured that this woman might as well try to move one herself so I told her to try the next one fairly certain that shed need my help but she pulled it Talk about underestimating someone I have seen some fairly fit men struggle with moving the jacks the first time.

OK now I am going to take a break and enjoy my vacation I am a long way from Florida.