PDA

View Full Version : Women in combat



ICantSpellDawg
05-19-2005, 00:09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm

i am irate about this

i think that this is an absurd move

what do you all think?

DisruptorX
05-19-2005, 00:10
Good for them.

Not to mention this is good for the soldiers, it is probably hard enough to have to kill another man, having to kill a woman is even worse. I do not think women should fight as infantry.

Big_John
05-19-2005, 00:15
don't let the hot ones fight.. keep them here please thx.

one has to remember that, in essence, war evolved as a means for men to secure either 1) more women or 2) a better domain for their women. it stands to reason that there would be some apprehension about sending the very thing you are ultimately fighting for into harms way. that is, of course, ignoring a good bit of psychology, sociology, etc. but i felt like making the "hot" joke above, and i had to post something below it so as to sound like less of a tool.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-19-2005, 00:29
I don't quite understand the logic behind this. I say that, so long as they meet the physical fitness requirements-the actual ones, not seperate ones to help fulfill female recruitment targets-I say let 'em fight. Keeping them out of support roles as well is just silly.

Idomeneas
05-19-2005, 00:49
i say somebody has to stay home and wash the dishes ~D

discovery1
05-19-2005, 01:01
I don't quite understand the logic behind this. I say that, so long as they meet the physical fitness requirements-the actual ones, not seperate ones to help fulfill female recruitment targets-I say let 'em fight. Keeping them out of support roles as well is just silly.

Here here! Let them fight if they can pass the physical.

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-19-2005, 01:25
There is this little problem with female soldiers.

They get pregnant.

A lot more than male soldiers (funny how that works).

So units with women in them are often less ready than others because women are on maturnity leave.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-19-2005, 01:27
There is this little problem with female soldiers.

They get pregnant.

A lot more than male soldiers (funny how that works).

So units with women in them are often less ready than others because women are on maturnity leave.

Couldn't you use that line of reasoning to keep women out of any job?

discovery1
05-19-2005, 01:28
There is this little problem with female soldiers.

They get pregnant.

A lot more than male soldiers (funny how that works).

So units with women in them are often less ready than others because women are on maturnity leave.

The Army could provide free contraceptives. Or they could court-marshal any woman who became pregnant. Harsh, but it's the army so that's ok. And I suspect any woman that could pass a males physical requirements won't be very attractive, not that that matters I suppose.

And what BKS said above.

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-19-2005, 01:32
Couldn't you use that line of reasoning to keep women out of any job?
You could, but most "any job" doesn't involve people shooting at each other.


The Army could provide free contraceptives. Or they could court-marshal any woman who became pregnant. Harsh, but it's the army so that's ok. And I suspect any woman that could pass a males physical requirements won't be very attractive, not that that matters I suppose.
That seems like defeating the purpose. If you get pregnant you get courtmartialed. That person still isn't out there with their unit.

And I suspect (though I don't know) that they have a ready supply of contraceptives. (Please don't flame me if I am wrong; I'm just hypothesizing.)

discovery1
05-19-2005, 01:41
That seems like defeating the purpose. If you get pregnant you get courtmartialed. That person still isn't out there with their unit.

It's more of a deterent, at least that's what I was thinking.

ichi
05-19-2005, 01:43
I work in field that was almost entirely all-male up until the 70's, and I've heard every one of the arguments about why girls shouldn't/can't do dangerous work.

I currently have two women on my crew and they work as hard, if not harder, than the guys, sleep on the ground, go two weeks without showers, eat MREs, work in 100 degree plus heat, run chainsaws and pull hoses, swing shovels and axes and work until 3 am just like my guys.

They haven't gotten pregnant, don't break down and cry, don't flirt or have to fend off wolves so often they fail to get their work done, and generally look good, behave well, and are are assets to our crew.

What I've found is that men have a tendency to talk about what women should or shouldn't be allowed to do, while they just go out and do it.

ichi :bow:

Redleg
05-19-2005, 01:45
Have any of you that have commented so far ever served in any military?

Have you ever served in a combat service or combat service support unit that was manned with female soldiers?

I served for over 12 years - and for 4 of those years I was in and around units that had female soldiers. Now while the promiscuty (SP?) of some female soldiers is greater then that of their male counterparts - these female soldiers often preformed their assigned tasks as well or better then their male counterparts. If a female is willing to volunteer and put herself in the United States Military and serve in uniform - then she should accept the same risks that every other soldier must face in thier service.

Now if the Senate in their bogus wisdom want to force women not to be in mbat - then they must go back 50 years to the days of the WAC, WAVE and make seperate divisions for women so that they can only serve stateside - or in Army theather level command areas - ie so far back in the rear they might as well be stateside.

Kurando
05-19-2005, 02:00
I'm with Redleg + let's not forget that the women of the Soviet armed forces kicked some serious butt during WW2

There were the "Night Witches" of which there were four female Soviet aces during World War II, totalling 54 German fighters downed.

...And most defientely: Sniper Ludmila Mikhajlovna Pavlichenko accumulated 309 confirmed kills, 67 more than the famed Vasili Zaitsev!

This site lists fifteen female Soviet snipers with over 50 confirmed kills, and seven female Soviet snipers with over 100 confirmed kills. http://wio.ru/galgrnd/sniper/sniper.htm

In total there were 92 women who won the title "Hero of the Soviet Union" during the second world war.

Proletariat
05-19-2005, 02:02
I currently have two women on my crew and they work as hard, if not harder, than the guys, sleep on the ground, go two weeks without showers, eat MREs, work in 100 degree plus heat, run chainsaws and pull hoses, swing shovels and axes and work until 3 am just like my guys.


I'm a female in the military and I'd rather not get into why women cannot go for more than three days without a proper shower on this forum.

ichi
05-19-2005, 02:04
wow the mythical Kurando-san is spotted

*checks list of ancient warriors*

Welcome back

*bows*

ichi :bow:

discovery1
05-19-2005, 02:07
I'm with Redleg + let's not forget that the women of the Soviet armed forces kicked some serious butt during WW2

There were four female Soviet aces during World War II, totalling 54 German fighters downed. 92 women won the title "Hero of the Soviet Union" during the war. Sniper Ludmila Mikhajlovna Pavlichenko accumulated 309 confirmed kills, 67 more than the famed Vasili Zaitsev!

Didn't a women raise the Soviet Flag over the reichstag? The actual event I was told took place after dark, and that the film with the Mongolian was a reinactment.

Kurando
05-19-2005, 02:15
Correct-a-mundo discovery1 while the mongolians were busy playing with the flush-toilets in the wardroom a female unit was the first to battle their way to the roof, and one of them raised the red flag: hammer, sickle et al.

...I can't remember her name but I've seen her interviewed: built like a linebacker + she was one of the 92 woman awarded hero of the soviet union during WW2.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-19-2005, 02:37
Two main reasons to keep women out of combat

1 If a woman is wounded or captured or in a dangerous situation the men are more likely to take actions that they wouldnt if it were a man in the same situtation. They cant help but try to save a damsel in distress.

2 I can agree to let women do anything other than being frontline infantry. There is a bonding among men in this sitution that I dont belive is compatable with a womens physcy. It would also be one hell of a distraction. In units like Redlegs. I believe thats arty right? You are generally behind the lines a bit. Its tuff to find a good man in a firefight. Most guys either dont shoot their weapons or just stick the muzzle over a wall and pull the trigger never mind rely on a woman. Again other than being a grunt their fine with me.

discovery1
05-19-2005, 02:53
Two main reasons to keep women out of combat

1 If a woman is wounded or captured or in a dangerous situation the men are more likely to take actions that they wouldnt if it were a man in the same situtation. They cant help but try to save a damsel in distress.

2 I can agree to let women do anything other than being frontline infantry. There is a bonding among men in this sitution that I dont belive is compatable with a womens physcy. It would also be one hell of a distraction. In units like Redlegs. I believe thats arty right? You are generally behind the lines a bit. Its tuff to find a good man in a firefight. Most guys either dont shoot their weapons or just stick the muzzle over a wall and pull the trigger never mind rely on a woman. Again other than being a grunt their fine with me.


Any examples to back up your claims?

Gawain of Orkeny
05-19-2005, 02:54
Kind of hard when women arent allowed to be grunts dont you think?

bmolsson
05-19-2005, 02:55
I think that we should only have womens in the army. That would give us men more time for a real carrier...... ~;)

discovery1
05-19-2005, 03:01
Kind of hard when women arent allowed to be grunts dont you think?

Then would it not be equally difficult to make your claims with no examples?

Papewaio
05-19-2005, 03:12
If someone can make bullets that only shoot males then we can have an all male force.

Until then I think females should have the right to defend themselves to the utmost of their ability.

Keep the standards up and it shouldn't be a problem. Also the amount of time someone stays as a frontline soldier compared with the support is immense. So even if pregant they still could be valuable work that frees up another support person to go back to the field...

Uesugi Kenshin
05-19-2005, 03:19
I think women should be allowed into combat. Looking back on the debate on this that occurred shortly after I joined the org I think women should be allowed, but there should be no leniency when it comes to the physical requirements. The women should have to be able to perform at least as well as men are required to.

One way to keep control over soldiers becoming pregnant would be to make them take contraceptive pills regularly to ensure that they are not taken out of combat due to pregnancy. This would be more effective than distributing contraceptives and having harsh penalties because the pill is extremely effective and only fails about two out of ten times or so. I am not sure of the exact number and it may be as low as one in ten. I took health last semester and only retained that much about it.

sharrukin
05-19-2005, 04:40
"When the destroyer tender Acadia docked in San Diego in late April after seven months of gulf duty, the Navy acknowledged that 36 crew members, one-tenth of its female crew, had become pregnant while the ship was deployed."

Ships cannot always afford to lose 10% of their crew in one mission.

"The Navy and the other services say the Acadia pregnancies were consistent with the pregnancy rate of military women in peacetime, and consistent with the rate of pregnancy of civilian women in the 20-to-24 age group, the age range of most of the crew. Another destroyer tender, the Yellowstone, reported 20 pregnancies among 450 female crew members over an eight-month deployment in the gulf."

"The Acadia's 1,250-member crew has a male-female ratio of 3 to 1, and the Yellowstone's is about 3 to 2. By 1996, the Navy has said, it would like the ratio of its crews on noncombat ships to be 50-50."

"This phenomenon first became a matter of comment during Operation Desert Shield-Desert Storm in 1990-91. I recall a South Carolina Army National Guard Trucking Company that reported dockside for shipment to the Gulf with 18 women out of its 120 people pregnant and therefore unable to deploy."

* In 1997 such are the pressures of Feminist Politics and Political Correctness on the uniformed services that the Captain of a submarine Tender, USS LY Spear, in order to preserve his career, reported "success" while experiencing a loss of 63 of his 389 women crew members due to pregnancy --a rate of 16.2% attrition among the women aboard. The total ship's complement was 1442; 73% male (1053) and 27% female (389):

"During the past year, my ship lost 63 female sailors [16.2%] to pregnancy. By comparison, during the same period we lost 71 male sailors [6.7% of males] and 30 female sailors [7.7%] for various other reasons including misconduct, weight control failure, alcohol rehabilitation failure and drug abuse. The loss rates (not including pregnancy) are nearly identical to the gender breakdown of the ship: 73% male and 27% female [statistically 71:30 is meaningfully different to 73:27 and the loss rate including pregnancy is 43% male, 57% female and a total of 24% attrition among females v. 6.7% for males]."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Should Women Go Into Combat?

A soldier brings her perspective to the ongoing debate

By Catherine L. Aspy

Inside my boots my feet had turned to hamburger. My uniform, even my belt, was soaking with sweat, and my back and shoulders were numb from the 40 pounds of gear in my rucksack. The climax of Army basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C., a 12-mile march, was almost over.

Determined to keep up, I forced my exhausted muscles to move. But few of the other women in the company remained with me near the front. Many were straggling, and some rode the truck that followed to retrieve discarded rucksacks. The men, meanwhile, were swinging along, calling cadence. They seemed to relish the whole thing.

That march confirmed something which had struck me often during the previous eight weeks: with rare exceptions, the women in my unit could not physically compete with the men. Many were unable to lift heavy weights, scale barriers or pull themselves along a rope suspended above a safety net. Mixed running groups had inevitably sorted themselves out by sex; in final tests on two-mile runs, the average woman took 18 minutes, the average man about 14. It was apparent that too many of the men were not challenged enough by the training regimen.

There were certainly good soldiers among the women in my company; later on, during regular duty at a military-intelligence installation, I saw women of all the service branches perform as well as or better than men in a variety of capacities. Nevertheless, the huge physical performance gap, so obvious in basic training, forced me to consider the implications of placing women in ground combat units.

Today the nearly 200,000 women in the nations armed forces (14 percent of all active-duty personnel) serve as everything from Air Force fighter pilots to military police officers to captains of Navy ships. But the direct combat arms of the Army and Marines including infantry, armor and field artillery are closed to them.

Should women be allowed into these units as well? Many believe they should. After all, we Americans resent being barred from anything; it's part of our instinct for freedom. Former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D., Colo.) declared, "Combat-exclusion laws have outlived their usefulness and are now nothing more than institutionalized discrimination."

It's not an issue I thought about much when I enlisted. I am sure if I had been asked at the time whether women should be allowed in combat, I would have at least said, "maybe."

Now I say "no." Everything I observed during my hitch in the Army, and later, as I studied the issue and talked to others inside and outside the military, has convinced me this would be a mistake.

Combat is not primarily about brains, or patriotism, or dedication to duty. There is no question women soldiers have those in abundance. Combat is about war-fighting capacity and the morale of the unit. Here physical strength can be a life-and-death issue. And that is why the physical disparities between men and women cannot be ignored.

Unequal Load. For years, Sgt. Kelly Logan* believed that women should be allowed into combat units, that "it didn't matter if you were a man or a woman there is one standard, we all meet it, bond, and drive on with the mission." Then came her 1997 tour of duty with peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. "I had a complete change in attitude," she says. "When we had to do things like digging and reinforcing bunkers, the guys ended up doing most of the physical work. The women tended to move themselves to the sidelines." Logan watched resentment build until it undermined the unit's morale.

She also observed that many women were "so unprepared for heavy-duty soldiering that they would have endangered the unit in a crisis." Patrolling in Bosnia required soldiers to remain on high alert and in full battle gear, including flak vests and ammo. Says Logan: "The equipment prevented many of the women from moving as quickly as men, let alone being combat-effective."

While some women may be up to the rigors of combat, she says, "they are the rare exception. And for some individuals, it was only a matter of time before the platonic bonds progressed to sex, and then all kinds of disruptions ensued."

Logan has reluctantly concluded that "women cannot bond with men in a unit the same way men do." But she cannot say so openly, and insisted that her real name not be used. "It can definitely hurt your career to speak your mind publicly about these things."

The expectation in military units has always been that you pull your own load. But an Apache helicopter pilot told me that his female crew chief simply refused to carry her tools, which weighed 60 to 80 pounds.

"The Army is supposed to be about not showing favoritism," says Desert Storm veteran Sam Ryskind, who was a mechanic in the famed 82nd Airborne Division. "But the females I trained with were de facto exempted from any heavy-lifting jobs."

Whether it was changing truck tires, loading cargo, or even moving heavy cooking pots into position on the chow line, Ryskind says men "always pulled the hard work. Pretty soon this made it an us-and-them situation."

While these experiences do not reflect actual combat conditions, they point to the kinds of intractable problems that would arise if women were in combat units.

In 1994 an Army rule barring women from hundreds of "combat support" positions was eliminated. Meanwhile the Army tried to institute tests to match a soldier's physical strength to a specific "military occupational specialty," or MOS. Then it was discovered that the tests would have disqualified most Army women from 65 percent of the more than 200 MOSs. The tests were scrapped.

The Strength Factor. To deal with the male-female performance gap, the Army has increased emphasis on "teamwork." No one is against teamwork÷that's the essence of the military. But in some cases it has become a euphemism for defining down military tasks, as when three or four soldiers are needed to carry an injured comrade instead of two.

"From a combat standpoint this is just ludicrous," notes William Gregor, a veteran of combat in Vietnam who is now associate professor of social sciences at the Armies School of Advanced Military Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "You may not have extra people around. And battle wears you down. A unit where one person can't pull his or her weight becomes a weaker unit."

I'm five feet, six inches tall, and I arrived at basic training weighing 135 pounds. I was taller than many women in my unit. But the average female soldier is 4.7 inches shorter and 33.9 pounds lighter than her male counterpart. She has 37.8 pounds less lean body mass. This is critical because greater lean body mass is closely related to physical strength.

A U.S. Navy study of dynamic upper-torso strength in 38 men and women found that the women possessed about half the lifting power of the men. In another Navy study, the top seven percent of 239 women scored in the same range as the bottom seven percent of men in upper-body strength.

Even though I had been athletic in high school and had been toughened by two months training, that final 12-mile march was a killer. One reason: cardiorespiratory capacity÷the rate at which the heart, lungs and blood vessels deliver oxygen to working muscles. Trainers know that this capacity is key to sustained physical performance. And numerous studies have revealed differences by sex. "In general," summarized the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, "women have a smaller heart mass, heart volume and cardiac output than men."

Some who want women in combat units acknowledge these differences, but claim they are based on stereotyping and can be minimized by extra training. It isn't that simple.

In a 1997 Army study, for example, 46 women were given a specially designed 24-week physical-training program to see if they could improve their ability to do "very heavy" lifting. During the training, the number of women who qualified for these jobs increased from 24 percent to 78 percent. Still, on average they were unable to match the lifting performance of men who did not undergo the program.

But what about those few women who might qualify for combat units? Gregor, who has done extensive research on male-female physical performance, questions how realistic it is to train 100 women for combat on the chance of finding a handful who will meet÷or in exceptional cases exceed÷the minimum requirements.

Tougher Standards? The interchangeability of every soldier in a combat emergency is an enduring principle of an army's effectiveness as a fighting force. It assumes that each has received the same training and can perform to the same basic standard. That's still true for men who sign up to go directly into the Army's combat arms. They train "the old way," in a harsh, demanding environment.

It's no longer true elsewhere. Under mixed-gender basic training instituted in 1994, men and women are held to different standards. The regimen became less challenging, to hide the difference in physical performance between men and women (although the Army denies this).

Eventually, the softness of basic training became an object of such widespread public ridicule that "tougher" rules were drawn up. Even with these new standards, scheduled to take effect this month, women can score as well as men who are being tested against a tougher standard. In the 17-to-21 age group, for example, to get a minimum score of 50 points, a male recruit must do 35 push-ups, a female, 13. If women were allowed into combat units and these double standards were made universal, the result would be to put physically weaker forces into the field.

An Army publicity release defended these "tougher" standards on the ground that they "promote gender equity" and "level the playing field."

I don't know about the "playing" field. But somehow I think the field of actual combat will not be very level.

[*Not her real name.]

___________________________________________________

bmolsson
05-19-2005, 04:46
One way to keep control over soldiers becoming pregnant would be to make them take contraceptive pills regularly to ensure that they are not taken out of combat due to pregnancy. This would be more effective than distributing contraceptives and having harsh penalties because the pill is extremely effective and only fails about two out of ten times or so. I am not sure of the exact number and it may be as low as one in ten. I took health last semester and only retained that much about it.

Why would them becoming pregnant be a problem? Also why is it any concern of the army what kind of sexlife the individuals want to have ?
A soldier is very well aware what he/she enters when they enlist. Furthermore a modern army have no problems what so ever in handling any issues with pregancy or their staff having an active sex life.

DisruptorX
05-19-2005, 04:47
I am somewhat of a pacifist by nature, I do not wish to fight if there is any other option. If my country were truly in danger and I had to join the army to defend it, I could see myself killing another man. I wouldn't enjoy it, but its war. Having to kill a woman, though, just seems wrong to me. Maybe I'm old fashioned here (I'm only 20 :embarassed: ), but I think that would haunt me for the rest of my life. Yes, my opinion is somewhat sexist, but it is cultural.

Don Corleone
05-19-2005, 04:53
I think what's happened is what's always happend. The Army isn't proclaiming it considers women safe for combat from here on forward, it's acknowledging that they've been there, and they do seem to fit the bill. Look, Gawain, I've never served, so I can't speak to how well a woman would man a foxhole. But I can't honestly testify to how I would either. I imagine that Pariss Island figures this out, and they're not going to allow good marines, male or female, go down in a firefight to prove a point. But, you're right, I've never been there.

Spetulhu
05-19-2005, 09:05
There's no reason to lock women up somewhere they can't get hurt. We're not an endangered species.

Duke Malcolm
05-19-2005, 09:38
Not many women go to combat with the British Army... I think that they are all in the logistics corps. They only started letting women to sea in the Royal Navy in 1991.

el_slapper
05-19-2005, 10:02
About ships : well, if pregnancy is a problem, let's make 100/100 women & 100/100 men ships. Provocative? Let me explain

Let's look at facts : Most armies in the western world have difficulties for recruiting. They CANNOT afford to forget women. That's not a question of "good" or "bad", rather a question of operability.

The question is : how to use women? For every possible role you'll find women able to do the job. Maybe not much, but you'll find some of them. So remains the question to know whether they should be used in mixed units, or seperate units. This is not, by far, a neutral question. It does have influences on how the army works, how it is used, & the relations between the population and the army.

In my job, I've been part of full-men teams, & also mainly women teams. My current team has its only chick as chief... What I did notice is that while everyone does its job, the methods used are very different. The ambiance is different. The problems are different. In a man's team, people will hide problems & try to proceed despite them. In a woman's team, they will reveal it to solve them - but also use those problems as tools to get a better power. Etc..... Said otherwise, you don't manage a male team as a female team - it does not react the same way. And a mixt team will also be different.

So a choice has to be made. Me says mixt teams are better, despite the problems cited above - but separate teams have their charm too. Just they risk to be used differently(one, feeling like a father & its daughters, will overprotect its women's team, while the other one, in dire need of hero chicks for recruiting purposes, will overuse them).

Steppe Merc
05-19-2005, 13:18
If a woman will fight, and they can physically do so, they ought to.It's odd how many places are falling short of their army enlistments but won't use women for actual combat.

ah_dut
05-19-2005, 17:04
If a woman will fight, and they can physically do so, they ought to.It's odd how many places are falling short of their army enlistments but won't use women for actual combat.
Yup...now where was this total liberalism? ~D No seriously, though...if they can, why not? If they can't keep up the physical reqs as stated in the article posted, then keep them the hell outta combat. I am most certainantly not in the army/navy/marines/even the flippin cadets ~;) but I can't really see most of our cadets who want to become army people lasting 10 seconds either...not girls to worry about in our combat situations though...we're an all boys school :embarassed:

Seriously though, when we end up doing rowing, weights, running or other circuit training with other schools at the borough's facilities, we outperform them to a seriously large degree...you'd be surprised, I mean the best girl on their team can only deadlift 80kg ~D I can do more than that and I'm weak ~:eek: As to ergos and such, we tend to do at least 10-15% better in (my admittedly very small scale) experiance :embarassed:

LittleGrizzly
05-19-2005, 21:59
I say if women can pass the fitness test why not ? of couse pregnancy is a problem but i would say extend thier contract to cover the time thier away and you can send them o another deployment later...

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-19-2005, 22:09
The problem with just dismissing the pregnancy issue, Griz, is that the unit the lady is from is short a soldier, potentially in a time of need. In Iraq, which lacks static frontlines, it's more difficult to just send a pregnant soldier "to the rear." And a unit could be down a soldier or more the day of an attack.

LittleGrizzly
05-19-2005, 22:22
And a unit could be down a soldier or more the day of an attack.

the same happens with casulties, the only thing is its an extra strain...

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-19-2005, 23:18
But in this case the extra strain (a casualty, if you will) will have been caused by something that would not exist in an all-male unit. :book:

Kanamori
05-19-2005, 23:27
How many women that are currently in the Army or Navy or whatever get pregnant now?

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 00:16
How many women that are currently in the Army or Navy or whatever get pregnant now?

"When the destroyer tender Acadia docked in San Diego in late April after seven months of gulf duty, the Navy acknowledged that 36 crew members, one-tenth of its female crew, had become pregnant while the ship was deployed."

"The Navy and the other services say the Acadia pregnancies were consistent with the pregnancy rate of military women in peacetime, and consistent with the rate of pregnancy of civilian women in the 20-to-24 age group, the age range of most of the crew."

This would suggest a 10% loss rate over 7 months. c.15-20% per year based on that over and above what normal attrition would take place.

Kanamori
05-20-2005, 01:18
Then, I would hope to see the combat divisions split, or something done on the matter. The idea of sending pregnant women into the battlefield doesn't sit well with me.

Uesugi Kenshin
05-20-2005, 01:32
Why would them becoming pregnant be a problem? Also why is it any concern of the army what kind of sexlife the individuals want to have ?
A soldier is very well aware what he/she enters when they enlist. Furthermore a modern army have no problems what so ever in handling any issues with pregancy or their staff having an active sex life.


If women became pregnant whi9le in a combat unit the strength of the unit would be reduced. It would also be a way for women that were drafted (if the draft ever came to be again, and women were included) to get out of going into combat.

Mandatory contraceptives may not seem very trusting, but when a unit needs to go into combat or into a dangerous area it needs every combat capable soldier it can have.

LittleGrizzly
05-20-2005, 01:54
But in this case the extra strain (a casualty, if you will) will have been caused by something that would not exist in an all-male unit.

well the extra strain i think is better than denying women the opportunity

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 03:25
But in this case the extra strain (a casualty, if you will) will have been caused by something that would not exist in an all-male unit.

well the extra strain i think is better than denying women the opportunity

You cannot pull soldiers out of a combat unit and expect that they will operate just as they had before. Not enough rifles in the unit, no one to bring ammo forward, no one to assist with the machine gun, no one to fix the radio. Soldiers will end up dead if they are shorthanded. Is that better than denying women the opportunity?

LittleGrizzly
05-20-2005, 03:46
Soldiers will end up dead if they are shorthanded. Is that better than denying women the opportunity?

well soldiers can die, so i assume the army has regular backup coming in to replace casulties, so they would just be working with a higher casultie ratio in a way.

mercian billman
05-20-2005, 04:40
Soldiers will end up dead if they are shorthanded. Is that better than denying women the opportunity?

well soldiers can die, so i assume the army has regular backup coming in to replace casulties, so they would just be working with a higher casultie ratio in a way.

Unfortunately things don't just work out that way, you can't just send additional men to a unit and expect it to function the same way. And rotating whole units can be very cumbersome and offsets deployment schedules.

The truth is that most women simply are not capable of being infantrymen. The job involves more than just shooting people, it also means carrying upto 200 lbs of equipment, lots of digging, and a whole lot of extremely heavy physical labor. I don't think I have to go on about the physical problems women would face.

Theres another problem I see with allowing women to enlist as infantry and that is recruiting men. Most of the people at my Marine recruiting station (including myself) are enlisted under infantry contracts. Most chose infantry to be a part of a warrior society, and the fact is if the Marine Corps opened up the infantry ranks to women, most of probably wouldn't have joined.

GoreBag
05-20-2005, 05:01
Eh. If they can do it, let them. If they get pregnant, well, that was their own choice. I still can't wrap my head around why homosexuals aren't allowed in the military; it's basically the same point here.

mercian billman
05-20-2005, 05:17
Eh. If they can do it, let them. If they get pregnant, well, that was their own choice. I still can't wrap my head around why homosexuals aren't allowed in the military; it's basically the same point here.

First of all less than 1% of women are capable of serving in infantry units. Secondly if women should be allowed to serve and become pregnant the pregnancy the womens absence effects the whole unit, and they should be forced to have an abortion or dishonorable discharge. Pregnancy should not be viewed as a way out of combat. Finally homosexuals are not the same because, they can hide their homosexuality and they cannot become pregnant.

ichi
05-20-2005, 06:11
First of all less than 1% of women are capable of serving in infantry units.

Interesting statistic, care to cite the source?


ichi :bow:

JAG
05-20-2005, 06:23
I do believe I am with Redleg - they seem to perform their duties just as well as blokes, if they want to lay their lives down for their country they clearly would have committment, I see no reason why they should be refused.

Remember on top of this there is a wide spread slow down in the influx on male soldiers to the military. It makes no sense to then say no to women.

ICantSpellDawg
05-20-2005, 06:41
I do believe I am with Redleg - they seem to perform their duties just as well as blokes, if they want to lay their lives down for their country they clearly would have committment, I see no reason why they should be refused.

Remember on top of this there is a wide spread slow down in the influx on male soldiers to the military. It makes no sense to then say no to women.


i agree

Byzantine Prince
05-20-2005, 06:43
A lot of women are stronger and even bigger then me, I think the gender is irrelevent when it comes to combat. Put me behind the trigger and I'll kill ever mofo I see. Hell I might even hit friendly, I am so insane.

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 08:18
Interesting statistic, care to cite the source?


ichi :bow:

What actually happened!

In Canada;
Initially ninety-two women entered mixed gender recruit training of which forty-seven graduated. From that forty-seven only one completed the infantry training school, and she asked for an assignment other than infantry. The field engineer field (combat engineer) has not shown any greater success; a total of one female field engineer has successfully completed training.

The Canadian Forces have now lowered their physical standards.

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 08:23
I do believe I am with Redleg - they seem to perform their duties just as well as blokes, if they want to lay their lives down for their country they clearly would have committment, I see no reason why they should be refused.

Remember on top of this there is a wide spread slow down in the influx on male soldiers to the military. It makes no sense to then say no to women.

No one is arguing for a ban on women in the military. It would foolish to suggest any such thing IMO. It is about women in combat which is a different thing entirely.

If they want to lay down their lives for their country that also is one thing. The problem is that they may very well be laying down someone elses life if they fail to do what is asked of them.

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 08:31
A lot of women are stronger and even bigger then me, I think the gender is irrelevent when it comes to combat. Put me behind the trigger and I'll kill ever mofo I see. Hell I might even hit friendly, I am so insane.

http://img269.echo.cx/img269/5075/smk19m39ee.th.jpg (http://img269.echo.cx/my.php?image=smk19m39ee.jpg)

Weights: 32.92kg (weapon), 19.98kg (tripod), 9,53kg (cradle - Mk-65 Mod 5) = 62,43kg (total), 14kg (1x 32 round box)

The Mk-19 is ideal for vehicle mount and can be fitted to Armoured Vehicles, Tanks and Helicopters as well as to Riverine crafts, etc.

That's around 73lbs which needs to be hauled around, lifted and does not include the tripod or 31lb ammo box. Size and strenth is NOT irrelevant if you need to get these things done quickly (and your squads life may depend on it) and this would eliminate many shorter, weaker males and almost all females.

Byzantine Prince
05-20-2005, 09:00
I bet you that's one of the rarest weapons you could ever hope to get in the military. Are you kidding me?

You just get an m14 and you're off. I never said you shouldn't be fit enough to carry your stuff around, but you don't need huge muscles either if you are in a conbat situation. All you need is huge balls.

JAG
05-20-2005, 09:10
sharrukin - And you honestly think that modern warfare means that everyone has to lug that around? You are choosing extremes and forgetting the norm - which is that in terms of day to day pressures and actions women might actually be better than blokes.

LittleGrizzly
05-20-2005, 13:19
Unfortunately things don't just work out that way, you can't just send additional men to a unit and expect it to function the same way

well casulties are being replaced, i don't see why replacing a pregnant womanis any more difficult than replacing a casultie

The truth is that most women simply are not capable of being infantrymen. The job involves more than just shooting people, it also means carrying upto 200 lbs of equipment, lots of digging, and a whole lot of extremely heavy physical labor. I don't think I have to go on about the physical problems women would face.

I have said all along, women should face the same physical standards as men, if they can't meet them then they can't go into comabt.

Most chose infantry to be a part of a warrior society, and the fact is if the Marine Corps opened up the infantry ranks to women, most of probably wouldn't have joined.

are you saying they wouldn't join up if women were included in thier ranks ?

el_slapper
05-20-2005, 13:23
On the topic of capability, I'll trust Redleg. He was part of Arty, one of the most muscle-consuming branches. If he says "women can do it", noone here is better placed than him to say "no they cannot".

But pregnancy is the real problem : casualties may be replaced, but green troops are less efficient than initial troops. Therefore, avoiding casualties seems a good measure..... The choice of the way of doing it is rather complex, each solution has its own drawbacks.

Steppe Merc
05-20-2005, 13:33
As a purely military standpoint, pregnacy is a problem... not sure what to do about it though.

lars573
05-20-2005, 16:12
You guy don't know much about contraceptive options do you? There are options that last for a few months and are as effective as the pill. Injections are what I'm talking about. My sister gets them every couple of months. Thing about the military is that they own your ass for the tenure of your contract. You need permission to get married and grow a beard (if your a man) so why woldn't a woman need permission to have a kid. So the pregnancy issue can be avoided if they simple require women who want to wear a unifrom to get the contraceptive injections.

sharrukin your bits about the canadian military are years out of date. They lowered they made seperate requirement for women 10 years ago. They started letting women join combat units about the same time. Hell there are women in combat units in Afghanistan as I write this.

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 16:35
On the topic of capability, I'll trust Redleg. He was part of Arty, one of the most muscle-consuming branches. If he says "women can do it", noone here is better placed than him to say "no they cannot".

But pregnancy is the real problem : casualties may be replaced, but green troops are less efficient than initial troops. Therefore, avoiding casualties seems a good measure..... The choice of the way of doing it is rather complex, each solution has its own drawbacks.

British military commission study;
When asked to carry 90 lbs of artillery shells over measured distances, males failed 20 percent of the time. The female failure rate was 70 percent. Asked to march 12.5 miles carrying 60 pounds of equipment followed by target practice in simulated wartime conditions, men failed in 17 percent of cases, women in 48 percent.

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 17:00
sharrukin - And you honestly think that modern warfare means that everyone has to lug that around? You are choosing extremes and forgetting the norm - which is that in terms of day to day pressures and actions women might actually be better than blokes.

Great Britain
Lt Col Gemmell looked at medical discharges among recruits trained under the old policy (1997-98), and compared them with the data for 'gender free' recruits (1998-99).

For the men, the proportion of medical discharges due to overuse injury - for example, stress fractures, tendonitis and back pain - remained below 1.5%.

But for women, it rose from 4.6% to 11.1% under the new training regime.

source BBC article

"According to Brigadier-General Suzy Yogev, women in some Israeli units suffer 30% more stress fractures than men in training." Isreali Army source and , see Incidence of and Risk Factors for Injury and Illness Among Male and Female Army Basic Trainees, USARIEM Report No. T19, 1988.

In terms of day to day pressures and actions women do not do as well.

Regarding weights there is nothing extreme about the Mk.19 AGL it is mounted on the Hummers the Americans use in Iraq along with the equally heavy .50 cal heavy machine gun and the TOW missile system mounted on almost every bradley AFV they have.

The 155mm shell for the FH-70 howitzer weighs 43.5kg (95.7lbs) and the American shells are close to the same weight.

The HEAT round for the 120mm tank gun gun weights 24.2kg (53lb) and the 120mm gun is the standard gun for American and NATO armies as is the 155mm artillery shell.

The Anti-Personnel Obstacle Breaching System (APOBS) will replace the bangalore torpedo. Weighing one hundred and twenty-five pounds, the APOBS comes in two backpacks, each weighing more than sixty pounds. The APOBS, carried up to two kilometers before employed, may include running with the backpack to the forward edge of the obstacle. Although an improvement over the bangalore, it is still a strain on upper body strength and endurance.

The existence of heavy tool kits in itself does not require special strength standards. The assigned missions requiring the use of this equipment does. Obstacle breaching is one of the missions that standout as requiring higher than normal upper body strength. According to Army studies, sixty percent of males and zero percent of females can perform the required task of placing a breaching charge against a fortified position, which requires a higher degree than normal of upper body strength and endurance.

It is extreme and that's the point. We are asking women to do something they for the most part not capable of doing. Going to war is NOT A JOB! Your employer cannot ask you to die to increase Toyota sales. Well maybe he can ask, but... ~D

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 17:17
I bet you that's one of the rarest weapons you could ever hope to get in the military. Are you kidding me?

You just get an m14 and you're off. I never said you shouldn't be fit enough to carry your stuff around, but you don't need huge muscles either if you are in a conbat situation. All you need is huge balls.


A reduced basic load is as follows:
cartridge belt with two canteens, a first aid kit, two 30-
round magazine pouches, a K-bar or bayonet, the ALICE pack
with poncho, poncho liner, long underwear top or field
jacket liner, rain suit, watch cap, flashlight, two pairs of
socks, shaving gear and two MRE meals per day.
Sleeping Bag
Canteen
field jacket
pair of socks
weapon cleaning kit
ammunition bandoleer's

And that is BEFORE they give an M-16 (less weight than an M-14)

In April 1982 an Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands brought a British Naval Task Force to the South Atlantic to forceably expel the invaders. During the marine's march across the East Falkland Island, Port San Carlos to Stanley, each man carried an average of 120 pounds.

In October 1983 the United States invaded tbe island of Grenada. Although the island was small, and enemy capability considered to be minimal, the soldiers in the assault carried enormous loads. However, when the rangers jumped onto the runway at Salinas airfield, the average load carried by
each man was 167 pounds.

One of the platoon leaders who parachuted into the Salinas airfield
carried fifteen 30-round magazines of 5.56 ammunition. If that 450 rounds was not enough, he also packed two bandoliers of 5.56 ammuinition, which is an additional 140 rounds. He also carried ten high explosive fragmentation grenades, two claymore mines, two LAAW's, and three high-explosive 60mm mortar rounds.

A radioman who airlanded at Calvigney was as equally well prepared with eighteen 30-round magazines of 5.56 ammunition, nine high explosive
fragmentation grenades and thirty-six 40mm high explosive grenades for his M-16/203.

Combat infantrymen is not an easy task.

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 17:27
Unfortunately things don't just work out that way, you can't just send additional men to a unit and expect it to function the same way

well casulties are being replaced, i don't see why replacing a pregnant womanis any more difficult than replacing a casultie


Well she isn't any more difficult to replace but it is a wound that doesn't heal for 9 months and then you get to tell the new mommy to pick up her rifle and drop that baby of somewhere on the way to the airport as she returns to combat duty. Right? Is that what you do? And what do you do if she tell's that she kinda thinks her newborn is more important than killing people. How unreasonable is that? Do you court marshal her?

And then you also have the job of telling the medivac helicopter pilot that he has to risk his life today because someone in B company is pregnant and needs to be pulled out.

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 17:34
sharrukin your bits about the canadian military are years out of date. They lowered they made seperate requirement for women 10 years ago. They started letting women join combat units about the same time. Hell there are women in combat units in Afghanistan as I write this.

You need to read what I posted more closely. I indicated that the Canadian military has lowered the standards so that women can meet those lowered standards and therefore be accepted into the military. That however is exactly what several people here have said should not happen. But it will and has.

The point was that when subjected to the same standards as men the 1% that was mentioned previously though it may be a little low was not off by all that much.

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-20-2005, 22:03
Nice work sharrukin.

And I heard (on these boards no less) that the US military (Army? Other branches?) lowered their standards to allow women to perform "better." And I know that there are two separate standards for tests and things, one for men and one for women. Wanna guess which is harder?

sharrukin
05-20-2005, 22:17
Nice work sharrukin.

And I heard (on these boards no less) that the US military (Army? Other branches?) lowered their standards to allow women to perform "better." And I know that there are two separate standards for tests and things, one for men and one for women. Wanna guess which is harder?

They did as has every country that has gone ahead with women in combat roles. Except the Danes who lowered the standard for the entire military rather than be unfair to men. :dizzy2:


"The US Army twice attempted to develop "gender neutral" strength tests for different military operational specialties. The effort had to be abandoned when preliminary studies showed that most women were not strong enough for 70% of the military specialties. Yet allowing women into those specialties without such standards has resulted in a situation in which women are disproportionately incapable of performing the military specialties for which they have been trained.

In such cases, the cost of retraining comes to $16,000 per soldier. "

"A recent study on the culture of the military done by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that only one-third of junior enlisted men believed women would pull their load in combat, and 44% of junior enlisted women agreed."

"One of the damage-control-related physical tests to which all personnel on the USS Jason ("a.k.a. "The Love Boat") were subjected involved carrying a 70-lb submersible pump up two ladders and then down one and dropping it into a space. More than 97% of the males passed this test. Fewer than 5% of females did. This is a realistic simulated DC activity, of the kind that kept the USS Stark on vs. under the water after it was struck by two Exocets."

PFT test;

The Marine Corps conducted a study of active duty female Marines and their performance on both the male and female PFT's. I emphasize that these were active duty Marines, all passed the female PFT, and none assigned to weight control or appearance programs. After undergoing an inventory male PFT test in which eighty-eight percent failed, these Marines underwent a rigorous twelve weeks conditioning program designed to increase their cardiovascular and upper body strength. Following this intensive mandatory conditioning program, sixty-six percent still failed the male PFT, with forty-four percent unable to do the three pull-up minimum and twenty-six percent unable to complete the three mile run in the required time.

The other universal measurable physical standard for Marines is the battle skills standard of annually completing a fifteen mile forced march in field gear carrying a forty pound pack and weapon within a designated time limit. This task measures endurance and is an indicator of both cardiovascular and upper body strength. Tracking of this task is non-existent since no entry into the unit diary system takes place. Lack of measurable data prevents an accurate analysis of this requirement. Personal experience in a mixed gender Fleet Marine Force unit indicates that many female Marines experience great difficulty in completing this requirement. The Commanding Officers of Marine Wing Support Squadron 371, demanded battle skills testing of all hands. Of twenty-one male officers and three hundred and eleven male Marines participating, all twenty-one male officers and three hundred and two male Marines passed (all Marines who did not complete the march were re-tested and given a second chance to meet the standard). However, both female officers and eighteen of the twenty-seven female Marines failed to meet the prescribed standard.

BDC
05-20-2005, 22:22
Well don't lower standards then. If a woman can still pass, she's clearly good enough. If she can't, then she can't be in the infantry. Seems fair as the same test would apply to men.

LittleGrizzly
05-21-2005, 00:37
Well she isn't any more difficult to replace but it is a wound that doesn't heal for 9 months

well my point is i think that risk is worth it to let women in the military, though i don't think standards should be lowered to get more women in.

sharrukin
05-21-2005, 00:59
Well she isn't any more difficult to replace but it is a wound that doesn't heal for 9 months

well my point is i think that risk is worth it to let women in the military, though i don't think standards should be lowered to get more women in.

Not sure what you mean here exactly?

Are you saying your willing to let more men and women in the military die taking such risks? That is what added risks in the military mean. The medivac pilots have to make more trips to bring them out. The transport pilots have to make more flights to transport them. There is an increased strain on the medical services. The men in the front line have to take up the slack of now missing comrades.

Do you mean something else?

LittleGrizzly
05-21-2005, 01:09
Are you saying your willing to let more men and women in the military die taking such risks? That is what added risks in the military mean. The medivac pilots have to make more trips to bring them out. The transport pilots have to make more flights to transport them. There is an increased strain on the medical services. The men in the front line have to take up the slack of now missing comrades.


thats what i mean, i'd change the wording a bit though, i would think though with the deathtrap that getting new soldiers in is you'd already have reserves out there.

sharrukin
05-21-2005, 01:22
Are you saying your willing to let more men and women in the military die taking such risks? That is what added risks in the military mean. The medivac pilots have to make more trips to bring them out. The transport pilots have to make more flights to transport them. There is an increased strain on the medical services. The men in the front line have to take up the slack of now missing comrades.


thats what i mean, i'd change the wording a bit though, i would think though with the deathtrap that getting new soldiers in is you'd already have reserves out there.

Well then I simply disagree with you on this. Fairness is one thing, but not at the expense of human lives!

LittleGrizzly
05-21-2005, 01:38
Fairness is one thing, but not at the expense of human lives!

well consdering casulties and fatalaties as they are i would expect reserves to be ready to take over positions anyway. I think the number of deaths that could have been prevented by a woman leaving wouldn't be high

Productivity
05-21-2005, 03:18
Not sure what you mean here exactly?

Are you saying your willing to let more men and women in the military die taking such risks? That is what added risks in the military mean. The medivac pilots have to make more trips to bring them out. The transport pilots have to make more flights to transport them. There is an increased strain on the medical services. The men in the front line have to take up the slack of now missing comrades.

Do you mean something else?

Medivac pilots need more flights to transport them out? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you at first could still fight while pregnant. Then when it's safe you get the flight out.

A early term pregnancy is hardly equivalent to losing a leg in terms of incapacitation.

mercian billman
05-21-2005, 03:37
Medivac pilots need more flights to transport them out? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you at first could still fight while pregnant. Then when it's safe you get the flight out.

A early term pregnancy is hardly equivalent to losing a leg in terms of incapacitation.

At some point that women and her child would have to be air lifted at the soonest time possible. Not for the safety of the mother, but for the safety of the child she is carrying. I'm not a pro lifer, but I don't think pregnant women should be on the frontlines risking their life and the life of a future child. In fact my solution to pregnancies would be forced abortion, but that would probably never happen.

Also nice job Sharrukin you've explained this far better than I could :bow:

Devastatin Dave
05-21-2005, 03:56
Women in combat? Not any of the crazy, PMSing bitches I've served with!!! The chicks that were in my shop before i got out, no shit, were ALL, every last one of those worthless combat boot wearing sluts, on Prozac and baging their way to the top. Everyone of them!!! It was nothing but high school drama as well, the jealousy, and everything else that occurs when you put a bunch of females together. Yes, there have been 1 or 2 females that I might trust my life with that I served with, but most would have been better off in a kitchen somewhere or in a tube full of jello, wrestling. And don't get me started on how they would suck off or bang the guys in the shop and what sort of effect these little harpies would have on moral... :furious3:

Females in combat!?!?!? I'd rather have the homos, I don't trust anything that bleeds for 3 days and doesn't die...

Devastatin Dave
05-21-2005, 04:02
Women in combat? Not any of the crazy, PMSing bitches I've served with!!! The chicks that were in my shop before i got out, no shit, were ALL, every last one of those worthless combat boot wearing sluts, on Prozac and baging their way to the top. Everyone of them!!! It was nothing but high school drama as well, the jealousy, and everything else that occurs when you put a bunch of females together. Yes, there have been 1 or 2 females that I might trust my life with that I served with, but most would have been better off in a kitchen somewhere or in a tube full of jello, wrestling. And don't get me started on how they would suck off or bang the guys in the shop and what sort of effect these little harpies would have on moral... :furious3:

Females in combat!?!?!? I'd rather have the homos, I don't trust anything that bleeds for 3 days and doesn't die...

Oh, damn, i forgot about the whole pregnancy thing...

All the time these chicks would get out of remote tours or going to shitty TDYs by getting knocked up. In fact, I had this worthless female troop in Korea that got knocked up on purpose so whe would get sent home. Of course that meant that we had to pull double duty till this bitch's replacement came in... SIX F%^$ING MONTHS LATER!!! Oh and in Korea, talk about a distraction. Not only the sexual thing, there is nothing more fun than having to deal with their little monthly issues and them acting like total bitches and getting away with it because, "I'm on my period".... Let me explain a little something to the liberals out there that just don't seem to get it, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN!!! Its true, so keep them out of combat....

Productivity
05-21-2005, 04:04
At some point that women and her child would have to be air lifted at the soonest time possible. Not for the safety of the mother, but for the safety of the child she is carrying. I'm not a pro lifer, but I don't think pregnant women should be on the frontlines risking their life and the life of a future child. In fact my solution to pregnancies would be forced abortion, but that would probably never happen.

Also nice job Sharrukin you've explained this far better than I could :bow:

True, but in a decision between airlift now at risk to everyone vs. not airlift at risk to the unborn child, the airlift would not happen.

The key point is at the soonest time possible. Make sure every woman has regular pregnancy checks, so it is found as soon as possible, and that gives you a buffer time to get them out of there.

Devastatin Dave
05-21-2005, 04:09
True, but in a decision between airlift now at risk to everyone vs. not airlift at risk to the unborn child, the airlift would not happen.

The key point is at the soonest time possible. Make sure every woman has regular pregnancy checks, so it is found as soon as possible, and that gives you a buffer time to get them out of there.

Impractical, just eliminate the underlying factor... NO WOMEN IN COMBAT. Its that simple. i kow its not PC, but they are not worth all the trouble.

LittleGrizzly
05-21-2005, 04:20
True, but in a decision between airlift now at risk to everyone vs. not airlift at risk to the unborn child, the airlift would not happen.

The key point is at the soonest time possible. Make sure every woman has regular pregnancy checks, so it is found as soon as possible, and that gives you a buffer time to get them out of there.

i agree

Devastatin Dave
05-21-2005, 04:25
True, but in a decision between airlift now at risk to everyone vs. not airlift at risk to the unborn child, the airlift would not happen.

The key point is at the soonest time possible. Make sure every woman has regular pregnancy checks, so it is found as soon as possible, and that gives you a buffer time to get them out of there.

i agree

Yes, lets waste all the time, effort, money, and possibly lives just to make our little liberal hearts feel better. LOL, the military should not be used as a PC classroom, no matter how nice GI Jane's boobies look in a sweaty green t-shirt.

LittleGrizzly
05-21-2005, 04:28
the military should not be used as a PC classroom,

im not saying it should

Uesugi Kenshin
05-21-2005, 04:38
I would say just don't let them, give them contraceptives or whatnot. But allowing them to get pregnant and servbe later is unfair to the unit which they are familiar with and in combat it is best to keep casualties to the absolute minimum while completing all objectives because green troops die a lot faster and put their comrades in danger mcuh more often than veterans. Also the team dynamic is disrupted by a soldier being replaced with an outsider.

Devastatin Dave
05-21-2005, 04:52
Again, why jump through all the hoops, just don't let them serve in combat. Its that simple.

mercian billman
05-21-2005, 05:04
Again, why jump through all the hoops, just don't let them serve in combat. Its that simple.

It's amazing just how simple it is to solve the problem of women in getting pregnant in combat, and how people want to make it complicated.

sharrukin
05-21-2005, 05:04
Also nice job Sharrukin you've explained this far better than I could :bow:

Well if I had know that Devastatin Dave was going to be around I would have left it to him and his ever eloquent way of stating things! ~D

Devastatin Dave
05-21-2005, 05:08
Well if I had know that Devastatin Dave was going to be around I would have left it to him and his ever eloquent way of stating things! ~D

You should see my thesis on the proper way to handle difficulties communicating with those that disagree with you... ~D

sharrukin
05-21-2005, 05:12
You should see my thesis on the proper way to handle difficulties communicating with those that disagree with you... ~D

Your little 'banned' smily may be a clue as to how it is delivered?

I do agree with you though.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-21-2005, 05:13
And I heard (on these boards no less) that the US military (Army? Other branches?) lowered their standards to allow women to perform "better." And I know that there are two separate standards for tests and things, one for men and one for women. Wanna guess which is harder?

I believe only the Marines still have a seperate bootcamp for men and women. I dont know of to many women who could get through our bootcamp. Every day you go on a 3 mile run(actually uyou do it 3 times a day) but once each day with a 60lb pack your 6 lb helmet and your 11lb m-14. At the end of the run you go on the obstacle cousre where one of the things you must do is climg a 40 rope carrying all this gear. I dont know of a single women who has the upper body strength to do this but Im sure some can but the percentage is extremely small. It seems many of you realise how much gear you have to carry into battle. We were lucky in bootcamp because in real battle you have to carry that plus all the ammo for your weapons. And believe me you want carry as much ammo as you can hump.

sharrukin
05-21-2005, 05:14
True, but in a decision between airlift now at risk to everyone vs. not airlift at risk to the unborn child, the airlift would not happen.

The key point is at the soonest time possible. Make sure every woman has regular pregnancy checks, so it is found as soon as possible, and that gives you a buffer time to get them out of there.

i agree

Pregnancies are only a small part of the problem and all this effort for perhaps the 1% who might want to be in the front line seems counter-productive to say the least.

It is not needed and has never been necessary to place women in combat roles. It is not necessary for military readiness. It is not necessary for military efficiency and in fact reduces it. It is not necessary, period. Combat is not a game and being almost good enough means your dead! There are no second chances and you don't get to try again. What you get is a nice state funded burial. Using the organization that, when all is said and done, guarantee's our civil rights and liberties as a social experiment is the height of foolishness.

Devastatin Dave
05-21-2005, 05:17
Well if I had know that Devastatin Dave was going to be around I would have left it to him and his ever eloquent way of stating things! ~D

BTW, if eloquene was money, I'd be one poor mutha!!! ~:cheers:

Devastatin Dave
05-21-2005, 05:19
Pregnancies are only a small part of the problem and all this effort for perhaps the 1% who might want to be in the front line seems counter-productive to say the least.

It is not needed and has never been necessary to place women in combat roles. It is not necessary for military readiness. It is not necessary for military efficiency and in fact reduces it. It is not necessary, period. Combat is not a game and being almost good enough means your dead! There are no second chances and you don't get to try again. What you get is a nice state funded burial. Using the organization that, when all is said and done, guarantee's our civil rights and liberties as a social experiment is the height of foolishness.

Amen!!! Great Post...

LittleGrizzly
05-21-2005, 05:32
Combat is not a game and being almost good enough means your dead!

im not saying make it easier for women, make them have to be able to keep up with the men, if not thier not good enough.

Productivity
05-21-2005, 06:10
Pregnancies are only a small part of the problem and all this effort for perhaps the 1% who might want to be in the front line seems counter-productive to say the least.

If only 1% want to be in the frontline, it's hardly going to be as much of an issue as you make it out to be then.

Husar
05-21-2005, 10:42
I agree with Dave and Sharrukin.
I wonder when the first male will be able to get children because he wants the same right to bear children, that women have. :dizzy2:

bmolsson
05-23-2005, 14:24
It is not needed and has never been necessary to place women in combat roles. It is not necessary for military readiness. It is not necessary for military efficiency and in fact reduces it. It is not necessary, period. Combat is not a game and being almost good enough means your dead! There are no second chances and you don't get to try again. What you get is a nice state funded burial. Using the organization that, when all is said and done, guarantee's our civil rights and liberties as a social experiment is the height of foolishness.

If so, why does the ads for joining the army not cleary tell this? There are no warning text of loosing your life or getting seriously wounded. I mean you can't make an ad for cigarettes without a warning text, but you can ask people joining the army. Surely the risk of getting killed in a combat unit must be much higher than if you smoke.

The bottom line of the whole issue is the fact that most people join the army for free education, carrier and a steady income, not being Rambo in Iraq. As long as the current picture is given to people, they will demand their civil rights and liberties. It's not a social experiment, just false marketing....... :charge:

bmolsson
05-23-2005, 14:26
I agree with Dave and Sharrukin.
I wonder when the first male will be able to get children because he wants the same right to bear children, that women have. :dizzy2:

I think you missed the point. It's a liability to bear children, hence lower pay, less carrier opportunities and discrimination. Today you see more and more women refusing bear children, with decreased population as a result..... ~;)

Productivity
05-23-2005, 14:48
I agree with Dave and Sharrukin.
I wonder when the first male will be able to get children because he wants the same right to bear children, that women have. :dizzy2:

If by some bizare biological freak, a man somehow can have children, then no law is going to prevent him.

There is a difference between biology and discrimination.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-23-2005, 16:19
The bottom line of the whole issue is the fact that most people join the army for free education, carrier and a steady income, not being Rambo in Iraq. As long as the current picture is given to people, they will demand their civil rights and

Thats not so. How do you know thats why they join? Its called an incentive. If you join the armed forces for that reason only then you dont belong there. I hads no illusion when I joined the Marines that fighting wars was its main purpose and mine for as long as I was a member. Anyone who doesnt realise thats the job of the armed forces and ignores the posibility of going into battle is either a fool or very naive.

sharrukin
05-23-2005, 21:18
If so, why does the ads for joining the army not cleary tell this? There are no warning text of loosing your life or getting seriously wounded. I mean you can't make an ad for cigarettes without a warning text, but you can ask people joining the army. Surely the risk of getting killed in a combat unit must be much higher than if you smoke.

The bottom line of the whole issue is the fact that most people join the army for free education, carrier and a steady income, not being Rambo in Iraq. As long as the current picture is given to people, they will demand their civil rights and liberties. It's not a social experiment, just false marketing....... :charge:

Actually you have a very good point and I fully agree with you. They should be required to mention the truth about what you might be asked to do. It might weed out those who are not serious about real service.

mercian billman
05-23-2005, 22:14
Thats not so. How do you know thats why they join? Its called an incentive. If you join the armed forces for that reason only then you dont belong there. I hads no illusion when I joined the Marines that fighting wars was its main purpose and mine for as long as I was a member. Anyone who doesnt realise thats the job of the armed forces and ignores the posibility of going into battle is either a fool or very naive.

Well put Gawain :bow:

The War on Terror has been going on for over three years and pretty much everybody who enlists understands there's a high probability they will be deployed.

Honestly college money and such is a nice incentive, but most people don't join the infantry as a way to pay for college. Theres far easier ways to get a college degree, like student loans, pell grants etc. and if college was a mans primary goal there're easier ways to finish college while serving than joining an infantry unit. And most of the people I know don't have plans to serve for 20 years.

bmolsson
05-24-2005, 06:37
Thats not so. How do you know thats why they join? Its called an incentive. If you join the armed forces for that reason only then you dont belong there. I hads no illusion when I joined the Marines that fighting wars was its main purpose and mine for as long as I was a member. Anyone who doesnt realise thats the job of the armed forces and ignores the posibility of going into battle is either a fool or very naive.

Have you ever considered yourself killed or being placed in a wheelchair ? Did you have life insurances that covered your dependents for the rest of their lives? Do you consider the pay in the army be relevant to risking your life for it ?

I think that most young soldiers are naive. The veterans which have gone through combat and realized reality have a very different view on the military and combat life. Of course there are people that just plain like to kill and unfortunately these people are not screened out of the army, as we have seen through history.......

Devastatin Dave
05-24-2005, 23:41
Have you ever considered yourself killed or being placed in a wheelchair ? Did you have life insurances that covered your dependents for the rest of their lives? Do you consider the pay in the army be relevant to risking your life for it ?

I think that most young soldiers are naive. The veterans which have gone through combat and realized reality have a very different view on the military and combat life. Of course there are people that just plain like to kill and unfortunately these people are not screened out of the army, as we have seen through history.......

You really must not know too many Vets or active duty members. I'm not sure who's more ignorant, your imaginary "most young soldiers" or your ignorant opinion on how you "think" troops feel. Have you ever served?

Tribesman
05-24-2005, 23:47
The War on Terror has been going on for over three years and pretty much everybody who enlists understands there's a high probability they will be deployed.
Is that why the armed services are having a little trouble getting the numbers of recruits it needs lately ?

mercian billman
05-25-2005, 00:06
The War on Terror has been going on for over three years and pretty much everybody who enlists understands there's a high probability they will be deployed.
Is that why the armed services are having a little trouble getting the numbers of recruits it needs lately ?

Probably, most people are smart enough to do a cost benefit analysis and realize that benefits you recieve will be worth nothing if you end up dead.

I actually believe that at this point the US military has recruited better than in the past, because while the services have fallen short of their goal, they still haven't lowered standards across the board, and have actually raised some of the standards. In addition most people know what their getting into and have put some thought into their decision to enlist. While there are less recruits coming in, more recruits are coming in prepared and knowledgable of the dangers they may face.

However if this war continues for a long time a draft will probably be implemented and the quality of recruits will decrease, like Vietnam.

@Dave, I believe bmolsson claimed to have served in the Indonesian Army for 2 years.

Tribesman
05-25-2005, 00:34
I actually believe that at this point the US military has recruited better than in the past,
yeah right , despite an 33% increase in the numbers of recruiters and an increase in sign-up benefits they have managed to attain shortfalls varying between 27-42% in the past couple of months , but that is OK because the recruits are better .
most people are smart enough to do a cost benefit analysis and realize that benefits you recieve will be worth nothing if you end up dead.
That hits the nail on the head . ~:cheers:

Goofball
05-25-2005, 00:36
There is nothing wrong with women in combat:

http://www.squaw.com/gallery/albums/album70/aaa.jpg

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-25-2005, 00:52
Talk about a bloodbath! ~:eek:

Devastatin Dave
05-25-2005, 03:35
There is nothing wrong with women in combat:

http://www.squaw.com/gallery/albums/album70/aaa.jpg

I hope that's Jello, I would hate to find out that they were having a "heavy" day. You know, Aunt "Flo" has come to town... ~D

bmolsson
05-25-2005, 07:48
Have you ever served?


Yes.

mercian billman
05-26-2005, 02:18
I actually believe that at this point the US military has recruited better than in the past,
yeah right , despite an 33% increase in the numbers of recruiters and an increase in sign-up benefits they have managed to attain shortfalls varying between 27-42% in the past couple of months , but that is OK because the recruits are better .


I've never heard of 27-42% for any of the services as a whole, the last I heard the Army had a shortfall of 10-15%. The Army has used the stop-loss policy and drafting of individuals on IRR to make up for the shortfall, but this can only last for so long.

While the Marine Corps missed a monthly recruiting goal by 80 recruits (out of 3000), despite this the Corps will be able to fill all of it's bootcamp slots until October. Basicly anybody who enlists today would have to wait until October before they ship off to bootcamp.

On the other hand I've heard of National Guard units suffering retention problems in the 27-42% range that you mentioned, and some units have had worse. I recognize there's problems recruting, but their not as bad as their sometimes made out to be, however if we continue on our current course they will only worsen.

EDIT: I didn't mean to claim todays recruits are better than those of the near past, I simply stated their more aware of the dangers.

Tribesman
05-26-2005, 19:15
I simply stated their more aware of the dangers.
And as people are more aware of the dangers they are less eager to sign up .
It doesn't help recruitment when the "poster boy" of partiotic self sacrafice is killed by friendly fire and his parents criticise the military and the administration in the media .
But its OK ,the shortfalls will not have any affect till mid 2006 , and things will be sorted in Iraq by then ~;)
I've never heard of 27-42%
the 27% was february , the 42% is the projected shortfall this month .

Edit . oops my mistake , silly me , the 42% was the shortfall for the army in April . What is wrong with these young patriots ? surely the 25% increase in signing bonus and the 40% increase in scholarship payments is enough incentive for them ~;)

mercian billman
05-27-2005, 02:56
I simply stated their more aware of the dangers.
And as people are more aware of the dangers they are less eager to sign up .
It doesn't help recruitment when the "poster boy" of partiotic self sacrafice is killed by friendly fire and his parents criticise the military and the administration in the media .

Thats true, and I believe were reaching a zenith right now or that were beginning to slide down as far as recruiting numbers and quality.



Edit . oops my mistake , silly me , the 42% was the shortfall for the army in April . What is wrong with these young patriots ? surely the 25% increase in signing bonus and the 40% increase in scholarship payments is enough incentive for them ~;)

You must be talking about retention, here (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20054142355.asp) a link which states the recruiting shortfall was 6% for AD, 10% AR, and 25% for the National Guard. There is a problem, but it's not 42%.



But its OK ,the shortfalls will not have any affect till mid 2006 , and things will be sorted in Iraq by then ~;)

I agree, except for Iraq being sorted out, we'll be there for a long time.

Tribesman
05-27-2005, 08:17
You must be talking about retention,
And here is a link that says it is resruiting not retentionlink (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7802712)

I agree, except for Iraq being sorted out, we'll be there for a long time.
Ah I think you missed the slight note of sarcasm in my statement ~;)

mercian billman
05-27-2005, 16:13
The article says that the Army missed it's recruiting goal by 2800 troops, which they claim is 42%. It should be noted that High School students who sign up under the Delayed Entry Program are not counted towards overall recruiting until after they ship out to bootcamp, thus this number is inflated.

Here's Jim Dunnigans take on the recruiting problem,

The army is starting to have problems recruiting. This past February, the army came up short about 2,000 recruits in its active, reserve and national guard forces. There was only a shortfall of six percent in the active force, but the army reserve was only able to recruit 90 percent of the people it wanted, and the National Guard got only 75 percent.

2800 recruits does not constitute 42% of the total recruits needed, when you include Army Reserve, and National Guard troops. What probably happened is MSNBC counted the the 2800 recruits against the Active Duty total, but failed to recognize that most of this shortfall comes from the Reserves and National Guard.