USA gives bigger guns to women

[Montmorency]

I see some of your overall point FK, but given the development over time of militaries and the American military in particular, it seems par-for-the-course. You push the envelope in the short-term, and deal with any resulting dysfunctions, as part of a learning process.

And if one of the biggest problems in the American military is politicization and administrative weight (which it has been in some form since the Civil War, at least), then introducing women into the larger mix doesn't change the situation one way or another. You will still see stagnation and erratic 'hotfixes' in unique deployments until a high-intensity conflict comes around that calls for a large-scale professional overhaul of the military in many aspects.

[Fisherking]

I see some of your overall point FK, but given the development over time of militaries and the American military in particular, it seems par-for-the-course. You push the envelope in the short-term, and deal with any resulting dysfunctions, as part of a learning process.

And if one of the biggest problems in the American military is politicization and administrative weight (which it has been in some form since the Civil War, at least), then introducing women into the larger mix doesn't change the situation one way or another. You will still see stagnation and erratic 'hotfixes' in unique deployments until a high-intensity conflict comes around that calls for a large-scale professional overhaul of the military in many aspects.

Of course they will reassess and reanalyse. Women have participated in combat since it began. It always seems to shake out that it was not the greatest idea conceived by mankind.

Heretofore it was always an act of desperation by a society faced with destruction, or of individuals motivated to try it. Israel has a small population compared to all its neighbours. Everyone else is motivated by equal rights.

People have a perfect right to aspire to anything. They don’t necessarily have the abilities to carry it off. If they did we would all be sports stars, movie stars or perhaps nobel laureates.

While technology may remedy some of these problems, overall, we are engaged in another exercise of rediscovering past wisdom.

[Shaka_Khan]

Humans adjust remarkably. Male soldiers will learn to think of female soldiers the same as themselves, and the female soldiers will quickly find ways to adjust to the military world. We're having harassment issues, and we're having morale issues when something wrong happens to a woman during combat. It's because having large numbers of women in combat is new for the US military. If we just prevent women from taking combat roles, then we'll never fix the issues that we have in the mililtary. The harassment trials that went on are parts of a process to improve the problem. The reason that the US abolished segregation in the South was because there were people who were willing to take action against it instead of hiding from it. Yes, you'll embarrass and hurt some feelings, but many other things have been accomplished through hardship. Refusing to go through that hardship has stagnated progress.

[Fisherking]

Humans adjust remarkably. Male soldiers will learn to think of female soldiers the same as themselves, and the female soldiers will quickly find ways to adjust to the military world. We're having harassment issues, and we're having morale issues when something wrong happens to a woman during combat. It's because having large numbers of women in combat is new for the US military. If we just prevent women from taking combat roles, then we'll never fix the issues that we have in the mililtary. The harassment trials that went on are parts of a process to improve the problem. The reason that the US abolished segregation in the South was because there were people who were willing to take action against it instead of hiding from it. Yes, you'll embarrass and hurt some feelings, but many other things have been accomplished through hardship. Refusing to go through that hardship has stagnated progress.

Very enlightened of you but it is still a stupid idea. It is not from lack of trying. It has all been done before. If it worked you would have seen it a thousand years ago. We were not born yesterday.

Humans may be remarkably adaptable but you can never remove the sexual dynamic. Not by regulation or superimposed restrictions. It is a prime driving force of human nature. This is the dynamic people have been trying to absent from organised armies since humans began to organise. It is not a matter of equal rights. It is a matter of efficiency and cohesion.

In fighting units, segregation has been the only means to avoid it.

Women can be just as savage and aggressive as men. That has never been the problem. It is that in close combat women can not be relied on to overcome opponents by physical force alone.
Combat is not equal and it is not fair.

a couple of links:

https://www.funker530.com/sergeant-m...men-in-combat/

http://warfighternews.com/2015/01/12...men-in-combat/

This is in most part due to our on arrogance. We may have more knowledge than any before but we are far less wise. Must we repeat every failed proposition expecting a new result.

Those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

[Sarmatian]

That is all anecdotal evidence.

But, even if we accept it as true, that women are somewhat less effective than men in combat situations, they're not totally ineffective.

A raw recruit with 30 days of training is not effective as a veteran soldier, and the difference in effectiveness between them is probably greater than between a trained man and a trained women, and countries many times in the past had to resort to sending untrained men or men with little training into combat.

It seems illogical to write off 50% of your manpower just like that.

Then again, I'm a pacifist and don't know a thing about the army.

[Beskar]

That is all anecdotal evidence.

But, even if we accept it as true, that women are somewhat less effective than men in combat situations, they're not totally ineffective.

A raw recruit with 30 days of training is not effective as a veteran soldier, and the difference in effectiveness between them is probably greater than between a trained man and a trained women, and countries many times in the past had to resort to sending untrained men or men with little training into combat.

It seems illogical to write off 50% of your manpower just like that.

Then again, I'm a pacifist and don't know a thing about the army.

War has changed a lot, some people are stuck in the mindset of the stone ages where people hit eachother over the head with clubs as brute strength. Where is this strength difference when it comes to piloting a drone? Where is it when flying an F-22 ? Where is it in the communication tower?

You're right that difference between experienced soldiers and raw is a lot bigger factor than sex by miles, a female officer could take down a rookie with eyes closed. The issue is that people refuse to see women in combat roles due to pariarchal believes of the role of women should be in the kitchen, after all, isn't this what she should learn from history, how males suppressed women in society? Why not change a good thing.

Thing is, women in the past played a lot bigger role in society and armies did not. This is because there was no professional structure as such as the lords used to round up all the men to ship them off as they were disposable whilst the women had to do all the labour and work at home. Now with professional armies, women have no need to 'stay at home', and those who choose to join the army now can be like the Norse Shield Maidens, fighting women known for their skill and ability.

[Montmorency]

If it worked you would have seen it a thousand years ago. We were not born yesterday.

But in the abstract this is inherently a weak and risky argument - surely you see that. It is a matter of efficiency, and in most past cases it was more efficient to maintain women in separate roles at home. But the mechanics of combat, as well as those of the larger society and economy change, and what is efficient in the immediate may not be so later on or in the long-term.

What I will grant you is that it is not strictly necessary or greatly advantageous to have a general inclusion of female recruits except in a case of mass conscription, in which case it is thereby possible to enhance the allocation of the population base between combat roles, logistical roles, and civilian roles in the home front and regular society. Indeed, as pointed out, a number of states saw the utility of supplementing male combat troops with talented female ones (though "penalty battalions" are never an efficient allocation of manpower). On the other hand, the most important takeaway from pro-integration perspectives is that there is no firm argument that more inclusion of women will over the long term (e.g. in the next generation or two) dilute unit cohesion or fighting power in itself. The firmest potential argument is the one you pointed out regarding a "sexual dynamic", but it's is also the easiest to pick apart. It only stands up if you predict:

1. Mandates for totally even sex distribution everywhere, without regard to individual capacities or specific requirements. This is nowhere near the table.
2. Lowering of standards across the board combined with "grandfathering" in the event of a reversal. You never seemed to take this as a risk.
3. What goes through smoothly in recruitment and training will fall apart under sustained combat conditions. IMO this is the most interesting take, and I mentioned it earlier, but you don't seem to be interested in pursuing this line of thought.

Those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

To learn from past "mistakes" would be precisely the point! Rather than reflexively saying 'it can't be done and it's not worth it', we work to find what can be done and how it can be accomplished and refined. It probably won't result in a glut of women in the armed forces, and it probably won't produce a dramatic boost in fighting power - that's usually reliant on the engineering, doctrinal, and procurement ends - but neither will it degrade the institution in any real way.

All-in-all, it's a pretty straightforward move that needs neither drama nor hype to accompany it, and will quickly fade out of public consciousness as the proper equilibrium is attained.

[Gilrandir]

But, even if we accept it as true, that women are somewhat less effective than men in combat situations, they're not totally ineffective.

A raw recruit with 30 days of training is not effective as a veteran soldier, and the difference in effectiveness between them is probably greater than between a trained man and a trained women, and countries many times in the past had to resort to sending untrained men or men with little training into combat.

It seems illogical to write off 50% of your manpower just like that.

Then again, I'm a pacifist and don't know a thing about the army.

The bold totally disqualifies written above it.