• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Pentagon Says

notquiteright said:
You miss the point- 19 yos are used in combat because at that age we thought we were invincible- death happens to the OTHER guy, we are the star of our own movie. Older, married guys have a different world/self view.
Click to expand...

No - I agree. That's part of what makes them more aggressive.

Given time those women who want to serve and can hack it will rise to the top, you don't screen for Ronda, she comes to you
Click to expand...

How many women soldiers are you willing to break permanently to get to the one or two Ronda Rousey's in the world? How many units are you willing to deploy undermanned and underequipped, having effectively taken significant casualties before they even met the enemy, resulting in less combat effectiveness, resulting in more casualties for our side? How many 19 year olds who otherwise would not have died are you willing to sacrifice so that Ronda Rousey can wear a green piece of string on her uniform, or an "I R Grunt" tattoo?

As far as a body breaking down- that happens to everyone- man or woman- very few men do 20 in the light infantry because of how brutal it can be- many do stints in other MOSs
Click to expand...

It is indeed brutal, and breaks down men's bodies as well. Women's bodies break down much faster, however, meaning that they suffer a higher injury rate in training by several factors, suffer a far higher injury rate when deployed, and force their units to deploy and then try to fight while undermanned. We're not talking about whether or not SSgt needs to do a tour in a B Billet when it comes time for him to PCS. We're talking about the fact that out of a 180-man company, we're losing half of our females before we even deploy.

Again bone density doesn't have to be 'the max'- it has to be enough to do the job, and I knew lots of guys who couldn't hack it, so that 'argument' is bogus.
Click to expand...

Female bodies are not structured to stand up under the strain of continuous infantry conditions without rapidly breaking down. That you knew weak males does not alter that biological fact.

I find the 'scientific' part of your argument bogus
Click to expand...

Then you are free to enjoy all the links and studies provided in post #22.


Draftee/conscript armies like the Israelis had NO problem when the crap hit the fan to use women
Click to expand...

Actually they did run into problems from doing so, which is why they don't do so anymore.

their early freedom fighter units had women
Click to expand...

Yeah. And what they found out was that they underperformed in combat, and that as a result their units took more casualties; they therefore pulled them off the front lines.
 
Captain America said:
I hope my precious grand daughter never has to carry a rifle and fight a war. Same goes for my grandson.

I suppose the right thing to do is to let anyone who can do the job, do the job. :roll:

But I don't like it. I think a LOT of tweaking will be needed to make this remotely possible.

All due respect to our women-folk, but my DNA has me hardwired to be the protector of our women. Women and children FIRST!

Putting them in harm's way like this goes against every grain of my being. I guess I was born in a different place and time. I dunno.

And, all due respect again, but living in close quarters with a person of the opposite sex is hard enough to do even when you LOVE the person you live with.

I can see a scenerio of non-stop whining and bitching. This has to be bad for morale.

Oh well. Popcorn anyone?
Click to expand...

Just to add about "non stop bitching and whining"..

Good friends of mine that are officers in the military all say that the time to get nervous is when your men STOP bitching and whining. That's when the **** is going to hit the fan.
 
jaeger19 said:
Just to add about "non stop bitching and whining"..

Good friends of mine that are officers in the military all say that the time to get nervous is when your men STOP bitching and whining. That's when the **** is going to hit the fan.
Click to expand...

Perhaps nonstop "nagging," would have been a better word to use.
 
cpwill said:
No - I agree. That's part of what makes them more aggressive.



How many women soldiers are you willing to break permanently to get to the one or two Ronda Rousey's in the world? How many units are you willing to deploy undermanned and underequipped, having effectively taken significant casualties before they even met the enemy, resulting in less combat effectiveness, resulting in more casualties for our side? How many 19 year olds who otherwise would not have died are you willing to sacrifice so that Ronda Rousey can wear a green piece of string on her uniform, or an "I R Grunt" tattoo?



It is indeed brutal, and breaks down men's bodies as well. Women's bodies break down much faster, however, meaning that they suffer a higher injury rate in training by several factors, suffer a far higher injury rate when deployed, and force their units to deploy and then try to fight while undermanned. We're not talking about whether or not SSgt needs to do a tour in a B Billet when it comes time for him to PCS. We're talking about the fact that out of a 180-man company, we're losing half of our females before we even deploy.



Female bodies are not structured to stand up under the strain of continuous infantry conditions without rapidly breaking down. That you knew weak males does not alter that biological fact.



Then you are free to enjoy all the links and studies provided in post #22.




Actually they did run into problems from doing so, which is why they don't do so anymore.



Yeah. And what they found out was that they underperformed in combat, and that as a result their units took more casualties; they therefore pulled them off the front lines.
Click to expand...

All of your premises are based on one giant basic and flawed presumption.

1. that there is a never ending and continuous supply of trained male Troopers.

That's not reality. The reality is that the military has to do the job with what they have at hand.. not what they WISH they had at hand. And in 10 years of war.. the military has found that it NEEDED women to fill roles because there were not men to fill them. That's why my cousins who are female were in combat.
In addition the military found that there were roles in combat.. that they found that women were BETTER at filling than men. I.E. "lioness" rifle units that were able to go into villages and get valuable intelligence from the village woman that would NOT under any terms speak to a man. But they were willing to speak to women.
 
Zyphlin said:
Agree completely. I support this so long as the physical requirements to do the job are what is tested for and are not somehow altered between male and female.
Click to expand...

What about injury rates... Of they very few woman who can meet the male standards... they STILL have a much larger chance of getting injured.
 
Captain America said:
Perhaps nonstop "nagging," would have been a better word to use.
Click to expand...

:lol:

To go along with the chauvinism (sorry ladies)...

Well that's true.. but the trade off is that once a month the enemy would be afraid.. VERY afraid.
 
celticwar17 said:
What about injury rates... Of they very few woman who can meet the male standards... they STILL have a much larger chance of getting injured.
Click to expand...

What about the men.. the men in combat have a higher chance of injury than the men not in combat.. what about that?
 
jaeger19 said:
What about the men.. the men in combat have a higher chance of injury than the men not in combat.. what about that?
Click to expand...

You think that statement has any relevance and correlation?
 
jaeger19 said:
All of your premises are based on one giant basic and flawed presumption.

1. that there is a never ending and continuous supply of trained male Troopers.
Click to expand...

Effectively, for our force structure at current, there is. We've had to turn away males that want to join and kick qualified, experienced, infantry male leaders out in order to reduce strength.

If we ever get the point where it's a Woman or No One, I'm all in favor of the women fighting. But that's not where we are.

the military found that there were roles in combat.. that they found that women were BETTER at filling than men. I.E. "lioness" rifle units that were able to go into villages and get valuable intelligence from the village woman that would NOT under any terms speak to a man.
Click to expand...

:shrug: and I'm not saying we should get rid of the lioness program. If we wanted to have a single battalion that sourced them and was cross-trained similar to infantry but lighter so as to keep them operational, like the Israelis do, I think that would be a smart idea. But this isn't that.
 
jaeger19 said:
What about the men.. the men in combat have a higher chance of injury than the men not in combat.. what about that?
Click to expand...

It's actually a good point, though not on purpose.

If women not in combat roles already have a higher injury rate than men, including men in combat roles, what is going to happen to the injury rate for women once they are in combat roles?
 
jaeger19 said:
:lol:

To go along with the chauvinism (sorry ladies)...

Well that's true.. but the trade off is that once a month the enemy would be afraid.. VERY afraid.
Click to expand...

Women going into their periods lose as much or around 1/3rd of their strength and endurance, and also suffer from slower reactions and less precision. Why would the enemy be afraid of a weaker and less accurate US warfighter?
 
Last edited:
Mr. Invisible said:
All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Pentagon Says - NBC News




Seems like this is becoming official now.


I think as long as they are able to meet the same standards as men, it's fine. I'd also argue in favor of all female units.
Click to expand...

Yes, and when we start to see the images of women in body bags in an ever increasing number the Left will get what it really wants out of this exercise. A swing from unyielding patriotism to a weak stomach and less instinct for war first diplomacy last.. It's one more nudge in the progressive direction of one world peace.. ;)

Tim-
 
notquiteright said:
Then we shouldn't allow 19 year olds to join the Infantry- no matter who is in the squad 19 year olds are going to die.

I think given time the 'under-performing' women will make the standard of any combat unit. Not every male or female is a life taker- but i'd put women like Ronda Rousey against most men I served with in the Infantry (I damn sure don't want to mess with her- help yourself to show us how superior men are to women)

I don't see a mass rush of women joining the Infantry. I think women who volunteer to join and make the grade will do as well as men- as soon as men accept the women in the squad. My wife served and then went into computer programming back in the day where the only woman in the IT shop loaded paper into the printer... My wife excelled at both her military and then civilian job- but men tended to look down on her and make comments about what sort of woman would choose to enter a 'man's job'.... :doh
Click to expand...
If what you say is true then why has study after study as well as numerous real world experiences by multiple nations all shown other wise.
 
cpwill said:
When testing women who meet the standards, the UK discovered that gender integrated combat units have “lower survivability,” a “reduced lethality rate” and reduced deployability. US Army and Marine Corps testing produce the same results.

Not lowering standards? The US Army Study on Physical Requirements confirmed that "The Services, especially the Army, have expanded the military occupational specialties (MOS) open to women purely as a part of the social concern for equality and have only paid lip service to combat readiness... The Army’s own research indicates that the vast majority of women do not possess the lean mass necessary to meet the strength requirements for very heavy and heavy physical MOS’s."

Royal Society of Medicine: Injury to female recruits skyrocket when they are required to perform the same training as men, causing women to become 8 times more likely to be medically discharged from back pain, tendon injuries, stress fractures and the like. ""It is clear that there are differences in muscle physiology, bone architecture and body composition that interact to place women at a substantial disadvantage when training or working to the same output as males"

Women in the military are already significantly more likely to suffer from musculoskeletal injuries, reducing their unit readiness, and that's before they are put under the hyper-stress lifestyle of the grunts.

As a result, substituting women for men in combat-collocated support units increases danger for everyone, while introducing a host of disciplinary and deployability problems that detract from unit cohesion, readiness, and morale.

Deployability? Yup. Non-Deployable rates for women are three to four times that of men and once they get there, women are 60% more likely to require medical treatment and twice as likely to have to be medevac'd out, despite their current non-participation in infantry roles (which would cause those rates to increase). After that, they are significantly more likely to develop PTSD, causing them to become non-redeployable.

Men have denser bone structure, which allows them to absorb more weight and physical pounding. In combat, that means they are more immune to concussion and being knocked out (ie: they are more likely to be able to shrug off a blast and keep fighting). In combat, men also have a higher tolerance for pain and faster reflexes.


Women in the IDF? They don't serve in combat infantry units. Women in the Hagganah? Commanders discovered that mixed gender units underperformed in combat, took higher casualties, and that women's inability to physically keep up endangered their units in the offense, and so pulled them off the front lines.


Female veterans report the same, and they report not just physical debilitation over time, but also the inevitability of sexual relationships that destroy unit cohesion.
Click to expand...

You don't understand. It doesn't matter what studies or real world experience proved time and time again. It's what out feelings tell us that really matters.
 
jaeger19 said:
All of your premises are based on one giant basic and flawed presumption.

1. that there is a never ending and continuous supply of trained male Troopers.

That's not reality. The reality is that the military has to do the job with what they have at hand.. not what they WISH they had at hand. And in 10 years of war.. the military has found that it NEEDED women to fill roles because there were not men to fill them. That's why my cousins who are female were in combat.
In addition the military found that there were roles in combat.. that they found that women were BETTER at filling than men. I.E. "lioness" rifle units that were able to go into villages and get valuable intelligence from the village woman that would NOT under any terms speak to a man. But they were willing to speak to women.
Click to expand...

First of all there is a huge difference in being attached to a combat unit and actually being in one. We have FET and CSTs attached to my ODA all the time in Afghanistan and they did fill a role. We would take them with us when ever we needed to interact with the females in a village. But here is the thing. They didn't hump the same weight as the men they didn't carry the crew served weapons they stayed in the trucks during TICs they were rotated out often as they needed breaks and they slowed us down on patrols. So yes they were attached to a combat unit but no they were not part of a combat unit. This is my experience from about 25 different females on that one 11 month rotation. It is what it is.

Next you are right there is not a never ending stream of young makes to do the job but maybe you haven't noticed this but the military is downsizing. That means thousands of qualified males are being dropped from combat positions so tell me again why we need this. Now if we were in a war that we needed more manpower then we could recruit then yes I would agree to letting women in as a weaker combat unit is better then no combat unit but to go out of your way to make your military weaker with no reason is not a very smart idea.
 
cpwill said:
Women going into their periods lose as much or around 1/3rd of their strength and endurance, and also suffer from slower reactions and less precision. Why would the enemy be afraid of a weaker and less accurate US warfighter?
Click to expand...

I guess "she" will need to stay home that day and let the XO take out the company or the platoon sergeant take out the platoon.

This is going to become an officer thing.

I can't see enlisted women carrying as much as the guys in the infantry. It is not humanly possible.
 
Dragonfly said:
I can't stress this enough:

US Military = 100% Volunteer

If you're a woman and want to volunteer more power to ya.
If you're a man, and having women in the military frightens you, don't volunteer.

How difficult is this?
Click to expand...

So in your opinion the fact that those of us serving volunteered means that it's ok to put our lives more at risk just to make you feel better about the military being fair.
I guess if that is your opinion then so be it. Just know I disagree and feel this country owes it to everyone who volunteers to serve to do the best we can to bring as many of my brothers in arms home alive as possible.
 
Last edited:
I am glad I am retired.
 
Riveroaks said:
I guess "she" will need to stay home that day and let the XO take out the company or the platoon sergeant take out the platoon.

This is going to become an officer thing.

I can't see enlisted women carrying as much as the guys in the infantry. It is not humanly possible.
Click to expand...

Been in combat arms for about a decade now. Never once saw an officer in a maneuver element that didn't hump more or less the same weight as everyone else.

What military were you in exactly.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I am glad I am retired.
Click to expand...

Nano there is very little difference between a female or male officer, based on my experience.

Both of our ARTY C/O's were just like women. One was a fatty and the other a boney. Neither of them could fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Nothing much will change.
 
Riveroaks said:
Nano there is very little difference between a female or male officer, based on my experience.

Both of our ARTY C/O's were just like women. One was a fatty and the other a boney. Neither of them could fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Nothing much will change.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about officers. I didn't even use the word officer. The article isn't talking about just officers.
 
cpwill said:
When testing women who meet the standards, the UK discovered that gender integrated combat units have “lower survivability,” a “reduced lethality rate” and reduced deployability. US Army and Marine Corps testing produce the same results.

Not lowering standards? The US Army Study on Physical Requirements confirmed that "The Services, especially the Army, have expanded the military occupational specialties (MOS) open to women purely as a part of the social concern for equality and have only paid lip service to combat readiness... The Army’s own research indicates that the vast majority of women do not possess the lean mass necessary to meet the strength requirements for very heavy and heavy physical MOS’s."

Royal Society of Medicine: Injury to female recruits skyrocket when they are required to perform the same training as men, causing women to become 8 times more likely to be medically discharged from back pain, tendon injuries, stress fractures and the like. ""It is clear that there are differences in muscle physiology, bone architecture and body composition that interact to place women at a substantial disadvantage when training or working to the same output as males"

Women in the military are already significantly more likely to suffer from musculoskeletal injuries, reducing their unit readiness, and that's before they are put under the hyper-stress lifestyle of the grunts.

As a result, substituting women for men in combat-collocated support units increases danger for everyone, while introducing a host of disciplinary and deployability problems that detract from unit cohesion, readiness, and morale.

Deployability? Yup. Non-Deployable rates for women are three to four times that of men and once they get there, women are 60% more likely to require medical treatment and twice as likely to have to be medevac'd out, despite their current non-participation in infantry roles (which would cause those rates to increase). After that, they are significantly more likely to develop PTSD, causing them to become non-redeployable.

Men have denser bone structure, which allows them to absorb more weight and physical pounding. In combat, that means they are more immune to concussion and being knocked out (ie: they are more likely to be able to shrug off a blast and keep fighting). In combat, men also have a higher tolerance for pain and faster reflexes.


Women in the IDF? They don't serve in combat infantry units. Women in the Hagganah? Commanders discovered that mixed gender units underperformed in combat, took higher casualties, and that women's inability to physically keep up endangered their units in the offense, and so pulled them off the front lines.


Female veterans report the same, and they report not just physical debilitation over time, but also the inevitability of sexual relationships that destroy unit cohesion.
Click to expand...


You've done your homework.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom