• 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!

U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

Redress said:
Hmmm, let's see, I stated I did not know enough to comment on everything, but one point was easily solved.
Click to expand...

Your solution was myopically inapplicable to the problem at hand. The problem is larger than the one thread on the sweater you thought you could pull.

Redress said:
You keep on talking about stuff you clearly do not know about. Interesting differences there.
Click to expand...

Pretty radically inaccurate. I keep talking about the thread topic, THE WHOLE TOPIC, and you keep talking about ME.
 
Voidwar said:
Is it your personal opinion that the IDF maintains that policy largely due to the aforementioned study / review of the '48 conflict?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But that was an eternity ago. Technology and sophisticated weapons platforms have changed the face of modern warfare dramatically since then. There are many areas in modern warfare where women excell.

Voidwar said:
But do recall, that the OP is specifically talking about whether or not to assign females directly to attacking units.
Click to expand...
I think that is semantical acrobatics. Women can and do engage in combat.
 
Voidwar said:
Well, it certainly is a "common" mistake. The fact that there are a few female fighter pilots, is not evidence for the assertion that females are "stronger combat pilots".
Click to expand...

I never said it was.

Voidwar said:
That might be a good guess. What a scientist would do, would be to test that theory, rather than assume it was true. Thats why proof, is a little harder to come by than "common" sense.
Click to expand...

Since I am not a "scientist" common sense will have to do.

Voidwar said:
Now here you are actually giving me what I requested, but I would still like to see the statistics themselves, and how real physiological differences between sexes, like tolerance to High G, are accounted for. If she's great, but passes out at 9 g when most males don't, then one High G dogfight move erases that greatness does it not ?
Click to expand...

You are making allot of assumptions here. Why don't you go and research the details for yourself?
 
Tashah said:
Perhaps. But that was an eternity ago. Technology and sophisticated weapons platforms have changed the face of modern warfare dramatically since then. There are many areas in modern warfare where women excell.
Click to expand...

Some of those tools have certainly changed, but how does that have any impact on this :

The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.
Click to expand...

Tashah said:
I think that is semantical acrobatics. Women can and do engage in combat.
Click to expand...

That is not really what is at issue in the OP. The OP is specifically about whether or not to assign women to units whose specific purpose is to engage and attack enemy units. Unit assignment is not merely semantics.
 
Blackdog said:
Females tend to have better hand eye coordination on average than males. Makes them better pilots etc.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought the opposite was true. My hand eye coordination sucks. I know where I want to throw a ball but it never goes there. I see a ball coming at me and I always miss it or drop it.

If I was in combat I would be dead.
 
Any military role should be filled depending solely on the qualifications of the applicant. Anything else will degrade quality by limiting the potential talent pool. Banning gender from combat roles needs to go, as well as having different physical requirements for each gender.

Claiming that women have some inherent unsuitability to combat is simply untrue. Pavlichenko was a soviet female sniper in WW2 who achieved more confirmed kills (309) than any American sniper, ever . Yet, under current policies she would not be allowed join a combat unit in the U.S. or Britain. Obviously most woman (or men) would never reach that kind of skill, but a blanket ban prevents such capable women from being able to contribute.

As far as damaging the reproduction ability of the population, such concerns are unfounded. We (at least U.S.+U.K.) are a monogamous society, we marry one other person for love, not based on optimal reproductive rates. Despite millions of men killed during WW2, we didn't see men have multiple kids with multiple wives to boost the population. In fact, having casualties match the gender proportions of our country would lead to more theoretical pairings, and thus higher birth rates.
 
Polynikes said:
Ministers are to consider changing the rules limiting women's combat roles in the armed forces, the BBC has learned.

BBC NEWS | UK | Women's front-line role reviewed

I am curious to the positions held by members of this forum on this topic. Having been in the Marine Corps infantry and experienced combat I think this is a horribly misguided effort of egalitarianism. None of my opinions are sexist by any means.


1. Women do not have the upper body strength equivalant to that of a man. They physically do not have the strength to effectively carry and then efficiently deploy a weapon in combat such as the Squad Automatic Weapon, AT-4, or any type of additional combat arms outside of their primary weapon. Of course there is exceptions, and I am sure some women are stronger than most of the Marines I served with, but I am speaking in general terms. When I was in Iraq I was carrying on average of 80-90 lbs of gear in 100+ degree heat, sometimes for hours. I am not looking for 'wow' or for people to think I am tough, I am merely highlighting the very realistic circumstances that need to be considered. This is the probably the pill hardest for women to swallow when discussing the debate due to the nature of it basically calling them physically inferior to men.

2. Former head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, told The Politics Show he believed any change could lead to "concerns that operational effectiveness, particularly in the infantry, could be and probably would be, jeopardised".

History has shown that the presence of women in combat had very adverse of effect of men in combat.


For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.

Debunking the Israeli 'women in combat' myth

3. Political ramifications. The United States, or any nation for that manner is simply not ready, and will never be ready, for the sight of mothers and daughters coming home in body bags in large numbers. The obvious question then to be asked is 'What makes it acceptable to have fathers and son brought home in body bags?' The answer is that's just the way it has been, so we've grown accustomed. If women had combat roles all along then it would be a different story.


I wouldn't want to be the one to tell this Lt. Ripley, but I will sure as hell tell it to Jessica Lynch.
Click to expand...

It depends on the woman/man. I have (female) friends in the army, and if I had to fight hand to hand with them, I think they'd knock me down in 3 or 4 seconds.

I don't think that the physical difference between men and women would justify that, as many women have got a great physical condition, and are able to fight as well as men. The Russian army has used many women as snipers during WWII for example.

Still, I think they should not risk to be killed. It's a morale and personal point of view. It may sound masochist or paternalist, but I think that, like kids, women should not be on the battlefield (well...no one should be on the battlefield...but especially women and kids)
 
Voidwar said:
Some of those tools have certainly changed, but how does that have any impact on this :
Click to expand...

Going to refer back to the study you keep mentioning:

In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be.
Click to expand...

Note the bolded part. 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Sex roles, interaction among the sexus, social ethics and more have changed significantly since then. It's time to do a new study, this one is useless in a modern context.
 
bub said:
Tashah said that the thing you quoted is not exact
Click to expand...
hmmmmmmmm
Voidwar said:
Is what Tashah was describing an IDF parallel ? Foot Patrols, but not Close Combat ?

More input from Tashah will be required.
Click to expand...
Tashah said this too:
Tashah said:
Some clarity is probably needed here. Technically speaking, IDF females are not assigned directly to attacking units or platoons. But the flow of modern warfare is so rapid that combat lanes morph and hot zones can easily become blurred and/or indistinct. Oftentimes also, a female IDF specialist will be embedded with a combat brigade.
Click to expand...
 
Voidwar said:
Some of those tools have certainly changed, but how does that have any impact on this:
Click to expand...
You keep quoting one study that was published 60 years ago. Male and female units inter-train and excercise jointly today.

C'mon. I personally know US females who manned a HumV 50 cal escorting convoys in Iraq. Is this a combat role? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends entirely on what happens down the road.
 
Tashah said:
Every IDF female conscript goes through six months of basic training. They are issued their M-16 on day 1 and it stays with them 24/7. In the IDF, almost all weapons instructors are females. As a matter of fact, the IDF has discovered that females are better suited as snipers also.

IDFGirl.jpg
Click to expand...


Ah ha! This kind of hand eye coordination I think I could do!
 
Redress said:
It's time to do a new study, this one is useless in a modern context.
Click to expand...

It would be good to note, that this was not done on a lark or as a "study". Israeli women fought in that conflict out of numerical necessity, and afterward, the conflict and the impact of female participation therein was "reviewed" or "studied". To suggest that someone go into live fire combat as an experiment is pretty callous.
 
Tashah said:
You keep quoting one study that was published 60 years ago. Male and female units inter-train and excercise jointly today.

C'mon. I personally know US females who manned a HumV 50 cal escorting convoys in Iraq. Is this a combat role? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends entirely on what happens down the road.
Click to expand...

Carrier flight decks operations in terms of stressful environments is about as close as you can get to combat without being in combat. Women excel working on the flight deck.
 
Voidwar said:
It would be good to note, that this was not done on a lark or as a "study". Israeli women fought in that conflict out of numerical necessity, and afterward, the conflict and the impact of female participation therein was "reviewed" or "studied". To suggest that someone go into live fire combat as an experiment is pretty callous.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting any such thing. Women are in combat situations regularly. There is data to get from there. Women work in similar high stress jobs. There is data to get from there.
 
Tashah said:
You keep quoting one study that was published 60 years ago.
Click to expand...

And, is there any reason I shouldn't ? You don't think that the validity of an IDF study is in jeopardy because of a few anecdotes do you ?
 
Redress said:
I am not suggesting any such thing. Women are in combat situations regularly. There is data to get from there.
Click to expand...

Then get it, and abide by what it tells you.

Redress said:
Women work in similar high stress jobs. There is data to get from there.
Click to expand...

No threat of mortality = no comparison.
 
Voidwar said:
And, is there any reason I shouldn't ? You don't think that the validity of an IDF study is in jeopardy because of a few anecdotes do you ?
Click to expand...

It is in jeopardy because the world has changed in 60 years.
 
Redress said:
It is in jeopardy because the world has changed in 60 years.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Prove the changes impacted female efficacy in combat.
 
Voidwar said:
Prove it. Prove the changes impacted female efficacy in combat.
Click to expand...

I do not know that to be true. I do know that it is time for a new study(see earlier post where I say just this) because the 60 year time frame and the changes in the world in that 60 years make the old study suspect.
 
Redress said:
Going to refer back to the study you keep mentioning:



Note the bolded part. 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Sex roles, interaction among the sexus, social ethics and more have changed significantly since then. It's time to do a new study, this one is useless in a modern context.
Click to expand...


I don't see the point in repeatedly mentioning that the study is out of date when the underlying issues are ones that will not change with time or with the era of 'modern warfare'. Are you neglecting in your definition of 'modern warfare' that the fact still remains one is going to see horrific casualties, perform physicially arduous tasks, and above all else be able to put everything aside to be able to accomplish the mission.

This isn't Ghost Recon 2 or some video game where you have heads up displays showing enemy locations and press B to heal a casualty. Real combat is looking down your sights, or through your ACOG and putting a bullet in someone, or picking up your buddy's leg in hopes they can stitch it on later.

This is relative due to the fact that studies have shown that men have a much harder time dealing with these circumstances and have been show to compromise the mission when women are involved.


Has combat significantly changed since 1948 to be able to negate these factors?

Watch the movie 'Black Hawk Down' for a little taste of 'modern warfare' and objectively ask yourself if women had been involved in combat on the streets of Mogadishu could they of performed as well as the men? Speculate as to whether men would react differently to hearing a crying women in the street with her intestines spilled out as opposed to a man? And would the mission still of gotten accomplished effectively (well, as effectively as they could given the horrible circumstances.)

I believe the elite soldiers could allow their extraordinary training to overcome the circumstances, but for the average grunt, probably not.
 
Polynikes said:
I don't see the point in repeatedly mentioning that the study is out of date when the underlying issues are ones that will not change with time or with the era of 'modern warfare'. Are you neglecting in your definition of 'modern warfare' that the fact still remains one is going to see horrific casualties, perform physicially arduous tasks, and above all else be able to put everything aside to be able to accomplish the mission.
Click to expand...

Now you are going beyond what is stated in your linked article. These are not the issues mentioned from the 1948 study. I do not see anything in your list that women are incapable of handling.

Polynikes said:
This is relative due to the fact that studies have shown that men have a much harder time dealing with these circumstances and have been show to compromise the mission when women are involved.
Click to expand...

Now this is the study I am questioning. It's outdated and needs to be re-examined. Note this is not saying it is wrong, only questionable. If we do not continually question past assumptions, we will fall behind, no matter what the topic in question is.

Polynikes said:
Has combat significantly changed since 1948 to be able to negate these factors?
Click to expand...

No, but the people and equipment of combat have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom