Yes, and they should be integrated with the males
Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units
No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training
No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat
Last edited by G.I. Joe; 08-05-09 at 02:34 PM.
And, all that high-tech crap will never replace that infantry soldier and his rifle using speed, tactics, terrain and firepower to close with the enemy destroy him in close quarter combat. All the things you listed are combat multipliers and aren't neccessarily deployed/employed prior to deployment of an element's main body. The nature of the battlefield will never change no matter how much technology you through into it. Technology breaks, gets wet and stops working, gets dirty and malfunctions. IMO, the worst thing that happened to infantry platoon leaders was to give them GPS's. Before I ETS'ed in 2000, I ran across 1LT's and Captains that couldn't use a map and a compass because they'd become too accustomed to using their GPS. They had forgotten the most basic land navigation skills.SURVSATS. ELINT. Saturation shelling. Strafing. Drones with real-time video and more sensors than an F-16. GPS keypad gridding. 3-D structure layouts. Laser designators. Wireless laptops. Satellite up/down comm links. Special Forces inserts. Sniper team inserts. Recon team inserts. Spotter aircraft. Thunder runs. Armored spearheads. Chopper support. Close-Air-Support officers. All this before the Infantry even get out of their transports.
Hand-to-hand combat? wtf?
As to the topic, though. I'm all for females serving in an military unit they choose. However, I believe that there shouldn't be any co-ed combat units. Infantry, armor, combat engineer and artillery units should be all male, or all female. In fact, I'm a proponent of that policy across the board.
In every war in US history females have contributed without being in combat arms. The problem is the amount of females that could actually do the job is so minuscule in the end, it would be pointless to make such sweeping changes for so few. The money and moral would be harshly effected. It is as I said just not worth it.
I know it stinks, but not everything in life is fair, get used to it.
No Lives Matter
Nobody's lugging a SAW thirty miles, I can assure you, but they are lugging it, along with their combat load (typically 60-75 lbs), sometimes up to eight miles, in 140 degree weather, after having very little sleep. This is kind of thing is an eventuality, not a mere possibility.What I am suggesting, and what has been proven true in other parts of the world, is that females can indeed contribute significantly on the modern battlefield. No, females generally can't hump thirty miles lugging a SAW. But if your military finds it necessary for any Infantry soldiers to do this, then your military is in some deep **** from the get-go. Such exacting excercises are best left to elite personel such as Special Forces.
Aggressive and sustained patrolling / ambushes are the best medicine for counter-insurgency operations. It's my personal opinion that woman lack the physical stamina necessary to conduct prolonged combat operations of this sort. Sure, there may be a few women who are capable of such, but we do not radically change military policy based upon the exceptions.
Do the terrorists slip the coordinates to their location in Uncle Sam's mailbox? What happens when this bad mamma can't locate any targets? What happens when the target is in the middle of the city?Intelligence, speed, mobility, and combined-arms capability are the keys to successful ground operations. Getting bogged down kills. I suppose some muscle-bound tattooed grunt has to lug a friggin SAW around. But me? I'll take the female soldier who can obliterate anything two clicks away using a lightweight headset, laser designator, and laptop.
I don't doubt this but for certain jobs one needs certain tools. Bases don't build themselves, posts don't stand themselves, LP/OP's don't collect intel by themselves, doors don't get kicked in by themselves, etc.You see Ethereal, one need not be the strongest and baddest dude on the block to be extremely proficcient and successful at killing the enemy. This ability can come in any size, or gender.
I know I probably sound like a dick but it's just the opinion I have after my experience in the Marines. I was a wrestler and a distance runner before I was in the Marines and I still had a hell of time over there, physically speaking.
I don't doubt that women could fill roles as combat specialists of some sort, but as generalized infantry I just can't see it. At least, thatís my two cents.
While my opposition to females serving in combat units, especially infantry units isn't about ability, it is a fact that a 115 pound woman isn't going to be able to perform some tasks. If females are ever allowed to serve in infantry units, they should have to perform all tasks to the same standards as male soldiers; no gener norming.
did you know gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military?
do you really think those same people would come to a better conclusion when it comes to women?
maybe you should focus on that for a bit