• 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!

Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

Should women be allowed to specialize as infantry

  • Yes, and they should be integrated with the males

    Votes: 44 46.3%

  • Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units

    Votes: 11 11.6%

  • No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training

    Votes: 25 26.3%

  • No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat

    Votes: 6 6.3%

  • Other....

    Votes: 9 9.5%
  • Total voters
    95
Korimyr the Rat said:
Israel currently has the misfortune of an ongoing-- and apparently intractable-- war on their home front. It makes perfect sense for them to allow female infantry.
Click to expand...

I made this point in the originating discussion thread. When its the survivial of your nation at stake, you need every person you've got, to send rounds downrange. As far as I am concerned, given the rapidly declining birthrates in Western cultures, we need all the women we can to stay out of harms way. So for the US currently, there is simply no need to put our future mothers on the firing line, to satiate some ideal of fairness to the sexes. I did a simple example in the other thread, regarding the logistics of a society that sent females to the fight and one that did not. Men are expendable, women are not.

That being said, you need to balance the sustainability of your society against the threat of its destruction. When you lean more towards imminent destruction, everybody fights. When you are relatively safe, you look at continuing long term growth or sustainment.
 
Tashah said:
Modern militaries no longer fight hand-to-hand in trenches.
Click to expand...

To a large extent very true. British forces [The Scots Guards] in the Falklands 1982 had to resort to using bayonets on the top of Mount Tumbledown and i have heard of unconfirmed reports of a little action at the sharp end in Afghanistan. But i agree trench warfare has declined.

Paul
 
Only once men and women are COMPLETELY equal in this country.

It will never happen though. If not because of men, then because of women.
 
I would love to specialize in infantry
playing all day, sleeping all night
being fed whenever I am hungry and ****ting in my diaper
being an infant rules
 
DeeJayH said:
I would love to specialize in infantry
playing all day, sleeping all night
being fed whenever I am hungry and ****ting in my diaper
being an infant rules
Click to expand...

Heh. You know the term "infantry" derives from the Roman practice of using child soldiers in the front lines?
 
WI Crippler said:
I made this point in the originating discussion thread. When its the survivial of your nation at stake, you need every person you've got, to send rounds downrange. As far as I am concerned, given the rapidly declining birthrates in Western cultures, we need all the women we can to stay out of harms way. So for the US currently, there is simply no need to put our future mothers on the firing line, to satiate some ideal of fairness to the sexes. I did a simple example in the other thread, regarding the logistics of a society that sent females to the fight and one that did not. Men are expendable, women are not.

That being said, you need to balance the sustainability of your society against the threat of its destruction. When you lean more towards imminent destruction, everybody fights. When you are relatively safe, you look at continuing long term growth or sustainment.
Click to expand...

You actually make a very engaging argument here. I have a couple of questions for you though.

What do you think it would take to shift the structure of combat arms in order to facilitate the inclusion of female combat troops? Would it be a paradigm shift or something less?

How long do you think it would take us to make this transformation so that we could actually field capable female combat units? Part two of this question, do you think it could be done effectively during wartime or do you suggest making the changes now so that we can be prepared later?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Snippet of a marching song I learned from a Marine:

"See that girl dressed in pink?
She's the one that makes my finger stink!
Left right left!"

I wonder if they still belt that one out on the modern integrated Corps?
Click to expand...

Only the grunts.
 
Lerxst said:
How long do you think it would take us to make this transformation so that we could actually field capable female combat units?
Click to expand...

Define "capable".
 
Lerxst said:
What do you think it would take to shift the structure of combat arms in order to facilitate the inclusion of female combat troops? Would it be a paradigm shift or something less?
Click to expand...

Basically our society would have to become a drab, colorless world full of androgenous beings where pregnancy could be shifted to one or the other, in the relationship. In that instance, women would be able to serve effectively, and without distraction, as infantry, since there would be no distinguishing characteristics, or societal obligations thrust upon one sex or the other. Physical standards would then be adjusted so as to equal out the physical differences between the rapidly deteriorating sexes. Because physical fitness levels not only determine your strength in battle, but they are also a determining factor in promotions, it would be unfair to promote the traditionally stronger sex, over the traditionally weaker one. So the standards would fall, for what were once considered men, and would become "fair" for what was once considered women. With the genders essentially balanced, there would be no need to fill infantry billets with "male" being a pre-requisite, since the idea of gender would have been eradicated in society and the standards were lowered enough to severely weaken the male population to the point where their musculature would be similar to what females would have had(had we not eliminated the idea of gender). In this state of level playing fields, both physically and socially, those who might have been considered women in the past, will finally have equal opportunity to succeed as infantrypersons. So.... whenever you forsee that happening.

:)

Now seriously, nothing I can forsee could be shifted in combat arms, for females to serve as infantry. Someone might point to fighter jets, and say "Well women now fly those", but aside from the normal dangers of just flying a fighter aircraft, the technology advantage we have is so great, that fighter pilots are generally safe from attack. Our ground troops would have to essentially have the same level of safety, meaning the only way they get killed is by a lucky shot, or a bad accident, before I think it would be considered an acceptable practice to put women in specific infantry roles. Imagine if you would, the outcry, if 2200 of our 4000+ US deaths in Iraq were female. The number of casualties sustained by US Forces in the amount of time they have spent in Iraq is staggeringly low, but it is still considered too high by many, with the bulk of it being males. If the casualties are split evenly, or hell even 70/30, it would freak people out that our women were being killed. The calls for withdrawal would be even stronger. The technology protecting our ground troops would have to make a substanial leap, like force fields or something, before our society would consider females as grunts.

My argument is that unless a society is in inherent danger of being destroyed, the society that puts its females in a risk filled situation like the infantry, is making a serious logistical mistake regarding their own sustainability. Unless they are the Chinese. They have plenty of people to throw into the grinder.
 
Tashah said:
The solution is very simple then. No quarter. Kill them.


A corpse is a corpse. How it got that way is immaterial.


That was well before my time. Things have been incrementally changing over the years. As I've tried to explain, modern militaries fight jointly. The pace of modern warfare and the ever-increasing emphasis on technology (specialists) virtually ensure that females will participate in battle at some juncture. Be it as an F18 fighter pilot, an Apache helicopter pilot, firing missiles from a frigate, sniping, working with self-propelled ground guns, or lasing enemy targets right at the front line. Every soldier is an asset and the military must squeeze every iota of talent from its finite asset pool.

Modern militaries no longer fight hand-to-hand in trenches. Killing zones are typically at a distance of hundreds of meters. As you can see with urban examples such as Fallujah and Gaza, a modern military will destroy the point infrastructure and greatly soften up the penetration lanes previous to the introduction of ground forces. Still, urban warfare is hellish. Be that as it may though, I see no reason at all why female ground units cannot be an effective and positive asset.
Click to expand...

Well, most of what you wrote is definitely an Air Forcish point of view.

Lets start with some basics, one of which you mention, that of a the 'beta' infantry unit composed of female riflemen. In our Army that would seem to indicate that the 'beta' designation means that it is a different type of infantry. For example, in the US military, we have Ranger, Airborne, Air Assault, Mechanized, Light, and Stryker Infantry. Each of those has a different deisignation, right down to individual skill identifiers to ensure the right skills set to ensure the right qualifications of these infantry units. (i.e. it makes no sense to assign a soldier to an airborne unit that is not parachute qualified.)

That 'beta' designation lets any would be war planner know that this is not a standard infantry unit, and I would be willing to bet a paycheck that the unit did not see front line action in the latest Gaza campaign.

It also raises other questions about career progression and inculcation of attitudes. Are these officers competitive for Battalion and Brigade Command? Are the NCO's being culled and trained to become Sergeant's Major? If not, that 'beta' unit is little more than show.

As for the sexuality portion, here are ust some of the places where either I, or friends (I do have them), have found soldiers engaged in sexual acts in either training or combat:

Temproary billets, storage rooms, bathrooms, on an LP/OP, in a HMMWV, in the back of an LMTV, on an LOGPAC assault line waiting to corss the border, in the back of a Bradley, inside a tank, inside a water trailer (which subsequently had to be sterilized so soldiers wouldn't drink the resulting sexual fluids), in an out house, behind a rock, in a pile of trash (and that particular incident involved one woman and six men).

What so many are willing to simply dismiss is something that most military leaders have routinely encountered. It was or Brigade Sergeant Major who caught the couple, both soldiers, going at it in the out house.

This is not just our military. Years ago, we were suspicious of some police forces in Kosovo, and had our scouts monitor them. Within 24 hours we caught male and female police giving and recieving fallacio in broad daylight. (For some reason, they were catching too many weapons smugglers at the time - odd).

When you simply dismiss these concerns, you will run smack into the reality that infantry leaders will not budge on. Until a manner or method is discovered that will adaquately discipline such behavior without shredding the constitutional and legal concepts were are sworn to uphold, the ban will be kept in place.

It isn't about individual qualification, it is about standards that must fit with general trends that can be applied across the board to roughly standardize th resulting unit and its application on the battlefield. The over riding consideration is, and always will be, the likely efficient in battle. No other consideration matters in the slightest.

Finally, there is the reality of the infantry battle. What Tashah refers to is called conditions setting. It is the attempt to establish condition, such as suppression, that allows the introduction of ground forces in as safe a manner as possible. Make no mistake about it though, our enemies are not stupid. They don't hang out clumped together in large groups in the middle of the desert where you can easily identify them and fire cruise missiles from a frigate, bombs from an F-18, or rockets from an apache at them.

The enemy is going to hide among heavily populated urban areas, caves in remote areas, under heavy canopy where they will difficult to spot, in sewers and catacombs, underground, and generally in places that denude easy identification, and make the use of massive firepower difficult at best. Simply put, the enemy does not play to your strengths.

It should comes as no surpise that Al Qaeda is not trying to sink our frigates from Baghdad or Kabul. Instead, they go into places that make our infantry forces more critical than ever before, into areas where physicality and team work are more critical that even to bring about operational and strategic success from a series of small unit, tactical engagements.

The simplest, most effective means of creating and training a unit up to the standards of cohesion and physicality required to be effective in the small unit battles we are fighting, and are likely to fight, is through single sex, all male infantry units.

Many women may chafe under rules of exclusion, simply put though, it is not about you.
 
gree0232 said:
Many women may chafe under rules of exclusion, simply put though, it is not about you.
Click to expand...
No chafe evident here :2razz:

20061212c.jpg
 
specialised infantry in dedicated self defense reserves, imo.
all woman units.
 
I don't know. Giving blowjobs in the foxholes could prove to be a distraction.
 
The military grossly discriminates against heterosexuals. Homosexuals can serve and barrack with their lovers. Heterosexuals can not. This is another example of how discrimination against gays has reversed to discrimination against non-gays.

Either women have to be allowed in or homosexuals put out.
 
joko104 said:
The military grossly discriminates against heterosexuals. Homosexuals can serve and barrack with their lovers. Heterosexuals can not. This is another example of how discrimination against gays has reversed to discrimination against non-gays.

Either women have to be allowed in or homosexuals put out.
Click to expand...

That is not true.
 
joko104 said:
Yes it is.
Click to expand...

No it is not. being caught having sex in a barracks is a violation of most bases rules, and probably service rules. It's not exactly enforced much, we just ignored it when it happened mostly, but technically, neither sex can have sex in a barracks.
 
joko104 said:
The military grossly discriminates against heterosexuals. Homosexuals can serve and barrack with their lovers. Heterosexuals can not. This is another example of how discrimination against gays has reversed to discrimination against non-gays.

Either women have to be allowed in or homosexuals put out.
Click to expand...







l_cf051e9f1c8af2100169ad76214d2e1b.jpg
 
Who is discriminated against has reversed and continues to do so.

Women are to have equality EXCEPT only men are to die combat.

Gay men are allowed to serve with people of their same sexual desires and romantic attractions. This is prohibited to heterosexuals.
 
joko104 said:
The military grossly discriminates against heterosexuals. Homosexuals can serve and barrack with their lovers. Heterosexuals can not. This is another example of how discrimination against gays has reversed to discrimination against non-gays.

Either women have to be allowed in or homosexuals put out.
Click to expand...

Hey if that's what you want, then I'm sure enough homosexuals would be happy to put out. Just ask.

I mean, If I were in a mostly woman's platoon...I'd be happy to support their troops.
 
I did not understand the argument of "women can't serve with men because men would then want to protect them".
I've been told a unit works the best when everyone is united and protect each other, so what's wrong in that?
The major reason why the commander is always such an ass to everyone in the unit is because he wants to unite them against him, so the unit would work as one. Teamwork is essential in an infantry unit.

Also, what's that bull about women not serving as infantry in the IDF?
I have a friend who's serving as one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom