Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military?

Aderleth · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
And I will reply again read the info, that's what it is there for.

If you can't do that, than I don't really care what your point is as it does not in any way refute (because you did not bother to read it) the information in any way, period.

Have a good read.

To put this another way, if you have a particular source, or series of sources, that actually address the question that I've asked you, I'd be happy to look at them. Why don't you tell me what those sources are?

Black Dog · Mar 22, 2012

Aderleth said:
I'm not asking your sources. I'm asking you. If you would like to address me to a particular source of yours, I'd be happy to read it.

OK but I am not going to debate this anymore as it has all been covered at this point. I will let the Israelis point to my view on why at this time I cannot and would not support this...

The fact that military-age women weigh 33 pounds less than men on average makes the average disparity in what they can lift more than 44 pounds.

The study also determined that men could be trained on marches of up to 55 miles, but that marches of more than 32 miles were too arduous for women.

The study, carried out at the request of the General Staff, found that the amount of oxygen-carrying hemoglobin in women’s blood was more than 10 percent lower than in men’s blood, limiting their ability to undertake extended physical efforts.

You mite want to read all of it here.... Israeli women won't see combat - Washington Times

The study and the others all come to the same conclusion. Even if a female can pass, in a ground combat company the odds are they will be the weakest links. They are physically not built for it and never will be. Now in the future this may change either through robot soldiers or some other kind of sci fi thing. Well here again...

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically.” - Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Unfortunately don't remember the link for that one.

Aunt Spiker · Mar 22, 2012

Now you're using the color red because bold-for-quotes wasn't enough, you think we're blind and not reading your posts.

You don't want women in, period. In general you think we're inferior. On average: women are not equal to men physically. No one's blind to this generalization or offended by it - nature is what it is . . . However - for all these generalizations there are always exception. Every 'reason' you present: there are women who wouldn't bring that 'problem' with them. But you're still ignoring these women and brushing them off.

You don't want to see this and accept it for what it is: we're not all cut with the same cutter. . . God chose to make some of us different in this way.

If that makes men feel bad or emasculated: too bad :shrug: That's your problem - not mine. See a shrink, but don't try to sweep me under the rug with the others thinking you can hammer me flat and no one will notice.

Aderleth · Mar 22, 2012

Blackdog said:
OK but I am not going to debate this anymore as it has all been covered at this point. I will let the Israelis point to my view on why at this time I cannot and would not support this...

The fact that military-age women weigh 33 pounds less than men on average makes the average disparity in what they can lift more than 44 pounds.

What is average is irrelevant to my point.

Blackdog said:
The study also determined that men could be trained on marches of up to 55 miles, but that marches of more than 32 miles were too arduous for women.

All women, or most women?

Blackdog said:
The study, carried out at the request of the General Staff, found that the amount of oxygen-carrying hemoglobin in women’s blood was more than 10 percent lower than in men’s blood, limiting their ability to undertake extended physical efforts.[/b]

You mite want to read all of it here.... Israeli women won't see combat - Washington Times

I did read that article. It doesn't support the argument that all women are not capable of operating in combat units. This will become clear shortly...

Blackdog said:
The study and the others all come to the same conclusion. Even if a female can pass, in a ground combat company the odds are they will be the weakest links.

Bull****.

Blackdog said:
They are physically not built for it and never will be. Now in the future this may change either through robot soldiers or some other kind of sci fi thing. Well here again...

Well, if robot soldiers get involved, we're all irrelevant. So that's not really important in this conversation.

Blackdog said:
“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks.

If "few" women have that upper body strength, than that subset (i.e. "the few") is capable of the work. Correct?

Blackdog said:
Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically.[/b]” - Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

It would be discriminatory, if you're rejecting females who are capable of the work. Obviously people who are not capable of performing should not be involved. But based on what you've told me, some of them are capable of the work. So I'll ask you for the third time: why not let them fight?

Black Dog · Mar 23, 2012

Aunt Spiker said:
Now you're using the color red because bold-for-quotes wasn't enough, you think we're blind and not reading your posts.

It was to put emphasis on my points to him, not you or anyone else. Context is so important.

Aunt Spiker said:
You don't want women in, period. In general you think we're inferior. On average: women are not equal to men physically. No one's blind to this generalization or offended by it - nature is what it is . . . However - for all these generalizations there are always exception. Every 'reason' you present: there are women who wouldn't bring that 'problem' with them. But you're still ignoring these women and brushing them off.

You don't know me or what I think. Unless you are claiming you have ESP you have no real clue. As for the rest, what a joke....

In general you think we're inferior.

Then you follow up with...

women are not equal to men physically. No one's blind to this generalization or offended by it

I would say you are obviously offended by the results and you are projecting that on me because I agree with them.

As for the last part about not every woman I agree, but far to few could even come close to risk it. Especially in a combat situation. Not worth the risk, and obviously the military's and scientists of most civilized country's agree, so I am at least in good company.

Aunt Spiker said:
You don't want to see this and accept it for what it is: we're not all cut with the same cutter. . . God chose to make some of us different in this way.

I am the one being practical and you are ranting with nothing to back it up.

Aunt Spiker said:
If that makes men feel bad or emasculated: too bad :shrug: That's your problem - not mine. See a shrink, but don't try to sweep me under the rug with the others thinking you can hammer me flat and no one will notice.

Now you go back to the ad hominem? I thought you were not offended? As soon as you do that, you lose. No one wants to debate someone ranting like a loon.

Black Dog · Mar 23, 2012

Aderleth said:
What is average is irrelevant to my point.

Then as I said your point is still irrelevant as modern science disagrees. As well as those (the Israelis) who used women in combat and subsequently removed them. The Russians also removed them after WWII, why? If they could cut it so to speak.

Aderleth said:
All women, or most women?

You read the article, right?

Aderleth said:
I did read that article. It doesn't support the argument that all women are not capable of operating in combat units. This will become clear shortly...

Please point out where I have said this?

Aderleth said:
Bull****.

Good evidence there let me tell you.

Aderleth said:
Well, if robot soldiers get involved, we're all irrelevant. So that's not really important in this conversation.

It was nothing more than an example, man would you PLEASE stop projecting what you WANT into my points. :roll:

Aderleth said:
If "few" women have that upper body strength, than that subset (i.e. "the few") is capable of the work. Correct?

Absolutely. So few in fact that country's who had female soldiers in combat units removed them. Why again did they do this? The studies are pretty clear.

Aderleth said:
It would be discriminatory, if you're rejecting females who are capable of the work. Obviously people who are not capable of performing should not be involved. But based on what you've told me, some of them are capable of the work. So I'll ask you for the third time: why not let them fight?

Already covered it above.

So far you have presented no good reason to change it as the British decided in 2010, based on the studies.

Again it's not discrimination when they can't preform the necessary requirements. No reason or evidence to date exists to put a female into a ground combat unit, period. No scientific evidence to support it either, none.

VanceMack · Mar 23, 2012

Aunt Spiker said:
Now you're using the color red because bold-for-quotes wasn't enough, you think we're blind and not reading your posts.

You don't want women in, period. In general you think we're inferior. On average: women are not equal to men physically. No one's blind to this generalization or offended by it - nature is what it is...

and you could have stopped there and been 100% correct. Want to guess what happens to unit morale and cohesion when a female E6 plops on her ass sobbin with snot running down her face because she can't perform a basic boot drag to get a wounded soldier to safety...in a real world 'exercise'? Will you join me in thanking GOD that that scenario doesn't happen in the middle of a firefight with actual lives on the line?

The military isn't a social experiment. For all the bull**** about equality...grab a pack and a rifle and go lead the way. It's not a macho thing. It's not an anti-women thing. For people that serve and have served its a fact of life. Whether it is unable to repair equipment because it's too heavy or to hack in the field...it's reality. Until they can...thy cant. And shouldn't.

Boo Radley · Mar 23, 2012

Blackdog said:
I gave up on you as your question is based on nothing, and this has nothing to do with your fantasy land question, capisce?

You can call it "group think" all day, but it does not change the facts of the study, period.

Perhaps you don't understand what group think means. However, everything is based on some kind of assumption. And how true and fix those assumptions are speaks to the strength of the assumption. Strength is far less important over all today than it was long ago.

Black Dog · Mar 23, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Perhaps you don't understand what group think means. However, everything is based on some kind of assumption. And how true and fix those assumptions are speaks to the strength of the assumption. Strength is far less important over all today than it was long ago.

I agree it's changed for 90% of the positions in the military. I will also say that Armor, infantry and artillery has not changed at all physically in the last 60+ years. Tank and artially shells are still heavy. Infantry still needs to move fast on foot over long distances carrying a load and still be able to fight. Those things have not changed since WWI.

Boo Radley · Mar 23, 2012

Blackdog said:
I agree it's changed for 90% of the positions in the military. I will also say that Armor, infantry and artillery has not changed at all physically in the last 60+ years. Tank and artially shells are still heavy. Infantry still needs to move fast on foot over long distances carrying a load and still be able to fight. Those things have not changed since WWI.

Of course they've changed. All things change. But if we changed our mindset, they might change even more.

Black Dog · Mar 23, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Of course they've changed. All things change. But if we changed our mindset, they might change even more.

Please point out how they have changed as far as the physical job goes? I mean I was in the military but what the hell do I know, lol.

Boo Radley · Mar 23, 2012

Blackdog said:
Please point out how they have changed as far as the physical job goes? I mean I was in the military but what the hell do I know, lol.

Changes 1960-1995

The evolution of the Infantry after 1960 followed the general evolution of the Army.

Starts step by step the rearrangement of Infantry Units with the entry of new material and means aiming at the confrontation of existing threat and achieve the creation of an Army of quality and no quantity.
In the last decade, a number of Infantry Battalions, Regiments and Divisions have been mechanized. The today’s picture of the Infantry Units shows that the Infantry is being modernized and steadily marches in the creation of an Arm capable to manage the modern threats wherever they emanate (ensuring the national space – asymmetrical threats) and provide successful subscription in Peace Support Operations with EU and NATO Forces.

HISTORIC EVOLUTION OF THE INFANTRY

"Arms and equipment including gun systems in the Indian artillery are available in adequate quantity,” said Anthony. “[However] modernisation of artillery, which entails replacement of the equipment of older technology, is an on-going process and is being given priority to ensure that the artillery remains equipped with modern weapons systems," he said.

http://www.ateneadigital.es/revistaatenea/revista/PDF/documentos/Documento_1173.pdf

Everything changes. That which does not change is dead.

Black Dog · Mar 23, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Changes 1960-1995

The evolution of the Infantry after 1960 followed the general evolution of the Army.

Starts step by step the rearrangement of Infantry Units with the entry of new material and means aiming at the confrontation of existing threat and achieve the creation of an Army of quality and no quantity.
In the last decade, a number of Infantry Battalions, Regiments and Divisions have been mechanized. The today’s picture of the Infantry Units shows that the Infantry is being modernized and steadily marches in the creation of an Arm capable to manage the modern threats wherever they emanate (ensuring the national space – asymmetrical threats) and provide successful subscription in Peace Support Operations with EU and NATO Forces.

HISTORIC EVOLUTION OF THE INFANTRY

"Arms and equipment including gun systems in the Indian artillery are available in adequate quantity,” said Anthony. “[However] modernisation of artillery, which entails replacement of the equipment of older technology, is an on-going process and is being given priority to ensure that the artillery remains equipped with modern weapons systems," he said.

http://www.ateneadigital.es/revistaatenea/revista/PDF/documentos/Documento_1173.pdf

Everything changes. That which does not change is dead.

That has literally nothing to do with the physical requirements. As I said THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED. THEY ARE THE SAME. ARITALLY SHELLS ARE STILL HEAVY, INFANTRY STILL HAS TO HUMP GEAR AND BE ABLE TO PREFORM.

What part of "Physical" did you misunderstand?

Like I said your argument has nothing to do with the real world. You have no clue, none. So with that enjoy your world of bunnies and little faeries flying around because it does not work here in reality.

Navy Pride · Mar 23, 2012

I took my wife shopping at the Commissary Store at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard this morning......While I was waiting for her I struck up a conversation with a Senior Chief Machinist Mate of the USS RONALD REAGAN who is in the shipyard for an overhaul....Well the topic came up about women at sea or in combat.......The first thing he asked me is are you NCIS....I assured him I was not and told him I was a retired navy chief and I actually told him about DP and this thread........He asked to see my ID, I was shocked but I showed him...He said you can't be to careful these days...I told him we never had that problem when I served.

He then said to me do you want the official or unofficial version? I told him both........He then told me that he did not know much about women in physical combat but as far as women aboard ship officially its a roaring success.....Women are doing everything a man can do.......He said that was the PC answer to the question.........He then said unofficially its been a total disaster.......Fraternizing and pregnancies are out of control.........He said both sexes are responsible...He said most women do not want to serve aboard ship and go to sea for long periods of time so a lot of them try and get pregnant so they can be transfered ashore without replacement in most cases. He said if asked off the record almost every case every Chief that has females under him would say the same thing.

He said he would never repeat any of this officially because it would destroy his military career.......His wife showed up with the groceries then so he had to go........I asked him one more question...........Where do you stand politically? He said he was a moderate who voted for Hussein obama in 2007 and that would never happen again.....I thanked him for his service. He thanked me and went on his way....

Thunder · Mar 23, 2012

Navy Pride said:
I took my wife shopping at the Commissary Store at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard this morning......While I was waiting for her I struck up a conversation with a Senior Chief Machinist Mate of the USS RONALD REAGAN who is in the shipyard for an overhaul....Well the topic came up about women at sea or in combat.......The first thing he asked me is are you NCIS....I assured him I was not and told him I was a retired navy chief and I actually told him about DP and this thread........He asked to see my ID, I was shocked but I showed him...He said you can't be to careful these days...I told him we never had that problem when I served.

He then said to me do you want the official or unofficial version? I told him both........He then told me that he did not know much about women in physical combat but as far as women aboard ship officially its a roaring success.....Women are doing everything a man can do.......He said that was the PC answer to the question.........He then said unofficially its been a total disaster.......Fraternizing and pregnancies are out of control.........He said both sexes are responsible...He said most women do not want to serve aboard ship and go to sea for long periods of time so a lot of them try and get pregnant so they can be transfered ashore without replacement in most cases. He said if asked off the record almost every case every Chief that has females under him would say the same thing.

He said he would never repeat any of this officially because it would destroy his military career.......His wife showed up with the groceries then so he had to go........I asked him one more question...........Where do you stand politically? He said he was a moderate who voted for Hussein obama in 2007 and that would never happen again.....I thanked him for his service. He thanked me and went on his way....

cool story. did you just make it up?

Boo Radley · Mar 23, 2012

Blackdog said:
That has literally nothing to do with the physical requirements. As I said THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED. THEY ARE THE SAME. ARITALLY SHELLS ARE STILL HEAVY, INFANTRY STILL HAS TO HUMP GEAR AND BE ABLE TO PREFORM.

What part of "Physical" did you misunderstand?

Like I said your argument has nothing to do with the real world. You have no clue, none. So with that enjoy your world of bunnies and little faeries flying around because it does not work here in reality.

You might notice that I didn't say physical requirements. Read it again. The first part sets up the second part. It is best to read all sentences together. They work off each other.

Black Dog · Mar 23, 2012

Boo Radley said:
You might notice that I didn't say physical requirements.

I did, whole bases of my argument.

Boo Radley said:
Read it again. The first part sets up the second part. It is best to read all sentences together. They work off each other.

Like I said your argument has nothing to do with the real world. You have no clue, none. So with that enjoy your world of bunnies and little faeries flying around because it does not work here in reality.

notquiteright · Mar 23, 2012

Blackdog-
what did you do in the military? I ask because I was a grunt, both light and mech so I have quite a bit of first hand experience on what you seem to only be able to refer to as second hand information. The longest forced march I ever did was 20 miles a day for 4 days with a day in the trucks. That was 3/60th 2Bde 9th Inf. We were not REMFs, long marches with all we owned on our backs was a way of life in the light infantry.

It kicked our 4th POC !!! I damn sure wouldn't have made 50 mile marches under a full load. Interesting there are people out there who think it is possible to march 50 miles under ruck and still be able fight anyone.

I did a stint in the 8"SPs as well, wish to discuss the strength needed for FOUR of us working together to lift and carry those projo's???

Now about all those slatterns in the navy. I call it the old f*rt syndrome. Don't like change, things were better/tougher/manlier back in the day. This new crap sucks.

So lets look at the Chief's claims... approx 15% of the Squids are female and approx 11% are single moms. So according to the Navy females are a small percentage of the total force with single moms a tiny fraction of that! So those few non lesbian females must be on their back the entire cruise!

roguenuke · Mar 23, 2012

Navy Pride said:
I took my wife shopping at the Commissary Store at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard this morning......While I was waiting for her I struck up a conversation with a Senior Chief Machinist Mate of the USS RONALD REAGAN who is in the shipyard for an overhaul....Well the topic came up about women at sea or in combat.......The first thing he asked me is are you NCIS....I assured him I was not and told him I was a retired navy chief and I actually told him about DP and this thread........He asked to see my ID, I was shocked but I showed him...He said you can't be to careful these days...I told him we never had that problem when I served.

He then said to me do you want the official or unofficial version? I told him both........He then told me that he did not know much about women in physical combat but as far as women aboard ship officially its a roaring success.....Women are doing everything a man can do.......He said that was the PC answer to the question.........He then said unofficially its been a total disaster.......Fraternizing and pregnancies are out of control.........He said both sexes are responsible...He said most women do not want to serve aboard ship and go to sea for long periods of time so a lot of them try and get pregnant so they can be transfered ashore without replacement in most cases. He said if asked off the record almost every case every Chief that has females under him would say the same thing.

He said he would never repeat any of this officially because it would destroy his military career.......His wife showed up with the groceries then so he had to go........I asked him one more question...........Where do you stand politically? He said he was a moderate who voted for Hussein obama in 2007 and that would never happen again.....I thanked him for his service. He thanked me and went on his way....

And we see what we want to see.

I was on one of those ships too NP. Remember? I've told you many times that guys tend to see one or two women out of 50 getting pregnant (and not necessarily on purpose) as some sort of proof that all or most try to get pregnant to get off the ship or out of deployment. It is plain BS. Maybe some do get pregnant to get out of deployment, just like those guys who smoke pot or try to get injured to get out of deployment. But most women would never consider getting pregnant, particularly if they are single, just to get out of deployment.

Both sexes have the ****bags who don't want to do their jobs. Doesn't mean that some or even most women do or even try to do something that will get them out of deployment.

Black Dog · Mar 23, 2012

notquiteright said:
Blackdog-
what did you do in the military? I ask because I was a grunt, both light and mech so I have quite a bit of first hand experience on what you seem to only be able to refer to as second hand information. The longest forced march I ever did was 20 miles a day for 4 days with a day in the trucks. That was 3/60th 2Bde 9th Inf. We were not REMFs, long marches with all we owned on our backs was a way of life in the light infantry.

I was in armor and air defense artillery, so the only forced marches we did were in basic training. Those were around 20 miles up Misery and Agony at Fort Knox. I know for a fact that a woman could not handle loading even the 105mm we had let alone the bigger and heavier 120mm shells they use now. I also know even I had trouble with the (at the time) stinger being quite heavy as the missile alone was over 20lbs, the trigger was another 10ibs at 35+ pounds of dead weight all told the thing was hefty and I was in peak condition at 180lbs. So again they just don't have the endurance or upper body strength to do it. Of course women using steroids would be able to, look at the female weight lifters and body builders, but that is a whole different can of worms.

The problem is anecdotal evidence means nothing, as you can see people have completely different experiences.

notquiteright said:
It kicked our 4th POC !!! I damn sure wouldn't have made 50 mile marches under a full load. Interesting there are people out there who think it is possible to march 50 miles under ruck and still be able fight anyone.

I did a stint in the 8"SPs as well, wish to discuss the strength needed for FOUR of us working together to lift and carry those projo's???

I am going buy the evidence as presented by other modern military's.

notquiteright said:
Now about all those slatterns in the navy. I call it the old f*rt syndrome. Don't like change, things were better/tougher/manlier back in the day. This new crap sucks.

So lets look at the Chief's claims... approx 15% of the Squids are female and approx 11% are single moms. So according to the Navy females are a small percentage of the total force with single moms a tiny fraction of that! So those few non lesbian females must be on their back the entire cruise!

Again anecdotal evidence counts for nothing except a good story, lol.

apdst · Mar 23, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Changes 1960-1995

The evolution of the Infantry after 1960 followed the general evolution of the Army.

Starts step by step the rearrangement of Infantry Units with the entry of new material and means aiming at the confrontation of existing threat and achieve the creation of an Army of quality and no quantity.
In the last decade, a number of Infantry Battalions, Regiments and Divisions have been mechanized. The today’s picture of the Infantry Units shows that the Infantry is being modernized and steadily marches in the creation of an Arm capable to manage the modern threats wherever they emanate (ensuring the national space – asymmetrical threats) and provide successful subscription in Peace Support Operations with EU and NATO Forces.

HISTORIC EVOLUTION OF THE INFANTRY

"Arms and equipment including gun systems in the Indian artillery are available in adequate quantity,” said Anthony. “[However] modernisation of artillery, which entails replacement of the equipment of older technology, is an on-going process and is being given priority to ensure that the artillery remains equipped with modern weapons systems," he said.

http://www.ateneadigital.es/revistaatenea/revista/PDF/documentos/Documento_1173.pdf

Everything changes. That which does not change is dead.

The barrel of a Bradley main gun weighs 100 pounds. The standard is that a soldier should be able to dismount the barrel without assistance. The feeder weighs 60 pounds and a soldier is to be able to lift it, hunched over, turn to the right and set it on the floor of the turrent, without assistance. The lower receiver weighs 75 pounds and a soldier is to be able to slide it out of the gun well, across his lap and out the turrent door, with only the assistance of another soldier taking the other end and laying it on the hull floor.

Even mech infantry is very physical. Although, physical ability isn't really the reason that females aren't allowed to serve in combat arms units. You've been told that time and again.

apdst · Mar 23, 2012

joko104 said:
Santorum says no, they should be banned. So do many other Republicans. What say you?

I'm all for females serving in all female combat arms units.

apdst · Mar 23, 2012

katiegrrl0 said:
I agree with Goshin the issue gets tiresome. I don't see why they should not have the same requirements as males

If females were forced to meet the same physical requirements as males, they would be dropping like flies and the femi-nazis would be screaming bloody murder.

and if in the military they should be in combat positions.

It's not just about ability. Hygene, unit cohesion and discpline are priorities.

MMC · Mar 24, 2012

Again, Women have been fighting in battle with men side by side. Fighting against men. Since the Beginning of Time.

As technology improves so to does the Soldier whether they be men or women. Arguing the merits if women are equal to the task in being strong enough. Having the stamina and or strength to carry equipment and a full grown man who may have some equipment on him to. Is a mute point. The technology of tomorrow will define one's ability to, and for combat.

For Example......

While American soldiers get in shape stateside-- with a slew of aerobic exercises, a soldier of the future could soon be seen on the battlefield. It's called an exoskeleton and by stepping inside this robotic exterior-- a soldier can easily perform feats that years ago could only be seen in science fiction movies.....snip~

I believe this will equalize the strength and stamina issues. Note the exo will be closed and armored as well. Creating a stronger, faster, and smarter soldier.

MMC · Mar 24, 2012

This is a fully armed and clothed Soldier. The Exo is Lockheed's vision of the Future for the Foot-Soldier.

Any excuses now why a woman should not be used for armed combat?

Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military?

Should women be allowed in combat roles in military?

Yes

No

IDK/other

King Of The Dog Pound

Cheese

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound