• 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!

Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:57]

Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

  • Total voters
    87
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Viktyr Gehrig said:
I don't have a problem with women having careers. I have a problem with women having careers in fields where their specific anatomical differences make them unsuitable to perform their job duties and present a real danger to their comrades. And, secondarily, I have a problem with young women in careers that have such a high chance of death or disability. It is good for a society to bleed off its excess males in this fashion; it is very, very bad to do this with females.
Click to expand...

What do you imagine these "specific anatomical differences" to be, which make women unsuitable as soldiers?
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

Navy Pride said:
In my 21 years in the military I have never heard of one person be they man or woman who wanted to serve in combat.
Click to expand...


not one?

really?

I've met plenty.. loads.. tons... hell, I'm one of them.
combat was one big ass reason I enlisted in 1969 ...the NVA killed my big brother at Khe Sahn, and I enlisted to kill 'em back.

as for women in combat.... there's a ton of women I wouldn't want anywhere near a battle... but there are some I would want right next to me.
my daughter is one of those whom I would be proud to fight alongside with...she's tough, she's smart, she's a hardcharger, she's motivated, and she can put a round through a ticks ass at 500 yards....she's also too smart to follow in dads footsteps, instead choosing to be a scientist. ( she's working towards her PHD in applied Physics)

my wife.. not so much... she isn't built for such things as combat.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Manc Skipper said:
What do you imagine these "specific anatomical differences" to be, which make women unsuitable as soldiers?
Click to expand...

Specifically? They have less upper body strength and endurance and they move slower, which is reflected in the lowered PT standards for women in the military. They require more medical and hygienic supplies in the field and their reproductive systems are prone to conditions that render them incapable of deploying. All of this is fine if they're doing work back on base... but in combat units all of these things represent significant impairments of combat effectiveness.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Navy Pride said:
It is obvious that that most of the people responding do not have daughters or wives of military age or they might give this a second thought.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about drafting women into combat roles, Navy.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Tucker Case said:
We're not talking about drafting women into combat roles, Navy.
Click to expand...

I think that you underestimate women...Females make excellent assassins...

''The female of the species is more deadlier than the male''....

Of course..they will lose in hand to hand fighting..because of men's superior bodily strength..

But for cunning....
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Zyphlin said:
The better comparison is the "average" military woman compared to the "average" military man.
Click to expand...

I actually think Jerry has the best comparison: the enemy.

Because if you want to start comparing allies, you have to compare that "average" 140lb military man to the "average" 200 lb military man. Then just re-type everything you've said using that comparison instead, and we get identical statements.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Tucker Case said:
I don't think you understood my point.
Click to expand...

OK..what was your point??
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Mathematician said:
My personal experience is having two parents who are retired military, close friends who are still active duty, and 10+ years serving the military as a civilian. I don't claim to be a military expert; my role has been educating them in applied math. However, I think you'll agree that all the tests need to be passed and it doesn't matter whether the hump was the first, sixth, or where in the order it was.

When I said "pair them in combat", I meant do a head-to-head comparison of the combat skills of the best female candidates versus the best male candidates in no specific order. Restricting to the top 100 of each gender, how many women do you think come out ahead of the male they're matched up against?

I agree determination is a significant factor, but it's very possible to fail regardless of how much determination one has.

Doing the same as what you did is matching what you did.
Click to expand...

Any of these 'close friends' Grunts? I kinda thought you had no personal experience on what it takes to be a grunt. or for that matter what makes a 'good' grunt. no concept of the ENDURANCE side of the issue.

you use a rather bogus theory of what 'the best' is and how grunts are selected. your comparison is theoretical only, will never happen in the real world. Will 100 of the 'best' ever fight together? Have you done hand to hand combat training? I can assure you the biggest and strongest NEVER won in our Bear Pit. most vicious, quickest, and yes luckiest won.

I am the one saying the trainee must MEET THE STANDARD to turn blue. YOU are the one talking about 'the best' and 100 against 100.

You also don't seem to have a concept of how grunts fight...it isn't a modern version of Gladiator. No paired combat. TACTICS, and TEAMWORK. Better the soldier who fights as part of the team than one who thinks he is Rambutt or some such.

If you agree determination is significant and it is very possible to fail no matter how determined then you have to agree brute strength can just as easily fail, especially if it isn't coupled with OUTstanding training and the skill/talent/intelligence to fight smart.

The saying isn't biggest SOB in the valley....its MEANEST...
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

notquiteright said:
Any of these 'close friends' Grunts? I kinda thought you had no personal experience on what it takes to be a grunt. or for that matter what makes a 'good' grunt. no concept of the ENDURANCE side of the issue.

you use a rather bogus theory of what 'the best' is and how grunts are selected. your comparison is theoretical only, will never happen in the real world. Will 100 of the 'best' ever fight together? Have you done hand to hand combat training? I can assure you the biggest and strongest NEVER won in our Bear Pit. most vicious, quickest, and yes luckiest won.

I am the one saying the trainee must MEET THE STANDARD to turn blue. YOU are the one talking about 'the best' and 100 against 100.

You also don't seem to have a concept of how grunts fight...it isn't a modern version of Gladiator. No paired combat. TACTICS, and TEAMWORK. Better the soldier who fights as part of the team than one who thinks he is Rambutt or some such.

If you agree determination is significant and it is very possible to fail no matter how determined then you have to agree brute strength can just as easily fail, especially if it isn't coupled with OUTstanding training and the skill/talent/intelligence to fight smart.

The saying isn't biggest SOB in the valley....its MEANEST...
Click to expand...

The number 100 was chosen randomly to demonstrate the point that the number of grunts needed is a small portion of the military. Theoretically, to optimize the quality of our military, you should first determine the number of grunts needed. You then look at the statistics of their skills and overall capabilities in order to determine what standards should be set at so that the number who succeed is close to the number you need, erroring just slightly on the side of caution. Strength, endurance, determination, tactics, and teamwork are all important. Knowing the precise finite list of areas being judged is not necessary. Strategy selecting candidates for any type of position can be studied with the scoring factors represented as random variables. In this particular case, I apply expertise in topics such as lattices and orderings to help the military.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

UtahBill said:
the catholic church in particular...
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats the history I remember. As I recall, the English weren't actually that anxious to burn her.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Mathematician said:
The number 100 was chosen randomly to demonstrate the point that the number of grunts needed is a small portion of the military. Theoretically, to optimize the quality of our military, you should first determine the number of grunts needed. You then look at the statistics of their skills and overall capabilities in order to determine what standards should be set at so that the number who succeed is close to the number you need, erroring just slightly on the side of caution. Strength, endurance, determination, tactics, and teamwork are all important. Knowing the precise finite list of areas being judged is not necessary. Strategy selecting candidates for any type of position can be studied with the scoring factors represented as random variables. In this particular case, I apply expertise in topics such as lattices and orderings to help the military.
Click to expand...

the whole premise is incorrect. you are trying to use theoretical to justify a position that historically fails the real world test.

You want to wonk the last place on earth where cold stats carry the day. if math could win battles, then the Japanese should have won Midway, the Germans the battle of the Bulge, the 1/7th at LZ x-ray.

What wonks can't do is measure the amount of fight in the dog.... all pie charts aside.

I want to say a former Sec of Defense McNamara thought very much like you did. You recall how well that worked?
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?
Click to expand...


Well of course they do. They're Americans aren't they? All real Americans love the sting of battle...


 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

notquiteright said:
the whole premise is incorrect. you are trying to use theoretical to justify a position that historically fails the real world test.

You want to wonk the last place on earth where cold stats carry the day. if math could win battles, then the Japanese should have won Midway, the Germans the battle of the Bulge, the 1/7th at LZ x-ray.

What wonks can't do is measure the amount of fight in the dog.... all pie charts aside.

I want to say a former Sec of Defense McNamara thought very much like you did. You recall how well that worked?
Click to expand...

Strength is found in the proper combination of assets and strategy. You should stick to the grunt work.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

cpwill said:
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. From "The Standards Will Not Change" to "The Standards Are Irrelevant" in less than a single thread!


:) And they call us crazy when we said that's how it would go. :)




Anywho, to answer your question, lots.
Click to expand...

You forget, I only speak for myself, and I have questioned the standards from the beginning. Jerry and I discussed it quite a bit earlier. I think the military largely suffers from group think, and that some lack he courage to question their assumptions.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Paratrooper said:
Let me break it down for you...

Let's say two soldiers one male and one female are up for a a promotion. They are both equal in all aspects with the final deciding factor of who gets the promotion down to the pt test. Lets set the score at 270 because they are looking to do well, not just meet the minimum standard.

This is what a 17-21 year old male has to do to get a score of 270:
Push ups:64 (in 2 minutes), Sit ups: 72 (in 2 minutes), 2 mile run: 13:42 minutes

17-21 year old female:
Push ups: 36 (in 2 minutes), Sit ups: 72 (in 2 minutes), 2 mile run: 16:24 minutes

As you can see a 17-21 year old male must do 28 more push ups in 2 minutes, and run the two mile run almost 3 minutes faster. I consider this to be a fairly significant difference.
Click to expand...

Here's what I mean by group think, why would the pt test be a consideration?
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Boo Radley said:
Here's what I mean by group think, why would the pt test be a consideration?
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure how many push ups you could do would make a great difference to your fighting abilities..confronted by the Taliban..
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

wolfie said:
Oh I'm sure how many push ups you could do would make a great difference to your fighting abilities..confronted by the Taliban..
Click to expand...

Upper body strength and endurance matter. We had plenty of crew served weapons, and anti-tank missiles, that could be mounted on the ground or on trucks (and was moved back and forth, according to mobility needs). We moved around a lot. There was always lots of ammo to go here or there. Hell, just digging the fox holes (and truck holes) required tremendous strength.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

ecofarm said:
Upper body strength and endurance matter. We had plenty of crew served weapons, and anti-tank missiles, that could be mounted on the ground or on trucks (and was moved back and forth, according to mobility needs). We moved around a lot. There was always lots of ammo to go here or there. Hell, just digging the fox holes (and truck holes) required tremendous strength.
Click to expand...

Yup. Lots of grunt work is strenuous and requires considerable upper-body strength and endurance. I'm not ashamed to admit that at 47 I couldn't keep up with a bunch of 11Bravo soldiers in their 20s, they'd run me into the ground no doubt... and I'm not even going to talk about Rangers or Marine Recon. I might have qual'd Ranger in my 20s given the chance, but not any more.

Certain combat units require far-above-average physical ability, and not everyone can qual. If some women can, more power to 'em IMO... but the standards need to be kept exactly as they are and not lowered for any reason. They are what they are for very good reasons: it takes a lot of physicality to do some of these jobs.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

ecofarm said:
Upper body strength and endurance matter. We had plenty of crew served weapons, and anti-tank missiles, that could be mounted on the ground or on trucks (and was moved back and forth, according to mobility needs). We moved around a lot. There was always lots of ammo to go here or there. Hell, just digging the fox holes (and truck holes) required tremendous strength.
Click to expand...

I agree with that..but I think it is just another sexist commentary...to keep women in their place...orchestrated by men..
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

wolfie said:
I agree with that..but I think it is just another sexist commentary...to keep women in their place...orchestrated by men..
Click to expand...

I didn't read the commentary. I feel, as ex airborne infantry (enlisted), that upper body strength cannot be compromised. All of us would run out of gas sometimes, preferrably at different times, and if anyone was significantly less strong they would be a burden and security risk.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Goshin said:
Yup. Lots of grunt work is strenuous and requires considerable upper-body strength and endurance. I'm not ashamed to admit that at 47 I couldn't keep up with a bunch of 11Bravo soldiers in their 20s, they'd run me into the ground no doubt... and I'm not even going to talk about Rangers or Marine Recon. I might have qual'd Ranger in my 20s given the chance, but not any more.

Certain combat units require far-above-average physical ability, and not everyone can qual. If some women can, more power to 'em IMO... but the standards need to be kept exactly as they are and not lowered for any reason. They are what they are for very good reasons: it takes a lot of physicality to do some of these jobs.
Click to expand...

But the real test would be doing the job.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Side note:

Birth control pills (or other means) that negate menstruation might be mandatory - bleeding greatly weakens a person and that would not be a variable that an infantry platoon needs. We don't have the extra food and we don't have the extra manpower to support one of ours in a weakened state as a routine matter of operations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom