Thanks for the input shifty.
I was thinking about the M240B (7.62) rather than the M249 SAW (5.56), BTW.
Ugh.
Yeah I went all 5.56-centric there...
The M60 is a great piece of kit, its lovely, it's romantic, its downright iconic but the hard reality is that it isn't as good as the FN-MAG derived platform in terms of reliability. Maintained well, the FN weapons will just keep cranking out rounds - great Belgian engineering.
There is also the benefit that they are in service with a significant number of NATO countries, which makes logistics that much easier.
Anyhow, to cut to the other point, women can handle being in combat just fine - my views are simply based on knee-jerk reactionary emotions and my own deep seated beliefs rather than trivial stuff like 'real examples' and 'proof and evidence" :p
It's not that they can't, because they sure can, it's just that I'd really prefer they didn't.
I could have a whole other peacenik rant about other reasons I'd prefer they didn't, but you'd need a tinfoil hat.
Anyhow, now for some quality War music.
stuff I mostly agree with
You can also look at it from a cold hard Darwinian perspective. You don't need many males to bounce back from a thinning of the herd, where as if you kill off your fit females of breeding age you are setting yourself up for a catastrophic failure in herd population. So equality is all fine and dandy but if its going to kill off your ability to restock your population what is the point?
As for the suffering of those captured by the enemy it doesn't matter if you are male or female it is equally as terrible. My grandfather helped locate and repatriate Australian prisoners of war from the Japanese camps at the end of the second world war. The things he told me the Japanese did to allied prisoners made me throw up in my mouth.
BAT detail?I don't have a better explanation. I got to hump the pig in my 11B days, but I have never gotten to play with M240B. I'm told the M60 is lighter and at least as reliable, so I don't get the upside for dismount.To award a fat military contract to a favored manufacturer, most likely.
I still don't get why we replaced the M60 with the M240B.
I was a commo puke in the Florida Army Guard in the nineties, so I only ever shot the damn thing and cleaned it a little bit.
I think the SAW or 240B was introduced in the regular army by then, I can't remember, but Guard still had 60's......
We did other fun self torture that I can't talk about cos it's secret communication stuff and it's not that thrilling anyway; if it doesn't compare to humping a pig then good Lordy, cause I did some manual f%!@ing labor back in the day.I did BAT detail once; that was dreary. Big ass orange rockets.......ugh.
"Ballistic Antiaircraft Target" or something like that.
A group of guys assembles and launches these big ass orange rockets in the air, then other groups of guys shoot the big ass orange rockets down with all sortsa stuff.
I guess it was kinda like skeet shooting.
With bazookas and other fun stuff that was on top of humvees and apc's and what have you.
It was kinda....meh....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff I mostly agree withYou can also look at it from a cold hard Darwinian perspective. You don't need many males to bounce back from a thinning of the herd, where as if you kill off your fit females of breeding age you are setting yourself up for a catastrophic failure in herd population. So equality is all fine and dandy but if its going to kill off your ability to restock your population what is the point?
Although this stands to perfect reason in my eyes, I wen't in favour of not mentioning 'Darwinian' principles, as often the word alone sparks a subsequent religious debate - though I agree with you.
From a Darwinian perspective though, does it imply the women will have to breed off the Beta males when all the Alpha's die, thus breeding a weaker, second rate population? :p
As for the suffering of those captured by the enemy it doesn't matter if you are male or female it is equally as terrible.
My word, indeed I love the naievety of people who go down the whole 'but women can be raped if captured' line, as though it truly hasn't dawned on them that men get raped too. Given the high incidence of men raping each other on a frequent and regular basis as a tool of power/domination in your local prison just a short drive away, how is it that these people haven't clicked that a similar/worse fate might befall you in a REAL sphere of conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The pig was my best friend back in the day. I got to the point where I was a bet shot with it than with a M-16.
Meh. At least you still use the 16s. Over here, we 'upgraded' to the 'Toy Gun'.
The transition to a bullpup did a number on my accuracy.
Pardon my opinion then, but f*ck that patriarchal b*llsh*t. If I have the same rights as men, then I should have the same responsibilities. If I can prove I can do the job, then f*ck whether I'm a woman or not.
I'm probably gonna regret getting into this, but I'm actually curious about opinions on the following:
I come from a country with conscription. I spent two and a half years rolling around in the mud and digging foxholes. My female colleagues did not.
There is as a result, an very Heinlein-esque unspoken agreement amongst most employers (corporate and otherwise) that male employees who have completed their terms of service draw a higher starting pay.
The phenomenon has been studied across WAY too many academic papers and it annoys the local feminists to no end. Nevertheless, the process continues even though the wage gap between genders narrows dramatically several years later.
Are my 'lost' years of financial productivity enough to justify an initial wage differential?
Although this stands to perfect reason in my eyes, I wen't in favour of not mentioning 'Darwinian' principles, as often the word alone sparks a subsequent religious debate - though I agree with you.From a Darwinian perspective though, does it imply the women will have to breed off the Beta males when all the Alpha's die, thus breeding a weaker, second rate population? :p
Doesn't have to be Darwinism - Farming 101 should suffice for those who disagree with Darwin.
You always send your conscripts first and save your professionals to train and as a reserve. Those that survive become veterans, so you still have sufficient alphas and you have (or your enemies has) culled enough of the betas, and omegas, from the herd to strengthen the population.
As the father of 2 daughters my youngest a 3 year old kamikaze pilot that does all of her own stunts - my heart freezes just thinking about them joining up... If they meet the requirements and they want to do it there is no way I would stop them. I would be a state of panic from the time they were in to when they got out... I would assume the same would happen if I had a son.
You always send your conscripts first and save your professionals to train and as a reserve.
On a side note, I'm 100% against conscription too , just sayin' :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You always send your conscripts first and save your professionals to train and as a reserve.On a side note, I'm 100% against conscription too , just sayin' :p
It's easy enough to avoid when you have a large enough population base, but I live on an island with a population of something like 5-6 million, and at more than one point in my country 40 plus odd years of history, we've had pissed off neighbors.
My country's just doesn't have the critical population mass to keep a standing professional army, so it supplants to regular army with a mass of conscripts.
I can't say I LIKE it, but I can at least see the logic behind it.
Ahhh Singapore :P
Yeah I can understand the notion there - I am not against Compulsory National Service, but that said I'd like it to contain civil service options rather than military.
I accept that in some places, they don't have the luxury of choice when they are beset on all sides by warring neighbours... but for those countries that DON'T then I have an issue with it.
Ahhh Singapore :P
Yeah I can understand the notion there - I am not against Compulsory National Service, but that said I'd like it to contain civil service options rather than military.
I accept that in some places, they don't have the luxury of choice when they are beset on all sides by warring neighbours... but for those countries that DON'T then I have an issue with it.
Some of us do end up getting shunted off to things like the Fire Departments and the Police as well during our stint.
It's a matter of need thing, mostly.
The majority end up as dogfeet.
I think Israel and North Korea would argue about women being in combat.
That is driven by 'necessity' as opposed to any other reason, it is not because they have some sort of golden age of enlightenment and egalitarian utopia.
I say standardize the requirements and anyone who can, CAN.
Well despite what anyone thinks about it, this is more a case of 'when' rather than 'if'. It IS going to happen. I suspect there will be a standardisation at some point, but the bars will be lowered rather than raised, as the standing armies of allied nations continue to be fatigued and the pool of potential fighting troops continues to shallow. They will simply need the numbers, and the only way that is possible is by removing barriers.
|
I think Israel and North Korea would argue about women being in combat. I say standardize the requirements and anyone who can, CAN.
Can't speak for North Korea, but I've been to Israel. Their way of life is something that your typical American youth, male OR female can't begin to understand. I have no issue stating that their young women are in general, better suited for combat than most of our young men. Our young women are simply not their equal. Sorry.
|
|
I think Israel and North Korea would argue about women being in combat. I say standardize the requirements and anyone who can, CAN.Can't speak for North Korea, but I've been to Israel. Their way of life is something that your typical American youth, male OR female can't begin to understand. I have no issue stating that their young women are in general, better suited for combat than most of our young men. Our young women are simply not their equal. Sorry.
Absolutely. As much as I hate to say it, our younger generation is so soft that whip cream would be harder to go through. Just pointing out that there are nations who have integrated armies that find women perform just fine. As much as I may get in trouble for bringing this up, I was once engaged to an Israeli girl who was proud of her combat scars. She had been shot 3 times, and she was every damn bit as tough as me. We may have parted ways years ago, but if the zombiepocolypes hit, I wouldn't mind having her at my back. ;)
Hey I agree that women are certainly 'capable' indeed I've served with (and continue to serve) with some great sisters who are highly skilled and highly capable soldiers... the question is, 'do I want them with me out front?'.
My answer is that I'd prefer them not to be.
I don't argue the logic of it, nor the right or wrong, just the 'emotionality' :p.
|
|
Hey I agree that women are certainly 'capable' indeed I've served with (and continue to serve) with some great sisters who are highly skilled and highly capable soldiers... the question is, 'do I want them with me out front?'.
My answer is that I'd prefer them not to be.
I don't argue the logic of it, nor the right or wrong, just the 'emotionality' :p.
Why? Other than your oft pointed out "You don't wanna". It's not some mamby pamby "feminist" thing, it's the fact that if you feel patriotic enough to put your life on the line, to fight and die for you country, then God bless you. I'd be more than happy to have those capable women fighting at my side any day of the week.
EDIT: A soldier is a soldier, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. And more than deserving of the honor of serving this nation.
EDIT: A soldier is a soldier, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. And more than deserving of the honor of serving this nation.
Oh I agree.
That said is there any less honour serving in logistic, communication, medical etc? I have a bias towards Infanteering, but are you suggesting that Infantry is the unassailable and unmatched pinnacle of patriotism, and that NOT being Inf is somehow to be the lesser man?
I haven't anywhere said not to come and serve. Simply narrowing down ONE of the roles.
As a side question, have you served?
|
|
EDIT: A soldier is a soldier, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. And more than deserving of the honor of serving this nation.Oh I agree.
That said is there any less honour serving in logistic, communication, medical etc? I have a bias towards Infanteering, but are you suggesting that Infantry is the unassailable and unmatched pinnacle of patriotism, and that NOT being Inf is somehow to be the lesser man?
I haven't anywhere said not to come and serve. Simply narrowing down ONE of the roles.As a side question, have you served?
Yes I have.
One of the problems I have in regards to the current policy is that you don't have to be on the front lines to be in direct danger. More and more often we find the enemy has a preference for bypassing our infantry and going for our logistics and communications. They don't want to strike our combat forces, they want to strike the less trained and prepared support troops. My outlook is thus, if you're gonna get shot at then at least can get you as ready for the danger as we can.
One of the problems I have in regards to the current policy is that you don't have to be on the front lines to be in direct danger. More and more often we find the enemy has a preference for bypassing our infantry and going for our logistics and communications. They don't want to strike our combat forces, they want to strike the less trained and prepared support troops. My outlook is thus, if you're gonna get shot at then at least can get you as ready for the danger as we can.
I've put forward a similar view; that in the asymetrical battlespaces of the 21st Century the whole 'battle lines'/ecehelon etc system as we know it has become a bit of a flawed premise. Those systems work reasonably in State v State warfare, but it's been a while since a war like that rolled around.
I 100% agree that everyone in uniform is a 'Soldier first' and should all have a good standard of training to position them for armed conflict - after all thats their job, what I am arguing against is upping the ante, sticking the women in Infantry and then disposing them towards aggressive combat patrolling and the direct conflict tasks.
Do I think they are more than capable? most certainly.
Does that mean I'm cool with women running around as fellow Infanteers? No, not really. That said, it's not for every male either.
At the end of the day though, I only put this forth as my opinion and certainly it only amounts to as much. At the end of the day though, the bereaucrats couldn't give two hoots about the opinions, thoughts, and desires of the people who are out there DOING the work, so they will make their decisions regardless. Eventually, it will happen.
So you agree then that you have no other reason than it makes you uncomfortable? That's all I wanted to know.
I've openly stated that from the get go. I've also stated from the get go that I completely get that its my baggage, however I am far from alone when it comes to the point of view. It's pretty firmly entrenched in the psyche of Infanteers in armies around the globe, and is hardly a new phenomenon. We don't get up on a soapbox about the right or wrong of it, it's just something you feel in your gut.
I would never posit that they should 'never be allowed' or insinuate that the lack of a p*nis should be a barrier to entry, simply that if someone's asking my opinion then here it is.
That's all.
(Anyhow all that aside, I have given a pretty in depth expression of my opinion in the matter, and will now leave it to others to have theirs - so not terribly interested in getting into a long drawn out debate about it as it is a bit of a 'religious' debate - and we know how they classically end up)
I removed a few posts that were little more than yelling, and one post that was evading the profanity filter.
I removed a few posts that were little more than yelling, and one post that was evading the profanity filter.
Awww.
And it was just getting so passionately heated too...
BAT detail?I don't have a better explanation. I got to hump the pig in my 11B days, but I have never gotten to play with M240B. I'm told the M60 is lighter and at least as reliable, so I don't get the upside for dismount.To award a fat military contract to a favored manufacturer, most likely.
I still don't get why we replaced the M60 with the M240B.
I was a commo puke in the Florida Army Guard in the nineties, so I only ever shot the damn thing and cleaned it a little bit.
I think the SAW or 240B was introduced in the regular army by then, I can't remember, but Guard still had 60's......
We did other fun self torture that I can't talk about cos it's secret communication stuff and it's not that thrilling anyway; if it doesn't compare to humping a pig then good Lordy, cause I did some manual f%!@ing labor back in the day.I did BAT detail once; that was dreary. Big ass orange rockets.......ugh.
"Ballistic Antiaircraft Target" or something like that.
A group of guys assembles and launches these big ass orange rockets in the air, then other groups of guys shoot the big ass orange rockets down with all sortsa stuff.
I guess it was kinda like skeet shooting.
With bazookas and other fun stuff that was on top of humvees and apc's and what have you.It was kinda....meh....
Pull!
EDIT: A soldier is a soldier, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. And more than deserving of the honor of serving this nation.Oh I agree.
That said is there any less honour serving in logistic, communication, medical etc? I have a bias towards Infanteering, but are you suggesting that Infantry is the unassailable and unmatched pinnacle of patriotism, and that NOT being Inf is somehow to be the lesser man?
I haven't anywhere said not to come and serve. Simply narrowing down ONE of the roles.As a side question, have you served?
On a more humorous note, a friend of mine in the infantry was asked by the SGT Major in the promotion board how many MOS's there are in the army. Stumped for a correct numerical response he improvised and replied, "Two Sgt major; Infantry and infantry support!". ;)
So you agree then that you have no other reason than it makes you uncomfortable? That's all I wanted to know.I've openly stated that from the get go. I've also stated from the get go that I completely get that its my baggage, however I am far from alone when it comes to the point of view. It's pretty firmly entrenched in the psyche of Infanteers in armies around the globe, and is hardly a new phenomenon. We don't get up on a soapbox about the right or wrong of it, it's just something you feel in your gut.
I would never posit that they should 'never be allowed' or insinuate that the lack of a p*nis should be a barrier to entry, simply that if someone's asking my opinion then here it is.
That's all.
(Anyhow all that aside, I have given a pretty in depth expression of my opinion in the matter, and will now leave it to others to have theirs - so not terribly interested in getting into a long drawn out debate about it as it is a bit of a 'religious' debate - and we know how they classically end up)
I appreciate the input shifty.
I would also appreciate the benefit of the experience of anyone who has been forward deployed with females including females who have deployed into combat zones.
I look back at my experience as a young infantry NCO, and even if the physical requirements were made identical, I think adding women to infantry units would make the job of leading young troops more difficult. Of course my experience is pretty dated.
I understand that there is a legitimate question of social justice, but my primary concern is whether incorporating women into combat units makes combat units more combat effective or less or is neutral.
I'm also curious if the US were to raise the PT standards for women, would that only apply to women in combat arms or all women in the armed forces. I suspect that raising the PT standards universally would force a significant number of women out of the armed forces. Wouldn't forcing a significant number of women out of the armed forces create problems also?
I'm also curious if the US were to raise the PT standards for women, would that only apply to women in combat arms or all women in the armed forces. I suspect that raising the PT standards universally would force a significant number of women out of the armed forces. Wouldn't forcing a significant number of women out of the armed forces create problems also?
My take on it is that the standards are generally higher for men to represent the notion that they will be frontline combatants. They will simply have to adjust the PT definitions and not split male/female in some roles - a mortar base plate does not get lighter because you are a woman... :p
My take on it is that the standards are generally higher for men to represent the notion that they will be frontline combatants. They will simply have to adjust the PT definitions and not split male/female in some roles - a mortar base plate does not get lighter because you are a woman... :p
On an off topic tangent... exactly how heavy is a mortar base plate anyway?
On an off topic tangent... exactly how heavy is a mortar base plate anyway?My take on it is that the standards are generally higher for men to represent the notion that they will be frontline combatants. They will simply have to adjust the PT definitions and not split male/female in some roles - a mortar base plate does not get lighter because you are a woman... :p
The M120 Mortar System consists of the following major components:
* M298 Cannon Assembly (110 pounds / 50 kilograms)
* M190 Bipod Assembly (70 pounds / 32 kilograms)
* M9 Baseplate (136 pounds / 62 kilograms)
* M1100 Trailer (399 pounds / 181 kilograms)
* M67 Sight Unit (2.5 pounds / 1.1 kilograms)
On an off topic tangent... exactly how heavy is a mortar base plate anyway?My take on it is that the standards are generally higher for men to represent the notion that they will be frontline combatants. They will simply have to adjust the PT definitions and not split male/female in some roles - a mortar base plate does not get lighter because you are a woman... :p
The M120 Mortar System consists of the following major components:
* M298 Cannon Assembly (110 pounds / 50 kilograms)
* M190 Bipod Assembly (70 pounds / 32 kilograms)
* M9 Baseplate (136 pounds / 62 kilograms)
* M1100 Trailer (399 pounds / 181 kilograms)
* M67 Sight Unit (2.5 pounds / 1.1 kilograms)
I'm assuming this is the towed/vehicle mounted system and not man-packed. I haven't seen a man-pack in ages.
On an off topic tangent... exactly how heavy is a mortar base plate anyway?My take on it is that the standards are generally higher for men to represent the notion that they will be frontline combatants. They will simply have to adjust the PT definitions and not split male/female in some roles - a mortar base plate does not get lighter because you are a woman... :p
The M120 Mortar System consists of the following major components:
* M298 Cannon Assembly (110 pounds / 50 kilograms)
* M190 Bipod Assembly (70 pounds / 32 kilograms)
* M9 Baseplate (136 pounds / 62 kilograms)
* M1100 Trailer (399 pounds / 181 kilograms)
* M67 Sight Unit (2.5 pounds / 1.1 kilograms)
Just how much of it are you supposed to carry unassisted? Because I know mortar teams work..as a team.
Just how much of it are you supposed to carry unassisted? Because I know mortar teams work..as a team.On an off topic tangent... exactly how heavy is a mortar base plate anyway?My take on it is that the standards are generally higher for men to represent the notion that they will be frontline combatants. They will simply have to adjust the PT definitions and not split male/female in some roles - a mortar base plate does not get lighter because you are a woman... :p
The M120 Mortar System consists of the following major components:
* M298 Cannon Assembly (110 pounds / 50 kilograms)
* M190 Bipod Assembly (70 pounds / 32 kilograms)
* M9 Baseplate (136 pounds / 62 kilograms)
* M1100 Trailer (399 pounds / 181 kilograms)
* M67 Sight Unit (2.5 pounds / 1.1 kilograms)
This is normally a towed or tracked system. If it works like the old 4.2 in mortar tracks. You rarely move the system out of the track, and when you do it's only a few yards. The baseplate is a 2 man lift.
These would be the 2 standard man portable systems.
Weight excludes ammo.
This is normally a towed or tracked system. If it works like the old 4.2 in mortar tracks. You rarely move the system out of the track, and when you do it's only a few yards. The baseplate is a 2 man lift.
These would be the 2 standard man portable systems.
Weight excludes ammo.
The SAF brainboxes reached a completely different conclusion regarding man-packs. Manpower issues don't allow for integrated mortar teams and frankly they don't work very well FIBUA, so I think we've more or less phased out man-packs in favor of the SRAM.
Now back to your regularly scheduled argument. :-P
Sorry to take you off on a tangent there guys - the point I was trying to make is that there is a load of junk that is required to be carted around, which dictates a certain level of strength and fitness to achieve, and that each member of the team should be able to conduct it equally - thus there would have to be one high fitness standard - things dont get lighter and easier because the member is less fit.
(Well up until you folks starting comparing guns and mobile artillery platforms ... my military experience has more to do with fluid mechanics and reactor physics. The last few posts have made me think I'm reading some of my original Traveller Books.)
Sorry. Got carried away.
"Brainboxes" is a derogatory name for the desk jockeys who make procurement decisions. (aka. Talking Heads).
"Man-packs" refers to man-portable weapon systems.
"FIBUA" is S.A.F. shorthand for "Fighting In Built-Up Areas" (urban warfare)
"SRAM" is another S.A.F. shorthand for "Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System" which is a vehicle mounted weapon system.
But then again, you don't need to know this.
Sorry to take you off on a tangent there guys - the point I was trying to make is that there is a load of junk that is required to be carted around, which dictates a certain level of strength and fitness to achieve, and that each member of the team should be able to conduct it equally - thus there would have to be one high fitness standard - things dont get lighter and easier because the member is less fit.
I remember the hilarity of attempting to fit all my field gear into a Field Pack.
We'd all make hilarious compromises on gear and equipment choices in desperate attempt to make them fit.
As for my stake in the matter, I'm actually curious how this will work out for a conscript army. I know our neighbors tried sending both sexes in for compulsory military service, and all they really succeeded in doing was raising the number of unwed mothers.
I'm very uncomfortable about that though. Nothing against stopping women from volunteering if they're up to it (and more than a few go through the same field training as the guys), but the idea of conscripting women makes me uncomfortable on many levels.
It's a personal hang-up.
Sorry to take you off on a tangent there guys - the point I was trying to make is that there is a load of junk that is required to be carted around, which dictates a certain level of strength and fitness to achieve, and that each member of the team should be able to conduct it equally - thus there would have to be one high fitness standard - things dont get lighter and easier because the member is less fit.
Light infantry is one of the greatest oxymorons of all time.
I have no idea where this chart get it's data, but I fond it interesting and consistent with what I know.
Bitter Thorn,
I read the original article in your first post (as well as the rest of this thread). I didn't read all the collateral links offered here and there throughout this thread, but I feel I've a sense for the positions and varying viewpoints folks have offered.
I'm really impressed with how civil and reasoned the discourse has been.
(Well up until you folks starting comparing guns and mobile artillery platforms ... my military experience has more to do with fluid mechanics and reactor physics. The last few posts have made me think I'm reading some of my original Traveller Books.)
I think it's just a matter of time before female troops are allowed serve, unrestricted, in US combat units. If not 2011, it'll be 2012.
I don't feel good about anyone ending up in the line of fire to serve in their country's Armed Services, but there you have it. As long as they can do the job, I think anyone who's willing to volunteer to do the job is welcome to it.
-- Andy
I agree that it's probably just a matter of time, Andy. I just have a number of practical concerns. I'm not convinced that women in combat arms are going to be a net plus.
|
TL:DR, so this may have been adressed already...
What about the fact that, with the current combat situation, women may as well be serving in front-line combat positions? There is no gender requirement for becoming an MP (military cop for those out of the know), and from what I understand, they're doing just as many patrols and getting shot at just as much as (if not more than) 11Bs.
Modern warfare is a far cry from past warfare. Anybody who participates in a patrol or a convoy has the same chance(or near enough) of coming under fire as an infantryman in our current engagements. Does that mean that we should prevent all women from deploying?
Solid, well spoken points. The Air Force has a gender biased physical fitness program as well.Yes, we all agree the physical standards are not useful. I don't see anyone claiming they are. What is see is a lot of, "would you change your mind of the standards were corrected?" And the reply is always "the current standards suck!"Somebody doesn't agree that the standards suck or else they would be different. The Army is beginning to institute a more combat-focused PT program. It doesn't replace or change the standards of the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test).
FWIW I've served with females in combat and I don't care what wedding tackle they've got if they can do the job. The "sex as an unnecessary complication" cat is out of the bag with the end of DADT so that shouldn't be an obstacle to females serving in combat arms any more than it is to females serving at all. If I had the magic policy wand I'd allow females in combat arms, do away with height/weight standards, make one PT standard for both sexes and all ages, and let the chips fall where they may. If we wound up with more recruits than billets I'd raise the standards to make it more competitive. But if an individual can perform combat tasks I don't care whether they're male, female, black, white, gay, straight, overweight, or a purple-skinned squirrel-worshipping mime that's willing to risk their life to serve their country, I say let 'em serve.
Do your NCO's and junior officers tend to feel the same way?
TL:DR, so this may have been adressed already...
What about the fact that, with the current combat situation, women may as well be serving in front-line combat positions? There is no gender requirement for becoming an MP (military cop for those out of the know), and from what I understand, they're doing just as many patrols and getting shot at just as much as (if not more than) 11Bs.
Modern warfare is a far cry from past warfare. Anybody who participates in a patrol or a convoy has the same chance(or near enough) of coming under fire as an infantryman in our current engagements. Does that mean that we should prevent all women from deploying?
It has come up, and some women have served very well.
If I'd been able to serve openly in the military, I'd have signed up for the college money and probably served in the Gulf at some point. I don't buy into whole "women aren't mentally & emotionally capable" of being effective frontline soldiers; I gotta call h*rsesh*t, especially after all the lowering of standards that the military has gone through in the last decades to make sure they make their body quota.
If she can pass the physically, ie: 'Can she drag her wounded comrade out of the line of fire?" and "Can she go on foot patrols carrying all that damn gear and still hold her own in a firefight when dog-tired?", it shouldn't matter that she's female.
If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend this documentary from a couple years ago: Lioness (PBS). If you watch it, you'll see the question is moot: women already are serving in combat (just not getting recognized).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Actually, females already serve in some combat arms branches. The Field Artillery has had female officers leading troops in combat for two years now.When did FA start having female officers on gun tracks?
Female FA officers don't serve on gun tracks, but NO FA officers serve on gun tracks. Junior commissioned officers are platoon leaders or fire direction officers. The female officers I mentioned are HIMARS (surface-to-surface rocket truck) platoon leaders, and we've had them for about 2-3 years now.
Is the unit readiness impact of females in units less than it was for the first Gulf War?
I'm not important enough to know those kinds of figures.
I assume the Army still can't officially punish female troops for getting pregnant?
Not for getting pregnant, but if you get pregnant to avoid a deployment they'll probably put you out of the Army.