Should women be allowed in combat units?

WinterBorn said:
So they would be disqualified for specific reasons other than gender. Or they can be paired with another female sniper, giving them a 150lb partner to get out of the field if wounded.

My point is that they should be disqualified based on specific requirements, not something as general as gender.
Click to expand...

If the pre-requisite is about ability and not gender-then wouldn't that be figured out during boot camp? I mean wash every person out that can't perform at the required level regardless of gender. There should be no need to pair them with another woman- They can either do the job required or they should not be able to go into a combat unit.
 
WinterBorn said:
I picked that because of what I know about the subject. If a woman can qualify for the scout/sniper duty, the heavy upper body strength is not as critical a requirement. The other skills can be learned by a female as well as a male.

Gender is an important part of combat because we have been taught it is an important part. There are many cultures throughout history that had their women fighting alongside the men.

In fact, the Israelis seem to be doing well with females in their military. And that is one military that does not fuck around. Do a little research about the Nahshol unit the Israelis formed. An all women unit doing front line reconn and combat intell work.

Or maybe read a bit about Lyudmila Pavlichenko. She was a russian sniper credited with 309 kills in WWII.

I found an interesting article concerning female sniper training:

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/sniper.html

From that article: ""Frankly, women are better suited mentally for this job than most men," said Dolan who has learned the sniper craft from the Marines and from the Army and who saw duty as a Marine sniper 10 years ago during the Persian Gulf War. "A woman is best suited to counter a woman sniper," he added. "That's important because more than 50 percent of the countries that have been considered hostile to the United States, including North Vietnam and North Korea, have used women snipers.

"Women can shoot better, by and large, and they're easier to train because they don't have the inflated egos that a lot of men bring to these programs," Dolan said. "Women will ask for help if they need it, and they will tell you what they think." Dolan has designed the countersniper program for Air National Guard security people, and he has no reservations about training women who can handle the 15-hour days of running and shooting and camouflage lessons in the woods."
Click to expand...

Ill entertain this for a little bit.

http://www.usmcscoutsniper.org/hogsden/becoming.htm

This is the basic indoc for ADMISSION to USMC Sniper School. I have yet to come across a female capable of just the physical part. Not because females are weak, or because they are somehow inferior, it is because of the physical make up of the female body and the female bodies capability to achieve this type of physical performance.

http://www.usmc.mil/unit/tecom/soiwest/Pages/AITBn/ScoutSnipersBasicCourse.aspx

Part of the requirement for most USMC sniper schools is a complete training cycle with an infantry unit. This includes 20k humps carrying a full combat load. Again... carrying weight on your back that can weigh up to 75 lbs for 20 kilometers is something not suited to the female physique. This isnt to say that you couldnt find 1 out 1000 that could do it. But integrating females into such roles means that any female that joined the military could consider this as an avenue, so the training must at some point realize the limitations of the people that compose it, otherwise you would have a 99.999% failure rate of your members... which is stupid.

This doesnt even account for the necessity to be able to do ALL of the above and still be able to physically help your fellow Marines if they are wounded in combat.

Being a sniper is one of the hardest things to do in any branch of the military, it encompasses some of the most rigorous mental and especially physical challenges out there. Not one single part of it would be "better suited" for a female.

The reason that some females score higher on ranges comes down to a simple fact of flexibility. Most females are more flexible then males. When it comes to shooting from the knee or the sitting position some females can perform better. Now... that is a range. You drive in a car or you are driven in a bus to the range... you have plenty of water, plenty of instruction, spotters, food, etc... This is not humping over terrain for 30 clicks, low on every supply you need to survive and then taking a shot at 800 yards. So lets not confuse the player of the video game in a controlled setting, to people who actually have to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#IDF_Women

Israel has in the past been FORCED to conscript women into every kind of role. This was not because Israel felt like women made good combat soldiers.. in fact all the evidence is to the contrary.

""History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle," wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.

"For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.

Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: "Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat."

"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," said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23886

Currently Israel deploys its "female combat troops" mainly as border security and in some artillery units.

There never has been any successful representation of an effective co-ed combat unit, that has actually experienced combat and casualties performing at the same level as a non-co-ed unit.



There is an enormous difference in saying that you could find a woman to do something, and saying that all, most, or even a majority of women can do something. There is an enormous difference in using examples of units that exist where women are in combat roles and HAVING examples of successful units that have engaged in combat with women on the front lines taking causalities. Can and will do not have the same definition. And when it comes to things like having a military that can effectively defeat its enemies and not have unnecessary KIA's or WIA's, the can's and will's need to be strictly separated.

Could you find a woman to successfully complete just your basic infantry training course in the Marine Corps, much less, RECON, SNIPER, MARSOC, or any of the other specialized units in the US military including all branches? Of course you could. Im sure she exists somewhere. Could she then figure out a way to integrate herself into a unit dominated by males? im sure its possible. Could she then learn to lead other men and maintain her capabilities, both mental and physical for years on end? maybe. Can you find one to do ALL THREE. extremely doubtful. Could you then find a special collection of these elite male operators to embrace her in their unit. Be able to do their jobs after she has been shot in the face, or as she is being taken prisoner. Could you find these men and place her with them out in the middle of nowhere for months on end without her becoming a distraction...since you have to build and develop different facilities for her to take care of her female needs. Can ALL of this exist in a successful setting?

In hollywood... absolutely. In real life? no
 
WinterBorn said:
Two reasons given for women not to be allowed in combat have been their inability to carry a wounded fellow soldier, and that pregnancy would preclude being prepared for long term dependency on certain people at certain positions. But doesn't that person getting wounded do the same thing? Does having a soldier be wounded or killed lessen the combat effectiveness because they were depended on to do certain tasks?
Click to expand...
It most certainly does, but you increase the risk of doing so with females because they can get injured AND pregnant.
 
Old Fezzywig said:
It most certainly does, but you increase the risk of doing so with females because they can get injured AND pregnant.
Click to expand...

'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.' Next time you want to declare war on some unsuspecting nation, just line up all your women point them at the enemy and tell them they don't matter!
 
Old Fezzywig said:
I'm on the fence on this. On the one hand I've known women that are just as good or better then their male counter parts in all physical and weapons handling areas. In fact I lost range high score to a woman once. And I am a VERY good shot.

But on the other hand there are many complications with women. Namely, that guy want to have sex with them. And this leads to pregnancy. In a combat environment, where you learn to depend on a person for a long period of time to prefrom certain tasks or lead troops, their sudden loss is a significant force reducer. Now segregating units would solve this problem, but I won't even touch that idea for many reasons.
Click to expand...

now that gays can openly serve, would there be the same complications, sans pregnancy?
 
There are just some jobs that women are physically not equipped for....it just nature....
I don't particularly want some 110lb women trying to carry my 210 lb. fat ass out of burning building when my life is depending on it....
But then an automatic weapon does level the playing field some, right?
 
bravo said:
There are just some jobs that women are physically not equipped for....it just nature....
I don't particularly want some 110lb women trying to carry my 210 lb. fat ass out of burning building when my life is depending on it....
But then an automatic weapon does level the playing field some, right?
Click to expand...
By the same tolken though, would you want a 110lbs dude trying to pull your ass out?

I mean, if physical standards are uniform for both sexes, I don't see there being a performance issue.
 
Yurt said:
i saw it and wondered if it was somewhat realistic

i liked the movie, when i go to SD, i always go to coronado and watch the seals train, they often train right in front of hotel del....those guys are bad ass
Click to expand...
Eh.....kinda I guess.

I have a fairly low opinion on the SEALs. Not that they aren't qualified or anything, but I did a couple of MOUT (urban) training ops against them. They got SLAUGHTERED. It wasn't even close and I'm not part of a combat MOS.
 
Old Fezzywig said:
Eh.....kinda I guess.

I have a fairly low opinion on the SEALs. Not that they aren't qualified or anything, but I did a couple of MOUT (urban) training ops against them. They got SLAUGHTERED. It wasn't even close and I'm not part of a combat MOS.
Click to expand...

:whoa:

have you ever considered law enforcement?
 
Old Fezzywig said:
No, because I'm not that kind of person.

It wasn't just me against a SEAL team. I 'died' in two out of the three exercises we ran. But as a whole my team won. By a lot.
Click to expand...

"that kind of person"?

my buddy from college is a highway patrol officer, i always knew he was going to be law enforcement, he worked security in college and i used to razz him for taking it so seriously, but now....he can actually write me a ticket

thankfully he does not live my state :)
 
Old Fezzywig said:
By the same tolken though, would you want a 110lbs dude trying to pull your ass out?

I mean, if physical standards are uniform for both sexes, I don't see there being a performance issue.
Click to expand...
As long as the standards are the same, then performance and not gender becomes the dividing line.

However, there are other issues to consider, such as the drop rate in a combat specialty school. When drop rates get too high, it is not good for morale and it is wasteful of resources. (Not a good thing at a time when we are looking for ways to decrease military spending!)

Giving females the opportunity to join combat teams - especially specialty combat teams - would invariably increase, probably significantly, the drop rates as even strong women find themselves up against the ceiling in getting their bodies to perform equally to their male teammates. An exceptionally strong woman may be able to outperform average males, but in combat schools, she will not be competing with average males, will she?

There are plenty of essential roles available to women in today's military. IMO we do not need to start adding them to combat roles just to be politically correct. The military is about winning in COMBAT, not winning PC points.
 
Yurt said:
"that kind of person"?

my buddy from college is a highway patrol officer, i always knew he was going to be law enforcement, he worked security in college and i used to razz him for taking it so seriously, but now....he can actually write me a ticket

thankfully he does not live my state :)
Click to expand...
I don't enforce laws I don't agree with. So I won't sign my name to do a job that would require it.
 
Old Fezzywig said:
By the same tolken though, would you want a 110lbs dude trying to pull your ass out?

I mean, if physical standards are uniform for both sexes, I don't see there being a performance issue.
Click to expand...
If either of them actually passed the training and were able to perform, I wouldn't who the hell saved my ass...
but .... as it stands now, the requirements for female firefighters is not the same....females don't have to carry a 150 or 200 lb. weight up and down a ladder to make the grade...females are not required to pass the same tests as the men are...
I would think you all would know that....
 
Call me old school, but I am opposed to women serving in combat. For one thing, it would logically result in women being drafted, if the draft were to ever be reinstated. Secondly, women on the front lines could potentially put the men at risk. As men it is our nature to protect women, which could lead to heroics that would place other soldiers and/or the mission in jeopardy. Thirdly, in a POW situation, females will be treated far worse than males.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top