They've *been* in combat zones for years, so the question is rather moot.

Absolutely not. They're capable combatants and I won't ever suggest otherwise, but it's a matter of human instinct and simple demographics-- the death and dismemberment of female soldiers is far more deleterious to morale (civilian *and* military) than similar casualties among male soldiers, and a society can afford to lose far more young men than young women. If we (the USA) had lost the same number of women as we lost men in WWI, our population growth-- and correspondingly, much of our economic growth-- would have been stagnant for decades. Indeed, this was a major problem for the European combatants in WWI whose losses were far greater and included vastly more women.

A nation that sends its young women into combat is effectively committing suicide.

As someone who has never served in the army, fought in a battle, or done in-depth studies or research into the social effects of women in combat, I have decided to have no opinion on the matter.

I wish others in the same situation would do the same.

YJ, but can they carry 70-100 pounds on their back for 20 or more miles, at a clip of about 4-5 miles an hour, with small breaks to get to said point to pull said trigger?

Being in a combat zone, and being in a combat unit are NOT the same thing.

I have over 5 years of US Army Infantry experience, as well as Gulf War vet experience behind me to help me form my opinions on this.

Also, if we had a woman in ourunit, it could cause some major issues. first, if sheis captured. I think our men would put themselves at greater risk to resuce her. This is just an opinion.

Sex. Now, I dont care if she has sex, but if she starts having sex with more than 1 man, hurt feelings could happen, and a jealous soldier could make big problems in the wrong situation.

Again, both of these are just off the top of my head situations

I like threads where I know who will be on which side before I even click on them.

lol. Which side am I on uly?

Can women meet the same minumum standards of strength and stamina that men can if the standards are truly high enough to maintain the integrity of the combat force? After 10+ years of coaching both male and female track athletes I am very, very skeptical. Of course there are exceptions, so perhaps those exceptions should be allowed in combat units.

Ukytau. Care to refute what Isaid?

Can they physically keep up with young men?

Obviously that's going to be decided on a case by case basis. If a female cannot meet minimum standards, then she doesn't qualify. The same goes for a man. No difference.

Let me rephrase the statement: Do women belong in combat units? Or units that have a significant risk (>10% chance) of being attacked or engaging in combat?

I say no:

1) Female casualties would be detrimental to the birth rate after the war and extremely demoralizing on the home front

2) Some of the more barbaric countries around the world can't tolerate women outside of burqas, much less in combat gear and toting a rifle. What happens to those women if they are captured? Let's not find out.

3) Male soldiers would succumb to male instinct and put themselves at unusual and foolish risk to protect female soldiers, hurting the combat integrity of the unit as a whole.

4) Logistics. Women have periods. Periods require pads or tampons. Pads/tampons have to get from Point A to Point B. If the route between Point A and Point B is a hot zone, you are not only putting logistics personnel at unnecessary risk but you are also taking resources away from more vital supplies such as medical gear, food and munitions.

5) Physical capability. Name a statistically significant group of military-eligible women who can each hump a heavy piece of gear like an M240B for 20 miles at 4 to 5 miles per hour. Military fitness tests are already dumbed down for women. While that's fine stateside, in a combat zone real gear has to really get from Point A to Point B and real men have to do it.

6) Unit integrity and dependability. Close to the end of a 6-month deployment, most male soldiers are going to vigorously pursue anything they can find with girl parts. Female personnel are already at increased risk of rape and sexual assault by male personnel. Do you really want to amplify this problem by letting women into combat units? The problem cuts both ways too. The middle of a war isn't a good time to get knocked up or switch boyfriends. Relationships would form and end, and you don't want anyone carrying an M4 to have compromised emotional integrity.
_________________

We are talking about a battlefield, not some workplace. This is not some Ivy-League lecture hall or ACLU bullshit. If bad decisions are made based on abstract ideas, REAL people come home in REAL body bags.

Gunfighter,

1. Birth rate argument is bullshit. There are 350 million people in the United States. I wouldn't worry about the birthrate.
2. If a woman gets captured by the enemy, they could possibly be tortured or executed. Same as a man.
3. Last I checked, chivalry isn't part of basic training. I've never met a soldier who wouldn't take a bullet for his best friend, regardless of whether it was a man or a woman, in a combat zone.
4. Pads require logistics, but so does food, ammunition, personnel, you name it. If the US Army can fly some shitty musician from USO to the front lines, they can do the same with a tampon. These can also be improvised pretty well from basic supplies; say, a few pieces of cloth. Non-essential.
5. Like I said in my previous post, if a woman can't pass physical qualifications, they don't join. If they can, they should be able to join. Not much of an argument here.
6. Men can have emotional problems due to relationships just as easily as men, who can also have compromised emotional integrity.

2nd WL,
1) ididnt bring this part up, and I dont think enough women would ever achieve the physical requirements tomake it an issue
2) lie. Men tend to be naturally more protective of women. Sure, we dont want our buddy getting sliced and diced, but I am sure we dont want our female buddy getting gang raped. That one would bother me more I think

3) One that I did think of, is if she getspregnant. You put a hole in a unit, and withthe way rotations are set, it coudl cause problems if she is any type of leadership roles.

4) Let me be very clear. Women with their 'monthly friend' have serious emotional issues USUALLY. I have 3 sisters 2 daughters They can grind on ya for sure. I am laughing while I say this, but it is 100% true. We dont say "what, are you on your period" when someone is 24/7 bitching for nothing.

We do not fly musicians to a hot combat zones, try that one again.

I would be much more comfortable if they woudl do this, and form all female units, so that any issues exclusive to women could be handled easier.

'As someone who has never served in the army, fought in a battle, or done in-depth studies or research into the social effects of women in combat, I have decided to have no opinion on the matter.

I wish others in the same situation would do the same."
+1 Commander cool. All I know is that I know nothing all all. The most rationale of people know when to admit that they don't know the answer to an issue.

I am not that rationale because I let pride get in the way. So just kudos to you.

what 2WL said. The rest is just "good old boy" excuses, if you'll allow me to wax putinesque.

I find it interesting that of gunfighter's 6 reasons why it's not a good idea, 3 of them involve males reaction to women fighting, and 1 is about tampons. Maybe its time men adjusted their standards, instead of expecting women to conform to what keeps us in our "comfort zone?"

Go watch GI Jane or something :P

my answer is simple though, providing that:
a) the Female in question wants to go ot and fight
and
b) the female is capable of fighting, as in is as strong as the males in her squad.

Then I would have no problem with them joining the army and fighting alongside men on the front lines.

@stressedlines, separate but equal, huh?

@fasces, of course she's not likely to be as physically strong as most of the males, but as 2WL says, if she can pass the same physical required for men, then there is no reason to exclude her.

as for everyone arguing against women, I think its pretty sexist to say that there are no women out there who are as strong as men.

Just because the average man is stronger then the average women doesn't mean there are no strong women.

That is my personal belief.

People should be placed on the front line based on their merit, no based on the colour of their skin (as it was in world war 2), their sexual preferences (as it was until a few years ago) or their gender.

yj,.The military is NOT a democracy. Unit cohesivness/moral is a HUGe factor, and one that you are playing with here.

I am trying to take out the problems, and find a solution,. you want to play PC police here, with a lot of peoples life riding on the line. Take your PC shit home, and think hard on reality here.

Female soldiers will never be as fit as male soldiers. This is the truth. A combat unit will not operate its full potential if they are not one. Cmon.. this is just too true. There's nothing sexist about it.

@Stressed: Couldn't you say the same for Gays? What if 3 gays enterede the military and 2 of them were dating, then they broke up and one of them started dating the 3rd.

Why should homosexuals be given any more rights to sexual relationships then females. I don't mean this as an insult to gays, what I do mean this as is in your oppinion should gays serve openly in the military, and whats the difference between then and females?

@Hyperion: As I said earlier:
"Just because the average man is stronger then the average women doesn't mean there are no strong women. "

"Women have periods. Periods require pads or tampons. Pads/tampons have to get from Point A to Point B."

Yeah, because the US Military has zero experience supplying soldiers with materials to deal with bleeding...

No you aren't, your listing all the reasons why its not a good idea, and then suggesting segregation as the viable solution so you can "protect the feelings" of the male soldiers.

There's nothing PC about what I'm doing. Whatever minor morale hits are taken will be gotten over rather quickly when the menfolk become accustomed to the idea. The military is not a democracy, and they will follow their orders.

redhouse, you are pretty much indifferent to this topic so I won't pigeonhole you anywhere. Enjoy your stay though.

Srestdelnies, being in the combat entails various other positions as well. Forward observers, artillery commanders, fighter pilots, snipers, field medics... all posts successfully handled by women during the course of the last century. The Soviet army saw extensive involvement of women in the WWII combat for instance.

Logically, a woman that meets all the requirements for service shouldn't be discouraged just because she's a woman. That's absurd bureaucracy. Is the US army so useless that they can't even create proper hiring procedures and need armchair generals solving the issue for them? Coming from a self-professed freedom lover it is also a... ask krellin, he'll brief you.

faces, that is not ALL that isinvolved here. Trust me, was in a comabt unit for over 5 years, and we had women in ourunit in support roles (administration, supply, etc) and I recall THOSE women (and their men partners) causing grief sometimes, and we did not even see them that much.

Combat units are not a university dorm, they play for keeps there, and anything that disrupts that unit, and causes problems (and probably death) needs to be looked at FIRST.

Some people here are willing to risk the death of soldiers/marines all for being politically correct, and 'fair'

how many of the people complaining about this have actually been in a combat unit so can speak of this first hand?

"Female soldiers will never be as fit as male soldiers."

So what standard of fitness are you going by? Because any standard that you can use to exclude the very fittest of the women will also exclude about 30% of the men. As Fasces said, individual merit is what should dictate this.

+1 Abge for the nice joke
+1 Ulytau for the logical answer

faces, that is not ALL that isinvolved here. Trust me, was in a comabt unit for over 5 years, and we had blacks in ourunit in support roles (administration, supply, etc) and I recall THOSE people causing grief sometimes, and we did not even see them that much.

Combat units are not a university dorm, they play for keeps there, and anything that disrupts that unit, and causes problems (and probably death) needs to be looked at FIRST.

Some people here are willing to risk the death of soldiers/marines all for being politically correct, and 'fair'

how many of the people complaining about this have actually been in a combat unit so can speak of this first hand?