96 replies to this topic

[Frank Merton]

Likely Guy, on 26 January 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

I've never witnessed, in any forum, such an initial gang tackle of sexist statements.

Step back for a minute. Women are generally smaller, thereby having quicker reflexes.

Modern war isn't about '300 Spartans', hacking it out on a causeway. It's about reflex. If a woman can take that place, why not?

More and more the modern soldier needs good education, smarts, reflexes and good sense more than brute strength.  Technology is taking over, and using technology requires most of all the ability to learn.

[DarkHunter]

Frank Merton, on 26 January 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

More and more the modern soldier needs good education, smarts, reflexes and good sense more than brute strength.  Technology is taking over, and using technology requires most of all the ability to learn.

Brute strength is still needed since an average soldier today carries over 100 pounds of gear.  All this technology we keep inventing has weight so unless you are strong enough to carry all of it then it doesn't matter how smart or educated you are.

[Frank Merton]

DarkHunter, on 26 January 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Brute strength is still needed since an average soldier today carries over 100 pounds of gear.

You make a good point.  I think plenty of women can handle that.

[DarkHunter]

Frank Merton, on 26 January 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

You make a good point.  I think plenty of women can handle that.

I have no doubt there are a few women who could do it but I feel that the vast majority would not be able to do it.  We are talking about women carrying 2/3 of there body weight or more for a few miles.  I weigh around 210 pounds so carrying 100 pounds of gear would be a little less then half of my body weight I would have to carry.  The average weight of women in the US is like 130 pounds I think so carrying 100 pounds of gear would be them carrying about 77% of their body weight.  From the women I know most can barely carry a quarter of their weight let alone anywhere from 66% to 77% of their body weight.

[Jinxdom]

As long as they don't use a lower requirement for women then I'm for it. The standard should be the same for everybody not different because of gender.

[Frank Merton]

Jinxdom, on 26 January 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

As long as they don't use a lower requirement for women then I'm for it. The standard should be the same for everybody not different because of gender.

Why?  I would say it's okay to have different standards based on body size if what you want is cannon fodder -- which seems to be the way people here are thinking.  Load each person to what is optimal for them and thereby get the best soldier you can in each case.

[Jinxdom]

Not a fan of weakening our military just to be politically correct. You lower the standards you increase the danger to our troops. If you can't carry all the standard equipment you are just lowering the bar and the rest of the unit will have to pick up that slack. For what some misguided sense of equality?

Then again I don't look at our soldiers as cannon fodder.

[Beckys_Mom]

Clyde the Glyde, on 25 January 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

That's a great point. I wonder how daddy will feel when his little princess has to register for the draft  ?

I read a few posts on here going on about a draft........  But  I have also read that there hasn't been draft since Nixon.!!........So the US military no longer draft anyone . I read that when a male turns 18 he can get on to a list for future draft, IF there ever bringing them back again.. But for now no draft... Is this true or not?

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 26 January 2013 - 11:51 AM.

[Frank Merton]

Jinxdom, on 26 January 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Not a fan of weakening our military just to be politically correct. You lower the standards you increase the danger to our troops. If you can't carry all the standard equipment you are just lowering the bar and the rest of the unit will have to pick up that slack. For what some misguided sense of equality?

Then again I don't look at our soldiers as cannon fodder.

I never mentioned equality, but since you do, what is wrong with it?  I referred to looking at soldiers as cannon fodder as something others were doing, so now you accuse me?.

As far as these things weakening the American military, I doubt it.  It could, but it could also strengthen it.  If nothing else it doubles the pool of talent they have to select from.  It all depends on how it is handled -- as they say, the devil is in the details.

[Frank Merton]

Beckys_Mom, on 26 January 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

But for now no draft... Is this true or not?

As far as I know the US is the only major power in the world with an entirely volunteer military.

[Order66]

Beckys_Mom, on 26 January 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

I read a few posts on here going on about a draft........  But  I have also read that there hasn't been draft since Nixon.!!........So the US military no longer draft anyone . I read that when a male turns 18 he can get on to a list for future draft, IF there ever bringing them back again.. But for now no draft... Is this true or not?

That's true, they haven't really needed one because there are National Guard units to supply necessary troops to Iraq/Afghanistan. In a way though, I always thought that to be in the National Guard and actually get deployed is kind of like getting drafted because those people haven't really anticipated a career in the military, they just want to get money for college,etc in exchange for going to the army base one weekend a month, but they end up getting called for a long enlistment just by luck of the draw.

[Beckys_Mom]

Frank Merton, on 26 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

As far as I know the US is the only major power in the world with an entirely volunteer military.

The UK military is voluntary..

[Beckys_Mom]

Order66, on 26 January 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

That's true, they haven't really needed one because there are National Guard units to supply necessary troops to Iraq/Afghanistan. In a way though, I always thought that to be in the National Guard and actually get deployed is kind of like getting drafted because those people haven't really anticipated a career in the military, they just want to get money for college,etc in exchange for going to the army base one weekend a month, but they end up getting called for a long enlistment just by luck of the draw.

Is it true that they still require 18 year old males to register for draft, in-case they are needed ?

[Thanato]

Antilles, on 26 January 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Prove it.

Well its been over 20 years since they have been allowed, Canada was involved in sustained Combat Operations in the Heart of Taliban Country from 2006-2011. No issues.

Frank Merton, on 26 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

As far as I know the US is the only major power in the world with an entirely volunteer military.

The Canadian Forces is voluntary, hell in the Reserves you have to volunteer for deployment.

~Thanato

[Order66]

Beckys_Mom, on 26 January 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Is it true that they still require 18 year old males to register for draft, in-case they are needed ?

Theoretically, but they don't really enforce it. They run public service ads that urge people to register for selective service. I guess it doesn't really matter, if they want you, they will find you, like the IRS. I of course registered first thing in the morning on the day I turned 18

Edited by Order66, 26 January 2013 - 01:50 PM.