Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

US ends ban on women in frontline combat

leon panetta women combat ban

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#46    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:36 AM

View PostLikely 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.


#47    DarkHunter

DarkHunter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:40 AM

View PostFrank 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.


#48    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:44 AM

View PostDarkHunter, 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.


#49    DarkHunter

DarkHunter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:06 AM

View PostFrank 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.


#50    Jinxdom

Jinxdom

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Joined:06 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Coast

  • Education...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
    -- G.M. Trevelyan

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:54 AM

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.


#51    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:04 AM

View PostJinxdom, 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.


#52    Jinxdom

Jinxdom

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Joined:06 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Coast

  • Education...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
    -- G.M. Trevelyan

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:22 AM

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.


#53    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:44 AM

View PostClyde 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.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#54    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:59 AM

View PostJinxdom, 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.


#55    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

View PostBeckys_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.


#56    Order66

Order66

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined:05 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Thanatos

  • The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger ...

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:02 PM

View PostBeckys_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.

Posted Image

#57    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:07 PM

View PostFrank 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..

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#58    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 26 January 2013 - 12:09 PM

View PostOrder66, 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 ?

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#59    Thanato

Thanato

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,114 posts
  • Joined:27 Jun 2004

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:27 PM

View PostAntilles, 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.

View PostFrank 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

"Your toast has been burnt, and no amount of scrapping will remove the black parts!" ~Caboose

"I will eat your unhappyness!" ~Caboose

****
"Freedom isn't bought in stores, it is bought on battlefields." ~Thanato
****

#60    Order66

Order66

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined:05 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Thanatos

  • The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger ...

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:46 PM

View PostBeckys_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 :whistle:

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

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users