Marine Women in Combat

No point, got it. Sorry for asking.

 

You can save yourself the trouble next time by remembering that you're not worth explaining things to.

 

This argument was used until 1948 to justify retaining racial segregation of troops and until 2011 to justify excluding gays from the military.

Somehow, I don't think the same argument used in this case will prove to be true, either.

 

So you think color and gender provide the same challenges?
Men and women are the same?
Are you that lost in your agenda?

 

Wait, are women NOT replaceable?
I mean, there are more of them then there are of us, so I would think they are pretty much as replaceable as men.

 

As a combat vet, I do not agree with you.

I definitely understand where you are coming from and respect your opinion. More than that, I think you have earned the right to have a strong opinion on this topic.

That said, I am a firm believer in 100% equal and 1 standard. As long as this holds true, every other argument against it becomes a leadership issue.

Son or daughter...standing at the doorstep of the grieving mother wouldn't be any different.

 

None of the above. I just never believe it when the knee-jerk reaction to change is "that's impossible, it will never work".

I've heard it so many times when I've later seen it disproven, that I automatically dismiss the statement that change is "impossible".

 

I'm a bit frustrated with your response to Luke. I don't agree with Luke, but I see his point. He is arguing that the average woman isn't physically capable of handling the combat operations of the standard infantry unit. This is not the same argument against racial integration or gay soldiers. This is a physical ability argument based on gender...very different.

Also, gay soldiers may not have been "allowed" in the service during that time, but many of them served. I can name 2 in my first platoon alone. I was the LT in charge and I promoted them both and made one of them a team leader because he was better than the other soldiers. Policy doesn't usurp personal choice with thinking leaders. Sometimes the brush you paint with is very broad.

 

Already been said, but this is the douchiest post ever!! You're a real piece of work dude

 

I understand, and I've never said that women in combat don't need to share the same skill set and capabilities. And I believe that was the point of the tests that have been running. Are (some) women capable of being combat infantry? Probably. Are all women capable? No, not any more than all men are.

Impossible implies forever. It's a very broad brush. War changes, the combat operations of today are very different than 20 or 50 years ago. I expect that they will continue to evolve. In fact, I expect mechanized war machines will replace much of what the infantry does today over the next 20-50 years. As the job/duties of infantry change, so will the required physical/mental skill set.

 

This has always been true. War has been around as long as man has and the evolution is clearly documented. Innovation and technology had led the way in these changes. One thing has not changed, battles are won by seizing and controlling terrain. This can only be accomplished by boots on the ground. Many people have thought that the next great machine would remove the human element from infantry combat. It is a novel idea but so very wrong.

The standards will change and the soldiers may look very different, but boots will still have to be in place on the ground to claim any victory.

Honestly, it isn't that hard to see what a M1A1 infantry soldier will look like in 20 years. All you have to do is look at the equipment being beta tested on line units now.

 

Good points and I would like to add that a tank has become less effective while a foot soldier has become more effective. Things that pack the punch of a howitzer have shrunk while accuracy has increased. Things like that are likely to continue.

 

In the current MOUT application yes. The use of APC's and HMMWV's are better suited for that situation but do not carry the "Oh Fuck look what's coming at us" factor. If the plan was to go in and level and clear town after town the Abrams would be perfect paired with the mechanized infantry.

 

What about the time we dropped those bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

 

What the bombs did: ended the war early, saved thousands of American lives, brought the Japanese to the peace table and killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. Did nuking Japan win the war....NO...not without all the preceding events. Could a bomb win a war? No...unless said bomb could kill every single person...in other words...genocide. Realistically, not going to happen.

Not to mention that we already had boots on Japanese soil when the bombs were dropped.

 

My (step)grandfather told me he served with openly gay men in WWII in the Navy.
Smoking weed wasn't uncommon either. He said he tried it, but didn't care for the high. He was a beer drinker.

 

And landed troops in Hiroshima and Nagasaki directly afterward.

 

This is all true but it begs the question, what if the bomb had already been invented and was used along with the threat of more? Could the war have been won without invading Japan?

Of course the world has changed and the current enemy seems to be willing to let the whole thing melt down so I certainly see your point.

 

Darren, sweetie, honey?

May I please put on my shoes and go get into my bunker gear?


In reference to the article: it is a social experiment. But one that women desire to have. They want the chance at it. If they can do it, let them. But at the same physical standards as the men. The army is going to find themselves in the middle of a disaster because they are planning to pack women in at the lower physical ability standard. Where as the marines want a waiver until they can figure out what they do to make the combat units stronger while including women.

You are only as strong as your weakest link and if they don't make sure the units are solid, and expect these women to carry the same load, the women are going to start coming back in boxes at a higher rate - and the government will face outrage.

I can only apply my experience as a firefighter here: right now, I am pregnant and weak. My core muscles are separating and I have hormones surging through me that cause everything to relax. I am no fucking good in a fire. Frankly, I am a danger to my fellow firefighters. There is nothing in our SOPs baring me from going in with my crew though...my gear still fits, my mask still seals, I can still hold a wide open hose...why not? Refer back to my 3rd sentence. why would I risk the lives of my crew? Why would I want to be the weakest link? Fuck that.

If I was one of those women that needed help over the wall while loaded with gear - I would thank my superiors for the opportunity and ask for a different assignment. This isn't a game. Give them the chance, just don't lower the standards that keep the units strong.

I need some pickles.

 

Well how you doin'?