| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Pentagon considering affirmative action in combat |
| 2013-07-27 |
| Considering ? |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #23 If American feminism is a real thing, then it should support having some buff chicks bleeding out in shit-hole foreign countries to protect the rights and privileges of Americans of every gender just like men have done for centuries. If feminists can't support that thesis, then they need to argue to get ladies out of combat. But, I am good with letting the ladies, who volunteer to do so, shoulder the burdens of freedom along with us men. |
| Posted by: rammer 2013-07-27 23:54 |
| #22 ZF, and a near peer is who? GEN Franks could do exactly the same thing today to China, Russia, or France as he did to Iraq then. Their only hope would be nukes, which would then unlock the key to their obviation. Better they will decide to lose power, than to be incinerated. Any Government that actually engages the U.S. militarily will be destroyed, and that will continue to be true for at least a decade, no matter what the funding is. The whole near-peer concept is a useful thought experiment which helps with budgets, but the reality is void. |
| Posted by: rammer 2013-07-27 23:35 |
| #21 So in the invasion of Iraq, we lost 139 solders and defeated the existing government. I ask, could GEN Franks have won that thing with 153/167/209 losses from an ALL woman Army? In Iraq, we had the Maxim gun, and they had not. Against a near-peer adversary, without air dominance, and perhaps even air superiority, these factors will count. The massive federal deficits being racked up do not bode well for future defense budgets, and that means procurement could ramp down to Carter-era levels, giving potential adversaries the time to catch up. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2013-07-27 22:56 |
| #20 I would dump about,,,, ohh,, Half of the Chief of staff at that point. But do whatever Rome. |
| Posted by: newc 2013-07-27 22:53 |
| #19 Yes, marginally. I mean how much less effective in combat can a motivated and trained woman be? 10%? 20%? 50%? So in the invasion of Iraq, we lost 139 solders and defeated the existing government. I ask, could GEN Franks have won that thing with 153/167/209 losses from an ALL woman Army? The answer is yes, no problem. |
| Posted by: rammer 2013-07-27 21:17 |
| #18 Marginally? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-07-27 21:02 |
| #17 Well, let me restate more clearly. I am unconvinced that the sex of soldiers matters much in the outcome of most battles, or campaigns. It would matter a lot to the women who will be casualties at the front and to the people in their unit who were relying on them to not die or be wounded. But an able commander should be able to manage the battle, or campaign, even if burdened with marginally more casualties than would have happened with an all male force. |
| Posted by: rammer 2013-07-27 20:41 |
| #16 Oh, pish posh. The militia act is an act of Congress, and can be changed any time, just like the now defenestrated draft law. In order to draft anyone in the future, the Congress would have to pass a new law. And if they do, they will rewrite it to establish legal conscription on anybody they want to. When that happens, let's argue about those details. As for endurance, again looking at Antietam, with that leadership, it probably wouldn't matter much if the battle were 50 miles north at Gettysburg or 50 miles south at Mananas. It is possible that extra endurance might give one side more ability to maneuver tactically a-la Napoleon's campaigns, but none of these Generals were anything like Napoleon, nor is a disparity in maneuver dispositive in battle. Maneuver is just one of many dimensions of capability that an able commander must consider in order to succeed. Still, I am unconvinced that it matters. |
| Posted by: rammer 2013-07-27 20:33 |
| #15 But to let women volunteer to take this risk, well, I am good with that. That's the catch. Since the Militia Act of 1792 through today's Title X USC subparagraph 311 the Militia, men don't get to volunteer. All males 17 to 45 are members of the (unorganized) militia and subject to conscription. It's Congress' authority per Article I, Section 8. It'll never be 'equality' they claim that's being sought until the 'responsibility' goes along with it. Otherwise it's privilege and prerogative. Nor would the outcome of the battle be much different because one side had "stronger" soldiers But it does, because its endurance. Endurance to do sustain marches to make it to the field. Endurance to carry a soldiers load. Endurance to put up with little or no field sanitation to avoid debilitating afflictions common to field duty. The un-strong drop out before the first shot is fired. If they're not there, they can't fight. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-07-27 19:41 |
| #14 Besides, if history is any guide, most of the women about to deploy into real danger will fall pregnant shortly before it is time to get going, so actual war-fighting will be largely unaffected. What about the issue of sending under-strength units into battle? |
| Posted by: Crating Angereling3504 2013-07-27 19:15 |
| #13 I used to care about this issue but no longer do. For example, in a big battle not much would be different were there women fighting there. That the 22,000 casualties at Antietam were men instead of women seems unlikely to make any difference. Nor would the outcome of the battle be much different because one side had "stronger" soldiers, because the leadership on both sides was too poor to leverage the advantages that each actually had. From the point of view of the individual, if we were drafting women and putting them in the infantry where they were more likely to be killed than the men who could be there, then that would upset me. But to let women volunteer to take this risk, well, I am good with that. Perhaps it is somewhat unfair to the men who get stuck in units with their weaker sisters that to survive, they have to do more, and sometimes even that won't be enough. Besides, if history is any guide, most of the women about to deploy into real danger will fall pregnant shortly before it is time to get going, so actual war-fighting will be largely unaffected. |
| Posted by: rammer 2013-07-27 19:05 |
| #12 You may have to pick up and carry your wounded buddy, who could be much larger/taller than you, and his gear, and your gear, probably some distance. (I've never been in combat, so correct me if I'm wrong.) You're not. My Misguided Children practice this consistently. Over-the-shoulder and litter (with moving change-out), dead weight, etc. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-07-27 18:49 |
| #11 Diamonds are a girl's best friends, Shipman |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-07-27 16:31 |
| #10 Yep, it simple survival efficiency. Not much of a mystery really. Except for the attraction to pearls, I'll never understand that. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-07-27 16:25 |
| #9 p.s. How about some affirmative action (i.e. some male teachers) in schools. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-07-27 16:21 |
| #8 it is a simple biological fact that Women can bear children and men can't. That is why it's the males who take risks. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-07-27 16:09 |
| #7 When I saw the headline, I was sure it was from a satire site like the DuffelBlog or the Onion. When I read it, it sure sounded like satire, but the speakers were dead serious. As Barbara so eloquently points out, it is a simple biological fact that men are on average stronger than women. And raw strength does make a difference in combat. (Pure luck also plays a huge part, but I assume that both men and women have the same amount of that.) |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2013-07-27 15:45 |
| #6 Affirmative Action anywhere is insane, but that hasn't stopped it's use for decades now in promotion, selection, and assignment boards. Oh if I could be there: Listen up for the MACO! Tonight is marginal due to winds. We'll be jumping CARP [Computerized Air Release Point], at 1250 AGL. TOT is approx 2120 hrs local. SPC Smith here will be on the ramp, first stick, first pass. She'll be jumping the baseplate. For obvious reasons, we'll want her on the ground first. I will jump the tube. The rounds and extra ammo will be distributed among you at the airhead. Winds on the DZ are from the South at 8-10 knots gusting to 14, turn and track toward the sound of the aircraft during descent. It will have a heading of 180, into the wind. There is essentially no moonlight, you'll likely not see the bird once you exit. Clear the DZ as quickly as possible, the follow-on passes will be inbound at 5 minute intervals. Get to the high ground and road. Look for the flashing red light. That will be the Rally and turn-in point. We'll assemble here, establish a hasty security perimeter, inventory equipment, ck for injuries, and link up with the Pathfinders and reception committee. It will be a 5k ruck to the RON point just short of the objective. Any questions? Good luck. Hooah! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-07-27 15:31 |
| #5 I actually think I'd be OK with the butchery, P2k, since I'm very interested in helping my way of life survive. (I admit I may be a outlier, female-wise, in that regard, though I think women can be pretty deadly if they're fired up enough). What all the feminists and judges don't want to admit is that women, by and large, just don't have the strength to be infantry. It's not like being a firefigher (which I have been), where you can drag a victim out of a building; it's not that far to get out of a building, and it's really not that hard to drag even a large man. (That slinging someone over your shoulder and carrying them while you're in a standing position, like you see in movies, is horse hockey - that's putting the victim, who might still be breathing, right up in the toxic fire gasses, guaranteeing that he/she won't still be breathing when you get outside.) In combat, you don't just drag someone out of building and had him/her over to the rescue squad. You may have to pick up and carry your wounded buddy, who could be much larger/taller than you, and his gear, and your gear, probably some distance. (I've never been in combat, so correct me if I'm wrong.) I can't do that. No woman (and some of the men) I know can do that. I've got enough common sense to realize it. Apparently the feminazis don't. Affirmative action in combat is insane, and will get people killed, including the women. And I have no doubt the feminazis will then whine about how that's not fair and the enemy killing women is discrimanitory - waaaaaah (like the enemy somehow cares). There are plenty of jobs women can excel at in the military. COMBAT AIN'T ONE OF THEM. Idiots. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-07-27 14:36 |
| #4 ...she says training systems do not “maximize the success of women.” War doesn't maximize the success of women. The enemy doesn't care what you or feminists or judges have to say about it. The battlefield for over 4,000 years of recorded history is basically a Darwinistic environment. You adapt or die. So far the vast majority of cultures and civilizations have found women by and large have not necessarily been up to the butchery over any real extended period of time. Exceptions do not make a case. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-07-27 13:46 |
| #3 kind of fits with ecologically friendly bullets. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2013-07-27 13:18 |
| #2 Strategypage addresses this issue very well |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2013-07-27 12:56 |
| #1 Tried that several years ago with pilots; succeeded in getting several good people killed. Fire departments tried that for ladder rescue work; succeeded in getting several good people killed. What was it Einstein said about the definition of insanity? |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2013-07-27 12:14 |