Close
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55
  1. #1
    Moderator "Doctor" Grey TheGrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Lone Tree
    Posts
    5,750

    Default Women will be allowed to serve in combat

    (I did a search for this, didn't find it. Hope it's not a repost!)

    http://time.com/4134976/pentagon-combat-women/


    Women will be allowed to serve as fully-fledged members of front-line U.S. military combat units, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced Thursday.
    “They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat,” Carter said, so long as they meet the same physical standards as their male comrades. “They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men.”
    Female advocates cheered the change. “It’s a thrilling day for women serving in the military—and for women across the country,” said Nancy Duff Campbell of the National Women’s Law Center. “Thousands of women will now have the opportunity to be all that they can be and our nation’s military will be the stronger for it. Hip, hip, hooray!”
    The impact of the decision will take some time. “Implementation won’t happen overnight,” Carter said. Women will have to be trained to fill the slots. While some have already undergone such schooling—three women passed the tough Army Ranger course earlier this year, for example—the Pentagon wants to ensure that it achieves a still-unspecified “critical mass” of such women before introducing them into previously all-male units. A senior Army officer has estimated that while half of incoming male recruits want to “go infantry,” for example, only 10% of female recruits share that sentiment.
    The decision comes after decades of allowing women to move ever closer to front-line, direct-ground-combat units: infantry, armor and special operations. While they have been allowed in supporting roles alongside such units—in intelligence and logistics, for example—they were barred by Pentagon policy from standard service in most such outfits. While the Army had recommended to Carter in October that women be allowed to serve in all combat slots, the Marines had recommended against it.
    Carter’s announcement represents an historic change for the U.S. military. But some of the leeriness accompanying it has been eased by the smooth integration of openly gay men and women into military service. In fact, the Marines also were the service most opposed to allowing them to serve in uniform, saying it would hurt morale and recruiting. Neither has happened in the four years since the ban was lifted.
    There has been opposition to the change even inside the Army. “The average fighting load is 35% of average man’s bodyweight but half the bodyweight of an average Army woman,” William Gregor, a retired 23-year Army officer now at the service’s School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., wrote in 2011. “Keeping the men and women together can only diminish the training benefit received by men because the load or the march rate or both must be kept within the range of strength and endurance of the women.”
    The Marines steadily built a case that their front-line units should remain all-male. “To move forward in expanding opportunities for our female service members without considering the timeless, brutal, physical and absolutely unforgiving nature of close combat is a prescription for failure,” an internal Marine study completed in August concluded. “Those who choose to turn a blind eye to those immutable realities do so at the expense of our Corps’ war-fighting capability and, in turn, the security of the nation.”
    Gregory Newbold, a retired Marine lieutenant general, says physical strength is only part of the combat calculus. “It’s the fighting power of the unit that’s more relevant, and when you interject things that are corrosive, then you degrade fighting power,” he says. “It’s the sexual dynamic that’s important here—somebody has to get up early to clean the urinals and pick up trash, and Johnny says `Well Suzy isn’t doing it because they like Suzy,’ or Suzy says `I’m doing it because they hate me.’ That’s human nature, and it’s corrosive in small combat units.” But an internal Marine report disputes that. “Any initial detrimental effects on cohesion can eventually be mitigated with good training and solid leadership, it concluded.
    Instead of simply setting physical requirements for individual Marines, the corps pitted all-male squads against mixed-gender units. “The majority of the operationally relevant differences occurred in the most physically demanding tasks, such as casualty evacuations, long hikes under load, and negotiating obstacles,” one internal Marine assessment said. “We have seen numerous cases of compensation during physically demanding tasks, in which males have shifted positions to take over certain aspects of the tasks from females, such as loading ammo into trucks or heaving loaded packs on top of a wall.”
    The corps has pointed out that the more than 400 female Marines who earned combat decorations in Afghanistan and Iraq earned them in what might be called combat-lite. “None of those awards reflected a female Marine having to `locate, close with and destroy the enemy’ in deliberate offensive combat operations,” a recent Marine report said. “Rather, these actions were all in response to enemy action in the form of IED strikes, enemy attacks on convoys or friendly bases, or attacks on female Marines” assigned to all-female units designed to screen and interview foreign females. True enough, but hardly surprising: female Marines have been barred from “deliberate offensive combat operations.”
    The advance of women toward the front lines has been a long time coming, and female trailblazers recall the challenges. Ann Dunwoody, the first four-star general in the U.S. military, recalls the Army banning barrettes and bobby pins to keep hair in place under jump-school helmets, claiming they were hazardous while parachuting. “It was an attempt to get us to cut our hair, and look manly,” says Dunwoody, who retired in 2012. She refused to go along. “I taped my hair to my head with masking tape—it looked ridiculous.” Eventually, the Army relented.
    Darlene Iskra, who became one of the Navy’s first female divers in 1980, recalls the grueling physical harassment instructors would mete out during six weeks of scuba training. They’d yank off trainees’ masks and turn off their air supply, to ensure the fledgling divers were ready for dangerous undersea missions. Iskra spent her first three weeks in the pool with a female partner before each was paired with a male partner for the rest of the course. “We noticed after we got our new buddies that the pool harassment went down by about half,” says Iskra, who went on to become the first woman to command a Navy ship in 1990. “But our new male buddies said the harassment had gone up about half.”
    In a perfect world, everyone wearing a U.S. military uniform would be an asexual brute with a stunningly high IQ who doesn’t eat much, is adept at following orders and leery of challenging authority. Given that such a creature has never existed, the nation has spent more than 200 years building its military, one compromise at a time. The Pentagon just made its biggest compromise ever about who can serve on the front lines in a U.S. military uniform.
    "There is nothing in the world so permanent as a temporary emergency." - Robert A Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

    Feedback for TheGrey

  2. #2
    Possesses Antidote for "Cool" Gman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    17,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrey View Post
    The Pentagon just made its biggest compromise ever about who can serve on the front lines in a U.S. military uniform.
    Agreed.

    I feel the same way about the people working at my local fire station. I don't need PC when I need someone capable of lugging my fat ass out of a burning house.
    Last edited by Gman; 12-03-2015 at 18:31.
    Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.
    -Me

    I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.
    -Also Me


  3. #3
    Machine Gunner Hound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Aurora
    Posts
    1,764

    Default

    This is very simple.... it's gonna happen. A woman can take a bullet just the same as a man. The only thing that should not change are the requirements. If the job requires you to lift 50Lbs all day, run 20 miles with an over burdened pack, shit in the woods or charge a hill when ordered it does not all of a sudden mean your sex has anything to do with the discussion. Anybody that becomes a soldier, sailor or any other military member, thats the job. Doors should not be opened (past what any guy would do normally for another guy) and that also does not mean that sex is an excuse. Guys give each other a great amount of shit on any given day, it builds a team (to a point). If that point goes too far it should be dealt with, male or female. I have seen men that had no business being soldiers/saliors, I have seen women that could do more than most men. No crying...... male or female. Especially about letting the girls play too.

    BTW: +1 on screw being PC.
    My life working is only preparation for my life as a hermit.

    Feedback https://www.ar-15.co/threads/99005-Hound

  4. #4
    BANNED....or not? Skip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Highlands Ranch, CO
    Posts
    3,871

    Default

    This is none other than SECDEV saying FU to the Marines and SEALs.

    So when will 18 year old females be signing up for the Selective Service? Was that bit of equality left out? Will there be an act to ensure women and men are drafted in equal numbers and equal numbers come home in body bags?

    Because if they aren't willing to do that, it's not equality.

    There is more to this than "if a woman can meet the standards..." Remember Jessica Lynch? The first war with female grunts will completely break America's will. And I wonder if that isn't the end goal anyway.

  5. #5
    Moderator "Doctor" Grey TheGrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Lone Tree
    Posts
    5,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skip View Post
    This is none other than SECDEV saying FU to the Marines and SEALs.

    So when will 18 year old females be signing up for the Selective Service? Was that bit of equality left out? Will there be an act to ensure women and men are drafted in equal numbers and equal numbers come home in body bags?

    Because if they aren't willing to do that, it's not equality.

    There is more to this than "if a woman can meet the standards..." Remember Jessica Lynch? The first war with female grunts will completely break America's will. And I wonder if that isn't the end goal anyway.
    Yes, women will likely have to register for the Selective Service. They were discussing that back in October, and are now figuring how best to implement that: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...tary-says.html

    You want to talk about Jessica Lynch? Let's. 2003, first female soldier POW recovered y the US Special Operations Forces. She was Unit Supply. She never fired her rifle. She testified that she was knocked unconscious when her Humvee was hit by a grenade, was was seriously injured. She and five others were captured.

    I'm not sure what your point in using Jessica Lynch is.

    I'm afraid you'll have to explain in a bit more detail how having "female grunts" will "break America's will."
    "There is nothing in the world so permanent as a temporary emergency." - Robert A Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

    Feedback for TheGrey

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrey View Post
    I'm afraid you'll have to explain in a bit more detail how having "female grunts" will "break America's will."
    My interpretation is that dudes are expendable, chicks aren't. On that point, I agree with him.

  7. #7
    Machine Gunner Jamnanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Johnstown
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    I think it's because there is a fear that the dudes will go all teary eyed if something happens to a chick they care about, this will make them do stupid stuff. It's about the nature of a quality man which desires to protect women, whether it's God given nature or evolved behavior, a good man wants to protect women the same way a good woman wants to protect children. This will take a while for the older generation to get used to. I fear we've caused most of the next generation of men to act like women and blurred the gender lines so much that it won't matter much for future generations anyway.

  8. #8
    Iceman sniper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    16,987

    Default

    I'm torn. I like the idea of a badass woman eating a piece of bacon smoking some Muslim terrorist as the ultimate suck it to his little gay ass jihad.

    on the other hand, women aren't signed up for the draft if that were to ever happen, and I honestly don't want them to. That's the last thing I'd want is my wife getting selected taken away from the kids and me stuck at home.
    id like to know that physical standards are the same, same distances, same weight carried, same everything. If they can pass that, good for them. I know I couldn't.

    as Jamnac stated, men have an inherent need to protect their women, when they are part of their elite team I'd imagine that need is emphasized to protect each other, men or women, but I'm curious the dynamic when a woman is thrown into the mix.

    either way, it's above my decision making level and my opinion means squat on the subject so I'll just be supportive and hope they make a hot calendar of badass women with sweet weapons.
    All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break em for no one.

    My Feedback

  9. #9
    QUITTER Irving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    46,527
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sniper7 View Post
    ...badass women with sweet weapons.
    What like a candy cane shiv?
    "There are no finger prints under water."

  10. #10
    Iceman sniper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    16,987

    Default

    Sure, id like to see that!
    All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break em for no one.

    My Feedback

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •