No. I have no doubt there are women who can kill another human being and suffer through the horror of combat just as good and some feminists might think even better then men. However, the Infantry and Special Forces require a soldier to carry weights in excess of 150 or more pounds, with some SF units being inserted with weights even higher. With the average female not even weighing this much I do not see how this would work out. Even if they train to meet requirements they still have to be able to run, and female lungs are not as powerful as males and have 20% more body fat, simply nature. Talking about nature, would you want to be stuck in a fox hole with a women who has ran out of tampons?
Most SF and Infantry units are opposed to integration and the last thing a leader wants is a unit divided. Flying gunships and other aircraft requires very little physical well-being ( other then withstanding Gs), but when it comes to physical strength that i see is where the line must be drawn. In combat your life is at risk and in that situation being politically correct must take the back-seat.

LOBO

With the right training, they will get used to the death and destruction around them. Just like men do

There is no training for death and destruction, no matter if you're a man or woman.

Unfortunately, people are stupid. However, an already pregnant woman simply wouldn't be sent out on the battlefield any more than a man with a broken leg would be. It's a medical exemption in both cases. How a woman would become pregnant *DURING* combat... you tell me. Are we imagining naked men and women rolling around in the dirt while bullets fly overhead? The enemy is loading their bullets with sperm, just in case they get in a lucky shot? Are bomber crews getting a little too friendly on the way to drop ordnance?

As far as rape is concerned, it's a violation under the Geneva Convention and if the foe you're fighting has no respect for the Geneva Convention, you've got bigger problems than women in combat.

Been there, addressed that

"With the right training, they will get used to the death and destruction around them. Just like men do "

Actually there is, the study of the physcology of killing has been around for many years. Realize that soldiers practice on targets in the shape of humans? The japanese took it a step further in WWII and used chinese capitives and made it a game to see how fast they could kill them. Also I know women could kill, hell, look at all the dead cheating husbands. Also why are people arguing over pregnancy? I'm from a military family and heard my father tell stories of how women were trying to get preganant to get out of being deployed. So it's not like they will be sent into combat pregnant, they can barely get into it now. Also rape is a potential from either side of the lines, in high stress enviroments people act very differently then you would expect.

That is true. Rape is the number one concern of all incidents of capture during combat with women as captives. The enemy, who might think the Geneva Convention as worthless, would rape the female captive. That was a concern with the case of the 507th Maintanence Division (Jessia Lynch's group) when it was ambushed and it's members, which had 2 women including Jessica, were captured.

Actually, you said getting pregnant *DURING* combat. I wouldn't think being shot at was an aphrodesiac, would you?

Active combat troops of either sex need to put their jobs first, their reproductive lives second. Or are you suggesting that staying celibate is too much to ask for when you're being shipped out to a combat zone?

gomerica writes:


If they do think the Geneva Convention is worthless, they're going to be in more trouble for war crimes and crimes against humanity than a little nookie with the captives is worth. I know there are groups that aren't concerned with the possible penalties, but why are people so worried about rape and not slow torture, dismemberment, burning alive, etc. of male captives? If you're going to violate the Geneva Convention, what stops you from doing it all the way?

I said, specifically, during a combat commitment. That isn't combat itself, it is the commitment you sign on to for the duration of combat duty.
I know I've already addressed this, so I will be very specific this time to spell it out.

Ladypilot A signs on for 10 years (the minimum initial commitment for a fighterpilot slot). The training is very expensive, so there are only a finite amount of positions. Her slot takes another one's away. Now, say for the sake of argument there are 20 fighter pilot slots and 5 are given to women. The deployment rate is about 6 months a year right now for pilots to combat zones- not in one chunk, it's usually spread out for several tours of duty throughout the year. If any of those Ladypilots get pregnant during that 10 year period, they will be non deployable and another pilot will have to take their place. In fact, they will be unable to fly at all for at least 10 months, after which they must be retrained. Do you expect all women pilots to take a vow of celibacy for ten years?

Now, take Ladydiver B. The same thing happens. She cannot dive or perform her duties for about 10 months (minimum). Other divers must take up the slack for those months she is out. They don't just hire more to fill the slot...training and personel are expensive, and there is a finite amount of money. The result is more deployments for the remaining personnel.

It seems you are under the impression that 'combat zone' is limited to Iraq. There are numerous combat zones throughout the world. Personel are deployed for months at a time every year to these locations. It is an ongoing process, not a theoretical 'will they ever go to a combat zone'. The 'will they ever see an actual battle' is only potential, but they will (in the case of the fighter pilot, most certainly) deploy to combat zones several times every year, for several months at a time.

The underlying important questions are...what is to be lost, and what is to be gained with allowing women in combat? I can't think of anything to be gained, with the potential exeption of a few individual career promotions. There is a lot to be potentially lost, in regards to military combat effectiveness, readiness, cost to taxpayers, morale, unit cohesion, and subsequent attrition rates of military members.

For all the argument over pregancy and rape the bottom line is logistics. Women can't carry as much physically or have as high endurance. As for torture rape being a possibility, that goes for both sexes. For some reason some people seem to think that being politically correct should apply to combat, ask anyone who has served at the frontlines of any major engagement. If the person next to him is able to fight and carry their own weight, they can usually care less what color or race they are in most cases. But anyone who holds them down is a risk and no one wants their life at risk simply to make feminist types happy back in Washington. Real life is not like the movie G.I Jane, where a shaved head and wet shirt will get you in.

If they are commited to the military for 3-10 years, then they also need to commit to not breeding during that time. If that means no sex for 3-10 years, so be it. It won't kill them. That goes for men *AND* women.

I think we need to draw a distinction between someone working in an office somewhere and someone who either potentially or specifically is going to be in combat. Combat pilots, those on combat vessels, front-line Marines, etc. need to be told that pregnancy or contributing to pregnancy will get them removed from their position and placed elsewhere. This is going to affect prestigeous positions like combat pilots first and foremost because it's difficult to get into that position to begin with.

The major obvious problem with that is that MANY people in combat DO NOT have any desire to be there and would easily consider quickly getting pregnant or getting someone else pregnant before deployment in a "combat" capacity...honestly, I must imagine that most people who join the military in this day and age (well up until recently) didn't imagine that they'd have much chance of being in combat (or even in combat zones/roles). Look at Jessica Lynch (the whole notion of her being singled out irritates me beyond belief...but...) - she said she joined the military to go to college and she's hardly the only one...those people probably never thought they'd set foot in a battlefield! If all it took was pregnancy to get them "re-assigned", there'd be a heck of a lot of pregnant folks on military bases all across the country.

No sex during a specified "term of service" is, IMO, totally unrealistic and would GREATLY reduce (probably nearly destroy) the number of combat-ready/able servicemen/women. I just don't see how on earth that sort system would work - not many people would "sign up" with those stipulations

"If they're going to violate the Geneva Convention, what's stopping them from going all the way?"

What's stopping the US and British troops in Iraq from 'going all the way'?
Or the Iraqi resistance from 'going all the way'?

Violations of the Geneva Convention does not equate to violating the entirity of the convention.
---
More Women/War Etc... this is more on Japan. Whatareyagonnadoaboutit?
-In 1945, when the Meiji state was training the civilians on Kyushu and Honshu to resist invasion, 74% of the women performed better than the average men, 20% performed the same, 6% were inferior.

In my opinion, there aren't too many women who could or would be up to the task
of fighting in combat (maybe someone like K.D. Lang could pull it off). But most of us ladies are just too delicate and fragile. We were not made to fight wars.
We were made to have babies and use our intellectual power. It is okay that
we are physically inferior (in terms of strength) to men. We more than make up for it in other areas.

Gotta agree with doomed planet, she at least can admit the fact women are physically weaker. Mentally they are equal I can also agree.

But Rising Sun, where did you get them facts? Was that infantry training or a mechnical school? When I was in high school I don't recall the girls out running me and lifting more then me in the gym. Maybe the men used in that statistical anomaly were feeble old men and those who couldn't join, but it is common knowledge that women do not perform as well physcially. Shooting a weapon they have the same potential, but with the average women having 20% more body fat I fail to see how those could be true with able bodied males. As for agression it is commonly known and laughed at by many women at how agressive and possessive a man could be. These are the basic traits of a infantry man.

As for no sex during a term of service I must believe the person who suggested that hasn't served. Try being a carreer soldier for 20 years with a rule like that...

Women should have a chance to serve in combat if they pass the tests and think they can handle it. But I don't think that some form of enforced preventive birth control would be out of line. Pregnancy is just not acceptable among soldiers, and if they cannot satisfy themselves without heterosexual contact, they need to have some kind of precautions, be they pills, injections, or implanted devices.

As far as male soldiers behaving differently with women soldiers around, I think that will only change with time. Ultimately the sexes will become more accustomed to each other's presence in conflict situations. Some day it might be that we have no choice in the situation; women and men will have to serve together because there aren't enough men. Just give us a few more wars....