Secretary of Defense Orders All Combat Roles Open To Women.

gives new meaning to "in the trenches"

Ahhhh.....the wound that never heals. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

As soon as you quit dating cheerleaders, you'll discover it does.

Uh, excuse me but where can you buy maternity body armor?

In the first Gulf War the USS Arcadia became known as "the Love Boat" because over 40 female sailors got pregnant shortly after the ship arrived in the war zone.

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...an-mixed-units


women can perform in some combat roles. but not as front line combat soldiers.

studies show that women are actually better suited to high g maneuvers that men. it's those "woman hips". so let them fly in combat. don't let them try to compete with the "hunter-gathers" in "real" combat. they can't cut it.

of course that advantage is a moot point, as the last generation of manned combat aircraft has already been built. 10 g's is essentially the max a man or woman wearing modern flight suits designed to prevent black outs can tolerate. all current front line US fighters can produce 10 g maneuvers.

both the f-22 raptor and f-35 lightening can easily exceed 10 g's if flown to the max of their capabilities.

this is the future of aerial combat.

Every 3 days they can retreat to the rear and get nice douche of the sandy vag... fuckers

This is a good thing. This give twice the pool to select from, as there are just as many able bodied Women in this Country as able bodied Men. Originally Posted by Jackie S

It REALLY depends on your definitions of "able bodied woman" and "able bodied man".

MIL-STD-1472 "Human Factors" (I don't know what the latest rev letter is) used to contain some VERY detailed charts about what male and female soldiers, in military-acceptable physical condition, at the 5% and 95% levels, were expected to be able to do, in terms of physical strength. One of the things it made VERY clear is that a 95% woman is roughly equivalent to a 50% man. (That means she's stronger than all but 5% of female soldiers, and right in the middle when compared with male soldiers.) THIS HAS VERY OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS for 50% and below women.

Second, a recent article, linked from Jerry Pournelle's website, points out that exercise physiologists understand, in detail, that there is NO substitute for size, strength, and conditioning, when it comes to avoiding exercise- and exertion-related injuries. The conclusion for women in combat military occupational specialties is obvious: THEY'RE GOING TO GET HURT, and those injuries ARE going to affect their unit's ability to do its job.

The comment I heard yesterday had to do with excessive training injuries. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It REALLY depends on your definitions of "able bodied woman" and "able bodied man".

The conclusion for women in combat military occupational specialties is obvious: THEY'RE GOING TO GET HURT, and those injuries ARE going to affect their unit's ability to do its job. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

An issue is how many end up being "prepared" at what cost ...

... again ... another "politically correct" response that is prohibitively costly...

... or perhaps a more palatable phrase: "not cost effective"!

Do forget the idiots poured $500 million into training 5 Middle Easterners.

Along with the $50 million gas station in Afghanistan.

"It's not their money"!

It REALLY depends on your definitions of "able bodied woman" and "able bodied man".

MIL-STD-1472 "Human Factors" (I don't know what the latest rev letter is) used to contain some VERY detailed charts about what male and female soldiers, in military-acceptable physical condition, at the 5% and 95% levels, were expected to be able to do, in terms of physical strength. One of the things it made VERY clear is that a 95% woman is roughly equivalent to a 50% man. (That means she's stronger than all but 5% of female soldiers, and right in the middle when compared with male soldiers.) THIS HAS VERY OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS for 50% and below women.

Second, a recent article, linked from Jerry Pournelle's website, points out that exercise physiologists understand, in detail, that there is NO substitute for size, strength, and conditioning, when it comes to avoiding exercise- and exertion-related injuries. The conclusion for women in combat military occupational specialties is obvious: THEY'RE GOING TO GET HURT, and those injuries ARE going to affect their unit's ability to do its job. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

The general thinking among the Liberal/Progressive/Socialist Democrats is that old style "combat" is a thing of the past. Combat is more like a video game now than actually slugging through the mud, sand , or jungle, with full equipment, no rest, no bath or othe hygiene, and with somebody shooting at you.

Of course, we know that is a bunch of bullshit. But in today's America, the quest to declare everything Gender Neutral seems to trump every other consideration, including common sense.

But my view is, if they are going to do it, go all the way. The unfortunate thing is we will not know how all of this really works until we have to deploy a large number of troops in a hostile environment were there is an enemy that is hell bent on killing you.

I would think a big concern would be capture and rape. Sure, we would like to believe that our enemies follow the rules, but history has taught us that in most of our wars, our enemies do not play by the same rules that we do.

We will see.

Lets forget all about the capture and rape part. Lets go back to the beginning. Sometimes a solider has to go into combat with only what they can carry. Not everyone gets to ride in a helo or a Bradley. So what does the average female soldier going to have to leave behind? Water? Rations? Bullets? Grenades? Panty shields? Something is going to have to come off that 120 to 150 pound kit for 90% of women to get anywhere. We can only guess how well things will go with reduced rations and reduced ammo on the mission. This is nothing against women, this is just recognition that stuff will be left behind in order to get women up to the front.

This is nothing against women, this is just recognition that stuff will be left behind in order to get women up to the front. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I think the cavemen sort of figured that out ....



... trying to figure out why it's so challenging today. Because "we" have gotten smarter?

It REALLY depends on your definitions of "able bodied woman" and "able bodied man".

MIL-STD-1472 "Human Factors" (I don't know what the latest rev letter is) used to contain some VERY detailed charts about what male and female soldiers, in military-acceptable physical condition, at the 5% and 95% levels, were expected to be able to do, in terms of physical strength. One of the things it made VERY clear is that a 95% woman is roughly equivalent to a 50% man. (That means she's stronger than all but 5% of female soldiers, and right in the middle when compared with male soldiers.) THIS HAS VERY OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS for 50% and below women.

Second, a recent article, linked from Jerry Pournelle's website, points out that exercise physiologists understand, in detail, that there is NO substitute for size, strength, and conditioning, when it comes to avoiding exercise- and exertion-related injuries. The conclusion for women in combat military occupational specialties is obvious: THEY'RE GOING TO GET HURT, and those injuries ARE going to affect their unit's ability to do its job. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

I suspect even pussy man Ashton Carter realizes this, but doesn't care, because he will get a million dollar a year job someday on CNN, spouting his bullshit theories.

BTW, why do they exclude old fuckers from combat units?

Why does a motherfucker have to be 28 or less to enter pilot training?

Probably they argue it has something to do with physical ability, and they are usually right, but not always. That same reasoning should apply to women folk.

BTW, why do they exclude old fuckers from combat units?

Why does a motherfucker have to be 28 or less to enter pilot training?

Probably they argue it has something to do with physical ability, and they are usually right, but not always. That same reasoning should apply to women folk. Originally Posted by DSK

Ask the Aussies and Kiwis .... they'll give you another take on it.

In WWII they emptied the streets for North Africa.

You can look around in these forums and get part of the answer .... the seemingly natural dismissal of older people, if not downright disrespect.... and amazingly enough it's the FUCKING LIBERALS!!!!

Aren't the FUCKING LIBERALS the ones pushing the women out front to do their fighting for them? LMAO Perhaps if they encourage women to sign up it will leave more guys back home for them to date?

Ask the Aussies and Kiwis .... they'll give you another take on it.

In WWII they emptied the streets for North Africa.

You can look around in these forums and get part of the answer .... the seemingly natural dismissal of older people, if not downright disrespect.... and amazingly enough it's the FUCKING LIBERALS!!!!

Aren't the FUCKING LIBERALS the ones pushing the women out front to do their fighting for them? LMAO Perhaps if they encourage women to sign up it will leave more guys back home for them to date? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think you've got it. If the women get killed in combat, the little faggots will have more dick to suck!!

I think you've got it. If the women get killed in combat, the little faggots will have more dick to suck!! Originally Posted by DSK

They don't want to fight anyway ... leave the guys at home ... for play time.

Equal opportunity warriors.

I didn't want to fight anyway ... so I dodged the draft. Originally Posted by LexusLover

FIFY