"Norway Is Now The First NATO Country To Introduce ..." Topic

…Compulsory Military Service For All Women.

"Setermoen military base (Norvège) (AFP) – They sweat together, they sleep together: in the name of gender equality, Norway has introduced compulsory military service for women, even bunking them in mixed dorms with their brothers-in-arms.

The military's gender balance is not entirely equal yet, but almost a third of the Norwegian army conscripts born in 1997 were women this summer.

At the Setermoen army base just above the Arctic Circle, new recruits in an armoured battalion are learning to handle assault rifles for use on combat missions. Here and there, long ponytails stick out behind the recruits' caps.

"It gives me a bigger recruitment pool to choose from," the battalion's chief, Lieutenant Colonel Pal Berglund, says of the new gender equal draft…."

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

What a foolish idea. What general has ever said, "If we only had women in the army we would have won that battle."

Norway needs 10,000 conscripts per year, but already has 60,000 men come of age every year. This is simply political correctness and not due to the needs of the nation.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I applaud it. Women fight as well as men. Consider the YPJ/YPG for example.

Actually, objective testing has supposedly disproved that.

They are better at some things than others, but the sexes are not equal, especially in close combat.

It will be interesting to see how this develops in Norway, and here at home.

Hopefully, we don't have to relearn lessons the hard way.

I always thought that the deal was; men fight, women give birth. As child-birth up until recent times was a very dangerous activity.

But yes in our modern times, conscription should be equal.

The Scandinavian countries, such progressives, you got to love them….

I am not sure how it is political correctness to allow the military to select from a larger pool of talent, and The 60k total is male and female , otherwise the selection pool is 10k from 30k. The selection is still based on criteria set by the military.

And just because that women must serve as well as men. Does not mean they will be assigned to combat units like Infantry, Armor, Artillery etc., …

Don't let the pic of that pretty gal firing a rifle fool you. ALL members of any military are trained and must qualify with their assigned weapons. And familiarize with all small arms that they may have to use, etc., …

They sweat together, they sleep together: in the name of gender equality, Norway has introduced compulsory military service for women, even bunking them in mixed dorms with their brothers-in-arms.

My QM buddy commanded a Supply & Transport Co. And the sexes were segregated by floors. However, with the "youngsters" being very "interested" in the opposite sex at that young age. The segregation made little difference. It's about just doing what comes naturally … like "the Birds & the Bees".

I'd imagine Norway will find similar incidents happening. It's hard enough to command a Company. To add this sort of "fun & games" going on. Glad I was in the Infantry !

I applaud it. Women fight as well as men. Consider the YPJ/YPG for example.

The Norwegians and most of NATO or the West's females are not the same "stock" as Kurdish or some of the other females from that region. And those Kurdish females have to fight. They have no choice. As they certainly don't want to become "sex slaves" to Daesh. Or worse. Better to died fighting … Yes ? And the Kurds need every "trigger puller" they can get.

Of course the US military Senior Officers are trying to do similarly. With having been ordered to incorporate females into all branches including Combat Arms. And make all females of draft age, 18. Must register for the Draft. Which is no longer in use. But all 18 year old males must still sign up just in case the situation requires a Draft. I highly doubt this will ever happen to re-start Draft

But I doubt the high & mighty of the rich, famous and political upper classes, etc., … will stand for their "little debutant princesses" signing up for the draft. Regardless of the Draft no longer being in effect.

But be careful what you say here … you may be called a Misogynist ! TMP link

Don't the Israelis also conscript women?

Seems fair enough for me. After all, no-one says the women have to serve in the infantry do they?

Yes, they probably will, if drafted.

After all, it will be "sexist" not to include them there, right, and with smaller military forces/units, there won't be enough other jobs for them to fill.

It's a country's great shame when they need women to go war because they can't find enough men to go. The west is sunk.

Israel has conscripted women since the start of the IDF. They fought as combat soldiers before 1948 and served ever since. They were stopped from serving in combat roles shortly after independence due to fears of rape and abuse by enemy troops but in 2000 were once again allowed to fight. The mixed-sex Caracal/Carakal* battalion is now about 70% women and 30% male. It is one of two formations where qualified women can fight as infantry in the IDF. Israeli women have served in artillery, armoured, helicopter and Air Force direct combat roles since the 1980's but again since 2000 their participation in these arms has grown much more common.

* Caracal is a local type of wild-cat which is difficult to determine the sex of. I will let others imagine how Israeli women feel about the name choice.

Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

IIRC, when turning 18 everybody regardless of sex must serve 1 or 2 years in the Israeli military. And yes, there are many parts of the military where females can serve. But they don't have to serve in Combat Arms, like the Infantry, Armor, FA, etc. …
Note … some males don't want to serve in Combat Arms … especially if drafted …

Irish – when you share a border with Russia and only have 5 million people to start off with, this kind of measure could make sense.

Why so many here seem threatened by this measure I've no idea.

I think the Norwegians are professional enough to know what they're doing.

Danish female infantry serve din Helamnd. I don't think anyone noticed which suggests it's perhaps not as big an issue as you think.

Did they serve in actual Infantry units ? Just because you see females with small arms does not mean they were Infantrymen. ALL soldiers in the US ARMY[and I'm sure the USMC] regardless of their MOS are qualified with their assigned weapon as well as other weapons in the unit.

When I was assigned to a Combat Support Bn, filling the slot of an Ordinance Officer. [The Bde Cdr liked to have some Infantrymen in the SPT Bn, because of our "extensive" experience in field craft, etc.]. My clerk typist and driver was a female and a pretty good soldier. And she packed her M16 wherever she went. Just like all the other soldiers of any sex or MOS. Yes, even Cooks packed M16s. Because in a battle your MOS or sex is not going to keep you from being a target, etc., …

The SPT Bn's complete medic plt was just about all females. And many other positions were filled by female soldiers and officers. And most I interacted with were pretty good at their jobs. The were Truck Drivers, Admin and supply clerks, etc., etc., …

But again all soldiers carry weapons regardless of MOS. It is the Army after all …

The only situation that arose with my female driver was when we were at the NTC/desert training. My NCOIC reported to me one morning about who were at sick call. He informed me two of my junior SGTs had a "yeast infection". And I asked, How the Hell did they get that in the middle of the desert ? He then told me my female driver also had a yeast infection. So we knew then how that disease was spread … Young Boys & girls will be young boys & girls …

I've never ever heard any respectable infantryman say they think having females in a grunt unit is going to make their unit better.

Given the geography of Norway, I think the defense forces are preparing for defense in depth. Also , if the heights over the approach valleys have defenders to be cleared, Russian columns are going to have a hard time penetrating into the country. Think Taliban.

The world is ending!

I didn't know the Norwegians still had infantry battalions!

Who said they were threatened by this Bangor?

I must have missed that in their postings.

From Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum Bk. 9:

He was succeeded on the throne by RAGNAR. At this time Fro (Frey?), the King of Sweden, after slaying Siward, the King of the Norwegians, put the wives of Siward's kinsfolk in bonds in a brothel, and delivered them to public outrage. When Ragnar heard of this, he went to Norway to avenge his grandfather. As he came, many of the matrons, who had either suffered insult to their persons or feared imminent peril to their chastity, hastened eagerly to his camp in male attire, declaring that they would prefer death to outrage. Nor did Ragnar, who was to punish this reproach upon the women, scorn to use against the author of the infamy the help of those whose shame he had come to avenge. Among them was Ladgerda, a skilled amazon, who, though a maiden, had the courage of a man, and fought in front among the bravest with her hair loose over her shoulders. All-marvelled at her matchless deeds, for her locks flying down her back betrayed that she was a woman.

So it was and so it will be.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Impressive, but I'll bet she didn't have to schlepp 150 pounds of gear, on a long, cross-country march.

If they're smart, this'll speed the development and introduction of those mechanical mules to our forces, but my bet is they aren't, or are strapped for funds, since the army can't even get a decent rifle upgrade/replacement, or afford a proven support weapon like the XM-25, which may be abandoned, due to that.

One wonders why any soldier would have to schlepp 150 lbs of gear. What happened to mobile warfare?

Legion – yes they served in front line infantry units. And carried everything the men had to.

Irish Marine, Tgunner, Mako & Otto … +1 each !

agrippavips … all being students of history and some of us Vets. Know the principles of insurgencies and guerilla warfare, etc., … And yes, the terrain of Norway makes it difficult to attack in many locations. And guerilla type tactics would lend itself to that terrain. But remember, it didn't stop the Germans of the 3d Reich. And Norway's mixed units are not just staying in the defense in their homeland. But have and will deploy.

yes they served in front line infantry units. And carried everything the men had to.

And you know this because ? Did they unload heavy ammo boxes and supplies ? Pulled maintenance of AFVs and heavy trucks ? Not take a shower every 3 days. [In the US ARMY all cooks & females must take a shower every 3 days so as to limit any possibly of disease. And it being spread.] Did they carry the heavier weapons like MGs or AT weapons, etc.?

Unless you were there, I don't think you can accurately answer that. I know based in my experience, I'd think some of those tasks. They may not have been assigned or accomplished. Again based on my experience …

I think "mobile" is a relative term, as is "light infantry", especially when 150 – 180+ lb. troops are having to carry their bodyweight or more in weapons, ammo, protective gear, food, water, etc., etc..

One wonders why any soldier would have to schlepp 150 lbs of gear. What happened to mobile warfare?

It died when the public started screaming about casualties caused by not having the perfect equipment for [random scenario], which needs to be carried at all times along with all the other perfect equipment for [other random scenario].

Legion – I know this merely because I believe the Danes when they state that there's no difference between men and women in their infantry units.

Now, whether the Danes do things differently to the Americans in order to reduce grunt work throughout a squad I do not know.

As for female mechanics – I see no reason why one shouldn't work on a heavy truck. It's no different to an HGV after all.

Of course since you weren't there either, and have never served in the Danish military I sugggest you're as ignorant as I.

Actually, this article more or less proves my point.

link

I don't 'have to be there'. I can read and use Google…

Of course since you weren't there either, and have never served in the Danish military I sugggest you're as ignorant as I.

Well NO stu … on this topic I may not be generally "ignorant" as you say I am. Or as you for that matter. You just have a hard time admitting that some here who served in Combat Arms. Like Infantry and AFVs may know more than you on this particular subject. Regardless what the media says. Which as we know in many cases in not always accurate. Even IF this article is an exception ?

I know this merely because I believe the Danes when they state that there's no difference between men and women in their infantry units.

Which I believe after serving in 4 Inf Bn and 1 CBT SPT Bns … I can truly say, that statement is Not always accurate and rarely true. IMO opinion of course. Based on my experience … which you and others who advocate such concepts don't know or understand. And many here agree with me. Regardless what the Danes say. But what do I or other Vets know ?

Now, whether the Danes do things differently to the Americans in order to reduce grunt work throughout a squad I do not know.

Now since the Danes are part of NATO. I'm pretty sure they generally do thing according to NATO SOPs and standard. That is called "interoperability" …

As for female mechanics – I see no reason why one shouldn't work on a heavy truck. It's no different to an HGV after all.

Just like you thought on another thread that females would make good tank crews. Because as you stated they were small. Yes, that again just demonstrates again … You don't know or understand another area of the military. Again, with extremely heavy AFVs components like track blocks [Go to Bovington and look at the size of modern AFVs' track blocks and other parts. You would have a hard time, believe me …]and other large heavy parts its not for smaller size/statue humans. Male or female really.

Look at Heavy Wheeled Vehicle tires like on a HEMMT ghqmodels.com/store/n95.html , or maybe a Stryker link or LAV., etc. Some of those tires are almost as tall as the average human. Or Taller it apears. Not to mention the weight of such BIG tires. I know, I stood next to them, etc., … You not so much … Yes ?

I don't 'have to be there'. I can read and use Google…

I can Google a picture of a Victoria's Secret model … but it's not the same a being "with" her or someone like her.

Just like watching a "dirty movie"/porno, is not the same as actually being with a "real live girl" …

Sorry stu … once again, you prove your lack of "real" knowledge and experience with many of the intricacies, the down and dirty, Devil is in the details of soldiering, the military, and topics like this, etc., again …

Which is fine. If you didn't always state you were correct … because you read about …

So you've decided that my source – an interview with a female Danish solider – isn't as good as your experience in a different army altogether?

I've provided direct evidence that you're wrong.

Seems the Canadians ar eproving you wrong as well Legion.

link

Once again. A few women have no problems in maintaining the fitness levels required of a modern infantryman.

The French have female infantry soldiers.

So do the New Zealanders.

But hey, I guess all of them are wrong because… well because Legion says so.

Regardless stu … that may be what some sources say and it may be 100% true. But overall you won't admit because some sources says it is the way does they do things. Does not mean it is applicable to all situations. As I pointed out.

And Yes the Danes can "Proudly" say they have females in their Infantry units serving as "Grunts" … BUT Most in NATO, don't think that is required, necessary, or maybe even reasonable. Now I don't doubt that the Danes have Female "Grunts". I and other Vets for all the reasons we have posted, believe it is not needed, etc. Now you can and others like you can agree with what the Danes are doing is acceptable/a good idea, etc.

But as I so often say, you and those like you may just have to agree to disagree with us who think your beliefs are incorrect …

And BTW I can find an number of articles online that states there is irrefutable evidence of aliens landing a Roswell, etc. Or Bigfoot and Nessie exist etc., … Just say'n …

Regardless again … I and others think the Danes' decisions on Female Grunts is not the way we think and believe it is a good idea … again. But again you can believe as you wish. I and others have pointed out IMO and theirs' why the Danes' have made an error … You can believe as you wish …

And no I'm not infallible … but regardless, I think IMO, female Grunts is not a good idea for all the reasons I have said. So all those militaries you have listed may think otherwise. And that is fine … But I don't agree. No matter how many sources you quote or Militaries think that is the way they want to do things. Everyone is entitled to an opinion …

Legion – what part of the fact that many nations have female infantry soldiers who are as capable of doing the job as any man are you failing to comprehend?

Most nations don't, and there are possibly societal reasons for that. But there's no reason I can see why they shouldn't.

The important thing – as the Dane pointe dout – is not to lower the standards required.

I'm not stating a belief. I have provided numerous sources. that's called proof.

All the reasons you've stated – strength, hygiene are addressed and debunked in the sources I gave.

Again it's more the shame that those countries should bear needing women to fight instead of men just for sake of PC. I've served for 20 years and never ever thought " where the HELL are all the women it's just not fair". The western countries seem to be going out of their way to make sure we all lose the next world war. If you are for this nonsense then you probably never served if you have served in the infantry and your for this then you were probably the C.O's driver or on permanent light duty.

…needing women to fight instead of men just for sake of PC

Is that not a little disrespectful to those women who chose to join up, desired to serve in a combat arm and proved that they made the cut, same as an other infantry man or woman?

There are some very strong women (and very weak men) out there.

Legion – what part of the fact that many nations have female infantry soldiers who are as capable of doing the job as any man are you failing to comprehend?

I am not failing to comprehend anything. My opinion is based on my experience. And based on my experience I disagree with that statement. Now you can continue to say as you wish … but this is my opinion based on my experiences. Now some Armies may think my way of thinking is "wrong" … So I will disagree with them too.

Most nations don't, and there are possibly societal reasons for that. But there's no reason I can see why they shouldn't.

I told you why I thought they should not assign females to Combat Arms. You never were in the military … let alone the Infantry. So I think you're just saying what you read about on the net. And I think those "facts"/"proof" you keep stating are wrong, IMO … That is my opinion.

The important thing – as the Dane pointe dout – is not to lower the standards required.

Of course they'd say that regardless of the results. They want to have females in their Infantry. Which again IMO is a bad idea. Regardless of how many articles you post. The important thing is … It's my opinion. Not yours' … And we disagree … As it often happens … again.

I'm not stating a belief. I have provided numerous sources. that's called proof.

I don't think the "proof" is valid. Based on my experience. Experiences you don't have. So if you want to agree with those articles. That is your prerogative. I think again … that is a bad decision. I may be wrong but again, my past experiences tell me different. But again you can believe as you like.

We are not talking about a flat Earth or the Earth revolves around the sun, electricity is magic, etc., … I'm stating my opinion, it may be wrong … but I doubt it. You don't have to agree with my opinion.

All the reasons you've stated – strength, hygiene are addressed and debunked in the sources I gave.

I don't care who you call on as sources. I think their decisions were wrong. Based on my experience. You are basing your points on you reading about it. You can believe I'm wrong, and you and your sources correct. That is your and their opinions not mine … Now … What are you failing to comprehend ?

what part of the fact that many nations have female infantry soldiers who are as capable of doing the job as any man are you failing to comprehend?

Unfortunately, there is a lot (I mean a LOT) of propaganda about female "infantry". The most commonly quoted example – the Israeli Defence Forces – is also the most egregious. There are three infantry battalions in the IDF that accept women – two guard the border with Egypt, one the border with Jordan. Would you like to guess which two Arab countries have non-aggression treaties with Israel? These units are on over-watch; they do not yomp/tab/whatever across miles and miles of mountainous terrain carrying 80% of their own body weight in kit for weeks on end.

The Israeli army has also abandoned three separate attempts to put women in tanks, because they cannot cope with loading the main armament, repairing tracks, and other "heavy lifting".

Nobody is doubting feminine ability to kill, or their motivation to serve, or that they can fulfill some combat roles (and may even be better in one or two – eg fighter pilot); it is about strength and stamina. Why have someone in your squad who (a) can't carry as much kit as everyone else; (b) degrades everyone else's performance by requiring them to make up the difference; and (c) is 10 times more likely to suffer a leg injury (specifically hip/knee/ankle joint) that renders them a complete liability?

There are women out there who can match the performance of a few men in the squad (usually the weaker ones). However, you have to factor in the tiny percentage of the female population they represent, whether or not they want to serve, and how you are going to cope with that 25% of the month when they can be up to 50% down on physical performance (and that's according to female athletes, not a male perception). You then have to factor in the certainty that, in 2-3 years' time, when there are still virtually no women in the infantry, that a certain type of feminist will scream "DISCRIMINATION!" or "BOYS' CLUB" and demand that the "sexist" standards keeping them out are done away with.

Legion – but you've yet to state why your experience is worth anything when compared to that of the half dozen or so militaries I've listed.

Your 'experience' seems to be a long list of things you think women can't do. The militaries' experience proves you utterly wrong.

Can they lift heavy loads? Yes. Do they ruin unit cohesiveness? No. Do they have speical hygiene issues? No.

Your entire argument is blown out the the water by the fact that women are succesfully serving as infantry around the world.

Now why do you think that the 'proof' isn't valid?

Because all I can see is a veteran shutting his eyes, putting his finger sin his ears and denying the sky is blue.

Bad news for you. Horses will give way to tanks….

Now SM points out correctly that few women can match the demands of infantry. But if one can, then why not let them serve?

Legion – but you've yet to state why your experience is worth anything when compared to that of the half dozen or so militaries I've listed.

Your 'experience' seems to be a long list of things you think women can't do. The militaries' experience proves you utterly wrong.

I'm not the only Vet to think this is a bad idea. Again, if you think my opinion is worthless and does not agree with other militaries. That is fine. I at times think some militaries do somethings I don't agree with. Even the US military. I know you don't value my take on many things. But I agree to disagree … with you.

Your entire argument is blown out the the water by the fact that women are succesfully serving as infantry around the world.

Now why do you think that the 'proof' isn't valid?

Only in a few militaries around the world allow females in their Infantry. They can run their Infantry units as they like. But my is opinion is just that … my opinion. Whether you like it or not.

Because all I can see is a veteran shutting his eyes, putting his finger sin his ears and denying the sky is blue.

That is what you see because I often disagree with you comments about the military. For all the reasons I have mentioned repeatedly … again … and again … and again.

Oh I was all for Horses being replaced by AFVs. I was a Mech Infantry Cdr. Again having served in 4 Inf Bns. ! Air Assault, 3 Mech. And I'm Big advocate of combined arms, modern mobile maneuver warfare. Maybe if you actually read some of my comments about such topics. Instead of always trying to nick pick etc., … And in both/All cases you have no real world experience.

Now SM points out correctly that few women can match the demands of infantry. But if one can, then why not let them serve?

Because you have not served in an Infantry unit. I know much more than you about the demands of the infantryman. You have a very little real appreciation of that. But if they can meet those demands … they can serve ? Will they have to volunteer for the Infantry or will they be randomly selected to be an Grunt ? Like many time is what happens. But you wouldn't know that. If you let them choose if they want to be in the Infantry. Does not that seem like "special treatment" because they are female ? So much for your version of "equality of the sexes".

This may also surprise you[again !] some in the Infantry and Armor didn't join the military to be a Grunt or Tanker. They didn't want to be in those Combat Arms branches. I knew of a number of cases where that was the case. Even my buddy in IOBC and the 101. He wanted to be in Ordinance not Infantry. But like so many … He did his duty and served very well in the Infantry.

Get this :

1) THE NEEDS OF THE ARMY COMES FIRST
2) THE MILITARY IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
3) Just because you volunteer to be in the military. does not me you will get what you signed up for.

Can you imagine trying to lead females troops that didn't want to be in the Infantry ? But got assigned there anyway. It's challenging enough with all males. With most them volunteering/wanting to be a Grunt.
Will she be able to carry all the heavy weapons in the unit ?
Will we be able to get her/them back every 3 day for a shower.
Will she be able to deal with the all the long dismounted movements over difficult terrain ? Day in day out, for extended periods …

You say the some militaries have stated they can do it. But only some … not all … etc., etc., etc., …

But again you will disagree with my statements … which is fine that is your opinion … But it is not based on actual experience.

So agree to disagree. And hope there never is a unisex draft. As in the USA, since now women can volunteer for combat arms. Then the General's and Admiral's believe just like males at 18 years old must sign up/register for the draft. So should females at 18 … Again, the military is not a democracy …

At Parris Island boot camp for the United States Marine Corps, the 4th Battalion is where females go to learn how to be Marines, now maybe things have changed since my departure but I still recall seeing platoons with more than a third of the recruits in a female platoons or I should say platoons in sneakers and crutches. When I attended NCO school back in the early 90's when we were doing hand to hand combat training the female NCO's could not fight the males at all no matter what they did they could not beat one male Marine and NCO school is not based on MOS, so everyone goes a grand mix of MOS of the Marine Corps. The runs we did around base ( NCO School was held at San Diego) had to be slow because they kept falling out the field operations we did was joke, they tried really hard but they just didn't have it.

Have female Marines in this war been engaged in gunfights sure, but that sure as Hell is not combat just a gunfight. I found it hard dragging wounded Marines to a evac if I'm having a hard time what the hell is a female going to do? Even in my current Law enforcement job females have very difficult time dealing with men physically.

In the near future we will be in another real war, a war against a country like Russia or China for example and we will need to replace the WIA and KIA's so where do we get them? From a draft and the "Volunteers" we have that are female will need to be replaced and who will replace them? Will it be some 18, 19 or 20 year old girl that the day before was shopping and texting and now faces the prospect of going to war and being told that well we have had females in combat arms so suck it up. The Politically correct nonsense will cost the Western world unnecessary casualties and probably lose a war in the process. Combat arms are there to Kill People and Break things not be a social experiment for females in my humble opinion who have a case of Penis envy.

I must have missed where you qualified as a psychoanalyst Irish Marine. Comments like your last, belittling people who have volunteered to defend their country, undermine any valid points you might make.

I think that modern armed forces will find increasing proportions of recruits unable to meet the basic requirements, or willing to work to meet them when challenged. If the US army is still routinely ignoring preferences, as Legion4 suggests, then perhaps it needs to think about that policy. It also needs to think long and hard about what its troops are likely to spend most of their time doing in the future. Given that the US isn't likely to introduce compulsory military service anytime soon, I think they should look at what other countries are doing and see how it could be applicable when you're dealing with volunteers in a far broader range of likely scenarios than 20+ years ago.

I would be surprised if the proportion of women not meeting requirements *wasn't* the higher of the two when it comes to physically demanding tasks, but *if* the standards are maintained I don't see 'most women can't do it' as a compelling argument to argue that no women should be allowed to volunteer for it, when many men can't do it either.

The right weaponry is simple. It is the MAXIMUM application of overwhelming firepower to utterly destroy the enemy position with no regard to damage done or collateral casualties. War is not a "police" action where people go in with warrants and restraints and read people their rights.

The last fifteen years would disagree with you.

I'm not sure why weaponry is considered the focus of the conversation.

I was responding to Lion in the stars, Avery, with regard to why soldiers have to carry 150 lbs of gear. As far as the last fifteen years, they're wrong.

Weaponry is ALWAYS the focus of the conversation. Weapon+soldier= weapon.

People who elect to sign up and protect their country are heroes. We should do everything to protect such people when they go in harms way. The best way to do that is obliteration of the enemy, all the enemy. That is accomplished best and most efficiently by, again, the massive and excessive application of firepower to destroy them.

I'm sure you believe that it's the best and most efficient Otto. I'd save the comments about indiscriminately killing civilians for another thread though, or maybe, just not post them.

I'm glad that you feel those risking their lives should be respected though, regardless of their sex.

Wonderful….

Funny, I read the same old bromides about women can't be doctors or corporate officers or police officers or any other field that is "Old Boy" dominated. And those were just as ridiculous and now seen as absurd.

Face it, people. The world is changing. Roles are changing. Change with it or be left in the dust and increasingly marginalized. As for this being the "end of the west!"…. PLEEZEEE….

So we're back at this again, eh? And I see everyone's opinions are still the same. Well mine are too, and I shouldn't, but I'll toss in a few observations as a career NCO with experience in mixed gender combat support units and an all male combat unit.

* Ran a plt grenade range, where all soldiers at the end of the training portion had to throw a practice grenade a certain distance and at a certain height to qualify to be allowed to throw a live grenade. Y'know so you're still not in the grenade's casualty radius when it explodes. End result; all males(a couple dozen) passed, all females(3) failed. When the range OIC, an LT, was informed of the result he chose to let all troops throw live grenades because he didn't want to have to explain the female's failure to the CO. Fortunately no one was blown up that day.

* Ran ranges for the .50 cal Ma Deuce and the Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher, where female assistant gunners were unable to fire the weapons because their hands were too small to work the butterfly trigger. A jerry-rigged solution was devised where they could at least fire the weapon(not accurately) using a section of cleaning rod to depress the trigger. The Brass of course looked the other way.

* There is a battle drill where Mk 19 gunners and assistant gunners have to mount the weapon on a Hummer from a ground mount or it being stored inside the vehicle. It calls for the gunner to get in the turret and for the A gunner to lift the Mk 19 up to the roof of the Hummer to the gunner who mounts it on the turret mount. It turned out that a sizable percentage of the females were unable to perform the A gunner's role in the battle drill because they lacked the size or strength to lift the Mk 19 to the roof of the vehicle. So the drill was modified so that females would henceforth perform only the gunner role for that particular battle drill. The Brass had no comment.

* In the field, generators were used to provide power. One thing that was required before use was that a 5' steel grounding rod was required to be driven into the ground with a sledge hammer. Guess which gender soldiers never had to pound that thing into the ground? After repeated attempts by numerous females it was learned that they were unable to do it. So another job for the males.

* During PT runs or road marches, there are always people who fall out. And when you get to the end and watch the stragglers come in it becomes apparent that as many males fell out as females. But when you look at the percentages of males and females in the company it becomes apparent that maybe 5% of the males fell out as opposed to 40-50% of the females. Again, crickets from the Brass.

Those are just some of my personal experiences. Not theory, feelings or second hand stories. Experiences. There are more but I think they are sufficient to make my point that females can do the basic job a lot of the time but when things got really difficult we had to work around the females. And that was only possible because they comprised only about 10-20% of the unit. Also note that those examples come from a combat support MP company, not a full blown combat arms unit.

The bottom line is that this is a political issue, not a military one, and as long as the politicians want an increased female presence in the military whether or not they can do the job is a moot point.

Legion, Irish Marine, Supercilius Maximus

Actually, objective testing has supposedly disproved that.

They are better at some things than others, but the sexes are not equal, especially in close combat.

Really, Mako? Tell that to the Russians. During WWII many partisan units had women (some even led by women). And were every bit as effective (and brutal) as their male counterparts.