Military – Stupid people tricks
ACLU sues over policy barring women from ground combat
(Reuters) “The American Civil Liberties Union sued on Tuesday on behalf of four U.S. servicewomen to challenge a longstanding policy barring women from thousands of ground combat positions, citing the changing nature of warfare and fairness for career soldiers. The civil rights group argued in a legal complaint filed in federal court in Northern California that a military policy to bar women from combat roles on the basis of gender was unconstitutional.” (11/27/12)

Nathan:  To the typical Tranzi, military forces are NOT about defense or even empire, but about ways of changing society and excuses for stealing money from taxpayers and giving money to influence and “engineer” society.  The military becomes nothing more than a pawn in daily politics, and its original and ONLY legitimate purpose is forgotten.  Thus we have this sort of stupidity.

Now I will write some things that many people will condemn me for.

There is NO justification, whether you are an evolutionary humanist OR a devout believer in God, for women to be in combat:  is it not enough that millions of women are killed as civilians and in auxiliary roles?  How have the mass bloodlettings and the generations of impact of the killing fields of the War Between the States, World Wars One and Two, the Russian Civil War and others NOT taught us the lesson of the dangers of killing our brightest and best men – so that we now think it okay to subject women to the same risks?

I am NOT demeaning women by saying that they cannot fight.  But the kitten can and WILL fight against the adult pitbull.  And will die.

First, we must recognize that not all MEN have the physical qualifications to be a combat infantryman, tanker, cannon-cocker (field artillery soldier), or combat engineer.    But it is not a political matter when a new male recruit fails to have good enough physical abilities to be assigned to one of these MOSs.

We must speak of the physical abilities and the role of these in combat: these are NOT political decisions, but realities, with or without technology: in fact, modern military technology has made the difference GREATER.

Women apparently have the same (or better) ability to deal with high-G and significant motion impacts than men on average.  Women have good (or better) reflexes, and the ability to become good marksmen. Women do NOT have the average upper body strength of men, and do not have the ability to sustain very-short-term, high-energy/high-tempo physical activities (they have greater endurance and the ability to pay more attention to detail in repetitive tasks) compared to men.  (I am not saying that there are not SOME women who have these primarily male skills/abilities/physical attributes, but overall they do not – any more than males have the ability to carry a baby for nine months and then endure childbirth (with or without drugs).

For air crew, including fighter pilots and crew, this means that women can match men’s performance – or even better it in some ways.  And the pool of women for fighter pilots is about the same as that of men (maybe a bit less: there are not, I understand, as many ADHD girls as boys).  Ground crew is not much worse, thanks to the ready availability of machinery.  Even the modern navy might not be too badly degraded by the overall average strength of women versus men, again due to machinery.  But at the same time, technology is part of the problem, even in the Navy:  a six-pounder cannon of 1783 fired a six-pound round shot:  lifting and loading it was within the physical capacity of a typical woman, if not all the tasks were.  The weight of an 8-inch shell was NOT; nor is the weight of a 203-mm missile.  Yes, there is machinery to help, but machinery does not always work, and does not always totally replace sheer physical human strength.

But what this translates to in combat is failure.  Women can and DO make good light infantrymen (especially in the fixed-position defense role) – provided that the idiots in charge do not try to load them with the 80-100 pounds to the modern light infantryman, and common from 1900-2012.  If troops can be limited to 30-40 pounds of gear, it is possible.  But women (and weaker men) do NOT make good vehicle crewmen, field artillery gunners, the black-gang on a warship, or combat engineers because they do not have sufficient upper body strength to do the basic duties required: NOT the combat duties (beyond carrying the horrific “basic load” of modern troops outside vehicles, but the ability to replace tracks, change tires, unload and load weapons, ammo, and equipment, and all the other tasks.

Mixed crews of men and women will result in the men being worked to death – or killed because the tasks needed to maintain, load, operate, and repair these behemoths would of necessity fall on the men – not all of whom are even average – or just would not get done!  IF exoskeletons were real and usable and deployed, it might be different.  But when land warriors are dependent on not just their brains, not just their reflexes, not just their marksmanship, but on actual, physical brute strength and the ability to exert themselves at incredibly high levels of endurance for very short times, an army including equal numbers of men and women, evenly divided and spread out, will DIE.  As will any society dependent upon it.  I am not talking about REMFs or fortress troops or even home defense troops, but line infantry, marching or riding or jumping out of the skies to close with and engage the enemy, whether it is in open combat or “low-intensity” or “stabilization operations.”

The ACLU wants the military to FAIL; these women see only the benefits of their own advancement and benefits and fail to understand the purpose behind the oath of enlistment or the very reason that armies exist (as far as free people AND imperialists and statists are concerned).

This does not even address the psychological aspect and differences between men and women, or the impact of mixing male and female troops in field conditions with all its issues from being able to carry a wounded comrade to being able to ensure the rigors of capture by forces to whom the terms “Geneva Convention” are meaningless.  Of course, some of that is a moot point since homosexuals are now “fully integrated” and supposedly “out of the closet” even in combat units.  That alone is enough to seriously degrade the capabilities and survivability of combat units and the military as a whole, without massive societal AND organizational changes.  Adding women into the mix is just speeding up the disaster.

This is a moot point for European Armies, which have been totally feminized anyway, and serve (at best) as auxiliaries or tripwires for British and American forces.  (I do not consider the British Army to be a European one.)  The possible exception to this is the French Foreign Legion, which still does not accept women in any assignment.

For those wishing for the United States of America to go away, this is a great step in the right direction.  Take that as you will.

Mama’s Note: I seriously doubt there will be any great number of women who even wish to enter these positions. This has come up with things like electric linemen and loggers… to date, there are very few women engaged in these fields because, as you say, most just don’t have the physical strength to do the job. The few who do have blended into the woodwork and nobody much even notices.

And if the young men don’t want to die, I suspect they need to make it plain to any women assigned to their units that they are ON THEIR OWN if they can’t pull the freight. The would be lady warriors must be free to fail if they insist… just like the men if they can’t cut it.