Question of the month. Could the US fight a war like WWII again.

[oknow]

What do y'all think? can this generation go through the horror of a war like WWII? Personally I don't think so. I think, as a group, we are weaker then the generations before. We are to spoiled and privileged and while I don;t want to take anything from the men and women serving now, they are all heroes. I think the nation would not stomach the mass causalities.

unfortunately we may find out, the way things are going except it doesn't look like it will be over there somewhere

 

[Bunny]

SOME women can perform better than SOME men. But the strongest woman can't compete with the strongest man.

That's why we have the LPGA and the WNBA. I don't think there is any WNBA team that could beat any NBA team.

HOWEVER... I'm sure just about any WNBA team could beat the pants off of your standard pick-up team of dudes down at the local gym.

Some women are better than some men. But when you get to the best of both sex's the men win. Physically.

That's not really relevant since the military doesn't currently recruit the ideal. They recruit the capable. It's also not relevant because even an all-male military aren't equal. You will always have weaker men and stronger men. Same for the enemy. If you're going to discriminate and not include anyone who isn't the physical ideal, you'd have a very small military. I mean, how many people qualify for the LPGA or WNBA? Not very many.

We're not talking about unrealistic standards and Conan The Barbarian vs Xena Warrior Princess here. We're talking about whether or not women can be fit for war and modern combat. The answer is yes, some are. I'm sorry if that bothers some of you.

 

[Sagaba]

Political correctness and feminism killed any chance we would have had. Go and collect random samples of kids around the country and tell me you'd want to fight along side them at Iwo Jima or in the trenches of the 38th parallel. There are very few of my friends I would go into battle with and trust with my life.

Three of my grandparents served in WW2. Army Aviation, Navy WAVES and Coast Guard. It was a collective effort by people raised in a very different society from ours today. They were raised (for the most part) with values very different from today. Much more personally responsible and common sense.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Thanks Marine.
And please, keep up the good work!

Ditto that, and keep your butt down when the time comes!

 

[Vantage]

That's not really relevant since the military doesn't currently recruit the ideal. They recruit the capable. It's also not relevant because even an all-male military aren't equal. You will always have weaker men and stronger men. Same for the enemy. If you're going to discriminate and not include anyone who isn't the physical ideal, you'd have a very small military. I mean, how many people qualify for the LPGA or WNBA? Not very many.

We're not talking about unrealistic standards and Conan The Barbarian vs Xena Warrior Princess here. We're talking about whether or not women can be fit for war and modern combat. The answer is yes, some are. I'm sorry if that bothers some of you.

It is relevant.

I was responding to your statement,

If a woman can perform the same duties as a man, I say give her the job. If she can't, then that's that.

I was saying.. apples to apples, a woman can't perform the same duties as a man. PHYSICALLY. I used the WNBA/NBA and LPGA/PGA as examples to isolate the best from both sexes. If somehow we were able to take random sample of 100 men, and a random sample of 100 women and put them in a tug of war, and repeated the test multiple times, I think you'd see over and over again the men beating the women. There might be a freak exception every now and then where the woman win, but I doubt many would bet on the women winning the majority of the contests. I'm not talking about "unrealistic standards" as you suggest. I'm talking averages. The average man is taller than the average woman, stronger than the average woman, faster than the average woman.

Can both men and women pass the military standards set for them. Sure. I don't disagree with that. (Although... they do have different standards for men and women. )

I was simply disagreeing with your statement of a woman performing the same duties as a man. Which, they cannot. Physically speaking. You put an A-Grade Man up against an A-Grade woman and the man wins. B-Grade Man against a B-Grade woman, man wins. C-Grade same thing. Now can an A-Grade woman beat out an B-Grade man, sure.

But apples to apples, the man beats out the woman. Sorry if that bothers some of you.

 

[Stomper]

No natural woman can stand flat-footed and pee over a dump truck...yer welcome, subject closed.

 

[Bunny]

It is relevant.

I was responding to your statement,

If a woman can perform the same duties as a man, I say give her the job. If she can't, then that's that.

I was saying.. apples to apples, a woman can't perform the same duties as a man. PHYSICALLY. I used the WNBA/NBA and LPGA/PGA as examples to isolate the best from both sexes. If somehow we were able to take random sample of 100 men, and a random sample of 100 women and put them in a tug of war, and repeated the test multiple times, I think you'd see over and over again the men beating the women. There might be a freak exception every now and then where the woman win, but I doubt many would bet on the women winning the majority of the contests. I'm not talking about "unrealistic standards" as you suggest. I'm talking averages. The average man is taller than the average woman, stronger than the average woman, faster than the average woman.

Can both men and women pass the military standards set for them. Sure. I don't disagree with that. (Although... they do have different standards for men and women. )

I was simply disagreeing with your statement of a woman performing the same duties as a man. Which, they cannot. Physically speaking. You put an A-Grade Man up against an A-Grade woman and the man wins. B-Grade Man against a B-Grade woman, man wins. C-Grade same thing. Now can an A-Grade woman beat out an B-Grade man, sure.

But apples to apples, the man beats out the woman. Sorry if that bothers some of you.

You're obviously not understanding the actual conversation, and are more focused on proving male physical dominance.....

Again, we are not NOT talking about the ideal man and the ideal woman. We are talking about actual military standards. I am aware that women in the military are currently judged by a different standard than the men.... But I am also saying that if judged by the exact same military standards, SOME women would perform as well as the men and therefore be eligible for combat. We're probably saying the exact same thing, except you seem to want to make this a battle of the sexes. What do you want to hear? That the ideal man would still be stronger than the ideal woman? Sure he would. Does that satisfy your ego enough to remain on topic and accept that there are some women who are capable of combat? The point is, neither sex has to be the physical ideal to perform combat duties. And I'll say it again; if a woman can perform the same duties as a man, I say give her the job. Or do you want to throw out some other fanciful excuses for why women should be ineligible for combat? Or maybe you'd like to go back in time and tell us why black people should be ineligible for certain military duties too?

No natural woman can stand flat-footed and pee over a dump truck...yer welcome, subject closed.

 

[The B]

You're obviously not understanding the actual conversation, and are more focused on proving male physical dominance.....

Again, we are not NOT talking about the ideal man and the ideal woman. We are talking about actual military standards. I am aware that women in the military are currently judged by a different standard than the men.... But I am also saying that if judged by the exact same military standards, SOME women would perform as well as the men and therefore be eligible for combat. We're probably saying the exact same thing, except you seem to want to make this a battle of the sexes. What do you want to hear? That the ideal man would still be stronger than the ideal woman? Sure he would. Does that satisfy your ego enough to remain on topic and accept that there are some women who are capable of combat? The point is, neither sex has to be the physical ideal to perform combat duties. And I'll say it again; if a woman can perform the same duties as a man, I say give her the job. Or do you want to throw out some other fanciful excuses for why women should be ineligible for combat? Or maybe you'd like to go back in time and tell us why black people should be ineligible for certain military duties too?

Some women would... but not very many, and they'd be prone to injury. I won't even mention the E word. This makes them a liability as a whole... and when we have no shortage of boys standing up for the honor of serving their nation, why add unnecessary risk, just to warm some hearts?

Given a superpower-on-superpower war, we probably would allow women to serve in combat rolls. Society has progressed to the point that given a situation where the positives outweigh the potential negatives, we'd do it.

 

[Kelzebubba]

Bunny,

I think Vantage is going off what I truly believe as well. We both agree there are a small percentage of women that would definitely be able to. Unfortunately due to some dumb *** politicians that want to cater to the female vote they would dumb down the standards so Kim Kardashian could become infantry. If there was a flat standard test to be in infantry that did not have different standards based on what was between your legs, then he would be for it, but that would never happen due to the impotent leaders we have today.

 

[DuneHopper]

Not sure why it complicated?

Women in the military is great, but to be combat ready and serve on the line not men and women but both as in all military people should have to pass the exact same standard to be combat ready end of story.
Regardless of the sex of the soldier, any guy or gal next to me on the line better be able to hold your weight and your line and be able to do what set you both ready, I do not care if you wear boxers, briefs or cotton panties you best not get me or anyone else killed just because you think you can wear a uniform. No double standards, all should meet the exact same ones simple.

 

[Bunny]

I agree with BK. Women in combat wouldn't be ideal... but if it was necessary to win a war, and they could perform the same duties as the men, they should be considered. Not that there would be any shortage of jobs to be done if we experienced a war like WWII again. I'm sure there would be plenty of work to go around and everyone would have something to offer.

 

[DuneHopper]

Well.............
Throughout history, women warriors have fought and led troops into battle. This partial list of warrior queens and other women warriors runs from the legendary Amazons -- who may have been real warriors from the Steppes -- to the Syrian queen of Palmyra, Zenobia. Sadly, we know too little about most of these brave warrior women who stood up to the powerful male leaders of their day because history is written by the victors.
The Amazons are credited with helping the Trojans against the Greeks in the Trojan War. They are also said to have been fierce women archers who cut off a breast to aid them in shooting ( talk about sacrifice), but recent archaeological evidence suggests the Amazons were real, important, powerful.
The Trung Sisters
After two centuries of Chinese rule, the Vietnamese rose up against them under the leadership of two sisters, Trung Trac and Trung Nhi, who gathered an army of 80,000. They trained 36 women to be generals and drove the Chinese out of Viet Nam in A.D. 40. Trung Trac was then named ruler and renamed "Trung Vuong" or "She-king Trung." They continued to fight the Chinese for three years, but eventually, unsuccessful, they committed suicide.
For more on the sisters.
It would stand to reason with new technology and safety improvements today's female soldier would be the best prepared for battle. Besides that when it comes to logistics womens brains are far more fit for this under pressure then are men by nature.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Women rarely actually fought. It's easy to sit in a chariot and lead (Like Boadicea, admirable but still just a female) when there are 20,000 armed men about you. There's likely not one female that has ever lived on this planet that could beat me with equal non firearm arms (OK, maybe with a lucky shot of a bow of some sort) That includes giant women, and they did exist. No brag, just fact

 

[Kelzebubba]

Women rarely actually fought. It's easy to sit in a chariot and lead (Like Boadicea, admirable but still just a female) when there are 20,000 armed men about you. There's likely not one female that has ever lived on this planet that could beat me with equal non firearm arms (OK, maybe with a lucky shot of a bow of some sort) That includes giant women, and they did exist. No brag, just fact

Have you ever met any Tongans? I mean I am not a small guy, but those women could seriously stomp a mud hole in most men I know. They are some tough women. With that being said, I have done nothing to piss any of them off. I would gladly let them fight in the military though, they are some tough peoples.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

How about recent history? Google Soviet Women Snipers and Soviet Women Combat Pilots! Notice their numbers and losses. Is there a new question for this month?

As an unrelated aside, while scanning Soviet Women Snipers, images, I noticed that they tended to be babes! I had always thought that WW2 era Russian women looked like shaved Polar bears!

 

[DuneHopper]

Women rarely actually fought.

There existed in history several armies of women only, in fact there was one such skirmish that two armies of women only fought.
Not sure where you are finding your facts on this but it is very untrue. I have a BA in Cultural Anthropology and can most definitely say women fought with weapons and hand to hand combat history books say otherwise then you state, need I say more.
There are at least 50+ records to support this !
I notice often in your posts you will tell others they are wrong and not provide proof of it.
I only respond when you stated it to me I am very open to hear all sides with facts provided.

 

[michaels]

Don't worry.

This whole women/not women, pc/not pc, let's stand up for feminism or not argument would be totally silly if we were in a large scale war, on US soil.

I personally knew a man who fought for the French resistance when he was 12.
(So anyone with stupid never fired, dropped once jokes, go bubblegum yourself)

The debate will be, "well little tommy is strong enough to hold that gun. He's 10, that's old enough!"

Ah, war. So romantic and adventurous.

 

[Kelzebubba]

There is nothing romantic or adventurous about war.

After you have hidden in a mass grave to avoid detection by some crazed bubblegum in Bosnia, I can assure you that there is no romance involved. You just have to swallow your ego and let the maggots and flies go all over you or try to take on a tank brigade. Taking another's life, especially just to benefit the coffers of a few companies is what war is all about.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

The ROTC in my local high school seems to have a pretty high level of participation if thats any indication.
Of course some of that could be economically motivated.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

There existed in history several armies of women only, in fact there was one such skirmish that two armies of women only fought.
Not sure where you are finding your facts on this but it is very untrue. I have a BA in Cultural Anthropology and can most definitely say women fought with weapons and hand to hand combat history books say otherwise then you state, need I say more.
There are at least 50+ records to support this !
I notice often in your posts you will tell others they are wrong and not provide proof of it.
I only respond when you stated it to me I am very open to hear all sides with facts provided.

I would like to read about the two women's armys that fought each other. Please site! It sounds interesting.