Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Our next war will probably be fought primarily with drones and mercenaries, so who gives a gak?

drones...no, they will definitely be there though, Mercenaries? yeah private contracting is always there but nobody wins a war without putting Boots on the ground. And those boots will always have USMC and USARMY on them.

Nah, probably not. Even when I was in, the face of warfare was changing as the technology was advancing, and this was before the new millennium. We basically just wasted thirteen years and a few thousand of our lives, and several hundred thousand civilian lives, meanwhile driving the country into bankruptcy, for a job that a black ops team took care of. Worse? We fethed ourselves right well and good by forgetting what it was we were supposed to be defending, what it was we were fighting for. Add to that we gave rise to what is now being described as a Death Cult that we will, no doubt, need to return to the region to combat within 20 years (barring some other state going first). Just wait for ISIS/IS/ISIL or whatever-the-feth they're calling themselves this week start making inroads against the oil fields we want.

The age old expression that you train for the last war you fought springs to mind. yeah the latest trend has been fighting insurgents, but what happens when the next large scale war kicks off...which with the way Russia is moving and China it may not be to far off in the future. Drones and a few black water agents won't stop the Russian/Chinese Armies, it will require a large conventional military and we just so happen to have one. Remember this other famous phrase, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it"

All history is circular in nature, and eventually we are going to swing back to Large scale military actions and a military trained in counter terrorism only with lots of UAV/drones won't win that style of war.

The US cannot afford to go to war with China, they're currently the ones who are paying for our military.

 Psienesis wrote:
The US cannot afford to go to war with China, they're currently the ones who are paying for our military.

And guess what happens in a time of war against a foreign power? All Debts/loans become null and void. Furthermore, if anything go look up how many countries repaid the Debt they accrued in WW1 and WW2 from borrowing/buying and leasing from the United States. I'll give you a hint only 1 country fully paid its debt.

And guess what happens in a time of war against a foreign power? All Debts/loans become null and void.

Citation required. I've seen that stated in a number of places, mostly referring to the 14th Amendment, but that Amendment only specifically pertains to debts incurred by States involved in either suppressing insurrection or rebellion, or participating therein. It says nothing of debt owed to a foreign state.

People really just need to stop this "China owns us" nonsense. It's just not true, and even if it were, it's meaningless. China could call in our debt, and we can refuse, and then what? China makes infinitely more money collecting interest on our debt than they ever will trying to call it in (the same is true for us cause we own a substantial part of China's debt ourselves).

Unless the US economy implodes on itself, China owning US debt will never matter, and if our economy implodes on itself, China will have much bigger worries than our debt.

Forbes says some 7.2% of USA debt held by China (7.0% Japan). The majority of debt is held domestically but China is the largest foreign holder of the debt (2014).

Mention of WW2 debt accrued was not of prior to war but what was determined for damages to be paid. More a compensation for the conquered to pay their new masters.
The only one country having fully paid rang a bell.

Well, many of the advances in weaponry have tended to be great equalizers so depending on the criteria for a mission, you pick the capabilities most necessary which limits men as well as women.

As a Marine in a weapons platoon (0351) I can appily say that PFT/CFT/old PRT were our easiest days by far. In no way do they come close to being an actual indicator of the physical demands of the actual job. They may be a good disqualifier of those who should never even attempt to hump combat loads over distance. Never mind being capable of extended combat once you got there.

Though I question that since so many male Marines could pass a PFT but would in no way be considered cut out to be a Grunt. Even the female Marines in the article who were passionate about proving that women could do it had decided that they never wanted to do it full time. Why are we even considering this?

I still don't see why this issue isn't looked at through the prism of equal rights. It is not the male Americans "privilege" to serve in the infantry. The draft is still out there and the notion that we will NEVER see one again is just idiotic. It cannot be a female Americans "privilege" to serve in the infantry without it also being their "duty" to do so when the country needs it.

Make them sign up for the draft and when the time comes draft them in a percentage reflective of the gender demographic. Last estimate I heard females make up 52% of the US population. How well do you think those infantry units would do if they were 52% female drawn not just from the more muscular athletic girls but the girls in band, yearbook club and those who are just going through life trying to stay skinny.

Strategic Wastage is a thing. It gets most of the men who serve in the infantry at one point or another, they represent only a fraction of those who serve in the military. POG's aren't Grunts, don't kid yourself. You might find a woman or two who can pass an entrance level test, can we still count them on one hand? But Women cannot.

Uh... I think you will find that standards are laxer for women in just about every field, and if they're not, there's feminists campaigning to make it so.

After the last local marathon, the local gender equality league was protesting the fact that male runners earned higher monetary rewards - which are calculated from place and run time. They demand the same money for a worse result.

 LordofHats wrote:
People really just need to stop this "China owns us" nonsense. It's just not true, and even if it were, it's meaningless. China could call in our debt, and we can refuse, and then what? China makes infinitely more money collecting interest on our debt than they ever will trying to call it in (the same is true for us cause we own a substantial part of China's debt ourselves).

Unless the US economy implodes on itself, China owning US debt will never matter, and if our economy implodes on itself, China will have much bigger worries than our debt.

The US nullifying its debt would be akin (and basically the same thing as) a private citizen declaring bankruptcy. It ruins your credit rating, and makes lenders less-likely to lend to you in the future. In practical terms, this reduces the US' buying power on international markets, which means our money's worth less when buying imports, and thus prices on the majority of consumer goods rises.

On second thought this is wildly off topic so ima just stop myself right here lol

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Uh... I think you will find that standards are laxer for women in just about every field, and if they're not, there's feminists campaigning to make it so.

After the last local marathon, the local gender equality league was protesting the fact that male runners earned higher monetary rewards - which are calculated from place and run time. They demand the same money for a worse result.

To put it in perspective for the military. My unit had a recon element that routinely attached to MEU's and SF's units to do TG missions and other high speed crap. Since our role wasn't strictly Combat arms we had females in every facet of our battalion EXCEPT our recon teams. A New Battalion commander came on deck and tried to increase our recon element from a single highly trained Platoon to almost a full Company. To do this he did Recon screenings for the entire battalion to force people into this new program. After the screening he managed to get his numbers and low and behold 3 females made it! The females were given ZERO extra help. good on them right? Unfortunately, 2 of the 3 females who passed also injured themselves to the point where one was medically discharged and the other became an Officers clerk because she had shattered her arm and did lasting damage to her hip. the 3rd girl? She was without a doubt the toughest one in our battalion.....and she washed out of the recon training once she got into the unit. Apparently spending days in swamps and doing forced marches and having to swim New river several times wore her down and she eventually quit. In no way was the training any different for her then any of the males and I can tell you for a fact that the training IS necessary. On a routine basis these guys are dropped off behind enemy lines or have to march to their area of operations because vehicles/transports are just not feasible for the area. If you can't keep up you become a HUGE detractor and can cost lives.

Equal opportunity means equal opportunity, that does not mean that we should lower the challenges just because of gender. The enemy wont give females the extra time it takes them to march or give them a few warning shots to make sure they are ready.

 LordofHats wrote:
People really just need to stop this "China owns us" nonsense. It's just not true, and even if it were, it's meaningless. China could call in our debt, and we can refuse, and then what? China makes infinitely more money collecting interest on our debt than they ever will trying to call it in (the same is true for us cause we own a substantial part of China's debt ourselves).

Unless the US economy implodes on itself, China owning US debt will never matter, and if our economy implodes on itself, China will have much bigger worries than our debt.

The thing in my mind about China is not so much debt as the fact they have a stranglehold onn rare earths. I work at a company where I saw the price of Titanium double inside of a week because of China's influence.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Equal opportunity means equal opportunity, that does not mean that we should lower the challenges just because of gender. The enemy wont give females the extra time it takes them to march or give them a few warning shots to make sure they are ready.

sarcasm

Well, maybe if evil men didn't use their manly privilege to patriarchy up a good ole boys club that lets them make up more then 99% of active combat roles.

Besides if both sides had all female armies, then we wouldn't even need armies because war wouldn't exist, at the very least they would give each other extra time to wake up and get ready for battle.


/sarcasm


In all seriousness basic entry fitness standards are already pretty low as they are, even for guys IMO, a few pull ups? that's easy... humping all that gear, for days/weeks/months, with no shower/bed/ect and still having energy to fight in combat effectively is far far harder.

The standards should be the same regardless of race/sex/ethnicity/ect just the way the rights are the same as both our rights and our responsibilities are to be applied equally regardless of such things.

 easysauce wrote:
[
In all seriousness basic entry fitness standards are already pretty low as they are, even for guys IMO, a few pull ups? that's easy... humping all that gear, for days/weeks/months, with no shower/bed/ect and still having energy to fight in combat effectively is far far harder.

The standards should be the same regardless of race/sex/ethnicity/ect just the way the rights are the same as both our rights and our responsibilities are to be applied equally regardless of such things.

Ideally, yes. As long as all such standards reflect the bonafide requirements for the job.

The pull up test in question may not be an accurate reflection of the requirements of the job and unfairly biased against a certain group of candidates, potentially resulting in good candidates being washed out prematurely. The military changing the standards of the pull up test may be a tacit admission from them that the pull up test is indeed not relevant to the job.

Pullups are not the reason no female candidate have completed Marine IOC or Ranger school. Women can meet the minimum pullup standards, rare though it may be. Carrying 100+ lbs on long humps or running long distances carrying a rifle and gear over obstacles is, and those are inarguable extremely relevant to infantry.

 DarkLink wrote:
Pullups are not the reason no female candidate have completed Marine IOC or Ranger school. Women can meet the minimum pullup standards, rare though it may be. Carrying 100+ lbs on long humps or running long distances carrying a rifle and gear over obstacles is, and those are inarguable extremely relevant to infantry.

Females have been able to pass a male PFT since the inception of it. the problem is that it is almost irrelevant to the actual job they would be required to do in an Infantry MOS. I knew several 300 PFTers who sucked on Ruck marches and when we deployed they tended to be dead weight. In all actuality the best guys in our unit were the heavier set guys who were 5'10-6'3 and about 200lbs. they could march all day, set up an OP at night and then march back to the PB the next day and be ready to do it all over again. The lighter guys usually struggled with this kind of non stop action.

We had females running with grunts in country already, they were called "FET" teams "Female Engagement Team" they were brought along to do searches of woman and children and to interact with females during patrols. this was one of the key points of COIN operations while we were in country. The problem with FET teams was they were basically combat ineffectives. the patrol leader usually had to detail at least an entire fire team to babysit them which undermanned the rest of the patrol. Overall I think a handful of woman CAN cut it, but the costs required to let 1% of the females who want to be infantry would in no way be offset by what they brought to the table. Equal opportunity is wonderful in a lot of different settings, but I won't lie to you, Combat/Infantry is not one of those settings.

Anecdotally - I was an antenna jockey. A good chunk of my job was lugging 75 pound cable reels around the desert, for which pull-up muscles probably would have helped. There were plenty of women in my unit who passed the APFT with flying colors that could barely budge one of those; there were guys who would carry one around on each shoulder that scored worse than them.

Exactly. I've known my fair share of women who could get solid pft scores, pullups included, but whom I would smoke on any exercise that involved picking up any significant amount of weight. They were great athletes, and certainly not weak, but when you're comparing a 120lb person to a 200lb person, one is going to have a significant natural advantage picking up and moving 50+ lbs repeatedly for time and distance.

The current standards for various military units produces results, and you cannot argue that infantry do not need to ruck with heavy packs or run while carrying rifle and gear. There really isn't much to discuss.

 DarkLink wrote:
Exactly. I've known my fair share of women who could get solid pft scores, pullups included, but whom I would smoke on any exercise that involved picking up any significant amount of weight. They were great athletes, and certainly not weak, but when you're comparing a 120lb person to a 200lb person, one is going to have a significant natural advantage picking up and moving 50+ lbs repeatedly for time and distance.

The current standards for various military units produces results, and you cannot argue that infantry do not need to ruck with heavy packs or run while carrying rifle and gear. There really isn't much to discuss.

I honestly felt a little bad, because there was our resident female PT stud - she put in an hour or two after work at the gym like daily, was like three inches taller than me, really cared and tried hard; I skeeved out of PT whenever possible, would show up to PT tests still drunk and beat her two mile by 3-4 mintues. And she could never lift a reel of cx11230 off the ground. She tried like really hard. And then my 5'7, 160 lbs lazy ass would wander up, toss it over my shoulder and be like "Where'd you want this?"

I went to Marine OCS (ended up choosing not to comission, loved it but it just wasn't the right job for me and I wasn't about to half-ass potentially leading Marines into combat), and I helped a lot of female candidates train. They struggled bigtime with pullups, but there were a few hard chargers that could do 5-10 pullups. They did ok on training rucks, but they struggled to keep up with me when I had 90lbs on my back and they had 60, and I could throw 120+ on and keep a solid pace. And after many years of crossfit, I've met some women who are phenominal athletes, including some that can do strict muscleups, but at the end of the day in workouts I'd be lifting twice as much weight on the bar and getting similar times as them.

I'm certain there are women out there who can do it, and they deserve a shot, but they should never get a pass on the standards. If they make the cut, awesome. If not, they gave it their best, and they'll nake great soldiers/Marines in a different MOS.

 DarkLink wrote:
Pullups are not the reason no female candidate have completed Marine IOC or Ranger school. Women can meet the minimum pullup standards, rare though it may be. Carrying 100+ lbs on long humps or running long distances carrying a rifle and gear over obstacles is, and those are inarguable extremely relevant to infantry.

But if pull ups are washing out female candidates who might otherwise have had the ability to complete the training and have successful careers while not necessarily being relevant to the job, then they are a problem.

Let the women wash out for legit reasons, not because a test does not accurately reflect their capabilities or the actual job they need to do.


Let's also remember why women want into the combat arms, without combat training, and ideally combat experience, it is extremely hard to get promotions into the upper levels of the US military. So women who want to dedicate their life to serving are being forced into positions that pay less, will see them reach terminal rank faster and ultimately leave them with a lesser pension than their male colleagyes of otherwise equal capability But happen to have a different muscular structure that makes pull ups easier .

Jefffar wrote:


Let's also remember why women want into the combat arms, without combat training, and ideally combat experience, it is extremely hard to get promotions into the upper levels of the US military. So women who want to dedicate their life to serving are being forced into positions that pay less, will see them reach terminal rank faster and ultimately leave them with a lesser pension than their male colleagyes of otherwise equal capability But happen to have a different muscular structure that makes pull ups easier .

Not true at all.... A buddy of mine was in the Air Force, got out, and ends up marrying an LT in the army. She's now a Major, working in the medical field. Her official job position is as a flight surgeon, and based on what I've been told she's making nearly triple what an infantry officer of the same rank and time would make, due to bonuses, duty pay, etc. Yes, she will reach terminal rank faster, as she is probably already there, because the only higher position than her as a flight surgeon, is "Aerospace Surgeon" which is in the astronaut program, and there's so few slots in the army for that, there may as well be only one.


When I was in, there were a few female generals, all of whom were in "support" MOSs, including Maj. Gen. Legere, who was in charge of INSCOM. There's an argument to be made that INSCOM is more important than artillery or cavalry, or even infantry, because if the intel people get their stuff wrong, people die.

Jefffar wrote:


Let the women wash out for legit reasons, not because a test does not accurately reflect their capabilities or the actual job they need to do.

Women have to take the same tests as men. There's your valid reason.

But if pull ups are washing out female candidates who might otherwise have had the ability to complete the training and have successful careers while not necessarily being relevant to the job, then they are a problem.

Dont mistake me, if you can't meet the minimum pullup standards, you aren't strong enough to make the cut. Minimum pullup standards are not particularly difficult, and there are a lot of things that require upper body strength. How can you climb over a wall into a compound to get into position while wearing 100lbs of gear if you can't do three pullups? Heck, how can you pick up your ILBE to put on your back to go out on a patrol in the first place?

And I knew too many females who could do pullups to buy the bs excuse "but it's just too hard for women to do pullups". Well, suck it up, there was a time when I couldn't do a real pullup and my 3 mile was probably 27 minutes. I kicked myself into shape, and by OCS I never did fewer than 20 pullups and was just shy of an 18 min 3 mile. If you were a good candidate that couldn't meet the physical standards, then you didn't get selected to go to OCS, of you dropped out. OCS isn't even all that physically difficult if you can run reasonably fast and do pullups and ruck. Like most military training, its 90% mental. If you failed to meet the minimum requirements, you usually got one retake or you were gone, and virtually none of the graduating candidates had to do a retake other than for injuries. Meeting the minimums was the easy part.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Jefffar wrote:


Let the women wash out for legit reasons, not because a test does not accurately reflect their capabilities or the actual job they need to do.

Women have to take the same tests as men. There's your valid reason.

Good job not reading the thread.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Jefffar wrote:


Let the women wash out for legit reasons, not because a test does not accurately reflect their capabilities or the actual job they need to do.

Women have to take the same tests as men. There's your valid reason.

Good job not reading the thread.

Good job trying to be witty yet saying nothing.

If they lower standards to help a particular group of troops to enter a MOS field then they are endangering everyone else in that particular field who meet the current standards. One cannot have double standards

 DarkLink wrote:
Exactly. I've known my fair share of women who could get solid pft scores, pullups included, but whom I would smoke on any exercise that involved picking up any significant amount of weight. They were great athletes, and certainly not weak, but when you're comparing a 120lb person to a 200lb person, one is going to have a significant natural advantage picking up and moving 50+ lbs repeatedly for time and distance.

The current standards for various military units produces results, and you cannot argue that infantry do not need to ruck with heavy packs or run while carrying rifle and gear. There really isn't much to discuss.

This - PFTs (ours especially) tend to test speed and strength relative to bodyweight. But a M2 tripod doesn't care how much you weigh - it always weighs the same, which is why our weapons company always got the big guys relative to our "arrow" company. I have no idea where females would factor into that equation. We had some little dudes for sure, but they were also usually falling out on marches and having issues during operations. Mind you, we generally didn't operate wearing body armor unless we really expected contact...such is the work of 4th gen warfare where your enemy can just wait until you're smoked from patrolling all day and attack you in 4 in the afternoon...in the US the problem is exacerbated even more greatly as your PPE weighs probably 2-3x what ours weighed.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Uh... I think you will find that standards are laxer for women in just about every field, and if they're not, there's feminists campaigning to make it so.

After the last local marathon, the local gender equality league was protesting the fact that male runners earned higher monetary rewards - which are calculated from place and run time. They demand the same money for a worse result.

To put it in perspective for the military. My unit had a recon element that routinely attached to MEU's and SF's units to do TG missions and other high speed crap. Since our role wasn't strictly Combat arms we had females in every facet of our battalion EXCEPT our recon teams. A New Battalion commander came on deck and tried to increase our recon element from a single highly trained Platoon to almost a full Company. To do this he did Recon screenings for the entire battalion to force people into this new program. After the screening he managed to get his numbers and low and behold 3 females made it! The females were given ZERO extra help. good on them right? Unfortunately, 2 of the 3 females who passed also injured themselves to the point where one was medically discharged and the other became an Officers clerk because she had shattered her arm and did lasting damage to her hip. the 3rd girl? She was without a doubt the toughest one in our battalion.....and she washed out of the recon training once she got into the unit. Apparently spending days in swamps and doing forced marches and having to swim New river several times wore her down and she eventually quit. In no way was the training any different for her then any of the males and I can tell you for a fact that the training IS necessary. On a routine basis these guys are dropped off behind enemy lines or have to march to their area of operations because vehicles/transports are just not feasible for the area. If you can't keep up you become a HUGE detractor and can cost lives.

Equal opportunity means equal opportunity, that does not mean that we should lower the challenges just because of gender. The enemy wont give females the extra time it takes them to march or give them a few warning shots to make sure they are ready.

Frankly, equal opportunity for stuff like this is wasteful. Each of those slots costs money. Each invalided out trooper costs money. Opening slots for a population that has little chance to make it through deprives others of the slot so there is also opportunity costs. Consider that the motivated women who attempt them have much higher injury rate and suffer statistically worse injuries than their male counterparts and this 'equal opportunity' comes at a cost that a resource constrained military (and the tax payer) should not be funding.

There are better ways to address the perceived lack of senior female leaders in the military. Ways that don't end up injuring some fantastic ladies who have a lot to offer.

(I'm married to a wonderful lady who is in BDE command right now)

Jefffar wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
[
In all seriousness basic entry fitness standards are already pretty low as they are, even for guys IMO, a few pull ups? that's easy... humping all that gear, for days/weeks/months, with no shower/bed/ect and still having energy to fight in combat effectively is far far harder.

The standards should be the same regardless of race/sex/ethnicity/ect just the way the rights are the same as both our rights and our responsibilities are to be applied equally regardless of such things.

Ideally, yes. As long as all such standards reflect the bonafide requirements for the job.

The pull up test in question may not be an accurate reflection of the requirements of the job and unfairly biased against a certain group of candidates, potentially resulting in good candidates being washed out prematurely. The military changing the standards of the pull up test may be a tacit admission from them that the pull up test is indeed not relevant to the job.

actually it is fair...

pull ups are easier then what is actually required,

if you cant do pull ups, you are not qualified.

If you seriously cannot comprehend why a soldier would need to be able to pull themselves up by their arms, say climbing a wall, then you need to be more creative.