NationStates

Right then. So me and the lads were attending a counter-terrorism seminar here in the Colonies. One of the speakers was discussing target priority protocols for a room breach, and one rule he mentioned was "Kill the women first."

Apparently, for a woman to join, train, and survive in a paramilitary organization like a terrorist cell and endure all the flak and shite from the men means she is likely the smartest, toughest, and most dedicated operator in the lot. Hence, she is the most dangerous, and you're best to slot her right out.

The lads and I got to thinking. While here, we stopped by a place where you can rent a machine gun for use on a private range, and we saw one of your fine American hens firing a variety of full auto gear. Her groups were tight, precise, well placed, and she consistently showed judicious use of her ammo. One of our squadies went over to ask her for a bag of crisps, but she told him she doesn't date "African Americans". (Carlyle is from Brixton, London).

So, we've decided to write a letter to Parliament (the legislative body, not the band) and to ranking Staff Officers suggesting that we stop all this discriminatory twaddle and start allowing women to volunteer for front line duty. We hope you Yanks will do the same.

EDIT: Also, this topic is to talk about spelling, allegations of hubris, and whether somebody who "notices things" should be able to find the single spelling error in the following sentence: "Journalism is nest semester."

MORE EDIT: Also also, this topic is to talk about Starship Troopers, Warhammer 40k, and whether menstrual blood on a battlefield is ickier than non-menstrual blood on the battlefield.

YET MORE EDIT: Also also as well, this topic is to talk about why Katganistan won't have my baby. Our baby. Her name is Imogen.

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

We can not afford to discriminate in Greater Holy Germania's armies. All of military age are conscripted, men, and women alike.

The problem with women on the front lines isn't the women, it's the men. IIRC, when Israel first started deploying mixed gender combat units, the causality rates went up a significant amount because the males in the unit would do all sorts of stupid things trying to protect their female counterparts. So the real solution is to take men of the front lines.

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

Wow.

Statistics. You MUST be right.

Then again, 83.2% of all statistics are bullshit...

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

I assume those are statistical averages? So would you be opposed to a woman who could pass the standards for men's strength being in the armed forces?
Besides, how important is strength in the modern soldier? Endurance and athletic ability are important, but since we use guns killing power is not based on strength. I know there's a lot of gear to carry, but how about women armour crewmen?

Greater Holy Germania wrote:We can not afford to discriminate in Greater Holy Germania's armies. All of military age are conscripted, men, and women alike.

i dont think this is RP

It's fine for the pongos I suppose. But nobody has yet refuted the results of a Royal Navy inquiry in 1872 that scientifically proved what people had long suspected: women are bad luck at sea.

So I would object to their presence in Her Majesty's Senior Service.

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

If were having at one another with broadswords, the strength argument would be compelling. But I've seen women carry adult men, I've seen them move masses comparable to an ammo box or a tank shell, and a given woman could train herself over time to exert something comparable to a man.

As for "leave no man behind", my lot already do that for one another, for cock or hen. We wouldn't want to "overpass" that. In terms of prioritizing the mission, that is a mentality that can be trained. If circumstances call for it, I could let a lass die as quickly as I could Lt. Milk (almost the same thing, anyway). If we can condition ourselves to sacrifice our brothers, we can (and some armies have) conditioned themselves to let their women die if that's what it takes.

And "small amount of help"? Access to fifty percent of your countries best, kept out of the fray because they squat to piss? That's more than a "small amount of help".

Ain't no rp? Seemed like it. Oh well. Gonna have to agree with the other people on the whole female "lack of upper body strength"

Rolling squid wrote:The problem with women on the front lines isn't the women, it's the men. IIRC, when Israel first started deploying mixed gender combat units, the causality rates went up a significant amount because the males in the unit would do all sorts of stupid things trying to protect their female counterparts. So the real solution is to take men of the front lines.

Heh, that, or we could train troops to how we want them to behave under fire.

So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such? After all, the training would be no less relentless, as the women want to outdo the men, and the men will not let themselves be beaten by a bunch of girls. Therefore, both male and female military units would be in operation, although they may have to be banned from working in the same theatre as one another. Also, the only problem I can see with this method would be the prisoner of war aspect. Civilised countries won't be any problem, but seeing as how we fight terrorist groups with questionable moral standing..... There may be a few 'mal-treatment' incidents. Apart from this, I reckon female fighting units should do fairly well.

Wait... this is OOC, right?
Anyway, if so, I support your idea. Us, er, "fine American hens", as you called us, should be able to serve just like men, provided me can make it through the various training programs.

Lacadaemon wrote:It's fine for the pongos I suppose. But nobody has yet refuted the results of a Royal Navy inquiry in 1872 that scientifically proved what people had long suspected: women are bad luck at sea.

So I would object to their presence in Her Majesty's Senior Service.

We've since developed non-buggery based methods of navigation and propulsion.

We don't always use them...

Wome do not lack THAT much in body stength. It's probably about 5 - 10% at most on average.

Even then, a well trained woman is MORE than capable of carying out the tasks needed in a military operation.

Draconikus wrote:So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such?

Fairly certain that an entire battalion of hormone-infused women on the rag doing battle is inflicting some sort of war-time cruelty on the enemy that is prohibited in the Geneva convention.

The Rifle Brigade wrote:And "small amount of help"? Access to fifty percent of your countries best, kept out of the fray because they squat to piss? That's more than a "small amount of help".

So small amount at all. I get why the US currently bars them from certain stationings (<that seems very grammatically incorrect) such as submarines, but all front lines? If I remember correctly, females currently account for more than half of the of age American population.
Barring us from front lines combat lacks sense for another reason: studies prove that women are typically safer and more obedient to rules, guidelines, orders, etc. Isn't the military big on that sort of thing?

Rigbyland wrote:Wait... this is OOC, right?
Anyway, if so, I support your idea. Us, er, "fine American hens", as you called us, should be able to serve just like men, provided me can make it through the various training programs.

Madame, I have no idea what an OOC is, but your willingness to be held to the same standard of rigor in training is exactly the spirit we need.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

Wow.

Statistics. You MUST be right.

Then again, 83.2% of all statistics are bullshit...

http://www.columbusweightlifting.org/20 ... _FINAL.pdf
Read it.

And "small amount of help"? Access to fifty percent of your countries best, kept out of the fray because they squat to piss? That's more than a "small amount of help".

Women are physically weaker and have a significantly lower pain tolerance than men, it's a much bigger problem than "squatting to piss".

Flameswroth wrote:

Draconikus wrote:So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such?

Fairly certain that an entire battalion of hormone-infused women on the rag doing battle is inflicting some sort of war-time cruelty on the enemy that is prohibited in the Geneva convention.

Thou hath felt no scorn like a woman's fury.

Unchecked Expansion wrote:

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

I assume those are statistical averages? So would you be opposed to a woman who could pass the standards for men's strength being in the armed forces?
Besides, how important is strength in the modern soldier? Endurance and athletic ability are important, but since we use guns killing power is not based on strength. I know there's a lot of gear to carry, but how about women armour crewmen?

You can tell these(those who question this statistic) are either women them selfs or really love women. The truth is that in the army, statistics are life and if a country attacks the U.S. women would get in the way, I say let the men fight and women hold the home front, why not military police?

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

I'm fairly sure guns don't require that much strength to fire. In fact I'd believe the primary attribute required might be how dexterous you are.

And this chivalry crap, it's not like solider is going to leave a fellow solider to die just because he happens to be male. What ever happened to the camaraderie and comradeship that exists between male soldiers?

The Rifle Brigade wrote:We've since developed non-buggery based methods of navigation and propulsion.

We don't always use them...

I'm sorry. I can't support reckless experiments with buggery free propulsion. Imagine had Nelson abandoned buggery on the eve of Trafalgar, everyone would be speaking German now.

The historical record speaks for itself.

Rigbyland wrote:

Flameswroth wrote:

Draconikus wrote:So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such?

Fairly certain that an entire battalion of hormone-infused women on the rag doing battle is inflicting some sort of war-time cruelty on the enemy that is prohibited in the Geneva convention.

Thou hath felt no scorn like a woman's fury.

I think it's "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", but I get what you're driving at

BladeSlayer Land wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.

Wow.

Statistics. You MUST be right.

Then again, 83.2% of all statistics are bullshit...

http://www.columbusweightlifting.org/20 ... _FINAL.pdf
Read it.

I don't open pdf files on a work computer.

Quote the relevent parts, please.

(Judging by the name, this looks like it's going to be nonsense, anyway, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).