-

[Olerand]

I guess. But to me it's still weird to use male and female. A male human is a man, a female human is a woman. It's odd, that's all.

Yeah, but French language rules are obtuse, charitably speaking.

Female and woman, male and man, are synonymous in English. Because we have very few modifiers for terms, I suspect.

French is simply more structured. And probably more humanistic.

But I guess..

[The Empire of Pretantia]

BCT and AIT are phases of US military training.

I suspect their point is "gender doesn't matter here".

I guess. But to me it's still weird to use male and female. A male human is a man, a female human is a woman. It's odd, that's all.

Males don't deserve to be called men as it would imply they are tough when they haven't even completed training, females don't deserve to be called women because that would imply they deserve special treatment. Also what Saiwania said, but that's mostly in BCT.

[Olerand]

I guess. But to me it's still weird to use male and female. A male human is a man, a female human is a woman. It's odd, that's all.

Males don't deserve to be called men as it would imply they are tough when they haven't even completed training, females don't deserve to be called women because that would imply they deserve special treatment. Also what Saiwania said, but that's mostly in BCT.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Certainly interesting.

[The Rich Port]

I guess. But to me it's still weird to use male and female. A male human is a man, a female human is a woman. It's odd, that's all.

Males don't deserve to be called men as it would imply they are tough when they haven't even completed training, females don't deserve to be called women because that would imply they deserve special treatment. Also what Saiwania said, but that's mostly in BCT.

XD So, again, I suggest we use our military to induct a sense of patriotism and responsibility in all U.S. citizens eligible for the draft.

The Scandinavians do that: they require a few years in the military to... I forget why.

I really think it would not only safeguard the U.S. in times of invasion (quite a few civilians will have at least some basic military training, making the establishment of militias and impromptu armies a trivial matter) but also revitalize the economy and our sense of civic duty.

[Olerand]

Males don't deserve to be called men as it would imply they are tough when they haven't even completed training, females don't deserve to be called women because that would imply they deserve special treatment. Also what Saiwania said, but that's mostly in BCT.

XD So, again, I suggest we use our military to induct a sense of patriotism and responsibility in all U.S. citizens eligible for the draft.

The Scandinavians do that: they require a few years in the military to... I forget why.

I really think it would not only safeguard the U.S. in times of invasion (quite a few civilians will have at least some basic military training, making the establishment of militias and impromptu armies a trivial matter) but also revitalize the economy and our sense of civic duty.

So conscription? Only Norway has that in Scandinavia.

I'm for a civil conscription force; with a military option if desired.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Males don't deserve to be called men as it would imply they are tough when they haven't even completed training, females don't deserve to be called women because that would imply they deserve special treatment. Also what Saiwania said, but that's mostly in BCT.

XD So, again, I suggest we use our military to induct a sense of patriotism and responsibility in all U.S. citizens eligible for the draft.

I say we don't. The bureaucracy is crazy enough without adding millions more at once.

The Scandinavians do that: they require a few years in the military to... I forget why.

Because they can't be assed to change it I guess.

I really think it would not only safeguard the U.S. in times of invasion

Invasion by whom?

(quite a few civilians will have at least some basic military training,

Quite a few already do.

making the establishment of militias and impromptu armies a trivial matter)

Trivial, but pointless.

but also revitalize the economy

How?

and our sense of civic duty.

Spoilers: there are shitbags in the Armed Forces.

[The Rich Port]

XD So, again, I suggest we use our military to induct a sense of patriotism and responsibility in all U.S. citizens eligible for the draft.

I say we don't. The bureaucracy is crazy enough without adding millions more at once.

The Scandinavians do that: they require a few years in the military to... I forget why.

Because they can't be assed to change it I guess.

I really think it would not only safeguard the U.S. in times of invasion

Invasion by whom?

(quite a few civilians will have at least some basic military training,

Quite a few already do.

making the establishment of militias and impromptu armies a trivial matter)

Trivial, but pointless.

but also revitalize the economy

How?

and our sense of civic duty.

Spoilers: there are shitbags in the Armed Forces.

... I'm not sure I understand your opposition to it.

It's pointless because nobody will invade the U.S.? You prepare for everything, even what you think is least likely.

Civilians with military training are a severe minority.

I'm not sure how the Scandinavians do it, but I take it that... They pay their soldiers, right? Money pumped into the economy means more people spending, more startups, more jobs, pensions, social security, etc.

By our own logic, all Selective Service candidates receiving military training makes it more likely that the alleged shitbags will hopefully be outnumbered by the sane and civically minded.

[Ragnarum]

I did used to think the same way. But its a lot more complicated than just physical standards.

How so?

There are a number of problems that arise and complicate the state of affairs when you begin to think about it practically.
For example, say if a division or regiment or whatever was due to depart to go on tour, maybe they did not expect to in their service life or maybe the place they are being deployed is particularly dangerous. What if someone wanted to get out of doing so, what if they decided to get pregnant? Then they obviously cannot be deployed to combat. This throws a spanner in the works in the big picture and on the smaller picture. There is no telling if there are replacements available for them, and platoons and squads will not be at full capacity any longer (Or underwomanned if you'd prefer), hence this would negate part of their combat effectiveness.

Furthermore, if captured, interrogation techniques tend to differ the world over. Some are less 'humane' to put it lightly. This is emphasised especially in places where women are seen in more traditional roles, which happens to be where Western armies are most deployed. This could result in rape or worse just to name one consequence, particularly if fighting various extremists that I shouldn't have to name. Is the West ready for that?

These issues are magnified the second a draft is put in place, because many will not be willing to fight either. If the draft was to include females, the US and a lot of other countries would soon realise and have to accept that gender disparities in any particular workforce are not necessarily down to discrimination or social pressure. There would have to be a re-evaluation on generally accepted concepts, a lot of people wouldn't like that.

[Immoren]

XD So, again, I suggest we use our military to induct a sense of patriotism and responsibility in all U.S. citizens eligible for the draft.

The Scandinavians do that: they require a few years in the military to... I forget why.

I really think it would not only safeguard the U.S. in times of invasion (quite a few civilians will have at least some basic military training, making the establishment of militias and impromptu armies a trivial matter) but also revitalize the economy and our sense of civic duty.

So conscription? Only Norway has that in Scandinavia.

I'm for a civil conscription force; with a military option if desired.

Denmark still has conscription.
And I remember some Swedish politician or general officer regretting ending the conscription, because intake of volunteers hasn't been what was estimated.

For example, say if a division or regiment or whatever was due to depart to go on tour, maybe they did not expect to in their service life or maybe the place they are being deployed is particularly dangerous. What if someone wanted to get out of doing so, what if they decided to get pregnant? Then they obviously cannot be deployed to combat. This throws a spanner in the works in the big picture and on the smaller picture. There is no telling if there are replacements available for them, and platoons and squads will not be at full capacity any longer (Or underwomanned if you'd prefer), hence this would negate part of their combat effectiveness.

"War doesn't need one man"

[Imperializt Russia]

How so?

There are a number of problems that arise and complicate the state of affairs when you begin to think about it practically.
For example, say if a division or regiment or whatever was due to depart to go on tour, maybe they did not expect to in their service life or maybe the place they are being deployed is particularly dangerous. What if someone wanted to get out of doing so, what if they decided to get pregnant? Then they obviously cannot be deployed to combat. This throws a spanner in the works in the big picture and on the smaller picture. There is no telling if there are replacements available for them, and platoons and squads will not be at full capacity any longer (Or underwomanned if you'd prefer), hence this would negate part of their combat effectiveness.

Furthermore, if captured, interrogation techniques tend to differ the world over. Some are less 'humane' to put it lightly. This is emphasised especially in places where women are seen in more traditional roles, which happens to be where Western armies are most deployed. This could result in rape or worse just to name one consequence, particularly if fighting various extremists that I shouldn't have to name. Is the West ready for that?

These issues are magnified the second a draft is put in place, because many will not be willing to fight either. If the draft was to include females, the US and a lot of other countries would soon realise and have to accept that gender disparities in any particular workforce are not necessarily down to discrimination or social pressure. There would have to be a re-evaluation on generally accepted concepts, a lot of people wouldn't like that.

How is a female soldier falling pregnant before deployment different to, say, a man snapping tendons in their knee just before deployment? Neither would be fit for duty and would not deploy. Military units are rarely "full-strength". Strength fluctuates. It honestly doesn't matter.

Use of rape and other "inhumane" methods is no different to the use of torture and violent torture against men. ie, it's still a war crime.

[Immoren]

Clearly females should be installed with pregnancy prevention chip/implant for the time they are serving in military.

[Ragnarum]

There are a number of problems that arise and complicate the state of affairs when you begin to think about it practically.
For example, say if a division or regiment or whatever was due to depart to go on tour, maybe they did not expect to in their service life or maybe the place they are being deployed is particularly dangerous. What if someone wanted to get out of doing so, what if they decided to get pregnant? Then they obviously cannot be deployed to combat. This throws a spanner in the works in the big picture and on the smaller picture. There is no telling if there are replacements available for them, and platoons and squads will not be at full capacity any longer (Or underwomanned if you'd prefer), hence this would negate part of their combat effectiveness.

Furthermore, if captured, interrogation techniques tend to differ the world over. Some are less 'humane' to put it lightly. This is emphasised especially in places where women are seen in more traditional roles, which happens to be where Western armies are most deployed. This could result in rape or worse just to name one consequence, particularly if fighting various extremists that I shouldn't have to name. Is the West ready for that?

These issues are magnified the second a draft is put in place, because many will not be willing to fight either. If the draft was to include females, the US and a lot of other countries would soon realise and have to accept that gender disparities in any particular workforce are not necessarily down to discrimination or social pressure. There would have to be a re-evaluation on generally accepted concepts, a lot of people wouldn't like that.

How is a female soldier falling pregnant before deployment different to, say, a man snapping tendons in their knee just before deployment? Neither would be fit for duty and would not deploy. Military units are rarely "full-strength". Strength fluctuates. It honestly doesn't matter.

Use of rape and other "inhumane" methods is no different to the use of torture and violent torture against men. ie, it's still a war crime.

It is a different situation because it can be done deliberately without purposely harming oneself. Snapping a tendon hurts. A lot. Its a much more extreme measure to get out of doing something.
It is still a war crime, but I ask again, whether or not you or me are accepting of it as something that will happen, is society at large? I will need to expand on this point at some point.

Military units are rarely "full-strength". Strength fluctuates. It honestly doesn't matter

It does matter, a lot. Given that they are to be treated as regular soldiers, you are going to be relying on them as regular infantry just as much as others and if they are not there when they are needed and/or expected then they are endangering the lives of others.

And again, these issues are increased in severity by a draft, since there will definitely be people who do not want to do so.

Another question also, Maybe a tad pedantic. If they are stationed in barracks, are they in separate quarters? If they are then they will be practically seen as outcasts to the rest of the troops. This could endanger their lives if they are not seen as 'companions' as such. If they are not in separate quarters then a whole number of other issues arise from this.

Clearly females should be installed with pregnancy prevention chip/implant for the time they are serving in military.

That might work and change the dynamic a bit. But I'm not sure.

[Ostroeuropa]

There are a number of problems that arise and complicate the state of affairs when you begin to think about it practically.
For example, say if a division or regiment or whatever was due to depart to go on tour, maybe they did not expect to in their service life or maybe the place they are being deployed is particularly dangerous. What if someone wanted to get out of doing so, what if they decided to get pregnant? Then they obviously cannot be deployed to combat. This throws a spanner in the works in the big picture and on the smaller picture. There is no telling if there are replacements available for them, and platoons and squads will not be at full capacity any longer (Or underwomanned if you'd prefer), hence this would negate part of their combat effectiveness.

Furthermore, if captured, interrogation techniques tend to differ the world over. Some are less 'humane' to put it lightly. This is emphasised especially in places where women are seen in more traditional roles, which happens to be where Western armies are most deployed. This could result in rape or worse just to name one consequence, particularly if fighting various extremists that I shouldn't have to name. Is the West ready for that?

These issues are magnified the second a draft is put in place, because many will not be willing to fight either. If the draft was to include females, the US and a lot of other countries would soon realise and have to accept that gender disparities in any particular workforce are not necessarily down to discrimination or social pressure. There would have to be a re-evaluation on generally accepted concepts, a lot of people wouldn't like that.

How is a female soldier falling pregnant before deployment different to, say, a man snapping tendons in their knee just before deployment? Neither would be fit for duty and would not deploy. Military units are rarely "full-strength". Strength fluctuates. It honestly doesn't matter.

Use of rape and other "inhumane" methods is no different to the use of torture and violent torture against men. ie, it's still a war crime.

Depends on whether we'd be fine with court martialing women for being pregnant and imprisoning them for it.
They do for self-inflicted injury in other cases.

[Timsvill]

The U.S. doesn't do military drafts anymore. It's open up for anyone to join, if they meet the physical requirements. Women are in the military, but until recently, they weren't allowed to fight in combat zones. Their now allowing women to go into combat zones.

[Saiwania]

Clearly females should be installed with pregnancy prevention chip/implant for the time they are serving in military.

Is there such a thing? So far as I know, the option closest to this in reality is an IUD, but it is quite invasive and not without the possibility for complications. Some women might decide that it isn't for them.

[Arlenton]

Because females have traditionally not been called up as soldiers. Other than allowing females to serve if they wanted too, I don't see why we would have to change this.

[Geilinor]

Because females have traditionally not been called up as soldiers. Other than allowing females to serve if they wanted too, I don't see why we would have to change this.

Currently, all men have to register with Selective Service, while women, who are now eligible to fully serve, don't have to. That makes it an outdated law.

[Olerand]

Because females have traditionally not been called up as soldiers. Other than allowing females to serve if they wanted too, I don't see why we would have to change this.

Yeah, I am definitely still uncomfortable with "female".

[Arlenton]

Because females have traditionally not been called up as soldiers. Other than allowing females to serve if they wanted too, I don't see why we would have to change this.

Currently, all men have to register with Selective Service, while women, who are now eligible to fully serve, don't have to. That makes it an outdated law.

We'll if you want to change it purely because it's "traditional" then yes it is.

But in a hypothetical non-nuclear WW3 I don't think drafting women into the military is a good idea. Those who want to join should still be welcomed and even encouraged though.

[Arlenton]

Because females have traditionally not been called up as soldiers. Other than allowing females to serve if they wanted too, I don't see why we would have to change this.

Yeah, I am definitely still uncomfortable with "female".

You don't have to be a male to shoot straight...

[Ragnarum]

Yeah, I am definitely still uncomfortable with "female".

You don't have to be a male to shoot straight...

He means the term in English.

Frenchness and such.

[Arlenton]

You don't have to be a male to shoot straight...

He means the term in English.

Frenchness and such.

Oh. He doesn't like the word "female"?

[Olerand]

Yeah, I am definitely still uncomfortable with "female".

You don't have to be a male to shoot straight...

I don't know what that means. The English use of the term female when describing women -or male for men- makes me slightly uncomfortable, that is what I wanted to say.

[Arlenton]

You don't have to be a male to shoot straight...

I don't know what that means. The English use of the term female when describing women -or male for men- makes me slightly uncomfortable, that is what I wanted to say.

Oh alright, I thought you meant you didn't like the fact that females can join the military or something like that.

[Geilinor]

Currently, all men have to register with Selective Service, while women, who are now eligible to fully serve, don't have to. That makes it an outdated law.

We'll if you want to change it purely because it's "traditional" then yes it is.

But in a hypothetical non-nuclear WW3 I don't think drafting women into the military is a good idea. Those who want to join should still be welcomed and even encouraged though.

Or get rid of the Selective Service System, if that's what you mean.