So if zero nations sign it it becomes part of CIL? LOL
Just kidding, I know what you mean, there is no fixed number.
Advertisement
by Ideal Britain » Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:44 am
by Gallia- » Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:11 am
Immoren wrote:Fun fact!
I found old timey Finnish armed forces career NCO school curricula that included general civics courses specifically to cover any gaps left in soldier's civilian education during decades when mandatory schooling wasn't as extensive as it's today.
Then again I guess if things were so bad that you couldn't read or write they probably didn't recruit you as paid soldier neither.
by Austrasien » Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:56 pm
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Austrasien wrote:Metallic body armour I shouldn't need to tell you as a Russian military history enthusiast is quite possible though its second rate.
i mean it depends?
by Gallia- » Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:58 pm
by Ideal Britain » Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:02 pm
by Gallia- » Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:09 pm
by Ideal Britain » Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:12 pm
Because women have poorer upper body strength and weaker joints and ligaments relative to male soldiers
by Gallia- » Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:47 pm
by Laka Strolistandiler » Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:49 pm
Gallia- wrote:No, because women wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness test that is selecting for stronger males.
Women have weak joints and lower overall body strength mostly because their ligaments are different from men (the ACL is notorious for tearing in female athletes due anatomical differences), their pelvis is much wider (thus, weaker) due to mammalian live birth, and the mammary glands severely limit the size of the pectorals and associated connective tissues, which are one of the prime "upper body strength" muscle groups.
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by Gallia- » Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:52 pm
Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Gallia- wrote:No, because women wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness test that is selecting for stronger males.
Women have weak joints and lower overall body strength mostly because their ligaments are different from men (the ACL is notorious for tearing in female athletes due anatomical differences), their pelvis is much wider (thus, weaker) due to mammalian live birth, and the mammary glands severely limit the size of the pectorals and associated connective tissues, which are one of the prime "upper body strength" muscle groups.
Cam this theoretically be solved with genetic modification? Just asking because you seem to be pretty informed in the subject.
by Immoren » Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:36 pm
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Ideal Britain » Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pm
Gallia- wrote:No, because women wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness test that is selecting for stronger males.
Women have weak joints and lower overall body strength mostly because their ligaments are different from men (the ACL is notorious for tearing in female athletes due anatomical differences), their pelvis is much wider (thus, weaker) due to mammalian live birth, and the mammary glands severely limit the size of the pectorals and associated connective tissues, which are one of the prime "upper body strength" muscle groups.
by Ormata » Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:59 pm
Ideal Britain wrote:https://www.cornwalllive.com/first-woman-royal-marine-trainee-2861834
by Crookfur » Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:36 am
Ormata wrote:Ideal Britain wrote:https://www.cornwalllive.com/first-woman-royal-marine-trainee-2861834
She got through the initial phase. Good for her. That is no guarantee that she will pass the course whatsoever. There's a reason why she's the first trainee and that's because for the vast majority they aren't built up enough to get through the physical beating.
by Gallia- » Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:27 am
Ideal Britain wrote:Gallia- wrote:No, because women wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness test that is selecting for stronger males.
Women have weak joints and lower overall body strength mostly because their ligaments are different from men (the ACL is notorious for tearing in female athletes due anatomical differences), their pelvis is much wider (thus, weaker) due to mammalian live birth, and the mammary glands severely limit the size of the pectorals and associated connective tissues, which are one of the prime "upper body strength" muscle groups.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/first-woma ... ee-2861834
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:31 am
by Ormata » Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:11 am
Crookfur wrote:Ormata wrote:
She got through the initial phase. Good for her. That is no guarantee that she will pass the course whatsoever. There's a reason why she's the first trainee and that's because for the vast majority they aren't built up enough to get through the physical beating.
Yup she got injured on a march a couple of months in and was unable to continue. She was also an olympian...
Since several more have tried but either failed the selection or the revised extra training week everyone now gets before selection..
by Ideal Britain » Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:20 am
by Gallia- » Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:29 am
by Ideal Britain » Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:35 am
Gallia- wrote:Find out how this teen DOUBLED HIS MASS in JUST NINE MONTHS with this ONE WEIRD TRICK (crew).
by Dayganistan » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:07 am
Ideal Britain wrote:If physically active throughout their life and given intensive training from 15, could a 16 year old boy be stronger than the average 18 year old or their gender?
by Ideal Britain » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:11 am
by Dayganistan » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:18 am
Ideal Britain wrote:Why would you want a shorter length of service?
by Ideal Britain » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:23 am
Dayganistan wrote:Ideal Britain wrote:Why would you want a shorter length of service?
Buddy most soldiers are going to leave the military after 4 years anyway when their enlistment is up because they realize it's a terrible job where you forfeit many of the rights you'd have as a civilian and get yelled at by power tripping senior enlisted who make you do bullshit things that don't actually need to be done. It doesn't matter if they enlist at 18 or 16 most of them aren't lasting more than four years.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement