Author Topic: Special Ops worried about adding women.  (Read 749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 74,208
Special Ops worried about adding women.
« on: July 15, 2013, 02:39:36 PM »

Instead of the military proving women can't handle it, shouldn't it be women proving the can?  It doesn't matter, its another stab at the military Obama so hates.

http://blurbrain.com/special-operations-concerned-about-adding-women/#comment-27261 :Odance:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Special Ops worried about adding women.
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2013, 02:58:11 PM »
I have worked with women I would have at my side at any time - day, night or whenever the excrement hits the rotating air movement system. I have worked with men I didn't trust armed within a county of me.

It's down to the person. Not the sex. Not the color. Not the size. Two things and two things only. Can they do the job. Will they do the job. That's all that matters.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,384
  • Chief Dork
Re: Special Ops worried about adding women.
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2013, 12:09:19 AM »
I have worked with women I would have at my side at any time - day, night or whenever the excrement hits the rotating air movement system. I have worked with men I didn't trust armed within a county of me.

It's down to the person. Not the sex. Not the color. Not the size. Two things and two things only. Can they do the job. Will they do the job. That's all that matters.

Absolutely.

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
Re: Special Ops worried about adding women.
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2013, 12:35:33 AM »
The problem is, the military will be forced to lower the standards in order to allow the desired quota of women into special forces.

Few women have the physical stamina needed for that kind of job.  I know of very few who can carry 120lbs of gear on their back while dragging a wounded comrade who's body alone weighs at least 170lbs.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Special Ops worried about adding women.
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2013, 01:47:45 AM »
The problem is, the military will be forced to lower the standards in order to allow the desired quota of women into special forces.

Few women have the physical stamina needed for that kind of job.  I know of very few who can carry 120lbs of gear on their back while dragging a wounded comrade who's body alone weighs at least 170lbs.

It's not what you can haul, my friend. It is what you can use and how well you can use it. Look, you can carry a couple hundred pounds of gear for days on minimal water and no food. Can you hit what you aim at? I can carry a 170 lb person for a mile if I absolutely have to. Painful since I weigh under 170 myself. A jeep can do it easier, faster and without the recovery time (roughly 4 days - it is hard work). Should we replace all soldiers with jeeps? One of my colleagues - a woman and lady - could haul her .50 for miles and ask which eye you wanted taking out of the target from nearly a mile away. I don't buy this crap.

This isn't our grandfathers military. If women can do the job - let them. There are plenty of women even on here who can out shoot, outrun and basically out perform the men in every important metric of combat. You want something to carry some one, get a forklift. I don't know about you, but I have zero problem with carrying a spare couple of mags to lighten their load if I have a crack shot covering my backside. Keeping breathing takes priority over everything else.

There is the protective aspect, sure. That goes out the window the first time you see some 5 foot 5, 120lb woman throwing a 7 foot tall soldier around like he is filled with feathers.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 02:02:15 AM by EC »
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,384
  • Chief Dork
Re: Special Ops worried about adding women.
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2013, 02:06:31 PM »
It's not what you can haul, my friend. It is what you can use and how well you can use it. Look, you can carry a couple hundred pounds of gear for days on minimal water and no food. Can you hit what you aim at? I can carry a 170 lb person for a mile if I absolutely have to. Painful since I weigh under 170 myself. A jeep can do it easier, faster and without the recovery time (roughly 4 days - it is hard work). Should we replace all soldiers with jeeps? One of my colleagues - a woman and lady - could haul her .50 for miles and ask which eye you wanted taking out of the target from nearly a mile away. I don't buy this crap.

This isn't our grandfathers military. If women can do the job - let them. There are plenty of women even on here who can out shoot, outrun and basically out perform the men in every important metric of combat. You want something to carry some one, get a forklift. I don't know about you, but I have zero problem with carrying a spare couple of mags to lighten their load if I have a crack shot covering my backside. Keeping breathing takes priority over everything else.

There is the protective aspect, sure. That goes out the window the first time you see some 5 foot 5, 120lb woman throwing a 7 foot tall soldier around like he is filled with feathers.

 :thumbsup:

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 74,208
Re: Special Ops worried about adding women.
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2013, 10:32:15 AM »
If the women can meet the SAME requirements that are in practice today, no problem.  But the standards absolutely should not be changed to make it easier for women.  The dropout rate in the SEALs, for example, is about 98%.  That is because their missions are considerably more than just lugging weights and long walks.  I encourage people to go to you tube and look up Navy SIDS training to get an idea of what it is like.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Special Ops worried about adding women.
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2013, 02:58:57 PM »
If the women can meet the SAME requirements that are in practice today, no problem.  But the standards absolutely should not be changed to make it easier for women.  The dropout rate in the SEALs, for example, is about 98%.  That is because their missions are considerably more than just lugging weights and long walks.  I encourage people to go to you tube and look up Navy SIDS training to get an idea of what it is like.

I both agree with you and disagree with you.

While the SEALS perform as they currently do, requirements should remain to the same high standard for all candidates. They truly are the best of the best of the best (and don't they just know it!  :laugh: ) Even though there are specialties within the teams, each is trained to be competent at everything.
Contrast that with the Canadian counter terrorism unit as an example. (Look them up, they are totally hardcore and do not screw around. Their one job is killing terrorists and they do it very efficiently). A person who maybe does not swim particularly well will be considered for their other talents - communications for example. It's a more balanced, team oriented approach, where weaknesses and strengths are balanced.

Certainly not saying it is the correct way. It is a workable approach though and one which is highly effective.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf