Will having women in combat roles hurt the U.S. military?

  • Unless they can meet the exact same requirements

    Women in the military already have an easier physical fitness test, would that extend to combat training also? Equality is a nice social concept. The military is not a social concept its job is to do the dirty work that most of us never want to do. As for people saying that women are smaller to hit and this and that, a bullet from an aimed sniper would like to disagree or better yet a rocket from an RPG.

  • Yes, having women in combat will be dangerous

    The fact that men have a natural instinct that tells them to protect women from danger would mean disaster for the U.S. military if women were to fight in combat. This instinct would lead men to make unwise and dangerous decisions in combat because they would be trying to protect the women from harm. Therefore, the quality of the U.S. military would be reduced.

  • Warm bodies are important

    In war and combat, having warm bodies on the ground is a hard thing to do. Both from the point of find people willing to put themselves in harm's way, and the training that goes into it. Why should we not be looking to half our population, if they're as willing as men, to take on combat roles for our protection.

  • No, it would not hurt the military.

    Women in combat roles might allow for a smarter army due to the increased pool of candidates. Women are also smaller targets and require less food. This is two strategic advantages that they have over men. Having women on the front lines may also decrease the risk that our military take unethical actions towards other countries women.

  • Women in Combat Roles Won't Hurt Military

    Despite what some critics say, having women in combat roles won't hurt the U.S. military in any measurable way. In fact, the inclusion of women in combat roles will bolster and improve our country's armed forces in various ways. Women deserve to fight alongside men in combat during the wars.

  • More Women May Sign Up

    Women in combat roles won't hurt the U.S. military one bit. In fact, it may get a boost when more women sign up for duty. As long as women can pass the same physical standards as men do for combat training in the military, there is nothing wrong with women in combat roles on the front lines.

  • Women in combat roles won't hurt our military

    Women can serve in combat in the US Military. They have served in other countries during war including Russia, Britain and Germany. In ancient times, women fought in wars as soldiers and as generals (Joan of Arc, Boudicea of Briton). Women can be integrated into active combat without hurting the military.

  • No, they will have to be as good as men.

    In order to go into combat women will have to face the same rigorous training that men do. Many men are deemed not fit for combat and I am sure some women would be found to be similarly unfit. If they pass the fitness test then they should be allowed. It is not fair to men or women to consider women to have a special exclusion because of their sex. When I think about this I am certain women could be equal combat partners. The only real consideration that bothers me is that women could have dependent children, but then, so do men. There seems no valid reason to exclude them.

  • Military Women Are Needed in Different Ways

    Women perform amazing services in our armed forces. Combat should not be one of them.

    Foremost against women in combat is their physical capability. Combat duty is a grueling environment. Women are at much higher risk of becoming casualties if they cannot pass the physical standards men do. (The enemy will not be using women.)

    Secondly, the psychological dynamic will get many male soldiers killed. It is instinctual for a male to want to assist a female.

  • Women In Combat Roles Will Have Mixed Results

    Yesterday's decision to allow women in the US military a bigger role in combat zones will eventually prove to have mixed results I feel. I went with "NO" as a response to the question simply because there is no "I DON"T KNOW" response offered and I'd like to think "NO" would be correct in the long run.

    I am 100% for this decision providing the women involved can do everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, a male can do on the front line. This does not just include firing a weapon or having the ability to kill the Taliban. I also include in this the ability to carry heavy equipment and to be available to fight 24/7, among other issues.

    On the flip side, how many women will actually take advantage of this opportunity? According to a report out yesterday, in the last ten years there had been approximately 1200 opportunities for women to fulfill roles similar to these in a voluntary capacity (ie: volunteering to take the position). Only 130 or so of these positions were accepted.

    For this move to be a success it will need support from both sexes. The male population of the military must put their trust in the women that are within their units and the females must buy in fully to what they are there for and be fully committed to everything that they sign up for.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.