Women Conscripts

[Flying Pig]

If they're conscripts they don't need to be as good as men, they just have to get in the way of the bullets so the better fighters can survive for longer. Same with children really - I don't see why we should discriminate based on age. Children have proven themselves to be quite deadly in conflicts. After all, if you're violating rights anyway by forcing innocents to go to war, you might as well go the whole hog and get a real advantage of numbers.

Not really violating 'rights'. Certainly not in a legal sense, and I would say that in situations where your country needs to call up soldiers then it's probably almost a moral duty to enlist voluntarily.

Why can't women be a part of that team? I may be odd, but I associate with people and have friends across gender lines.

Not odd at all. But would you play Rugby (or Football in yankeestan) with them exactly the same as with the blokes? It's not a comparison; if you talk to military people (you yanks especially never seem to shut up about it) you'll hear about the sort of 'extra close bond' that combat units have. I take it you've never seen the old State of Mind videos that the Marines put out? There's one in which they have a marine standing at the end of a narrow gap between two buildings, and say 'trust means you have eyes in the back of your head' and you see another one at the other end. That's the sort of bond that's required.

Here's the video:
Link to video.

 

[deanej]

Well, I have little interest in sports, so your question there has little meaning for me. I'm also not really in shape; while I'm still stronger than the average girl (if my mom's ability to open a container after dad or I had closed it tight is any indication), I think my strength is closer to the average girl's than with the average guy's, so no, I can't say I'd really be different (needless to say, my grades in gym class were a whole letter grade higher when the class was co-ed than when it wasn't). Does this bond come about only through physical activity?

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, I have little interest in sports, so your question there has little meaning for me. I'm also not really in shape; while I'm still stronger than the average girl (if my mom's ability to open a container after dad or I had closed it tight is any indication), I think my strength is closer to the average girl's than with the average guy's, so no, I can't say I'd really be different (needless to say, my grades in gym class were a whole letter grade higher when the class was co-ed than when it wasn't). Does this bond come about only through physical activity?

That's not what I meant. The sports I named are physical and aggressive towards the other team; to an extent that you have to wear protection (for the teeth, in rugby, or for soft Americans the shoulders and head) against injury. Rugby doesn't allow mixed teams because the sort of contact between players can seem innapropriate between different sexes and would lead to players acting differently; the procedure for making a tackle being 'grab him about the knees and don't let go!', before we mention scrummaging, ripping and all the rest of it. That's an illustration that men and women rarely break down all barriers, even when they're friends.

 

[deanej]

Which is a shame. I really wish those barriers would be broken down. It makes me feel that men and women can only be close in a romantic relationship with very few exceptions.

 

[NovaKart]

If men are required to serve in some capacity it's sexist to not require women to serve as well. Israel does this and Britain did so in WWII. It doesn't have to be in a combat position. My grandfather drove trains in Alaska in WWII which did not put him in a combat position.

 

[Grisu]

Because dear boy you will be given a choice, pick up that rifle and fight, or be shot on the spot, you choose which ?

If my country would put be before this choice I'd begin wondering if losing the war would be such a bad thing after all....

 

[Flying Pig]

If my country would put be before this choice I'd begin wondering if losing the war would be such a bad thing after all....

Patriotism lad! Stiffen that upper lip and sing up! "GOD SAVE OUR GRACIOUS QUEEN..."

 

[Airstrike92]

"I support compulsory draft for transgendered / other groups only"

What? Why?

 

[Grisu]

Patriotism lad! Stiffen that upper lip and sing up! "GOD SAVE OUR GRACIOUS QUEEN..."

nah, we got rid of that tune some 60 years ago

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think I should point out what I mean by war...

Wars fought abroad such as Afghanistan and Iraq ideally would not need a draft and did not need a draft. I wouldn't oppose it if we really needed to take a government out or they were threatening us.

However, the only way I'd support it is if my country was invaded and we needed troops to defend the country.

 

[Glassfan]

If one enjoys a constitutional freedom not to serve in the armed forces, even during time of war, and then one's country is conquered, occupied and oppressed, because it failed to employ sufficient defensive forces because of it's constitutional freedoms, then that would make Ben Franklin a big dummy.

"Any nation that would give up a little freedom for a little security, deserves neither and will lose both". (internal threat)

But any nation that doesn't give up a little freedom for a little security will be conquered and lose both. (external threat)

Apparently it depends on which threat you take most serious.

 

[Newbunkle]

Sending innocent people to die (or kill other innocent people sent by their country) isn't losing a little freedom, its losing all freedom. Again, a country that would do that has no reason to be defended.

 

[Tee Kay]

Sending innocent people to die (or kill other innocent people sent by their country) isn't losing a little freedom, its losing all freedom. Again, a country that would do that has no reason to be defended.

But... but but that would be the end of civilization as we know it!

 

[fabrizzo]

what i think is equal rights,equal responsibilities,if men have to be drafted,women should have to be too.but they can serve in sectors more suitable for their abilities

 

[Squonk]

Also, I think that the conviction that women are unfit for combat is - at least partly - obsolete. It comes from the times when physical strenght was more important to combat than it is now. I can't see a reason why a woman would be a worse sniper than a man.

 

[Flying Pig]

Also, I think that the conviction that women are unfit for combat is - at least partly - obsolete. It comes from the times when physical strenght was more important to combat than it is now. I can't see a reason why a woman would be a worse sniper than a man.

I can (trained sniper here by the way!). The less glamourous side of being a sniper is lugging a month's worth of kit, food and bodily waste (because you can't leave that around or Fritz will find it and kill you) weighing up to 100kg (to put that into perspective; a heavyweight boxer is above about 91 and when I boxed at regiment level I was 125kg give or take). You have to take this from the nearest safe insertion point to where you want to end up, along with your sniper rifle (five kilos or more) and another one (another four kilos) plus ammunition, which can mean weeks of forced-marching in the cold and the sleet and the rain, all the while evading the enemy who are looking for you. And there's about five of you, and the enemy will come in groups of nine most likely, maybe with vehicles, definitly with heavier weapons than you have. If there's a contact the sniper has to be able to fight as part of the section, which means training to the standard of his unit - in this country, household cavalry (the Queen's own bodyguard), parachute regiment (the most elite of the British line regiments), royal marine (quite possibly the best infantry in NATO; certainly the longest-trained) or special forces level, before you can even think about sniper training.

The self-discipline, stamina and general soldiering skills required make it a men-only job. And that's before, as was pointed out before by our resident jarhead sprog, we think from the IC's point of view about leading the section. Sniper work is not for glory-seekers or for anyone other than the best. Even HCav snipers are normally deployed with 'conventional' field troops, while those in other units may well end up in 'unconventional' special-forces-style jobs.

I talked about the nasty bits of combat a few posts back. You might have read what I said, especially the bits about bayonet fighting. Just to let you know, that didn't even die in the Falklands - men have won Military Crosses for leading bayonet charges just a few months ago in Afghanistan. All the technology you care for can never replace a fighting tommy.

 

[capslock]

Yah snipers was a particularly bad example for him to pick. Even regular line infantry carrys upwards of 100 lbs regulary. Kit, ammo, and weapon alone run 50-60, then whatever we need in our pack. Then there's the crew serves... We carry as much weight as any other soldier in history, we wear armor like any other soldier, the infantry really isn't much different than it ever was.

I'll send squonk up MG hill with my machine gunners, then see what kind of comments he makes about strength and modern warfare.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yah snipers was a particularly bad example for him to pick. Even regular line infantry carrys upwards of 100 lbs regulary. Kit, ammo, and weapon alone run 50-60, then whatever we need in our pack. Then there's the crew serves... We carry as much weight as any other soldier in history, we wear armor like any other soldier, the infantry really isn't much different than it ever was.

I'll send squonk up MG hill with my machine gunners, then see what kind of comments he makes about strength and modern warfare.

In perspective - 100lbs is 45 kilos. About the weight of a twelve-year old.

Well to be fair I think the poor squaddies of Marius' army had a worse time. Where I live now (Colchester) used to be a Roman fort, and a few months back I went to a roman museum type thing (not British Museum style, more based around young people with lots of getting involved, but I was bringing a friend's son so I had an excuse) and they were showing off the squaddie's load. The lad pipes up 'I bet uncle [not actually related] Pig [obviously, not my actual name ] could carry that, couldn't you uncle Pig? He was in the army you know!'

Well of course I can't really turn it down at that point when the bloke demonstrating (one of those twenty-something students that look like stick insects and whose parents are lawyers or doctors or something, but generally a decent guy) asks me to come and try it all on. The armour was chainmail (it fitted me, pretty much, so it was about a shoebox's worth of just steel), then this metal thing joined up with leather that weighed even more. And that was before the pack! He explained that the Romans didn't have baggage trains; so the squaddies carried all their kit and 'foraged' [nicked] for most of their food. The weapons weren't light either (although there was no ammunition, so it worked out pretty light). Came away from that with quite a lot of respect for those men. And they did all their marching in sandals too!

I'll send squonk up MG hill with my machine gunners, then see what kind of comments he makes about strength and modern warfare.

Oh god I remember carrying the jimpy now. It wasn't so bad back in the day because at least you knew everyone had the same sort of ammunition, so the other guys were suffering quite badly as well, but it was always a 'short-straw' job. I learned quickly that it's not much fun to have a name as a good GPMG gunner, although how much of that was down to 'he's the big one, let him lug it'.

 

[LightFang]

I'm disappointed that you all did not overturn my expectation of this immediately becoming incredibly sexist.