Do women belong on the front line?

Posted in the Weird Forum

Comments (Page 10)

Showing posts 181 - 200 of218
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192
Dec 10, 2012
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooooo!!! Close and personal combat? Just like in the movie "The Alamo" with John Wayne?
When was the last time a US soldier was killed in close combat?
When was the last time a US soldier lost an arm or a leg to a bayonette attack?
That is my point. The face of modern warefare has changed - a lot. And it is changing faster than technology can keep up. The enemy is no longer a Japanese soldier with a bayonette on the end of his Chinese-made rifle. It's a Taliban rebel driving a boatload of manure in the trunk of a Yugo. Even ST6 landed within 200 yeards of Bin Laden's home - not much of a run up the side of a mountain.
Technology is paving the way so close combat is a thing of the past. Sure the soldier has to be in physically great shape - no doubt. But the days of seeing the whites in their eyes is over.
Can you guarentee that hand to hand combat will never happen again? That our troops will NEVER run out of ammo? Supplies will always be delivered in a timely manner? Enemy action will never interfere with said supply deliveries? That the enemy will so inept so as to never successfully infiltrate lines at night and be detected before they can engage troops in fighting positions? That the days of the 10-15-20 mile march is over? No infantryman(woman) will be expected to carry more than a 40 pound load? And that the enemy will NEVER outnumber a unit they could become engaged with? Can you guarentee these criteria. There are more but I figure this is good for a start.

What did you do in the military Daddy?

“Licensed to Ill”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#194
Dec 10, 2012
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooooo!!! Close and personal combat? Just like in the movie "The Alamo" with John Wayne?
When was the last time a US soldier was killed in close combat?
When was the last time a US soldier lost an arm or a leg to a bayonette attack?
This guy said his son has been on four tours and had to use his bayonet twice:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

I like ya Milwaukee, but you picked a dog shyte case to advocate this time. There are just to many unknowns in war and regardless of what you say you can't guarantee that soldiers won't be facing situations where close combat could occur. Sorry, I wouldn't want to be fighting with a bunch of girls in that situation. Not only are they likely to get you killed by being simply over-matched, but you are likely to get your self killed trying to help them.

I also agree, that guys and girls are gonna be banging when out in the field. If you've been without sex for a few months and some decent looking woman is serving with you and you've grown close and you think it is safe, if you've got any game, I think it would be pretty easy to talk her into dropping them panties for lil sumpin, sumpin.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#195
Dec 10, 2012
 
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Can you guarentee that hand to hand combat will never happen again? That our troops will NEVER run out of ammo? Supplies will always be delivered in a timely manner? Enemy action will never interfere with said supply deliveries? That the enemy will so inept so as to never successfully infiltrate lines at night and be detected before they can engage troops in fighting positions? That the days of the 10-15-20 mile march is over? No infantryman(woman) will be expected to carry more than a 40 pound load? And that the enemy will NEVER outnumber a unit they could become engaged with? Can you guarentee these criteria. There are more but I figure this is good for a start.
What did you do in the military Daddy?
There are no guarantees in a war - you, more than anyone should know that - so stop baiting. I'm just saying that technology is here to stay. The days of taxing the foot soldier are slowly (but not completely) disappearing. We are opting to train our people in cyber space under simulated conditions rather than on the battlefield. The drone example I gave was just that - an example. A good example of how we are alienating our folks from harms way. I'll give you a better example - from personal experience - back in the Korean War and Vietnam we (as in the US) flew F-4 Phantoms. They were not as manueverable as the Migs they were up against. Their targeting was extremely close range via the Sidewinder. On top of all that they had under wing 20mm cannons for close air combat. The F-4 gave way to the F-8 - the last of the gunfighters. The F-8 also had radar-ranging weapons targeting systems and guns. They were the last of the line-of-sight fighters. The F-14 was developed to eliminate this close air combat - adapting a weapons system that could target up to 14 different "unseen" bogies at a time. Technology is key nowadays - the Stealth fighter and B-1 bomber set the standard. As I've said before - ST6 was a great example of "pluck down and kill" sytems. Those helos put those guys within 200 yeards of Bin Laden's house.

Regardless of how you feel about women in combat roles - it'll be here sooner than later. The key to victory in any war is preparedness and technology. Neither of those are gender specific.

Lastly, it wouldn't make any difference to the topic what I did or when I served - let's just say I did.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196
Dec 10, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This guy said his son has been on four tours and had to use his bayonet twice:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
I like ya Milwaukee, but you picked a dog shyte case to advocate this time. There are just to many unknowns in war and regardless of what you say you can't guarantee that soldiers won't be facing situations where close combat could occur. Sorry, I wouldn't want to be fighting with a bunch of girls in that situation. Not only are they likely to get you killed by being simply over-matched, but you are likely to get your self killed trying to help them.
I also agree, that guys and girls are gonna be banging when out in the field. If you've been without sex for a few months and some decent looking woman is serving with you and you've grown close and you think it is safe, if you've got any game, I think it would be pretty easy to talk her into dropping them panties for lil sumpin, sumpin.
A rifle without a bayonet is kinda like gravy without biscuits.... Its okay but lacking something.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#197
Dec 10, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This guy said his son has been on four tours and had to use his bayonet twice:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
I like ya Milwaukee, but you picked a dog shyte case to advocate this time. There are just to many unknowns in war and regardless of what you say you can't guarantee that soldiers won't be facing situations where close combat could occur. Sorry, I wouldn't want to be fighting with a bunch of girls in that situation. Not only are they likely to get you killed by being simply over-matched, but you are likely to get your self killed trying to help them.
I also agree, that guys and girls are gonna be banging when out in the field. If you've been without sex for a few months and some decent looking woman is serving with you and you've grown close and you think it is safe, if you've got any game, I think it would be pretty easy to talk her into dropping them panties for lil sumpin, sumpin.
One example out of literally millions doesn't sway my side of the arguement. And, female cops get swiped at all the time with knives - not alot of difference.

And who's to say they aren't doing that now without the women? I mean using your logic, the service is like a prison sentence with nothing but sex-starved individuals serving together. Piss poor example, IMO.

I served too - and the last thing I'd be looking for is a woman in the service to hook up with - the majority that I did know in the service had civilian bfs or husbands.

Women serve on carriers now-a-days. Women fly combat missions all the time. It's going to happen - maybe not now, maybe not tomorrow - but it's going to happen, IMHO.

The technology that is being developed will determine when and how.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198
Dec 10, 2012
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
want to re-think , that style of combat is usually covert
but Black Hawk down comes to mind ,,,,,,,,,,
Shoshana Johnson survived gunshot wounds to both legs and 22 days as a prisoner of war in Iraq. Life wasn't so easy when she came home, either.
just saying
Again, people get wounded all the time in war - they come home, spend a few months in the VA and then shoot up a Mosque. When it comes to recovering from a POW situation, not many - regardless of gender - recover fully.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Level 7

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199
Dec 10, 2012
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no guarantees in a war - you, more than anyone should know that - so stop baiting. I'm just saying that technology is here to stay. The days of taxing the foot soldier are slowly (but not completely) disappearing. We are opting to train our people in cyber space under simulated conditions rather than on the battlefield. The drone example I gave was just that - an example. A good example of how we are alienating our folks from harms way. I'll give you a better example - from personal experience - back in the Korean War and Vietnam we (as in the US) flew F-4 Phantoms. They were not as manueverable as the Migs they were up against. Their targeting was extremely close range via the Sidewinder. On top of all that they had under wing 20mm cannons for close air combat. The F-4 gave way to the F-8 - the last of the gunfighters. The F-8 also had radar-ranging weapons targeting systems and guns. They were the last of the line-of-sight fighters. The F-14 was developed to eliminate this close air combat - adapting a weapons system that could target up to 14 different "unseen" bogies at a time. Technology is key nowadays - the Stealth fighter and B-1 bomber set the standard. As I've said before - ST6 was a great example of "pluck down and kill" sytems. Those helos put those guys within 200 yeards of Bin Laden's house.
Regardless of how you feel about women in combat roles - it'll be here sooner than later. The key to victory in any war is preparedness and technology. Neither of those are gender specific.
Lastly, it wouldn't make any difference to the topic what I did or when I served - let's just say I did.
I am a firm believer in technology. When I served with Marine Artillery My howizer was a WWII era M1-A1 155mm Towed piece. While in I was assigned to the project team to help with testing/development of the RAP(Rocket Assisted Projectile)round that in the final stage became the Copperhead round. A goosd friend of mine was section Chief of one of two new 155s coming in for field trials,the (X)M-198. In boot camp I had an M-14,later an M-16. We went from the old M-79 to the M-203. Technology designed to improve the infantry's ability to overcome the enemy has always been a desired goal. That doesn't improve the infantryman nor lessen the demands on the human body. SOMEDAY-think Star Trek....circumstances or mission demands or who knows what may change that will make situations possible where sexual physiologies may not be that important. But for today,tomorrow and the foreseeable future they will.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#200
Dec 10, 2012
 
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>I am a firm believer in technology. When I served with Marine Artillery My howizer was a WWII era M1-A1 155mm Towed piece. While in I was assigned to the project team to help with testing/development of the RAP(Rocket Assisted Projectile)round that in the final stage became the Copperhead round. A goosd friend of mine was section Chief of one of two new 155s coming in for field trials,the (X)M-198. In boot camp I had an M-14,later an M-16. We went from the old M-79 to the M-203. Technology designed to improve the infantry's ability to overcome the enemy has always been a desired goal. That doesn't improve the infantryman nor lessen the demands on the human body. SOMEDAY-think Star Trek....circumstances or mission demands or who knows what may change that will make situations possible where sexual physiologies may not be that important. But for today,tomorrow and the foreseeable future they will.
If you served, as did Tally and I, anytime during the last century, then you'd be shocked at how technology has developed the common (I use that term loosely) foot soldier. Lighter and more powerful weapons, lighter gear, even the boots they wear nowadays are 30% lighter than the ones we wore. I'm not anti-military, on the contrary - but I just think limiting ourselves to an only male combat force is limiting our capabilities.

“A PAIR A FULLHOUSE ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

CAN'T BEAT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201
Dec 10, 2012
 
to all vets , I have stated I couldn't walk in cold turkey and play war ... techs has taken hold , and thank god ....

lives are still lost but greatly reduced . in field hospitals are wonders today ....

support is the best we can get ...

imagine what the military of the past would see and do ...

it is a necessary evil .... MILITARY...

“Licensed to Ill”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202
Dec 10, 2012
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
One example out of literally millions doesn't sway my side of the arguement. And, female cops get swiped at all the time with knives - not alot of difference.
I know itís just a yahoo questions page, but all the other guys who chimed in said it is not that uncommon. Further, even if it is one example out of millions (and thatís not true Ö you are just shooting from the hip and throwing out stuff that you donít know is true), why should even a select few have to lose their life, just so a few women can make 4 star general?

I get it. I guess if I were a woman and my career were being held back, because I couldnít serve in the front lines, I probably wouldnít like it either. Iíd also have a enough sense to realize that while women and men should generally always be treated equally, this is one particularly situation where we are not equal due to nature and if we are going to embrace the fiction that we are equal in this case, itís going to lead to unnecessary deaths, which isnít right.

Unless there is some compelling reason (and women moving up the chain of command, IMO is not a compelling reason), why do this? Itís not like we have a shortage of men who are willing to serve (you might have a point if that were the case)? Given this, it just seems foolish.
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>And who's to say they aren't doing that now without the women? I mean using your logic, the service is like a prison sentence with nothing but sex-starved individuals serving together. Piss poor example, IMO.
Iím not saying that at all.
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>I served too - and the last thing I'd be looking for is a woman in the service to hook up with - the majority that I did know in the service had civilian bfs or husbands.
People donít cheat? People donít have open relationships? I nailed a woman in the army and her husband who was also in the army knew about it and didnít care.
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>Women serve on carriers now-a-days. Women fly combat missions all the time. It's going to happen - maybe not now, maybe not tomorrow - but it's going to happen, IMHO.
The technology that is being developed will determine when and how.
I donít really have a problem with women flying in combat missions. Itís pretty hard to engage in hand to hand combat with a fighter jet flying at mach 2, lol. That's different from putting women on the ground on the front lines.

I've already slayed your technology argument numerous times. Drones can't see through a jungle canopy. Drones don't work when it is raining and overcast. Until we develop a weather machine that can control the weather and until drones can see through jungle canopies, your argument just doesn't have any merit. Even then, we have drones in Afghanistan and close combat still occurs. So your argument doesn't hold water, any way you slice it.
phaines

Big Bear Lake, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203
Dec 10, 2012
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah, like this one?
www.gaymilitarynation.com/forums
dont change the subject...lol

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206
Dec 11, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think this is akin to gay marriage. People don't die when other couples gay or not get married. We'll have to see how it plays out in court.
The opposition is the same. Maybe abortion would be a better analogy.

Regardless of the fact - it'll happen, sooner than later.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#207
Dec 11, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already slayed your technology argument numerous times. Drones can't see through a jungle canopy. Drones don't work when it is raining and overcast. Until we develop a weather machine that can control the weather and until drones can see through jungle canopies, your argument just doesn't have any merit. Even then, we have drones in Afghanistan and close combat still occurs. So your argument doesn't hold water, any way you slice it.
The Predator's SAR is a sophisticated all-weather sensor capable of providing photographic-like images through clouds, rain or fog, and in daytime or nighttime conditions; all in real-time.

“Licensed to Ill”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#208
Dec 11, 2012
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Predator's SAR is a sophisticated all-weather sensor capable of providing photographic-like images through clouds, rain or fog, and in daytime or nighttime conditions; all in real-time.
I did not know this.

It still can't see through trees, into buildings (urban combat is not uncommon and it is extremely close in many instances), caves, and tunnels. They can't help you when you have enemies disguised as civilians or allies so they can get close to you.

The enemies we face may be less technologically adept as us and may not have gone to West Point, but they aren't complete idiots. They will simply adapt their tactics to limit the effectiveness of our technological abilities.

"He who lacks careful thought and strategy and underestimates the enemy will surely be captured by the opponent."

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Part 64

"There is no greater disaster than underestimating your enemy.
Underestimating your enemy means loosing your greatest assets."

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 69

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#209
Dec 11, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not know this.
It still can't see through trees, into buildings (urban combat is not uncommon and it is extremely close in many instances), caves, and tunnels. They can't help you when you have enemies disguised as civilians or allies so they can get close to you.
The enemies we face may be less technologically adept as us and may not have gone to West Point, but they aren't complete idiots. They will simply adapt their tactics to limit the effectiveness of our technological abilities.
"He who lacks careful thought and strategy and underestimates the enemy will surely be captured by the opponent."
Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Part 64
"There is no greater disaster than underestimating your enemy.
Underestimating your enemy means loosing your greatest assets."
Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 69
"A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective."

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#210
Dec 11, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not know this.
It still can't see through trees, into buildings (urban combat is not uncommon and it is extremely close in many instances), caves, and tunnels. They can't help you when you have enemies disguised as civilians or allies so they can get close to you.
The Miami-Dade Police Department in Florida used federal grant money to purchase a small drone vehicle. Reports dating back to 2008 explain that Miami was seeking to use a small drone ÖĎto gather real time information in situations which may be too dangerous for officers.í However, police have admitted that the drone can be used to look into houses,Ē EPIC reported.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#211
Dec 11, 2012
 
The units, EPIC documents, can peer ďinside high-level windows, and through solid barriers, such as fences, trees, and even walls.Ē

“A PAIR A FULLHOUSE ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

CAN'T BEAT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212
Dec 11, 2012
 
ii said it is out date , never said strike it from the constitution .... people please read what is there not what you want to be there..

I'm done because this thread is a big merry-a-go-round ....

“Licensed to Ill”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#213
Dec 11, 2012
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
The units, EPIC documents, can peer ďinside high-level windows, and through solid barriers, such as fences, trees, and even walls.Ē
I see that they can see through a foot of concrete. I don't think it will take our enemies too long to figure out that they need to make their walls 13 inches or more thick. I'm sure there are other materials you can use too, to make it more difficult to see through walls. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese, Iranians, and Russians are already working on it.

Military technology has been nothing more than development of offensive systems, followed by further development of defensive systems to counteract the effectiveness of newly developed offensive systems. Someone made a sword, someone made armor to prevent the sword from killing themselves, someone made guns that could penetrate plate armor, someone made armored vehicles and body armor that could stop bullets, someone made missiles that can blow shyte up including tanks and folks wearing body armor, someone made missiles that can shoot missiles that can blow shyte up out of the sky.

It will never stop. Someone will figure out a way to make our drones less effective, whether that is technology based or tactics based.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#214
Dec 11, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that they can see through a foot of concrete. I don't think it will take our enemies too long to figure out that they need to make their walls 13 inches or more thick. I'm sure there are other materials you can use too, to make it more difficult to see through walls. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese, Iranians, and Russians are already working on it.
Military technology has been nothing more than development of offensive systems, followed by further development of defensive systems to counteract the effectiveness of newly developed offensive systems. Someone made a sword, someone made armor to prevent the sword from killing themselves, someone made guns that could penetrate plate armor, someone made armored vehicles and body armor that could stop bullets, someone made missiles that can blow shyte up including tanks and folks wearing body armor, someone made missiles that can shoot missiles that can blow shyte up out of the sky.
It will never stop. Someone will figure out a way to make our drones less effective, whether that is technology based or tactics based.
Drone technology is no different than fighter technology - only without the pilot.

All weather drones are already here - all you have to do is stand on your front porch and wave.

Kudos to the first Swamp man that shoots one out of the sky with a 12 gage. lol

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 181 - 200 of218
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••