>>77621575
bump
>>77621575
Nope. They'll find something to complain about sooner or later.
>>77621575
Maybe a tiny few can but for the most part no.
>>77621575
>Sending woman to battle
Not even radical Islam is as stupid
it's more of a last resort / we're being invaded type of situation where woman should be allowed to join, or in the case of total war
Which America hasn't really experienced yet, you don't send woman to third world countries
think about their virginity
>>77621575
if it was the case women would be already fighting
>>77621575
They already do. Just not as combatants or special operators.
>>77621575
Non-combat, definitely. As infantry, fuck no.
>>77623649
>it's more of a last resort / we're being invaded type of situation where woman should be allowed to join, or in the case of total war
>allowed to join
You mean forced right? If you're being fucking invaded the women had better be picking up guns.
Yes.
>>77621575
No, they're physiologically weaker this is a simple fact of biological differences between the sexes.
Putting them in a combat position has absolutely no practical merit and has only political motive.
They can't lift as much or run as long and they have a noticeable negative effect on unit cohesion because of sexual dynamics.
I was in the military and all the physical training standards were much lower for women then they were for men.
Laughably so.
And yet despite having much more time to run, having to do half as many pushups and situps, majority of the females struggled to make the mark.
The only role women should ever have in the military is support, I don't think they should even be allowed to pilot drones due to emotional instability.
>>77621575
there were some milfags on here describing a time when they came under fire. All the women (who were armed) went inside the armored humvies and refused to return fire.
If 'soldiers' like these are not immediately court-martialed it is oger for American military supremacy.
I don't have a problem with women serving or being drafted (not a milfag), but they cannot be cut any slack on any level.
>>77621575
As distractions for the enemy I guess.
>>77621575
US Army here. I'm an MP (31B) which is the most combat-oriented MOS to have women in it. I can tell you firsthand that females are capable of fighting in most situations just as well as males. However, they cannot carry as much weight, meaning that they are much less useful outside of mounted operations. Road patrolling is our main cuop most days, and is where we see the most fighting. So we're mounted in 1115s, MRAPs, and GSVs. That's not an issue for women. They can dismount and fight in shorter engagements very easily. But if we were humping 60+ pounds across long distances they just couldn't do it physically.
Only if they can live up to the same standards as men.
>>77624693
we're talking about real war here
>>77624693
This.
AFag military police. Women seem to handle close in base defense missions okay and do base police functions well enough.
>Some women can hang, some can't
>Some men can hang, some can't
>>77621575
thats like asking is a dog compentent enough to not shit in the house?
yes most likely if you train them, but every now and then there will be that one dog who bites its own balls and shits in the soffa
>>77624528
>cannot be cut slack
Every women who joins the military has lower PT standards across all the branches.
Allowing a certain group of people who are irrefutably physically disadvantaged is idiotic and sacrificing military effectiveness just because the government has a feminist agenda.
>>77621575
Given the choice between a 10 year old kid and a woman, I would take a woman. There has to be some serious apocalyptical scenario for that, however.
Generally, women would better serve the war effort by being protected and making more children to replace casualties of war.
The problem is body strength, a trained women will be weaker than a trained man, it's simply biology.
>>77621575
I kind of don't think that's the point, for them to be competent in battle.
Forcing a draft would, as it already is, cause women to actually appreciate what they have, instead of trying to fight an equality battle.
>>77624693
We're in a nice comfy war against people who don't have anything better to threaten us with than RPGs and IEDs...
Sure, women can hack it when combat is a rarity but in a real war? No.
And the fact that women can't carry gear for as long is a liability, no matter how small.
Allowing liabilities is not something a military should do.
Women can work in military bases, do logistics, defence, cooking, medical bullshit.
Active combat positions only as last resort.
And for the love of god don't mix men and women in combat positions. Men lose their heads and forget the mission when a woman is in danger.
>>77625403
top kek
someone take that gun away from her before someone gets killed.
any one properly trained who passes all the requirements is...thanks to equality they should have to sign up for the draft
>>77621575
Some of them, probably.
>>77625003
>some women can hang, some can't
More women can't then men that can't try to prove me wrong.
>>77624693
>They can dismount and fight in shorter engagements very easily.
what about the 99% of time where you aren't mounted or are in combat for hours on end?
>>77625617
>>77625403
To be fair, she's an entirely untrained TV presenter (here in the UK)
>>77621575
Anyone else notice how only USfags think that women SHOULD be in military?
Hmmm
>>77624693
>>77625003
I'm not taking professional buddyfuckers seriously, nice try
>>77621575
Frontline? No. Other stuff, yes.
Most people forget women ran alot of the transportation logistics and other non combatant stuff in WWII.
I wouldn't trust one to have my back on the battlefield but i'd trust one to fly the HC130 full of BRRRRRRRRT
>>77625893
I figured as much but idk who's genius idea it was to let her use a gun.
Surprised she didn't hurt herself.
>>77625982
>HC130 full of BRRRRRRRRT
Oh man, I laughed at that far too much.
>>77626086
Lol 2 cat
>>77621575
No, there aren't many positions, combat or noncombat, that aren't objectively worse with women serving in
In peace their glaring inadequacies aren't as visible or as much of a problem but they are still not good
They are bad at being in the military for the same reason that the pay gap exists, not because women are paid less but because they just can't do as well as men at any given task
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/marines-combat-study/
>A new Marine Corps study obtained by CBS News shows that women in combat are at a significant disadvantage compared to men.
>For months, male and female Marines simulated battle in a scientific study conducted by the Marine Corps. Researchers recorded their performances to determine the impact women had on combat.
>the results revealed that that the all-male units performed better than those units that were comprised with both men and women and that women would get injured more.
>reports that the men were “faster in each tactical movement,” had “better accuracy” and were “quicker.” The men also “registered more hits on target” and had “a noticeable difference in their performance” of “evacuating casualties” and overcoming obstacles.
Women cost more per soldier, combat or not, are less capable and less versatile
>>77624693
So basically all mech yourself stuff, no wreck yourself stuff. Fuck off.
>>77621575
>Do you think women are competent
No
>>77625746
I just spat my drink out
>>77625982
Even our Queen served in logistics in WW2
>>77621575
Really I am happy but feminism is gonna get super BTFO when women get drafted. I mean
remember how tortured Vietnam soliders got?
They are gonna rape the hell out of the women.
>but you can't have sex with me without my consent
>mfw I served in the military
>women in division
>constantly find ways to get out of work
>get pregnant to collect BAH
>stay pregnant to avoid deployment
>puts child in government subsidized day care
>continues to collect huge sums of money over her male counterparts while contributing less and less.
>more women are being targeted to join the military
>military becomes weaker and weaker
>US military crippled by "diversity"
>Russians and Chinese takeover America
>All hail glorious putin, savior of America.
>>77625782
>try to prove me wrong.
No argument
>>77625967
No argument.
No truer words are written.
You keked me ride in my flanks milbro!
.
>>77625982
Only reason women were used in WWII is because men were dying too quickly and we were running out.
>>77621575
In the military? Yes.
In ground combat? No.
>>77621575
>serve in the military
yes
>serve in a combat role
no
>>77621575
No, Women are barely competent to make sandwiches, military skills are so far beyond them that it is laughable.
>>77626454
In Murica it was ruled awhile ago they since they don't serve in frontline operations they can't but now they do some frontline operations so they can now if the bill passes.
>>77626639
>no argument
At least you're honest about it, that's the first step
The next step is reclassing to a real MOS
>>77621575
No, but I still want them in the military.
Equality is a bitch.
>>77627160
>next step is to reclass to a real MOS
No, next step is to get out or become officer because enlisted is shit tier.
Nurses and dick sucking should be their only role. Comfort women.
