Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Justin Rocket 2
    Offline

    Justin Rocket 2 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    194

    Marine infantry experiment ends in failure

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Justin Rocket 2, Aug 19, 2015.

    Should the standards for women be dropped as they were dropped in the Army so that more women will pass?
     
  2. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,095
    Likes Received:
    5,306
    Location:
    California, US
    I think it depends. If the standards represent capabilities necessary to do the job, then they shouldn't be lowered. If there is a lower standard that still allows a person to perform the job, then that's a good place to set them.
     
  3. Justin Rocket 2
    Offline

    Justin Rocket 2 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    194
    We're talking about war. I don't know if "necessary to do the job" is something that makes sense. Consider, assume we're setting a standard for how quickly a soldier, with a full pack, can run a mile. I believe the way we set that is by asking "how fast can our enemy run it?" Well, who is our enemy? Our soldiers should be able to run it faster than an Afghanistan insurgent. But, what about faster than a Russian soldier? How about a French soldier?
     
  4. Shadowfax
    Offline

    Shadowfax Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    1,347
    No. It's not about running a mile with full pack. It's about running a mile with full pack and then fighting a battle.
     
    matwoolf likes this.
  5. Justin Rocket 2
    Offline

    Justin Rocket 2 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    194
    I was trying to figure out how to put my point into words and that's it. It is a good idea to not merely figure out the minimum to do the job. It is a good idea to be able to do the job as easily as possible. That way, the soldier is able to fight when the running is over. That requires a certain way of looking at fitness - a way which can settle for nothing less than peak performance.
     
  6. Lewdog
    Offline

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,530
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    No, it's a matter of total body duration and also mental fortitude. It's not just running, but obstacles, preserving water, reading maps, and all kinds of various things that are important in battle. If only 10% or less of men make it, the women that fail it shouldn't feel so bad. But under no means should the standards be lowered just so a woman can make it.

    If you have read the news today, two women passed Ranger School.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/women-graduate-army-ranger-course/index.html
     
  7. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    End. War.
     
  8. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    I hate to say this, but I think ending war is kind of impossible these days. Arguably, we could have prevented the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the Civil War, but these days war isn't about two or more countries fighting, it's about a small group of terrorists (Nazis, Al Queda) and people defending themselves from them. World War I was just because of our alliance system, so that could have at least been lessened, I imagine.

    Anyway, I don't think the standards should be lessened at all. If two women can pass the Ranger test, more can. It's like why we don't lessen the eyesight requirement for Air Force pilots.
     
    matwoolf likes this.
  9. Shadowfax
    Offline

    Shadowfax Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    1,347
    1/ One man's revolutionary freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.
    2/ I was unaware that the Confederacy was ever recognised - especially by the Union - as a country.
    3/ Whereas Nazi Germany was very much a country...when did a small group of terrorists manage to invade and successfully occupy of another nation?
     
  10. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    I can't really argue with 1.
    2/ The Confederacy had its own President, it's own money, was attempting to get Britain to help it, and would have had the resources to support itself (at least by trade) had it succeeded on its own.
    3/ Islamic extremists have certainly made life much more difficult in their countries. I mean, it's their own countries, but they are terrorists, and their principles are shown in the government. And North Korea is basically a dystopian society and they terrorize their own citizens. I don't see a major government actively resisting them.
     
  11. Stacy C
    Offline

    Stacy C Banned

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind
    The French soldier, of course, would be running away.

    I think the Army Ranger story proves that women are capable of meeting rigorous military demands, both physical and psychological, and should be permitted to perform all the duties, including combat, required of men in Special Ops units.

    Of course, I also think women should be required to register with Selective Service and subject to the draft.
     
    KaTrian likes this.
  12. Shadowfax
    Offline

    Shadowfax Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    1,347
    2/ & 3/ The Confederacy wasn't accepted by any other country, its secession wasn't recognised by the country that it was seceding from, and "attempting to get Britain to help it" is as worthless a claim as my stating that "I'm in the process of getting my novel published"; I'm an awfully long way from actually having it published! They were regarded, at the time, as "extremists... [who were making]... life much more difficult in their own countries".
    4/ If you're thinking of ISIS, it's only "their own country" in the sense that the participants in the American Civil War were "in their own country". The principles of the terrorists are not reflected in the government...although they might be if the terrorists win.
    5/ A major government "actively resisting" another sovereign power because they "terrorize their own citizens" is a very slippery slope. Because who has the hubris to believe that they are arbiters of what is unacceptable terrorization?
     
  13. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    Okay, I'll admit that you have a point with 2-4. But even if, say, ISIS, is not actively "running" a country, they are still terrorists and they're still hurting others, and it's important that we put a stop to it.
    And yes, I think we can say that they are terrorizing their own citizens. They have "policitical prison camps" which are concentration camps. I think we can say that those are wrong.
     
  14. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    So is flying. Traveling faster than the speed of sound. Landing on the moon. Penicillin. Mobile phones. Wireless power. Forgiving someone.
     
  15. Lewdog
    Offline

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,530
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY

    Great Britain was appalled by slavery almost as much as the north was, but they also loved the supply of cotton and sugar cane they got from the south. So they let one thing supplant the other and money talked.
     
    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh likes this.
  16. Lewdog
    Offline

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,530
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY

    Yes they were accepted by the British who was supplying the south with weapons in exchange for raw materials.
     
  17. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,979
    Likes Received:
    5,501
    I think that wars look simpler from the distance of history. We've decided what those wars were "about", and simplified and written about that decision. I doubt that they were actually any simpler.
     
    Justin Rocket 2 likes this.
  18. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,979
    Likes Received:
    5,501
    It depends, but probably not.

    My reasoning, which admittedly would need more research before I did anything more than opinionate about it on the Internet:

    The military is a substantial employer, and as such it doesn't get to just say, "We want every soldier to be all-purpose, and we're defining all-purpose as something that only men can achieve because...because...national defense! Yeah!" Every soldier doesn't get identical training, so I don't see that every soldier needs identical physical capabilities. If the forces needed to be divided up in different ways to support a wider variety of recruits, divide it.

    But "probably not" is because my perception is that the Marines are ALREADY divided out.
     
  19. Justin Rocket 2
    Offline

    Justin Rocket 2 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    194
    There is a baseline skill set that everyone in the Marine infantry has. Then, built on top of that is a specialization. Not everyone in the Marine infantry needs to know how to disarm a bomb, however everyone in the Marine infantry needs to know how to clean a rifle. Therefore, it is reasonable that everyone in the infantry should meet the baseline of physical fitness. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act permits a potential employer to deny me employment if I can't meet the physical baseline required. No judge is going to rule in favor of a blind man who wants to be a NASCAR driver or a paraplegic who wants to join the World Wrestling Federation. Likewise, anyone who can't meet the physical standards of the Marine infantry should have no recourse except to get better. The Army lowered the standards for women. Women don't need to complete the run as quickly as men do. I think that sends the wrong message about equality.

    With the military, there's an additional problem. Assume that 99.9999% of women can't meet the physical standards of the Infantry. But, the millionth woman can. Her battalion is sent to war in a jungle. She's going to need certain things that her male fellow soldiers aren't. As a gay man, I'm hardly an expert on this topic, but I'm thinking that she'll need certain items (tampons being only one of them, she'll be dealing with crotch rot as well and won't be able to treat it the way men do). There is an infrastructure which will need to be in place to address her particular needs. There will be tactics in which she might not be able to engage (I'm thinking of wading through swamps for prolonged time - particularly when menstruating). If only a very small percentage of women can meet the physical standards, it might not be cost effective for them to join the infantry ("cost" referring not just to dollars, but to loss of tactical flexibility as well).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 22, 2015
  20. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    @Justin Rocket, I'm not sure how accessible it is, but Lybrel is a birth control that stops periods entirely. If a soldier was on that, periods would not be a concern.
     
  21. Justin Rocket 2
    Offline

    Justin Rocket 2 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    194
    Common side effects of Lybrel include nausea, vomiting, headache, stomach cramping/bloating, dizziness, vaginal discomfort/irritation, increased vaginal fluids, or breast tenderness/enlargement.
    Not really conducive to giving to soldiers.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page