4 ms·
Citation please. I'm not describing total wars. Canada, for example, has had women in combat roles for 36 years, and not because they were fighting for the cou
by lsiebert 8y ago
Citation please.
I'm not describing total wars. Canada, for example, has had women in combat roles for 36 years, and not because they were fighting for the country's survival in the early 1980s.
And even if your un-cited 10% figure was true, and most women couldn't fight as infantry because of a lack of upper body strength, there are combat roles such as being pilot where physical strength is of limited importance.
But it's not true, and it seems you are disparaging female veterans and their contributions.
Even if there weren't women combat roles( and a big part of this decision is because there are such roles now, since 2015) a draft could still bring in women as doctors, administrators, analysts, logistics officers and other roles, because the military isn't just about combat, it's a vast coordinated enterprise.
- remarkEon 8y agoThis argument is such a joke. I’ve seen combat and I’ve seen females in the military. Upper body strength is just one variable of many. I find it really bizarre that Americans are advocating for our ground forces to take on more complexity with gender integration at a time when we still can’t figure out how to beat insurgents that don’t even have the same hardware as us. Ask yourself this: the ostensible “villain” (Russia) is doing the opposite of us with their Infantry units. Ask yourself why.