I think period cessation is something that no armed forces would want to knowingly inflict on its troops - as above, it can cause long term damage.

 

There's other factors though, where are the studies that demonstrate how well females hold up to long periods of battlefield trauma, where are the studies that look at prevalence of shellshock.

 

What are the effects on public support for an armed conflict when a woman is filmed being gangraped/brutalised/beheadded by the enemy?

 

What is the endurance of an average female when asked to speed march 30 miles over a mountain carrying the same as is expected of a male counterpart?

 

What influence does having a female member of a team have on her male compatriots, does it induce competitive beheaviour between them? (I remember seeing a study somewhere that said definitively, yes) Does she get equal treatment or favourable treatment or unfavourable treatment?

 

How resilient are females to physical abuse, interrogation, torture, rape, etc, how consistent are they emotionally when subjected to the continual stress of armed conflict?

 

Give me an example of an athletic or physical olympic sport where females outperform men? 

 

The problem is not that women are not equal intellectually, they are, they simply aren't particularly well known quantities in armed combat, they are (on average) physically lighter and generally weaker than males, with smaller lungs, even if the above were completely reversed the effect on a predominantly male force structure may be a good enough reason to rule it out - and even if that wasn't, the effect on public support for a conflict when females die etc.

 

It's a bad idea, irrespective of sniping accuracy.

 

R

 

Damn forum software, lost a perfectly good post there.

 

a) What I was saying is that I need to dig out the study that was done into how adding females to combat units affected males, though I can't find this at the moment I think I know someone who will remember where it was originally from - what I do recall is that it induced heroics in males serving alongside, lowering their combat effectiveness and survivability.

 

b) I also think that irrespective of whether it is right or wrong, a large percentage of the population would not want to support any conflict where females (especially snipers - traditionally treated with far less mercy when captured) were in the front line. This on its own, without any other factors, is enough to rule it out, practicalities remain paramount.

 

c) To the girl who posted above, I have absolutely no doubt from what you say that you are probably equal or superior to a large amount of men, even potentially service personel, on AVERAGE females will tend to be less capable, as is demonstrated by althletes globally - to use an analogy, were we to group females and males together for athletic track and field competitions the honest truth is that there would seldom be a female ranking inside the top 1000 worldwide, would you support this in terms of equal opportunities? That's the problem, lung capacity is one physical factor that, even in relative terms, females can never hope to compete with, it's just biological fact.

 

I'm also aware that the only necessary factor is meeting the basic requirements expected, which may be more plausible than being "the best on earth", and possibly less necessary for a sniper, my view is that factors a) and b) provide good enough reason, even if primarily a result of male flaws than those of females.

As part of women in a force structure A) and B) will always get in the way, with C) being a secondary, less important concern.

 

R

 

mabie-i never said there wouldnt be implications rather that it does happen in marine boot camps already & with other jobs as well.

reactive-menstral cycles are not the point nor is the affect of the lack there of.yes girls are smaller pretty much all the way around.no not all girls can meet any sort of physical reqiurement let alone a mans.when it comes to watching other females or people at all get tortured raped ect ect you cant tell me that doesnt mess with any decent mans head too.

as for us getting tortured we have a higher pain tolerance and a bigger sense of fathfulness?belonging?duty?im blanking on the word i need,but that will push us to endure much more than a male.we most definitely have a bigger sense of pride which could be both good and bad.not to mention the facts that we can shed more blood before we die we eat less and we can run on damn near empty for longer.

what decent looking female wont be a distraction?boys will be boys,but you also have to take into consideration not all of them will be as pretty as me,only kidding,but its true not all of them will be attractive and another point that has been made already is half of them will more than likely be lesbian.As for the point of them being a distraction for guys to play hero they do that for other males as well.if you get close to someone and you care for them which generally does happen with partners/people you spend alot of time with then you dont want to see them get hurt ect,only difference there is instead of two males the company is mixed.

the treatment of females will be different among different people some people around will no  doubt give special treatment but there will also be those who are equal and more than likely many more that are harder on them for the jobs that they do.

compitition?oh hell yeah,no doubt.it will push both of us to work harder and do better,how is this a bad thing again?last i checked being worked hard setting goals and doing the best you can to do at a job that is out of the ordinary and harder than most is all part of it.

the truth is if it werent for some dumb ass in the past sticking his chick up on a damn pedistool and other people following suit we wouldnt be having this conversation.females can be great fighters,some of the strongest.despite what some think its not all about brute strength.its about smarts too.more than anything its heart though.not many girls will change their morals and think about it.ever fucked with a womans kid?if you have you prolly got ur ass kicked.when a girl is passionate enough about someone or something she will fight to the death for it she wont be equaled.most girls are fragile but that doesnt mean they cant be brutal cold hearted or flat out beast,and that doesnt mean you can label all of us as such.

 How I propose women should be used in direct combat is a defensive role. This would include homeland defense and Guerilla or insurgency warfare, essentially the same thing. This military role down plays women?s weaknesses and can benefit from their strengths. In the ideal situation you would train select volunteers in guerilla tactics and sniping. In the event of an invasion these elite women would be deployed in small numbers if not alone to take up residence in American towns along the axis of enemy advance. These kick butt ladies would organize a town defense/evacuation plan, a militia, and build well covered and concealed snipers nests. Apart from any militia action our woman sniper would pick off advancing invaders, employing guerilla tactics such as shooting to wound and picking off officers. She could also detonate Claymores placed in likely avenues of approach, as well as acting as a spotter for indirect fires. 

The most probably outcome would be the enemy taking the town. Upon losing the town our lady would have several options; she could be a ballsy idiot and fight to the death or worse be captured. the better options are she could easily abandon her gear and done civilian garb and integrate into the populous who is hopefully evacuating, or she could slip under the enemy radar and live to fight another day. (Loss of POW status if caught) The last option is to just run off into the surrounding area and continue to harass the invaders, probably a more dangerous option for women (easily chased down)

 This type of mission is perfect for a smart fit woman. She doesn't have to carry a mountain of gear over rugged terrain; she doesn't have to be too concerned about hygiene because optimally she will be in a modern town with plenty of tampons at the ready. She can use her preparation time to designate distance reference points and even emplace wind direction and speed gauges (ribbon on a stick) which would more than make up for any evolutionary disadvantage at determining trajectories and distance.

 Now if you are worried these females couldn't pull the trigger, ask yourself if your mom given the proper training and equipment would hesitate to blast some unknown foreign invaders face off if he was coming to arrest or kill all military age men... I.E. yo

AHOY,

 

IMO woman snipers would be better suited for urban snipping, due to the scenes in movies we've all seen where a certain balcony is the best position for the shot. IMO they would be more likely to get in that position with out violence at door way.

A woman carrying a bag is not thought of as much as a threat.

 

Movies I've seen showing this are, Man on Fire, Spy games, and Borne Identity I believe, I know it was in one of the series.  

 

I just thought this poem would fit in here.

 

I see as the eagle, clear and from afar,

I listen as the deer, head cocked and alert,

I think as the snake, silent and unblinking,

I walk as the panther, lithe and sinuous,

I crouch as the lion, muscled and ready,

I kill as the mongoose, swift and silent, 

I die like a man,

a am Mike Force.

 

source book Rolling Thunder ISBN 0-399-13439-5

 

"I well bet my lucky star"

 

G-day!

Per "The living Daylights".