Reply to Thread

Research Help

2, cialis,

Human muscle tissue is the same for men and women, so men and women are equally strong if they have the same amount of muscle tissue, but they don't. In terms of anaerobic capacity, the critical determinant is lean muscle mass. Females, on average, have less total lean muscle mass than males. As a result, maximal strength measures as well as maximal power measures (power = force/time) are reduced. Gross measures of upper body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference between the sexes, compared to a 30% difference in lower body strength. What about power? Maud and Schultz compared 52 men and 50 women, all about 21 years old using a maximal power test on a bicycle ergometer. Peak power was about 60% lower for the females when comparing absolute values. But, the men were heavier. Peak power per kg bodyweight was more similar, 9.3 watts/kg vs 7.9 watts/kg for the women, an 18% difference.

A 1982 report rates five areas of strength and gives male soldiers’ strength relative to females as follows: upper-body, 72 percent higher; leg extensor, 54 percent; trunk flexor, 47 percent; lean body mass, 33 percent; and aerobic capacity, 28 percent. Upper-body strength, the area of greatest gender difference, is emphasized in military training. Field exercises in which troops march sustained distances carrying heavy packs seem to be a key point at which men rate women as inferior. One West Point colonel said, “The women just drop.”

The 1982 data indicate an average lifting capacity for women soldiers of 66 pounds, versus 119 for men (80 percent higher). The difference in lifting capacity is especially critical at around 100–120 pounds. An Air Force test for lifting 110 pounds was passed by 68 percent of men and 1 percent of women.

LtbgRKXhaCgUpyLt

2, cialis no prescription,

Women in combat

I think that it is great to have women serve our country because it shows that we rock and other countries can suck a dick if they think were going to lose a fucken war

Thanks for the history lesson, but you leave out so much. Or perhaps I should say CAPT Barbara A. Wilson, USAF (ret) leaves out so much, since your latest post was cut and pasted from her copywrited website.

First and foremost I have never written or implied that women sit by the "sidelines watching." Second, the decision has already been made to place women in combat aircraft and naval vessels, and it is consequently not under discussion on this forum.

However, that decision was made without any serious discussion of the cost/benefit analysis of placing women in combat aviation and naval positions. Much of the legislative and executive decisions, with regard to women's participation in combat, have been based on political considerations, and not on national security considerations. This can be shown by the panels and study groups that have been set up by DOD to consider this issue, and what they have written about placing women in combat.

A retelling of the executive and legislative decisions regarding women in combat does not address the problems inherent in placing women in these positions, and the effect on unit cohesion. I could, of course, address those issues. However, since the decision has been made for political reasons, it is unlikely the executive or legislative branches are likely to reverse themsleves without some singular event demonstrating the folly of this precipitous decision.

In any case, the issues under discussion on this forum are the costs and benefits, if any, of placing women in ground combat positions.

Women's Roles in Combat

Here is what women are really doing in combat roles today...not just sitting on the sidelines watching...

Recent policy changes on women in combat:

1992

The Defense Authorization Act repealed the long-standing combat exclusion law for women pilots in the Navy and Air Force.

1993

President Clinton signed the military bill ending combat exclusion for women on combatant ships.

1994

Defense Secretary Aspin approved a new general policy to allow Army women to serve with some ground combat units during fighting.

The USS EISENHOWER, a Navy combat aircraft carrier, received its first 60 women.

Navy

The initial embarkation of women on combat ships during FY94 included eight ships. Two of those eight were aircraft carriers, four were destroyers and two were dock landing ships. The accelerated integration plan called for assigning women to a variety of ships including cruisers, amphibious assault ships and all pre-commissioning Arleigh Burke-class destroyers completed in FY96.

Female officers are eligible to serve in all of the Navy's officer communities except submarines (policy currently under review) and special warfare (SEALs). Thus, women can occupy 93.5 percent of the officer billets in the Navy. Enlisted women are eligible to serve in 97 percent of career fields (91 of 94 job classifications). Women are eligible to serve in 95.1 percent of the enlisted billets in the Navy.

A total of 283 female Naval officers serve as pilots (206) and Naval Flight Officers (77). In addition, there are about 127 women in training to fly combat aircraft. 54 women have already reported to combat aviation squadrons. (pre-1999 figures)

Women are now aboard combatant ships, thousands of enlisted women and officers are "serving at sea", and ten Navy women now command ships.


In the Army women cannot serve in the following: infantry, armor, cannon field artillery and short range air defense artillery.**

**But there's a twist here that literally allowed women to fly under fire in Panama in 1989. Although federal law mandated that the Navy and Air Force prohibit women from serving in direct combat roles, no such law bound the Army to do so. Instead, the Army used its combat exclusion policy to regulate itself to conform to the intent of the federal laws that affected the other services. Thus, the Army's combat exclusion policy limited women from direct combat. That policy defined direct combat as "engaging an enemy with individual or crew-served weapons while being exposed to direct enemy fire, a high probability of direct physical contact with the enemy's personnel, and a substantial risk of capture." According to the Army, "Direct combat takes place while closing with the enemy by fire, maneuver, or shock effect in order to destroy or capture, or while repelling assault by fire, close combat or counterattack." The helicopters piloted by women were considered transport and not combat, thus the "non-violation" of the then in effect combat exclusion laws.

In the Navy women are excluded from Submarine Warfare, Special Warfare (SEAL) and ratings particular to submarine service such as fire control technician, missile technician, and one aspect of sonar technician. Women can be sonar technicians...they just cannot serve in the submarine component of the rating.

The Marine Corps assignments closed to women are infantry, armor, field artillery, security force guard protecting nuclear material, and several positions related to armored, amphibious, assaultunits and fleet antiterrorism security teams.

Air Force positions closed or restricted are Combat Control, Special Operations Forces, Rotary Aircraft, TAC Pararescue, and Weather assignments with infantry or Special Forces.

All Coast Guard occupations and assignments are open to women.

You are posting to a thread that ended over a year ago. However, I will explain why you're wrong in your basic assumptions. First, women do fill a vital role in the US military, but not at an increasing percentage. The percentage of women in the US military has remained stable for the past 12-15 years, at approximately 17%. The question is not whether women should be in the US military, but rather the more narrow question of whether women should be placed in ground combat roles. The services are having difficulty filling some combat support and combat service support positions. This is undoubtedly because of the extended Global War on Terror (GWOT); desertions are up as well. There is little evidence that the services are having extreme difficulty filling combat arms positions with new recruits. If this were the case the services would be pushing for drastic action. However, the percentages of veteran NCOs and officers in the combat arms staying on active duty has been shrinking, enough to cause concern. According to all recent research this phenomenon is because of the extended multiple deployments away from families. In any event, women are not filling these combat arms positions because it is prohibited by service regulation.

A Thought

After reading the rather ugly exchanges taking place on the discussion of women in combat I think people are missing the bigger picture. No matter what your opinion on the role of women in combat, it's happening. Women are filling a vital role in today's military at an ever-increasing percentage. If it weren't for us women...who would be filling this void? Obviously not enough young men are stepping up to the plate to defend our country...now women are also adding to the roles; with just as much pride, dedication and sacrifice as men.

Forgive me, it was difficult to discern what your main points were since they were the last four lines in the post.

Nevertheless you write, "Prowess and ability should be determined by the individual not the group."

That you think prowess and ability in the individual is more important than unit cohesion merely shows that you have no understanding of modern ground combat. Although each individual must meet the minimum standards for combat arms positions, what is far more important is the ability of the group to bond to each other.

The reason I quoted Shakespeare in a previous post when referring to Henry V and the Battle of Agincourt was to point out that even the Bard recognized the bonding nature of men at war. His use of the phrase, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" clearly shows this.

The John A. English classic "On Infantry" and the S.L.A. Marshall definitive study "Men Aganist Fire" both pointed out that soldiers fight for the other men in their squad, when they fight at all. It is this camaraderie or esprit de corps that creates the will to fight and to endure hardships that are all too common on the battlefield. In all but the most extreme conditions, modern ground combat soldiers fight as a team.

If warfare were a matter of individuals doing their own things, then the few women capable of meeting the minimum physical standards would be acceptable, but that isn't the way of things. Modern ground combat is not about individuals, but is instead about teamwork. The reason men bond in combat is because of something called esprit-de-corps, the philial love of your comrades. When the sexual aspect is included in small unit cohesion this philial love disappears and is replaced with sexuality or eros, which reduces esprit-de-corps, and consequently the bonds holding teams together fail or are dramatically reduced. Anger, resentment, real or imagined favoritism, protecting the imagined or real weaker sex, sexual relationships, pregnancy, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are the products of gender integration at the child-bearing age of most soldiers. Yes, these things all happen in non-combat units as well, but they aren't the point of the bayonet. In combat anything that distracts soldiers can potentially get them killed, and sexuality in these units is a distraction.

You could find Annie Oakley and she still shouldn't be placed in ground combat military occupational specialties, because of the affect she would have in an all-male unit on morale and unit cohesion.

You also write, "It's better to have something and not need it, than to need it and not have it. In this case I'm speaking specifically of training of women for combat."

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it is a commonly used phrase, but it only makes sense for military operations if what you have could conceivably become what you need. If it is inconceivable that you would need something, or if the need could be met by something else, then you really don't need it.

All women in the US Army receive the exact same Basic Training as men. The men in the Infantry receive training specific to their MOS in AIT and since women cannot hold the 11 series MOSs, they don't receive this training. The women in the US Army receive training specific to their MOSs, which is what they need to conduct their military duties. We have very few generalists among the enlisted forces, and fewer and fewer among the officers.

The conditions of eastern Europe during the Second World War do not exist, and are unlikely to exist for the US in the future. Why..? Because we have things the Soviets in WWII couldn't dream of, like: ICBMs, Predator, cruise missiles, helicopters, satellite communications, F-16s, F-18s, B-1s, B-2s, at least 10 aircraft-carrier battle groups, and over 1000 nuclear weapons, not to mention a host of cutting edge military equipment which precludes the possibility that our hegemony will be challenged by any nation or state.

tjqiccfHxP

0, cialis on line,