[EDIT]

Nice pictures about women in The Japan Self Defence Forces

I think some of them are a model - was hired to take pictures . but ...well...who care ... they look good





JGSDF:





































JASDF




Test pilots









maintenance team






Komatsu air base - Rescue squad

I have a question.

Why do some nations have a problem with female combat personnel, but not others?

Nachtsider wrote:I have a question.

Why do some nations have a problem with female combat personnel, but not others?

the reason that why female combat personnel have their own problem is because thy are women and women cannot simply make a right decision by themselves(they rather follow what their emotion think...) well,it's just an hypothesis....

KuroNeko wrote:the reason that why female combat personnel have their own problem is because thy are women and women cannot simply make a right decision by themselves(they rather follow what their emotion think...) well,it's just an hypothesis....

missingthepoint.jpg

Also:

Nachtsider wrote:I have a question.

Why do some nations have a problem with female combat personnel, but not others?

Just a hypothesis here, but as far as I can tell, those countries which are less resistant to the idea of women in combat tend to be those with a recent (and often desperate, ie the conflict is actively threatening their own country) history of warfare... whether by their own doing or by the hand of someone else. Hence they tend to take a more pragmatic view towards the apparent need for one's sexual organs to swing around in the breeze in order to hold a rifle. Either that or they have particularly competent and/or egalitarian governments (see the nordic countries), or on the other end of the spectrum, particularly powerful governments (on a domestic scale, in terms of an ability to say "you shall do").

Those that are resistant either have it culturally ingrained, or suffer a government run by focus groups (See: democracy... which frankly, for all its virtues, is shit at getting anything actually done)... preferably from far enough away from the front lines to be able to sit back in its armchairs and bitch (See: most of the westernised world)... to which the rulers run around in circles trying to please everyone, especially the vocal and ignorant minority, and ultimately pleasing no-one.

That's of course a pretty broad generalisation, and one which leaves a lot of questions unanswered and holes... but the short version is I think it's a combination of cultural/social pressures, or at least perceived cultural/social pressures and politics. I seem to remember one of the major barriers to Australia allowing women into direct-combat roles was that the politicos (and military for that matter) were terrified of what the public reaction would be to a woman being killed; whether real or imagined.

Alfisti wrote:I seem to remember one of the major barriers to Australia allowing women into direct-combat roles was that the politicos (and military for that matter) were terrified of what the public reaction would be to a woman being killed; whether real or imagined.

As opposed to what public reaction to a man being killed would be? Man, gender equality truly is a myth.

Nachtsider wrote:

Alfisti wrote:I seem to remember one of the major barriers to Australia allowing women into direct-combat roles was that the politicos (and military for that matter) were terrified of what the public reaction would be to a woman being killed; whether real or imagined.

As opposed to what public reaction to a man being killed would be? Man, gender equality truly is a myth.

Frankly: it really is.

Jumping quickly to another bitch of mine: this is one of the reasons I'm generally opposed to these schemes to give women a "leg up" in the workplace. Not because I'm against the idea of women being board members and that sort of thing, but because if you legislate that 30% of the board MUST be women, then everyone is going to look at the women there and go "well she's just there because we had to fill the quota"... regardless of whether the individual in question deserves to be there or not. I think it's unfair to those women who do have the merit and capability to reach those positions to allow them to be lumped in as quota fillers. It's just reinforcing a belief that there is some sort of barrier between the sexes in terms of capability.

Of course, then again you run into the cultural issues ingrained with the "boys club"... catch 22. I think as the current, hopefully more gender-equitable, generation rises through the ranks that glass ceiling will disappear, but it's going the long way around. However I honestly think many of the measures put in place to try to speed things up wind up doing more damage than good in the long term.

I think the biggest stated issue with females in combat roles is that studies done regarding, say Russian women serving in primarily male units during WW2, have showed that females are just a wild card for the chemistry of a unit. Some guys frankly don't trust women.

And I don't mean this disparagingly, but if the average guy can't make sense of a woman given a highschool relationship, I don't really think its realistic to say he could in a far more stressful scenario like a warzone.

On the other end of the spectrum, take thirty college-aged males away from their homes and loved ones for months at a time in hot, boring military bases and add a few female soldiers... what's going to happen? Relationships throwing a wrench into squad organization aside, pregnancy during wartime sucks.

I DO support gender equality. There's been quite a few females in the armed forces, I know for the US who performed as well as anybody could be expected and paid dearly for it. I'm just pointing out the issue is probably a lot more complicated than prejudice and the old guard.

The Russians *used* to have women in combat roles, because WW2. You know, where Stalin killed twenty million Russians and they were running out of everything? Or take Israel, which still avoids placing women into combat roles but accepts them more or less universally into the military. The reason for that is because they're constantly under attack and a completely militarized population is what works for them.

[EDIT]

lyndist wrote:Why in the Vietnam War , number of US soldiers get killed is very very low (58.000) But Number of US soldiers been injured is huge (305.000) of which 153.000 of them were disabled (half of them).

Medivac helicopters meant wounded soldiers were able to be quickly moved to medical facilities, which allowed them to survive their injuries.

As to why so many were disabled, modern weapons are very good at chewing people up.

Mines are a bitch, too...

Fighting an enemy with a very well coordinated underground, not having effective body armor, inexperience in jungle warfare. Vehicles with very light armor vulnerable to handheld rockets (M113 and Huey come to mind), generally unreliable, transitionary weapons (M72 LAW, M60, M16.) A whole lot of reasons.

Because your troops were better at wounding than killing.

[EDIT]

[EDIT]

Well, if it were that easy to shoot a guy in the knee in the middle of a frantic firefight.

this is why most landmines were designed not to kill

Most mines are designed to shred your legs, or to shred your reproductive organs, which is more effective on males for obvious reasons (Seriously, when you say grow some balls.....why? They're weak!)

Depends on the mine. A typical mass-produced antipersonnel mine deployed by the hundreds to saturate areas generally have just enough explosive to destroy an ankle. Probably not the entire limb or your family jewels. It's just out of necessity when they're produced in such large numbers.

Then you have fragmentation mines, like the POMZ stake mine or the classic grenade on a stick. Explodes with enough force to kill someone at point blank and ruin the day of anyone close by. However, sitting on the ground, their effective blast radius is pretty limited. In practice, shrap really doesn't kill people at long range and I doubt anyone would lose a limb without being killed outright.

Bounding mines use a gunpowder charge to leap to chest level before they go off. They're also fragmentation to use the least amount of explosive possible. Those tend to just kill people outright.

There's some exotics that have enough explosives to blow off an entire limb, notably Eastern bloc designs, but they're few and far between. That sort of stuff is more like mortar shells rigged to mines or pressure plates.

anti-tank mine....

[EDIT]

that's what we're talking about

Unless you wound an enemy badly enough, though, he will live to fight you another day. Better to kill than to wound.

The only time I would ever shoot to wound? When I shoot a guy low to lure two or three others out to pull him to safety. Then I mow them all down.

No, a wounded enemy is better - they're a drain of resources, a morale hit, and slow down overall progress.

Also, they make good bait for taking out would-be rescuers.

a sniper-hunter type tactic
i commonly use it (baiting) when hunting a snake/dog/wild hog
and my uncle would kill it when the bait is set...LOL

taerkitty wrote:No, a wounded enemy is better - they're a drain of resources, a morale hit, and slow down overall progress.

Also, they make good bait for taking out would-be rescuers.

The second point you make is the only virtue to wounding an enemy.

If you're fighting a force who doesn't give a damn about their wounded (the Taliban or the Iraqi insurgency, for instance, or Imperial Japan), the first point doesn't hold water.

A wounded enemy will come back to make your life miserable once he recovers, unless you disable him permanently.

impy is very brave,stubborn and no fear of death..they die for their counrty