I am assuming you are talking about my comment.
It was not intended to disrespect female soldiers but just the question.
Now I'm sure that a bullet fired by a female is just as deadly as males, but the question is does the military allow females in combat? For example Australia has female soldiers but they are not allowed in dangerous combat missions, other country's have similar policies.
Does the Serbian military allow females in front line combat operations?
How many front line combat troops will Serbia have?
As I said in my previous post, the problem is not women allowed/not allowed in "pure" combat unit which is a deep cultural problem on which we can argue indefinitly. The question was how many soldiers have direct combat as their first task?
As I said, today it's risky to separate "pure" combat soldiers from the other ones, at least in ground forces as there is no more front-line confrontation between two armies. For example, infantry patrols often include military Police, intelligence or psy-ops specialists... An operation of public affairs (or european equivalents) could be attacked as an IED or an ambush party can target a logistic or medical convoy... Most so-called combat-support soldiers should be trained at infantry fight and not disregarded as "second-class" fighters. (BTW, if you're interessed by the subject on women take a look at the statistics : how many US and UK (which both bans ground combat units for female personnel) women were killed in A-stan or Irak? And how many canadians (two i think), german, french (we even have a few female commandos in our air force) or other european countries which allow them in combat platoons? Then calculate the ratio : you will probably be surprised!)
Don't forget either the importance on technology : a fighter like serbian Mig or attack aircraft are highly valuable and need highly skilled specialists to pilot and maintain them... As they're not direct combat soldiers, they will not be counted with front-line men but they're essential... An armed forces is a whole thing which branches become and will ever become more and more integrated...
The huge rate of women among IDF conscripts is absolutely not representative of their presence in military operations.
Last edited by Sumadinac; 10-23-2010 at 12:53 PM.
AFAIK Israel, through using them in 1948 war, still ban women to serve in ground combat units except in one infantry unit. The problem is always : is there a real front line?... Men and women affected to guard duties can still be killed by terrorists attacks... I've always though that in our countries a cop has more "chances" to be involved in a bullet exchange than a soldier and I never heard of passionnate discussions about policewomen even in elite units (SWAT for example). In France no serious problem occured when the ban about combat unit was lifted but their presence among firefighters (both civil and military) was briefly discussed.
Last edited by Honneur et Patrie; 10-23-2010 at 11:38 AM.
It depends of what you call "close combat", honestly if it's about shooting someone at 100 or even 50 meters, a woman can do it very well, we do not fight with swords anymore...
IMO, the problem is rather about the group cohesion. Women and cohesion don't go well toghether, not much between them and men, but rather when they are together.
I think that the more [*******#000000]you have a high number of women in a same group[/COLOR], the more the group cohesion is likely to be diminished.[/COLOR]
the real fight is not a video game.dont believe to much in hollywood propagand, movies and tv shows.those are intendent for spreading the audience,involving the women in men way of life.that also is made by video games.
99%of women in real combat situation, would get a panic attack being paralyzed.off course by training this can be improved, but this is the main reason (by problem of capturing prisoners)cuz women are not allowed, participating in dangerous combat missions.
Which are?there are some biological reasons
Please give your source...99%of women in real combat situation, would get a panic attack being paralyzed.
Through the ages many women fought disguised as men and were only discovered when wounded... Some probably never were discovered... All female or mixed soviet combat units during WWII fought as well as their male counterparts. It's noted even by their german opponents who were real machists. Many fought in yougoslav partisans ranks, you should know it. Dahomey amazons gave a very hard work to french foreign legion and marines in the 1880's. I or other contributors could give many other examples.
It's an evidence that an average woman is physically weaker than an average man that's why armies will still stand a masculine world (and, of course, plenty of civilian jobs like civil engineering or truck driving). It's also an evidence that women culturaly put less interest on "show of force"...
But if a woman proves that she has the same physical, intellectual and moral requirements as a man, banning her from serving in any position on so-called biological ground is a discrimination. They will not weaken your strenght if they've the same abilities as any other soldiers. That's why I disagree either with you and with feminists who impose weaker physical requirements on ground of "positive discrimination". Such women will remain exceptions in combat-dedicated units (for example, according to our official statistics, less than 1% of french combat personnel are women, more than 10% of our global military personnel are female) as they will remain exceptions in civilian professions as docker or bulldozer driver!!!
You can argue on other reasons (little-sister syndrom, additional costs...) but not banning ALL women on biological ground.
IMHO, it depends on the group and personalities but an example give some credits to your opinion : some years ago a european navy (Royal navy, I think, but I'm not 100% sure) tested a complete female crew on a minehunter. It was a total failure and the navy reversed to mixed crew which are the norm in any occidental navy.[*******Black]Women and cohesion don't go well toghether, not much between them and men, but rather when they are together. [/COLOR]
Last edited by Honneur et Patrie; 10-23-2010 at 01:40 PM. Reason: gramar
So it was maybe not "close combat" but be sure that long range shots needs a lot of skills and concentration.
That is the question I asked.
For example if only a third of those 36 000 personnel are allowed/capable of direct combat operations than the issue is would that be enough.Its fine to mention the importance on technology, but Serbia's military is hardly high tech and dependent on a few obsolete aircraft which sometimes lack even basic parts. I agree that the armed forces is a whole thing with integrated branches but only when you are talking about nations that have respectable air forces, navy's along the ground branches. In Serbia's case because of the location and possible opponents it is vital to have as many men/women as possible in uniform which can take on the enemy effectively. IMHO no technology can replace the basic men/women in uniform on the ground with a rifle or in a MBT.