No disagreement there. Managing such considerations is what Federalism was for.
On a separate note, now that women have been judged eligible for every branch and twig of the armed services, there is now talk of requiring national registration of women as well as men. Any thoughts on that issue?
Women are every bit as capable of running a drone as men. While in combat, they are probably also as capable of running a tank or driving a truck, problems do arise with their mere presence in a unit. So the hazards arise at the edges where the two interact, because sex is as powerful a drive as national defense, particularly when our historic dominance has become acculturated while sexuality in child rearing has become nothing less than obsessive.
Let's face it, if this was about defense of home and hearth, you can bet there are women capable of emotionally if not physically. On the other hand, we do allow male soldiers to become obese, and they aren't worth a crap on the ground either. While we do have motivated soldiers, frankly, I think our whole k-12 educational standard built around positive reinforcement is problematic when it comes to making disciplined soldiers. Still, they can't all be SEALS, but then we don't need that. So in a sense, I think that experimentation is in order, to which the State militia model is appropriate.
So if I were king, I'd do what I could to strengthen AND integrate nationally the National Guard model, to build that regionally diversified command structure and run those experiments.
Thanks for asking. I hadn't really thought about it much.
Thanks for thinking. I have been very concerned that phys ed, which as a child 65 years ago I took 3 times a day in public school, has been eliminated in many places. Thus we have fat, unfit males and females. The fact that our streets and neighborhoods seem less safe than when I was a child means that our children have a lot less opportunity to run around and get exercise.