Replies

Now, now-your theory is coming apart at the seams. First, the Army and the Marines do almost exactly the same thing: Land Warfare. The Marines and the Army both do amphibious assaults and both close with and destroy the enemy. Still the Marines spend almost half as much per recruit as the Army despite the fact that the Army takes in almost THREE times as many female recruits. Doesn't really fit the assumptions of your theory now does it?

I wonder how it is-since according to you they "take whoever shows up"-that the military would spend more to recruit more males, who are twice as likely to join as females, than it would to recruit the current number of females? Somehow it costs less to recruit those who are half as likely to join than those whose volunteer rates are higher? Then again logical coherence is not your strong suit so I'm sure you'll babble your way through some bizarre explanation.

Let's look at the numbers for a minute. The military is about 15% female. That 15% uses approximately twice as many health care resources as do their male counterparts (actually, they use more than that, but why quibble?). So females use roughly 30% of all health care resources and so account for approximately $4.4 BILLION dollars in military health care costs. Now if they were replaces by 15% more males we could cut that number in half=net savings $2.2 BILLION. The military ONLY spends $1.8 BILLION on all its recruiting efforts. Let's say that recruiting those final 15% of males to replace the females adds 30% to the recruiting budget (twice what it costs to recruit the first 85%). Add 30% to the entire recruiting budget and you have an additional $540 million (with an m as opposed to a b to clear up any confusion. Take the $2.2 BILLION saved from health care and subtract $540 MILLION and you have a net savings of $1.66 BILLION.

Most people, when theories don't match facts, abandon them. You don't have a theory-you've adopted an orthodoxy.

Now, now-your theory is coming apart at the seams. First, the Army and the Marines do almost exactly the same thing: Land Warfare. The Marines and the Army both do amphibious assaults and both close with and destroy the enemy. Still the Marines spend almost half as much per recruit as the Army despite the fact that the Army takes in almost THREE times as many female recruits. Doesn't really fit the assumptions of your theory now does it?

Again, the two different services will have two different priorities, budgets and expenses. The Marines are part of the Navy also so there's a lot going on here that could affect the money spent on each servicemember.

They're not running on a quota your point isn't relevent. Since they're not running on a quota, then the cost to recruit an all-male Army would still be a lot more expensive than the cost to recruit an all-male Marines. So then you get back to the law of diminishing returns again. If you got rid of all the females in the military, then the cost of recruitment would rise exponentially due to the law of diminishing returns.

Let's look at the numbers for a minute. The military is about 15% female. That 15% uses approximately twice as many health care resources as do their male counterparts (actually, they use more than that, but why quibble?). So females use roughly 30% of all health care resources and so account for approximately $4.4 BILLION dollars in military health care costs. Now if they were replaces by 15% more males we could cut that number in half=net savings $2.2 BILLION. The military ONLY spends $1.8 BILLION on all its recruiting efforts. Let's say that recruiting those final 15% of males to replace the females adds 30% to the recruiting budget (twice what it costs to recruit the first 85%). Add 30% to the entire recruiting budget and you have an additional $540 million (with an m as opposed to a b to clear up any confusion. Take the $2.2 BILLION saved from health care and subtract $540 MILLION and you have a net savings of $1.66 BILLION. Most people, when theories don't match facts, abandon them. You don't have a theory-you've adopted an orthodoxy

LOL You're forgetting my original point though, that having females fill the less-demanding jobs frees up a better choice of men for the infantry which saves lives over the long haul. Even if your numbers are correct, there are 280,000,000 Americans. Is it worth 6 bucks per year per American to have a better choice of men for the front lines to save lives, I'd say so.