Because the jobs they do aren't that much different than in the private sector.
You don't explain how having more females equates to more males in the infantry since everyone chooses whatever military job they wish on enlisting (females are excluded from the Infantry, Armor, Artillery and a few other MOS's).
Not more, but a better choice.
Those that would choose infanty would still choose infantry-you are drawing on a males only pool in any event. I fail to see how having more males to choose from for all male careers would result in less quality.
If you eliminated females, the same number of males would volunteer. Since males would have to do female jobs, that means less choice for the more demanding jobs.
Now who's laughing. I got Miller's name wrong-big deal. I've provided facts and sources to bolster my arguments. You haven't sone anything but theorize (and I've shot every single one of those down).
Nah, you're not taking into account the law of diminishing returns. You get less return the farther you go into a human resource supply. This would lead to more deaths on the battlefield.
I've shown an addition $2.2 Billion in health care costs alone for the military to provide for females (leaving out time lost from work due to those same injuries, pregnancy and the fact that women are about 180% more likely than men to leave the service early). You haven't supported a single one of your theories with even the vaguest imitation of a fact.
I never claimed to have facts. I've said from the beginning that my military structure views are based on logic since I've never served and I don't feel like being an expert on something I don't have first-hand experience in. I never post on the subject and the only reason I am now is because you and Terrell insisted on getting my opinion on this subject...why, I don't know. Why is it so important to you to go through this every day with me? It's not like I'm writing articles every day going against your opinion on this? You're doing research every day. I answer your research with one-liners. You're getting the short end of the stick on the time-spent scale. lol
This hardly qualifies as a debate, this is just me smacking you around.
You spend hours doing research, I answer in 5 minutes and you're smacking me around?!
You're a glutton for punishment, but I refuse to let someone as ignorant as you have the last word on a topic as important as this.
The last word?! What am I doing to try to get the last word? I am simply stating the same thing I stated 400 posts ago, that I think filling less-demanding jobs with women frees up more a choice of men for the infantry for the front lines and therefore saves lives. That one little sentence has you that fired up? You can't take a difference of opinion?
If you eliminated females the military would still have to get the same number of recruits. Even if the recruiting budget for the entire military DOUBLED from $1.8 billion to $3.6 billion to get those recruits and you subtracted that extra $1.8 billion from the $2.2 billion saved from the extra health care costs spent on females you would get a net savings of $400 million (that's almost real money). That's $400 million that could be spent on extra training, better equipment, more pay-or even given back to the taxpayers.
I challenge your opinion" (that's not quite as strong a word as theories) because it's a wrong opinion. Your one wrong vote cancels out someone elses one right vote. If you were wrong on Abortion or Gun Control or any other topic I would argue with you about that. Other people read these threads to inform themselves about the issues-they need to see the difference between who is right and who is wrong.
I've spent about two hours doing research on all this (in case you didn't know-the internet is searchable). One thing you did get right: you are stating the same thing you did 400 posts ago-I've shown that you are wrong, but you cling to it.