[ansel12]

What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with a shorter, lighter, weaker, sicklier, less aggressive, slower moving, more terrain limited, reduced distance traveling, hygienically vulnerable, smaller weight carrying, more prone to injury, version.

He would have to rewrite all the knowledge and experience, of what his troops are capable of and reduce all that accordingly, and simply eliminate some capabilities entirely, but a fair enemy would not seek to capitalize on those advantages of course.

In the meantime, I wonder if Americans have forgotten that if we lose in a major war, we disappear from the future, forever. It seems that many Americans are starting to see war as a sporting event, where you can win or lose, but it doesn’t really change anything.

[broken_arrow1]

PMS on the battlefield could work to their advantage...

[thecodont]

What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with a shorter, lighter, weaker, sicklier, less aggressive, slower moving, more terrain limited, reduced distance traveling, hygienically vulnerable, smaller weight carrying, more prone to injury, version.

What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with 11-year-old boys?

[THX 1138]

Here is an incredible article from The Atlantic Monthly. Published in August '89, it made such an impression on me that I never forgot it. It tells the truth about the realities of combat.

The Real War

And they want to send women into this?

[Steven Tyler]

Women, on average, have less upper body strengh.
Thats just a matter of nature.