Replies

It is not merely the risk to the women involved, it is the risk to all those around her. She simply is not going to be able to carry somebodies daddy out of harm's way if the need should arise. Whom is risking what in this case? The same is true in a burning building or in a free-for-all involving police officers.

What are the plusses for introducing women into these situations. Do they outweigh the risk to her and to her comrad(s). Again, what are the plusses?

She simply is not going to be able to carry somebodies daddy out of harm's way if the need should arise. I've posted this before on another thread, so forgive me. I've already stated I oppose women in combat because they might be captured and impregnated and tortured by the enemy with the pregnancy. (Men can have the same happen, except they can't get pregnant. I suppose if a woman was unable to get pregnant, I wouldn't have this objection to her serving in combat.) I do have to wonder about this "strength" issue, though. My brother, who was 5'6 and 120 pounds and not exactly a tower of strength, was accepted into the Navy and has been very successful there. I know another man who was in the Navy who is 5'4. If these men get in, many women could easily be just as fit or more. I'll also add this: the recruiter practically snapped up my brother the moment he showed up. Why? Because of his IQ scores. The Armed Forces are much more interested in your IQ than your strength.