[Ultima Thule]

Your argument is sound, but I wonder about the implications of universal military service for women. If they have kids, who will take care of them? Will taxpayers be forced to subsidize daycare on a massive scale? Or will all women serving in the military be forced to receive birth control such as the Norplant implants for the duration of their service, as the writer Cathy Young has suggested? In that case, would all young people simply be expected to postpone marriage and childbearing until after their service obligation? That kind of social engineering gives me the creeps...

I also predict that if all women had to serve in the military, sexual relations between officers and NCOs and their subordinates would become impossible to regulate. How would that affect unit cohesion and morale?

As I said, I do believe you have a valid argument for requiring women to serve. However, I wonder at what cost that might come to the military and the nation.

[VietVet]

I was speaking in the context of the proposal under discussion, which called for short term (6 Months) training and orientation tours for everyone, everyone, that is, who could legitimately be considered members of the Militia.

The (very real) difficulties you enumerate would not apply, because of the short tour, and because the Militia is, by definition, composed of the *abled bodied*, i.e, those physically fit for combat service. Pregnant women, or single mothers, do not fit that definition. Nor for that matter would single fathers, those with motherless children to care for.