Replies

I was in error; it was Maj. Wilbert D. “Doug” Pearson who piloted the F15. Totally erroneous reference. I apologize. Still and all, it makes for an interesting read.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/ASAT/F15ASAT.html

I however wish to define the terms of “Combat” and how we use it in this friendly give and take. Is Combat different when you are up close and personal or at 20,000 feet and bombing little targets on the ground? I only know the version of Combat at the eye contact level. My experience was very up close and personal. That type of combat is totally wrong for a woman. Maybe an Amazon would do well, but a woman in the realistic sense – NO.

Now is combat sitting in an air-conditioned CIC on an aircraft carrier and seeing a spot on a radar/sonar screen and being given the order of fire the defensive weapon; could a woman function as well as a man? I think the answer is yes. Would it be appropriate for a woman to fly an A10 Wart hog in support of ground troops? Again yes. Would it be acceptable for a woman to served in a non line combatant role in any of the services in a theatre of war, I think that the answer is more yes than no. Women can fix a Plane, a radar, a truck.

I just think that barring the up close and personal role of a ground combat, women are very nearly capable of doing a number of jobs traditionally performed by a man. We have a tendency of depersonalizing the effect of pushing a button that sinks a ship. We teach the personnel that if it is you against them, it is better that you win and they don’t. We don’t dwell on the human aspect of the impact of their actions.

I’ve spoken with fighter and bomber pilots and they tell me that they usually don’t see the effect of their work unless it is BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) then it is always the “things” that are assessed; the bridge, building, tunnel complex that was destroyed. Even collateral damage is minimized.

So given the above, barring ground combat, I think that for women who want to serve their country, there are many places where they can serve honorably and effectively.

Be well and thank you for the polite debate.

I however wish to define the terms of “Combat” and how we use it in this friendly give and take. Is Combat different when you are up close and personal or at 20,000 feet and bombing little targets on the ground?

We agree on the up close and personal stuff. I can understand how someone might be tempted to view combat operations involving aircraft and ships as fitting for women, as it would seem that those operations do not require the same level of intensity. However, I think that opinion has come into vogue only because we've become spoiled by our technological superiority. We think of, to use your earlier example, flying an A-10 in support of troops as a relatively "safe" job, but I think that is only because it has been a while since we have faced an enemy who was capable of shooting them down. The same goes for support or remote operations on a ship, such as a carrier.

If we use WWII as an example, duty on a carrier was extremely dangerous, as you might find yourself defending against bombers, torpedoes, and heavy gun fire, all amid the increasingly fiery wreckage of your own ship. In such a case, the duty on that ship would suddenly become every bit as demanding as infantry operations on the ground, and thus would be in the realm of being unsuitable for females. The same goes for aircraft. Certainly there are women who can fly well, but if they were required to fly into heavy AAA or against other enemy aircraft, they would then deal with the stress of performing their jobs while possibly sustaining damage and injury, and with the added risk of being shot down in enemy territory, at which point one becomes a glorified grunt, a position, again, unsuitable for a female.

We haven't had to deal with an enemy with those capabilities within the last 30 years, so I think we've fallen into the assumption that being a combat pilot merely requires the ability to fly and the willingness to pull the trigger, and it is entirely possible that we will remain so technologically dominant that complete air superiority can be expected in all future operations. The military, however, does not succeed by making such assumptions. In order to remain at maximum effectiveness, it must train and prepare its pilots and seaman for the worst, and that includes those scenarios I just outlined, which, by their nature, preclude females.