Yes. I have heard it said much more often these days that (seriously) that “warfare is different today, technology makes up for [INSERT SOME PHYSICAL COMPONENT HERE] and women can do this as well as men...”
Yeah. Such as a mechanized lifter for hoisting shells or something like that, and in battle, the thing gets hit by a mortar or breaks down because the supply chain has been interrupted. Or the battery runs down. Then a human being has to do hump work, and missions, battles, wars, and ultimately, lives depend on it being done.
There are a million things like that. And it still will, in the end, come down to a human doing them with their own physical brawn.
Right.
Given the toxic gender wars of the last decades, I have no opposition to putting females in any combat roles; the last war we won was decades before I was born, and nobody even expects a real “victory” in any sense anymore when we send Americans to die overseas - just facilitated business afterwards. If countries and companies want 50% female participation in government and on boards, then by all means let them do 50% of the work - and incur 50% of the casualties. In a post-Judeo-Christian culture where breeding has dropped off sharply, why protect them? If they want the trappings of participation, they can have the risks, too.