How do you feel about women joining the SEALs?

[keith99]

Center for Military Readiness | Women in Combat

^^ in 2004 this was looked into.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...f&AD=ADA285676

I pasted these back on page 9. The first is a news blog article, the 2nd is a female doctors finding on the issue, her conclusion was that the typical (even elite) female cannot be trained to perform at the same level as the typical man and because many military tasks are designed for men they would need to be redesigned if they they are to be undertaken be females. The findings in this document were based on military females such as west point cadets and service members, the elite.

Typical West Pointer is not what I'd call the physical elite.

Last time any of the military academies won a National Championship in Football was during WW II when able bodied men were expected to go to war (except for those in the Academies).

I can find scores of women who can exceed the typical seal in some combat related activities.

But the bit about military tasks being designed for men does trump in the end. There is just too much that goes to bigger and stronger. Oh and interchangeable parts. For women the problem is one has to be 90th or 95th percentile in dozens of things, not 99th in some and 80th in others.

If special forces really was special in the mission impossible sense there would be a lot more spots for women. If women wanted those spots.

That is the other things. Top physical shape women are good enough to think Olympics or Pro tour, a good life. How many Pro football, basketball or baseball players opted for a military gig in the last 20 years? And men are stupid that way. Women not as much, so how many truly elite women athletes would you expect to get?

 

[Cooch]

Keith...I have to agree.

It's not just whether you can shoot well, but whether you can do so after fast-climbing a mountain or lying-up for days on end.
It's not just whether you can carry a combat load, but whether you can carry it for weeks on end without career-ending stress fractures..... and/or whether you can drag a similarly-burdened wounded team-member to cover while not abandoning your own kit.

The physical resiliance factor is not mentioned often enough in these debates. The military often does not have the luxury of scheduled rest periods. Therefore an increased tendency to break down under continued operational pressure reduces the long-term effectiveness of the whole team. There is also the question of the costs involved in keeping a given number of personnel in the field. It does not cost less to train a woman to that standard, but she is very likely to give less service in return.

 

[Cooch]

Mind you, this is not to say that there are not already some very tough girls who've served with distinction in similar sorts of roles in N. Ireland, apparently. And with no concessions to their sex.

Pardon my asking.... but did the deployments in NI. require long-distance insertion, on foot, carrying all the gear required for extended survival in hot weather (lots of water) over and above a full battle-load?

One lad I know walked 20km to a fight in the 'Ghan, in the dark and rain, over rough country, while carrying well over 220 pounds of kit... And he wasn't "elite", just good infantry.

 

[Cooch]

"If they're stupid enough then let them join" - Bill Hicks
(along them lines )

When we have limited resources and are fighting for our freedom and way of life.... are WE stupid enough to send less than our very best?

 

[flibbleflob]

When we have limited resources and are fighting for our freedom and way of life.... are WE stupid enough to send less than our very best?

yes the wars we are fight are for freedom

 

[m551sheridan]

why cannot women in our society be HONORED by the fact that our National More' are to keep women safe and away from the ugliness of the trenches. If they must feel a compulsion to fight they can do it in a plane, a submarine, an aircraft carrier and you can die there just as good. But the trench is an ugly place, it turns you into ugly. I would hate to visualize my daughter having died in a tank as all that would be found is charred skeletal parts.... why do they wish to go to these places? You woman, like I said in the beginning of my post, should be honored that we, as a nation, do not wish you to experience what you cannot comprehend.

 

[Cooch]

yes the wars we are fight are for freedom

How many wars that Australians and Americans have fought in together over the last century, in which our opponents have had a system of government more free than our own?

But really, you are dodging the point. The fundamental, basic reason that we have a military is to secure our own borders. That it is sometimes misused does not refute this.

If women really want to engage in military adventurism, then they can go find employment with mercenaries.... if they can find any that will pay them. If no-one will do that, then it raises the question as to how good they really are.

 

[Cooch]

If those demanding the "right to fight" really meant it, they would be happy to see all-female infantry units formed and sent into combat to win or lose on their own merits.

The Israelis have such a unit, but they are not prepared to use it other than on a peaceful frontier, or policing their own population.

 

[keith99]

If those demanding the "right to fight" really meant it, they would be happy to see all-female infantry units formed and sent into combat to win or lose on their own merits.

The Israelis have such a unit, but they are not prepared to use it other than on a peaceful frontier, or policing their own population.

Actually such a unit, composed entirely of elite women soldiers is possible . And I do think such a unit could be created, there are plenty of women who exceed the average male, would be exceptionally useful in some of the areas the U.S. is in right now.

The psychological impact of such a unit even holding their own would be significant. Such a unit winning a firefight would be devastating to some of our enemies. And given the differences in training, arms and support such a victory is to be expected.

Our current military thinking is very short on considering psychological impact.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

I heard it was happening and I said, 'If they can do the work let em in.' Then someone said they'd lower the standards women have to go through to pass. After that I rolled my eyes and said, 'No wonder our military is still fighting two third world countries for a longer time than we fought World War II.' What do you folks think?

Seal Requirement -Official Seal Site

There's not plans so far to augment enlistment to include women.

I think it would be a bad idea to allow women in the SEALS. A woman can be tough as nails but there's something about a woman being in danger that can compromise men on the mission. The woman factor can weaken the ranks.

 

[Cooch]

Actually such a unit, composed entirely of elite women soldiers is possible . And I do think such a unit could be created, there are plenty of women who exceed the average male, would be exceptionally useful in some of the areas the U.S. is in right now.

The psychological impact of such a unit even holding their own would be significant. Such a unit winning a firefight would be devastating to some of our enemies. And given the differences in training, arms and support such a victory is to be expected.

Our current military thinking is very short on considering psychological impact.

There are not "plenty" of women who can exceed the standard that the "average" male can reach under military training. Not in the military, and willing to enter the appropriate branches of combat. Those that meet the standards are still rarely more capable than the bottom 10% of males that qualify. A unit composed of 1st-decile soldiers isn't "average".

The question is not whether they can fight "a battle". The question is whether they camn fight a prolonged campaign under normal combat conditions. It does not cost any less to train a female, so the bang-for-buck, is considerably less...

.... and maybe one reason that women have not been jammed into all roles yet, is that the psychological impact upon the whole military HAS been considered. It's a very strong argument against integration.

Anyway, go and ask the Israelis and the Russians. They have experience with women in frontline combat, and they are not enthuisiastic about the results.

 

[keith99]

There are not "plenty" of women who can exceed the standard that the "average" male can reach under military training. Not in the military, and willing to enter the appropriate branches of combat. Those that meet the standards are still rarely more capable than the bottom 10% of males that qualify. A unit composed of 1st-decile soldiers isn't "average".

The question is not whether they can fight "a battle". The question is whether they camn fight a prolonged campaign under normal combat conditions. It does not cost any less to train a female, so the bang-for-buck, is considerably less...

.... and maybe one reason that women have not been jammed into all roles yet, is that the psychological impact upon the whole military HAS been considered. It's a very strong argument against integration.

Anyway, go and ask the Israelis and the Russians. They have experience with women in frontline combat, and they are not enthuisiastic about the results.

Plenty is a term that changes depending on how it is meant.

When I say there are plenty I am NOT saying plenty to make half or even 10% (or less) of the units in the Army female. I mean there are plenty to construct one or a handful of all female regiments capable of front line fighting.

Oh and I do have my doubts about "and willing to enter the appropriate branches of combat". I guess my previous sentence can be taken 2 very different ways, the way I mean it is that you are quite likely right. Finding women capable AND willing may be very very difficult. Much more difficult than just able (which is by far the more difficult of the 2, willing seems easy).

 

[Cooch]

Keith....

One female US Marine pointed out that - as of her time of writing Feb2013 - not one woman had passed the Marines' Infantry Officer Course. Of those that tried, all washed out. If the Marines cannot find women capable of meeting a standard passed by the average officer, what does that say about the physical standard of any Battalion-sized unit of women that might be deployed?

Another way to say it, is to ask how any similar infantry unit of men would perform if you removed every above-average man... (and that still holds true if you utilise only the top 25% of women by physical performance standards.

I like the idea because it would go some way towards shutting up those who put carreer opportunities before military effectiveness.... but it's not a good way to fight a war.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Keith....

One female US Marine pointed out that - as of her time of writing Feb2013 - not one woman had passed the Marines' Infantry Officer Course. Of those that tried, all washed out. If the Marines cannot find women capable of meeting a standard passed by the average officer, what does that say about the physical standard of any Battalion-sized unit of women that might be deployed?

Another way to say it, is to ask how any similar infantry unit of men would perform if you removed every above-average man... (and that still holds true if you utilise only the top 25% of women by physical performance standards.

I like the idea because it would go some way towards shutting up those who put carreer opportunities before military effectiveness.... but it's not a good way to fight a war.

I'm sort of critical of the way they physically train military officers. The 'O course' is where people run, climb a wall, climb a rope etc... In a modern battlefield when is someone going to climb a rope or jump over a 6 foot wall? I think if they update infantry training they will find women physically capable of being infantry officers on the battle field. One reservation might be women having to carry wounded comrades because carrying dead weight is a strength issue.

 

[Cooch]

I'm sort of critical of the way they physically train military officers. The 'O course' is where people run, climb a wall, climb a rope etc... In a modern battlefield when is someone going to climb a rope or jump over a 6 foot wall? I think if they update infantry training they will find women physically capable of being infantry officers on the battle field. One reservation might be women having to carry wounded comrades because carrying dead weight is a strength issue.

In Afghanistan, the ability to get over walls saves lives.

Are you aware that the normal rural dwelling in that country is a walled compound? Instead of a picket fence, the average Afghani household has a courtyard surrounded by 10" walls. A lot of combat includes entering and searching those compounds, and restricting yourself to entering through gates means far more of your soldiers face pre-sited, concentrated fire and booby-traps.

How many soldiers are you prepared to see killed in order to accommodate officers who cannot get over walls, or need extra assistance to do so?

That is before we look at the need to manouvre across rough, steep terrain. A young gentleman I know carried over 200lb of kit, across rough country, at night as part of a unit that succesfully attacked a high-value target.
Do you think that they should have to make a judgement about what they can achieve because female soldiers can't keep up?
Do you think that the enemy will be gentlemanly and stop fighting sooner because female soldiers can't carry as much ammunition?
Do you think that our own soldiers will respect officers that can't contribute their fair share to the fight?

The point of that kind of training, is that high levels of upper-body strength - and overall strength - are a major advantage in infantry combat. An infantry soldier might not have to climb a rope, but if he cannot climb onto the roof of a house in order to site a weapon and/or gain a better view of an adversary, more of their fellow-soldiers are likely to die. Houses are not lower, body-armour, weapons and ammunition are not lighter just because you are female.......

"Modern warfare" may have changed in some respects, but in others it never will. If you permit yourself to grow overly dependant on going into battle by helicopter or APC, the enemy will quickly adapt by choosing to fight in ways and places that put mechanised transport at a disadvantage. Relying on enemy stupidity is not a valid plan of campaign.

 

[Autumnleaf]

In Afghanistan, the ability to get over walls saves lives.

Are you aware that the normal rural dwelling in that country is a walled compound? Instead of a picket fence, the average Afghani household has a courtyard surrounded by 10" walls. A lot of combat includes entering and searching those compounds, and restricting yourself to entering through gates means far more of your soldiers face pre-sited, concentrated fire and booby-traps.

How many soldiers are you prepared to see killed in order to accommodate officers who cannot get over walls, or need extra assistance to do so?

That is before we look at the need to manouvre across rough, steep terrain. A young gentleman I know carried over 200lb of kit, across rough country, at night as part of a unit that succesfully attacked a high-value target.
Do you think that they should have to make a judgement about what they can achieve because female soldiers can't keep up?
Do you think that the enemy will be gentlemanly and stop fighting sooner because female soldiers can't carry as much ammunition?
Do you think that our own soldiers will respect officers that can't contribute their fair share to the fight?

The point of that kind of training, is that high levels of upper-body strength - and overall strength - are a major advantage in infantry combat. An infantry soldier might not have to climb a rope, but if he cannot climb onto the roof of a house in order to site a weapon and/or gain a better view of an adversary, more of their fellow-soldiers are likely to die. Houses are not lower, body-armour, weapons and ammunition are not lighter just because you are female.......

"Modern warfare" may have changed in some respects, but in others it never will. If you permit yourself to grow overly dependant on going into battle by helicopter or APC, the enemy will quickly adapt by choosing to fight in ways and places that put mechanised transport at a disadvantage. Relying on enemy stupidity is not a valid plan of campaign.

From what I understand, modern infantry has and uses shaped charges to blow holes in walls so they don't have to expose themselves by climbing over the walls. We don't have infantry officers using sabres these days either.

 

[Refined by Fire]

I heard it was happening and I said, 'If they can do the work let em in.' Then someone said they'd lower the standards women have to go through to pass. After that I rolled my eyes and said, 'No wonder our military is still fighting two third world countries for a longer time than we fought World War II.' What do you folks think?

It's not about the issue of women being able to pass the basic tests or the basic screening in San Diego. It's not about women being able to fulfill the mission.

What it's about is the POLITICS and what will inevitably happen in a military that is controlled by politicians with ideological missions and extremist constituencies whose votes they need to get and stay elected.

It's about QUOTAS and special favors and rules being bent by phone calls in the middle of the night from Washington, passed down through admirals and generals to unit commanders with the "right verbage" and "body language" that conveys the unspoken message:

"We need to work toward a 10 percent minimum female grad rate with every BUDS class"... or something like that.

The question REALLY should be:

Why do we need women SEALS? Is there a shortage of men? Is there some overwhelming need that necessitates women in spite of the relative few women who can meet or exceed the standards as they exist today? Or all the unique and special challenges they will present as SEAL members?

Equality isn't good enough for this. There are many people who are automatically excluded from wearing the gold trident because EQUALITY has nothing to do with it. Leave the military out of the social engineering business. This is not a GI Jane movie. Contrary to popular belief, women in combat is NOT going as well as we'd like, for a lot of different reasons.

And I will add my own personal feelings here as a Christian whose served with SEALS in the field: A nation that puts women on the front line is revealing something about itself and what it believes. It's semi-barbaric, at best. In a perfect world, nobody would die in war. But man.... we definitely DO NOT need to expand the pool of eligibles to the widest possible degree. Men start most of the wars in this world. At least they can have the decency to limit the bloodshed to themselves.

 

[Refined by Fire]

faafdsfdas

 

[Refined by Fire]

If they can pass the SEAl PRT, sure.
not a lowered one, the one they have now. This isn't some tech job where we can afford to allow weaker people in for "equality's" sake.

The SEAL PRT is not even 1/100th of what's involved. The SEAL PRT is related to the overall expectations of SEAL performance as learning CPR is related to the overall expectations of a heart surgeon. It's only the beginning.

 

[Lovely Jar]

This is a years old thread revived.
Having said that, rape is an issue women who join the military have to contend with because the men that rape them don't want women in the military. So they show them their not wanted by assaulting them sexually. Rape is a huge issue.

If women were to join the SEALS it would just be another avenue of assault so as to send the message women should never be allowed in the military.

Were the rapists arrested and imprisoned rape wouldn't be an issue.

In a perfect world men who are entrusted to defend a nation could be trusted to serve with women. And if a miracle happened and that was the case without exception, then absolutely yes women should be allowed to join the SEALS.
Any woman that could tough it out in SEAL basic has every right to pursue her mission of defending this country as a SEAL.
Maybe one day the military will be different and that will happen.