It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Breaking - AP reporting US Secretary of Defense will open all combat roles to women

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:28 PM
I hope they can also provide strong measures to prevent all the sexual harassment (or worse things) that this measures may cause.

Besides that, I'm happy to see more career opportunities for women.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 04:24 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6
Its great that women can join the combat forces, but (there is always a but) how are they going to accommodate the women? Example I spent many days living on and in my tank with a crew of guys, you put a women in that position how will she wash her self, take care of the monthly business ect, were to sleep( trust me tanks are not comfortable to sleep on) being able to handle the stress or the crew?

Yes there are other countries were women serve combat roles, but they are segregated like the Israel's, they have all female tank crews, and all guy crews, who will the US follow when it comes to this, I guess saying and doing with out knowing the details is going to be trouble for a lot of units that are combat units.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 04:26 PM
a reply to: chadderson

Seemed to work ok for the Sovs during WWII.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 04:35 PM
a reply to: seagull

Man, I joined at the wrong time.. If there had been women in my basic training that would of been great!!

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 04:51 PM
Im all for woman in MOST forms of the military but I do think woman become a liability to themselves and their crew in a combat situation.

1. Because men tend to have a natural protective role for women and attraction to them. This has consequences in the battlefield. Attraction and relationships are possible to occur which may blur the objective.

2. Women are physically inferior to men from a strength standpoint. Most soldiers in war time carry 40-70lbs of gear while fighting.

There is no doubt aside from the above that women could be ferocious fighters and an asset to any combat unit but the above referenced introduce issue's that may blur the effectiveness of a co ed combat unit.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 05:06 PM

The U.S. can be as ass backwards as many of the countries they so decry. And based on some of the comments in this thread, I can see why it's such a tough battle.
edit on 12/3/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 07:40 AM
a reply to: Trueman

Well...they have weapons.

It's the cover-up politics that is the real issue there.

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 11:54 PM

originally posted by: WP4YT
They know WW3 is coming soon, and will need everyone they can get.

Yes and their will be virtually no reserved occupations. Because automation has reduced those numbers . In fact in the future most of the people will have a hard job finding gainful employment . The answer seems to be get rid of the unemployed, by warfare. A non stop people eater, like the first world war. Considering ISSIS is funded by the rich, they obviously live in a parallel Universe compared with the rest of us. Remember in the last years of the Vietnam war it ate the young unemployed Blacks in great numbers. In the end anyone with any sense dodged the draft and lived.

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 06:55 AM

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Shamrock6

U.S. Army Expects To Meet Recruitment Goals Despite Slow Year Because Of Improved Economy

Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Snow, the Army’s top officer for recruiting, said that it can be difficult to attract new members when the economy is on the upswing. That’s because young people between the ages of 18 and 24 have access to more job opportunities, especially when the unemployment rate dips below 6 percent.

We don't have the draft, more war on the horizon - timing is everything

U.S. military opens combat positions to women

All U.S. military combat positions are being opened up to women, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The decision allows women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men -- including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units.

"This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They'll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat," Carter said at a news conference Thursday.

oh - yay...

Improved economy?.....or a whole bunch of people who see what's attempt to improve the economy.

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 07:07 AM
What I see is a re-instated draft, and almost everyone aged 18-30 disappearing overnight. Just children and older people left to mind the fort.

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 07:25 AM

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Shamrock6

What a shame. Men fight wars to keep their women safe. Now we have uncle sam encouraging the weakest among us to attempt to play that role. Where is modern man's valor?

Modern man? It's a mythical creature. People are probably right. If a woman can do it, let her. Besides there's no such thing as gender anymore. The terms 'men' and 'woman' are outdated now.

Lots of barriers are being broke down. I support more freedoms. I don't know if we should or shouldn't. It's not my decision.

The challenge isn't war anyway, it's change. So many things changing so fast. Whichever society adapts most readily is ahead of the pack.

There is no such thing as gender anymore?

You were born without any reproductive organs?

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 09:16 AM
Pretty much sums it up.

edit on 5-12-2015 by chadderson because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 09:19 AM
Yowza.. I now see that more than one of my posts has been censored. I see that those who post thousands of times, albeit without an argument or sense, are regarded higher than those who post worthwhile content. I violated no terms. Disappointing.

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 09:26 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

Navy and Marines Foresee Recruitment Difficulties

While the Navy and Marine Corps met all their recruiting and retention goals in quantity, quality, and diversity last year, their top recruiters told the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee that they are concerned about the future: the economy continues to improve, fewer young people are interested in enlisting, and marketing and bonus budgets hang in the balance.

It's about time they realize women are qualified - I'm just not feeling very yippee skippy about their sudden embrace of feminism

Why the Pentagon opening all combat roles to women could subject them to a military draft

Of course

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 08:19 AM
a reply to: chadderson

eh, consider it a badge and wear it.

Although I am open to women in combat, I believe selective service being mandatory for them as well in that case. If we are about equality across the board, it needs to be 100% including the application of draft in worst case scenario.

Give it a two year window before it is made mandatory, and there wont be any problem. Between social media, nightly news, schools and radio broadcast the entire population could easily made aware of a change in selective service registration in a matter of months. But two years allows for no excuse.

Well ladies you been fighting for your rights, now do the duty and add selective service.

posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 09:07 AM
This is exactly how they return to their advantage the principle of equality.

Become a male if you want to be equal.
The survival of the human family is threatened on the battlefield.
Many of them forgot what are the main feminine attributes.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in