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.


Should Women fight in war?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 08:09 PM
dragonridder in all fairness though the average woman can not throw the grenade far enough to avoid putting themselves in danger from it.

I think women should not fight war just as men should not give birth. There is no sense in changing tradition, and being so dishonorable that we allow such things.

What's next? We'll just let 15 year olds go to war too, because they can shoot a gun?

A woman can hold a shield and sword too, they were kept out of war because the last thing a fighting man needed was to see his wife die too. They may have married more for wealth than love in the ancient times, but they still cared for eachother.

A soldier who gets in the field a letter of "KIA" of their loved one, is rendered useless. It's one thing to lose a brother, another to lose a mate.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 08:13 PM
Uh, dragonridder, I'm not sure it even matters how many people the russian women killed.

The Germans went into Stalin Grad with about 300,000 men and killed about one million russians. They lost Stalin Grad because their tanks wouldn't work in winter, and they were thus over ran by the T-34, because at the time the Germans did not have a good anti-tank weapon (which the Americans had, and called it the Bazooka, the Germans would later develope something similar though not so easy to weild).

The reason America has come out on top in every war, is because its soldiers have died knowing their loved ones were safe.

Germany failed in WW2, because they fought never knowing if tomorrow, their wives or children would be dead from bombing raids. The psychological drain on their soldiers of such acts was emmense.

The last thing we need to do is add that burden to our soldiers.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 08:27 PM
Sure if they want too.

posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 09:43 PM

I didnt mean to say that the Russian female snipers won the battle of stalingrad for the Russians. I have no arguement with your statements about how the Germans lost (if anything, the Germans lost simply because they were not adequately prepared for such a campaign in winter).

My point is that the Russian females snipers were relatively small in number (I dont know that anyone has a correct number) but they averaged in excess of 200 confirmed combat kills each... much higher than the 30-50 combat kills of thier male german counterparts. I would say that deserves a good deal of respect from anyone who understands combat.

I agree, the snipers didnt win the war or even the battle. However, the psychological impact to the germans from the fear of exposing a single square centimeter of body mass for fear of falling dead from a single shot was on immense importance to the Russians, who were on the verge of falling during most of the campaign. When the germans found out that the snipers taking such a toll on thier forces were women, it was a hell of a shock, and one that they could not accept. (Although german sniper losses only continued to mount)

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 01:50 AM
Very true in all that is said, but while you point out a job the women show they CAN do, it does not mean they are needed to fulfill that job. Any sex can be a crack shot.

I think the most trying point of this issue is the only one that must be addressed, and that is the "morality" of it.

Although either way at any time only half of the population can ever be an effective fighting force, because humans tend to pair up, and if one dies, the other loses sight, whether through anger, sorrow, or what have you.

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 02:15 AM

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 02:20 AM

Originally posted by dragonrider
I know Nans would probably go ballistic if she was denied the right to fight in the military. Posted by Abraham VirtuePlease remember that Nans is French... Her gender has little to do with the fact that when facing any armed opposition, she, along with the rest of the french military would never be denied the right to hastily surrender...

I may surprise you but I said NO, and I'm in from a military family.
Maybe be women can stay in the background as nurses or technicals, but I dont believe that aa battlefield is a place for us. Physically, men are still strongers than women. Of course their are some exceptions and I know women who are really "amazons".

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 02:35 AM
Military family? You're french!

*sorry couldn't resist it, I do beg your pardons :p*

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by dragonrider
In all fairness, it doesnt take a great deal of physical ability to aim and pull a trigger. I know from personal experience that women in general have better hand/eye coordination than men, as well as better depth perception/range estimation.

The Russian female snipers employed during the seige of Stalingrad in WWII struck terror into the hearts of the Nazis, as they had well over 4x the kill rate of the German male snipers (many of whom fell victim to the female snipers).

Israel to this day produces some of the best long range tactical marksmen in the world, on a par if not better than the USMC scout snipers (regarded as the world standard for tactical marksmen): Approximately 2/3 of Israels snipers are women.

Do you have a link to this ?

I have to disagree with what you say about Russian woman snipers during WW2.There are almost NO records of sniper kills during the GPW. So I was wondering how you know that Russian women outshot German snipers 4-1.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in