First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
the draft and hypothetical WW3
28994 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 5/7/17 , edited 5/8/17
I agree with this. I think women should be excluded from the draft. If women can survive the same training as men the should serve combat roles as well.
19860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/7/17 , edited 5/8/17
Personally I think if you want a justifiable reason to exclude women from military service rely less on bullshit reasons and rely more on biology. Women suck at front line service due to a lot of biological factors and some socially ingrained ones. The most prevalent is a lack of physical strength, endurance , and the proper biochemistry. A man is predisposed to fighting, our biochemistry floods our bodies with useful chemicals like testosterone and adrenaline in far greater amounts during times of stress and conflict then any baseline woman.

This biochemistry can turn your average male from an average citizen into a fighter that can react far more properly in a firefight then most women.

Then there is the concepts of increased physical strength and endurance. I am 190 cm tall @ 96 kgs ( 6'3 @ 210 lbs) . By male standards I am above average but in the end I am not really the largest out there. However a woman of similar size would struggle to compete with me on any sort of physical level. I am simply faster, stronger, and capable of greater endurance then I'd reckon 95% of women out there.

And that right there is a justifiable reason to not be so eager to recruit women. That being said though I highly believe if you want to enjoy the privilege of living in the first world you should earn it regardless of what genitals you possess.
25798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
It doesn't really help that much to have more women for childbirth, anyway. Better to keep the 1:1 ratio and have plenty of stable families if you want a good birthrate.
1533 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

redokami wrote:

frankly now a days the words sexist racist bigoted ___ phobic __ist are used so much I just ignore them

I try to look at the implications of if something does, or does not happen


The point is, you can't say women should be allowed in combat because it's sexist not to, and then turn around and say they should be exempted from the draft.

Also, if we are in the kind of extermination war you are describing, I think the ability to field every person who is capable of doing something trumps some idea of what might or might not happen in the aftermath.
4198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
...you are dangerously uneducated. We're projected to reach 7.5 billion in 2020. Wiping out that many people would mean 9/10 of your friends are dead now. Have fun with that conversation. "So yea, you gotta die now cause I'm intellectually insufficient."
1533 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

Zennethe wrote:

...you are dangerously uneducated. We're projected to reach 7.5 billion in 2020. Wiping out that many people would mean 9/10 of your friends are dead now. Have fun with that conversation. "So yea, you gotta die now cause I'm intellectually insufficient."


Can't tell if talking to me or OP...
18866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
i dont see excluding women from the military is a good idea. for every soldier, there is 10 people making food and driving trucks and crap to back him up and make sure he has what he needs to fight. there is no reason why woman cant do that. an army is alot more that front like troops.

just my .02
5 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
I will preface with this is all hypothetical in the end.

First, women want equal rights... you get equal treatment. Draft should be applicable. Please don't be a hypocrite and hide behind a womb and appeal to men based on feelings.

Second, any world war would likely not end well for anyone if nukes get involved. Multiple nukes going off will set off an ice age and likely end humanity if a depolarization doesn't do it first. Oh what fragile creatures we are.

Third, birth rates are pretty irrelevant, I can't say we need a drastic reduction of population like previously mentioned. However, the earth could go on a diet in terms of human population. There are tons of tangents related to this and I am going to steer clear of those (how to get there, technology, hypothetical BS, etc). No one in power wants to touch reduction of population as it is genocide and in practice would cause a revolt ergo not possible without a war killing people or as we see today culture killing (Islam). This is of course my opinion based on facts i have read. If you have other facts that support an increasing human population and the sustainability of that increased population, i wouldn't mind reading any credible source. And not I don't accept some high school blog as a credible source. I would prefer a Ph.D. or Masters paper cross referenced and countered or some such.

Forth, in regards to women already in the military, there are plenty that serve today. It is by no means impossible for more to serve in various roles. It is already proven women can be a viable combat or support source and some roles superior and some roles inferior to men. If we are in desperate need of bodies a draft accepting women should happen. As there are few reasons other than "childbirth" to reject women from the military.

It is however my opinion that i will be dead before shit hits the fan. So I will let someone else worry about it like all generations do. How's that working out for us...
21943 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

Zennethe wrote:

...you are dangerously uneducated. We're projected to reach 7.5 billion in 2020. Wiping out that many people would mean 9/10 of your friends are dead now. Have fun with that conversation. "So yea, you gotta die now cause I'm intellectually insufficient."

are you talking to me or the guy I was responding to??

21943 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

Ranwolf wrote:

Personally I think if you want a justifiable reason to exclude women from military service rely less on bullshit reasons and rely more on biology. Women suck at front line service due to a lot of biological factors and some socially ingrained ones. The most prevalent is a lack of physical strength, endurance , and the proper biochemistry. A man is predisposed to fighting, our biochemistry floods our bodies with useful chemicals like testosterone and adrenaline in far greater amounts during times of stress and conflict then any baseline woman.

This biochemistry can turn your average male from an average citizen into a fighter that can react far more properly in a firefight then most women.

Then there is the concepts of increased physical strength and endurance. I am 190 cm tall @ 96 kgs ( 6'3 @ 210 lbs) . By male standards I am above average but in the end I am not really the largest out there. However a woman of similar size would struggle to compete with me on any sort of physical level. I am simply faster, stronger, and capable of greater endurance then I'd reckon 95% of women out there.

And that right there is a justifiable reason to not be so eager to recruit women. That being said though I highly believe if you want to enjoy the privilege of living in the first world you should earn it regardless of what genitals you possess.

this right here too, I am not afraid to admit that when it comes to some things my sex is weaker, however there are places we excel greater than men,
each sex since the dawn of time has had its natural role and ppl now a days will argue against that
we are equal and yet at the same time not equal but not in a bad way



21780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

redokami wrote:

you are free to disagree with me but IMO women should not be drafted until its the last option in a huge conflict like ww3
lets say LOTS of ppl die -obviously- and more ppl get drafted,again, and again because we need more people to fight
well in the end we need to survive right? how do we do that? with women having children , so we need lots of women in the aftermath to have children and repoputlate the country/countries

even more so when europes birthrate and our Is below the sustainable level
so I firmly believe that women in armed conflict shouldonly be a last option


Man I just love kids born after the 90's they are so ignorant of history and how the world was before then. What happens with World War 3, Limited exchange by limited I mean mostly conventional no nukes or only a few dozen which means your still screwed radiation doesn't respect boarders. You end up with the Red Dawn scenario not the stupid remake but the classic thought South American forces would be hard pressed to invade and Russia wouldn't be able to invade by flying over two far to fly an attack force and we would see them coming same with ships. Unless they used Quaker ships if you aren't familiar with the term it is a merchant ship with fake weapons normally to hide the fact it is unarmed. also works as a ship setup to hide it's true task.

Full on exchange were we launch everything and the Russian launch everything. Washington state catches no less than six 50 to 100 megaton devices one on Bremorton one on Bangor three between Everett and Olympia and one over on Fairchilds airbase. They might go small on Fairchilds but more than likely not. The rest of the county gets more there are very few places that don't have a military or civilian target when it comes to nukes. Russia gets the same treatment and so do any other countries allied with them. Our allies get covered as well. As for surviving the rule is unzip pants place head firmly between your legs and kiss your sweet ass goodbye. You don't survive and if you do you won't be long for this Earth anyways. No really it isn't just the blast that kills you it is the radiation you don't get Mad Max you just get bodies. I really don't understand why people think they can survive these things. We aren't taking Nagasaki or Hiroshima we are talking device a hundreds of times more powerful. Use this to understand what I'm talking about http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

As for women serving in combat all for it I've know several over the years that could easily kick ass and take names and would of had no problem serving with them on the line. As for a draft during WW3 not going to happen if it is a full exchange may happen if it is a limited but politicians are terrified of what happens when they activate the draft many remember the Vietnam protests. Loose enough troops and they have to activate the draft at which point all able bodies.

19419 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
Women can push a button or pull a trigger, with the best of others.
13315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
WW1, 17 million dead.
WW2, 70 million dead
WW3, following the trend 230 million dead.

If only men are sent out, 230 million less men means a hell of a lot less men to marry and have kids. It takes two you have kids, you know right?

Also, as the Dragon mod said, the next step is the "Hitler-esque" stuff you were talking about. IQ, ability, etc. Who gets priority? This thread is a whole pot of crap.
31309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
if a women doesn't go i ain't going either.

That being said i wouldn't go in the first place i'll take prison over war.
27023 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wales, UK
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

redokami wrote:

you are free to disagree with me but IMO women should not be drafted until its the last option in a huge conflict like ww3


In WW3, there wouldn't even be a "first option" for who gets drafted, let alone a "last" - in the time it takes a draft letter to be issued and reach its recipient, the major cities of every participating country will be radioactive and on fire.

Maybe once military technology has advanced to the point where that's not the case, we can worry about the draft, but the question arises of whether the new form of warfare arising in that era would resemble wars of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th enough that we'd need a draft at all.

And if your justification is reproduction, what are the odds that artificial wombs become mainstream before missile defence is good enough to stop 21st-century ICBMs?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.