I've been wondering this idea as well. Will there ever be a real world war again, or a need for a draft? Will technology and drones suffice to fight our wars? Unless there is a major global war, that requires physical bodies and not remote aircraft, we most likely will not see another draft in our lifetime.
I think that if women want "equality" then they should have to register for the draft, you can't just pick and choose what "equal rights" you want. It's sexist against men. On another note coming from a military background, I 100% disagree with women in combat units. Doesn't matter how you look at it, women are less affective as men in a combat setting and mixed units will just lead to tension causing even more inefficientcy. , just a cold hard fact.
Below is an interesting blog post supporting female draft for women, from a 7 year female army veteran. She writes: "It is completely hypocritical to support gender equality for women in the military and not support women having to register for the draft. Equal opportunities means equal responsibilities, and when it comes to defending this nation, no one is exempt merely based on his or her sex." http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/04/its ... ft-ladies/
Want me to wipe your ass too? Who cares if you believe it or not. Its not our fault you have no knowledge of the subject, but decided to post on the topic anyways. Try googling "study done on women in combat". Make an effort instead of jumping on topics you know nothing about and use "link or I don't believe it" as your speaking grounds.
The first result was an article from a well known newspaper criticising the study. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... nder-units
A US marine corps study on the fighting ability of women, conducted before a national decision about opening all combat roles to female soldiers, is “fundamentally flawed”, according to critics who received hundreds of pages of leaked data from the controversial trials. Marine corps' intention to bar women from combat roles at odds with navy Read more The same critics said the corps’ decision to release only a four-page summary of its study, which focused on negative aspects of women as marines while keeping the bulk of the study under wraps, was “hugely problematic”. One of the report’s released conclusions found that: “The integration of females … will add a level of risk in performance/effectiveness and cost … The bottom line is that the physiological differences between males and females will likely always be evident to some extent.” But other pages from the report, seen by the Guardian, indicate that women were not expected to pose problems for ground-combat units, so long as clear standards, diligent screening of candidates and good training and leadership were in place. According to the data shared with the Guardian, the study also showed that some women excelled during tests such as hiking quickly with heavy loads and firing artillery under simulated enemy attack, while mixed marine units showed superior morale and problem-solving and better discipline than units composed only of male marines. Furthermore, though the report found all-male units were better at hiking, shooting, gorge-crossing and cliff-climbing, and males suffered fewer injuries, in one section of tests a mixed-sex unit out-marched three all-male units, progressing at five kilometres an hour (kph). The marine corps requirement is 4kph, carrying heavy packs and equipment. Elsewhere, the study found that gender integration across all units would “bring with it many of the general benefits of diversity that we experience across the spectrum of the workforce”. The marine corps based its conclusions on averages, according to which women displayed poorer physical capability and target shooting averages than men, even though some individuals outperformed their male counterparts. The marine corps has always been looking for data that would justify continued exclusion of women from the infantry,” said Ellen Haring, a retired army colonel and senior fellow at the equality lobbying group Women in International Security. “This study was fundamentally flawed.” Haring added: “The way this study has been presented is hugely problematic. The four-page extract, undated, unsigned, was circulated around on Capitol Hill, I think looking for political support from members of Congress for continuing to exclude women. And the bulk of the data not being released.” It goes on and on picking that study to pieces. Check out the link I posted earlier if you want to see for yourself.
should be ae freedom of choice if its good enough for males to go to war then its good enough for females to sniper ae few ISIS look at joan of ark she was Top war solider
The guardian post cites unnamed "critics". Who are they and what are their qualifications? Haring, i would think is qualified to be a critic, as she is a 30 year retired veteran. But this piece was written based on a 4 page released summary, not the entire USMC report. The other person cited are not in the military at all from what I see. Mackenzie is a gender researcher at the university of sydney, researching primarily Haring's work (geared toward equality activism)