On the Reality of Combat

[Moonwalk]

80. I'm sorry but your arguments don't really prove the point...

As you say, 25 percent of men can't do what you say they have to do. And so, I assume, those 25 percent don't get to be in combat. Likewise with women. If they can't do it, then they won't get to be in the combat zone. And by the way, you were a '60's gunner? Am I correct in reading that as meaning you were a 1960's gunner? If so, are you sure the weight that soldiers have to carry now are as heavy and hard to handle as those you dealt with? I know nothing about it, but I'd be surprised with all the advances made in weaponry and modern lightweight materials for gear if that dead weight isn't far easier to handle now than when you were in combat. If they are significantly lighter, then your arguments loose a lot of punch. How much weight does a modern soldier haul around (outside of his wounded buddy) as compared to what you had to haul?

Even if the weight is the same, however, those women who can't haul such weights won't be in combat. Just like those who wash out of basic training won't be in the army. On the other hand, a woman who can haul such weights, can prove in the training that she can carry a guy on her shoulders plus gear, etc.--well, you offer no reason at all why she shouldn't be in combat.

My point being, your arguments about weight and such are moot because no one is saying that anyone who isn't qualified to be in combat should be in combat. If it turns out that no women are qualified then there will be no women. If it turns out that there are women qualified, then there will be. Is there any reason why a qualified woman who could carry a wounded man on her shoulders, who could handle a machine gun, etc. should not be in combat? Other than the fact that really, no man or woman should be in the hellish nightmare that is combat period?