Is it unethical to let women face off against men in combat?

Who's that thicc chick on the right?

Faiza "The Boulder" al-Jalab

She is feared by the rebels for rolling down a hill at incredibly high speed and destroying one of their battle-toyotas.

I'm implying that some women are stronger than some men. It's objective.

They have to live up to the same physical standards as the rest of them.

If that same /r9k/ dweeb went through the same physical conditioning that the US military puts all recruits through, yes.

The gear fucking weighs more than they do.

Some wars are inevitable. Women can endanger the lives of men in combat causing the deaths of more men than if it were men exclusively fighting alongside men. Therefore we should definitely have this conversation.

>ethics

Incredibly high speed, huh?

Women should have the same PT standards and get dishonorably discharged if they get knocked up. Problem solved, unless some fag wants to cry ahout his feefees.

This. Hold them to the same standards or not at all.

And have gender segregated units.

>le trigger pulling is the only thing involved in being a soldier meme

Women have never faced off in combat, at least not in the US. They aren't allowed in infantry positions. At least not until this year. I think they accepted 22 women this year into infantry fields but they are officers not actual soldiers.

It's 2016 and people still actually believe everybody in the Military goes around wielding an assault rifle fighting in battles. In reality, infantry, artillery, medics, and truck drivers are all that really see enemy lines, and infantry are really the only ones facing off in combat. And they count for a tiny portion of the Military. The general rule is: It takes 6 soldiers in a protected area to support one soldier in the field. These include supply, motor pool, base operations, police and fire, hospital, transportation, communications, artillery, heavy mortars, clerical, clergy, finance, food service, laundry, air traffic control, munitions handlers, water systems, intelligence and planning and the list goes on.

Women can reach the level of strenght required to carry equipment and hold a rifle, after that there's no difference because you're not fucking throwing the bullets with your arms. Psychology is not an issue either, we know of women who had no mercy for anyone, like Tatcher. You can teach women to think like a killing machine, and you can train them to be able to perform the tasks of a soldier.

True that.
But still there is a problem of them just being women. They can get captured and used as cum dumps....

It's only demoralising if you allow it to be.

Sexual assault rates in our own military is higher for men than women. Do you think a sand nigger is going to care about your gender when he shoves a broom handle up your ass for his friends to laugh about

>To anyone who thinks yes, why is it? Nowadays it doesn't take a lot of strength to pull a trigger, so would it be emotional reasons?

Lets imagine a scenario:

You are on patrol in Afghanistan, in a field outside a safe compound. Suddenly, out of nowhere, an IED goes off ahead of you, then heavy fire begins coming in from all around you, everyone immediately drops and tries to locate the enemy to return fire. You drop and can't move, poking your head up you see your right side turning red, you've been hit somewhere in the side of your stomach you presume, maybe even the spine. Man down is called and the order is given to drag you the 100 or so yards back to the compound, where you can receive immediate first aid. Your squad is pinned down, air support is dispatched, but still 15 minutes out, you need immediate treatment to stop the hemorrhage or you'll die. Only one member of your squad is right near you, the rest are several meters away. They'll open up with suppressing fire in coordination with the rest of your platoon, to allow you to be dragged to safety. Even then, bullets are crackling all around you, every second counts, you are bleeding out.

Now, say you're a 200lb guy, with 80lb of gear on you, who do you want that one person that has to drag you to safety to be? Another guy, fit and strong as you, or a 120lb woman, who can barely complete one pullup and is here because of a diversity quota with reduced fitness requirements?

For Infantry, physical strength is still hugely important and can mean the difference between life and death.

Women should be allowed to do any job men can do subject to the exact same physical requirements. Lowering requirements for "diversity" is SJW nonsense. Denying qualified women is retarded /r9k/ism. If only 20 or 5 or 1 percent of women make the cut, so be it.

Thats cuz theres more men

>120lb woman, who can barely complete one pullup and is here because of a diversity quota with reduced fitness requirements?
Do you WANT this to occur to prove your point? Instead of resorting to biased hypotheticals, why not comment on his actual argument? There are other positions beside infantry, and the infantry doesn't have to accept women who are not motivated to match the physical requirements.

>I have no idea what military life is like: the post
For fuck's sake, everything from maintenance to actual combat requires strength. And beyond strength, male fitness is just generally better.
Beyond that, there is a little something called "group dynamics" which women completely fuck, specially since they inevitably ask for special treatment.

>Denying qualified women is retarded /r9k/ism

what an argument! such a dogma!
gives credebility the rest of your opinion

>Again having no idea of just how different the performances are
>Again having no idea what soldiers do
>Wanting to pay for less effective, more costly and more whiny soldiers
Why are libs so fucking blind?

The thing is they CAN'T match the requirements, this is why they are lower in the first place.
Unless you pump every chick that crosses that door with PEDs it's not going to happen.

[citation needed]

>He actually thinks lesbo soldiers on the enemy side wouldnt rape girls.

No, i mean theres more male soldiers to be raped so it happens more often.

Basic stats.

The question isn't whether they're better, only if it's ethical to let them face off against men.

The answer is yes, if they can point a gun they're capable of killing you, if they're capable of killing you they're allowed to be killed.

The obvious exception is child soldiers or mentally retarded people who are too stupid to understand what they are doing.

Your memeing makes you incoherent. What are you even saying?

>The thing is they CAN'T match the requirements

Then there's no reason to make a rule against it, now is there?

no, it's just stupid. i would rather fight alongside child soldiers than women, they simply aren't up to it.

>durp you don't need strength no more
A full set of IOTV armor weighs 33lbs. An m4 weighs 5 lbs. Each magazine weighs a little over a pound. Then you have to factor in all other equipment that troops carry like water, rations, other weapon parts/ammunition, and miscellaneous other gear.
Now go out on an 8 hour patrol through the mountains of Afghanistan with that shit on your back.

There isn't, but when you allow it suddenly the lack of women passing will mean some kind of "systemic prejudice" and you will be asked to lower standards.
Give a hand, they'll try and take your arm.

Not western women, no.

this

This

Nice completely fictional scenario you got there. Meanwhile in reality, some women do meet the the standards and most don't, and nobody is complaining about that.

The standards set for women are much lower than men.

Kill yourself.

>Fictional
But it's exactly what already happened, holy hell you're a dim one.
This isn't the first physically demanding job or even the first type of military job women have tried to join in, you stupid cockmuncher.

Nope:

usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/24/women-in-combat-briefing/1861887/

You kill yourself.

They'll ask for equal standards, then notice they don't meet the number they wanted and consequently raise the goddamn number by lowering standards

>2013 news
Yeah meanwhile in reality the marines have different standards for men and women.

>Bwaah wat? Lies!
Look you fucking fat bitch, go eat some big macs and shut the hell up about this shit if you aren't going to bother analyzing what the pressure groups ask for and what the military ends up implementing, all for the sake of "equality" making the armed forces less efficient.
And well, also emergency services, the police, etc.

Fuck
You

So you're going to flatly deny the facts?

i can't wait until roasties get drafted to die in the next major war as I stay at home cashing me neet bux

enjoy dying and getting raped you pathetic roasties

>Deny facts
Look up the marine standards, dumbass.
Goddamn, ask one.

Women have historically been denied the ability to pursue their dreams in soldiery. Normally, I'd say that we need to push for 50% in the army, but given the historical imbalance, we need to set a new culture and make up for the past. 70% at least.

I agree. Where is the next drumpf protest?

#imstillwithher

The fact is that infantry requirements are identical. The standards you are referring to are about overall fitness assessment, which also vary by age.

Lots of woman get knocked up in the military. My girlfriend is in the army and she told me that when she got there 3 or 4 privates in her company got preggerz. Most enlisted woman are sluts.

Found these
>washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/19/marine-corps-weighs-lower-standards-for-women-afte/
>marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/careers/marine-corps/2016/04/12/marine-corps-men-and-women-must-meet-same-standards-combat-jobs/82934800/

If you think women have a place in war, you're beta as fuck. Women are for breeding and eroticism, that's it.

You can easily separate the feminists from the 'feminists' by asking them if women and men should be drafted in a 1:1 ratio for true equality instead of letting men account for >90% of combat deaths.

So, why does the US put women in combat roles?

t. m'ladying white knight

let the roasties die in ww3

Take the standards of the military before women were allowed to join. Apply them to everyone. If a woman can meet them she's in, if she can't she's out. It's that simple. Base admittance on individual performance, not broad staristics. If any of the admitted women get pregnant, have them discharged. I don't know how you guys can make such a big deal out of something that really ought to be quite simple.

Yes, obviously, but /r9k/ is apparently triggered by common sense.

>Most enlisted woman are sluts.
Can confirm, granted, the men are too. Makes it easy if you like to sleep around but I find most military women to be pretty nasty.

>mfw the only women that are simultaneously attractive and not slutty ever seem to be officers or already married

Once a combatant the only identity that matters is that they are a combatant, period.

Ethics between demographics ceases in combat situations.

Wars today are less fucked up than wars before.
>You don't have to form square as the heavy cavalry charges at you
>You don't have to stand in a horizontal line and march into oncoming musket fire
>You don't have to fight Saracens in the desert
>You don't have to pic related

Memes.