I think in technical areas (pilots, sailors, doctors, nurses, etc.), where there is no direct physical to physical conforentations, women should definately be allowed in. But in 'grunt' types of conflict, they should absolutely not.

Not only are women physically smaller then males, for the most part, and not able to physically compete, but in wartime situations, there can be some pretty nasty complecations. Everything from using the loo, to sleeping in foxholes can be akward for both male and female, to say the least. Then there's the whole danger of mistreatment by males in the unit (sexual harassment) or even worse, abuse by the enemy (rapes, etc.)

I think it depends on the job and the culture behind the military. Americans aren't wrong because they don't care for the idea of women in the infantry, nor are Russians or whoever wrong because their culture has no problem with it. What works best is when people are most comfortable. It's okay for cultures to be different. That doesn't mean it's okay if women are excluded entirely. It just means it's okay if your culture doesn't want women on the front lines with the men. And like most rules there are exceptions. Women can be pilots well enough I think. They've been shown to be very good ones and there's no problem with morale.

I vote hell yeah!

Women make good leaders because they do better under pressure.

Originally Posted by AmericanSweetheart

Women make good leaders because they do better under pressure.

That's discutabile....

Its a psycological fact actually. we may be ruled by our emotions most of the time but our bodies and minds deal better with stress. Why do you think women live longer?

Are military is based on recognizing, adapting, and becoming better then any obstacle put in our way. Why should females in the military be any different? If our military had said, "Those *******s aren't an organized army or country that we can attack with one shot one kill... we don't know how to fight this so we won't," all our beliefs, national pride, and reputation of being tactically ready for any enemy would be out the window. Yes, women in the front lines would be different, and many adaptations including mental mind frames would have to be addressed. However, if we ever came to a time when we needed more bodies on the front line, I believe women would be a valuable commodity, because they would fit that requirement. See the obstacle, adapt, and attack, don't shy away from it and hide behind an excuse, we are stronger then that...

Respectfully,

I think that if they are able to keep up with the men they should be able to serve with the men.
On a battle feild situation it aint time to be Prince charming. Get the medic and move on. Thats for a man and a women. I mean its a battel ground not a fancy street in a city. The women in uniform should need a coat to get accrosse the puddle. If they do they need to get the hell out of the service.

hmmm difficult question i believe that women should be able to join all sections isf they able to do the job (physically and mentally)but i would like to make a quick point for the royal navy a male officer in the application has to be able to run 1.5 miles in 11.5 minutes while a female officer only has to run 1.5 miles in 13.5min( however both times do change every so often) so basically iam saying same job females should have NO advantages.

I have no objections as long they do the same courses as the men, they carry the same load and do the same work. There should not be any easy option just because they are women. Also when the fighting gets tough they are not pulled out just because the Forces don't want a bad press because of their parents are waving pretty pictures of them and saying that they should not have been there.