Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"Andre Lieven"  wrote in message
> >news:csjcm2$p09$1{at}theodyn.ncf.ca...
> >
> > LOL. Indeed. If she had had an ounce of *knowledge* about the topic
> > of women in combat, she might have run across the fine and fact
filled
> > work " Women In The Military; Flirting With Disaster ", by Brian
> > Mitchell, that well explodes the myth that women could be of any
use
> > in combat.
>
> Here's a fair (and by and large objective) treatment regarding this
issue
> written by Captain Adam Wojack, US Army.
>
>
http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/milrev/download/English/NovDec02/wojack.pdf
>
> Heidi

You have posted this before. The guy attempts to get around the
strength problem by admitting that women have about half of mens upper
body strenth after current army physical training but that womens true
"potential" is about 70% of mens because that is the ratio acheived by
world class weight lifters.
1. The use of anabolic steriods has always been endemic in weight
lifting and body building and these drugs are disportionatly beneficial
to women.
2. Women get injuries at a much higher rate than guys when you attempt
extreme strength training (which would be required). Leaving aside all
of the other issues the article dealt with what would be the point of
putting the army thru massive disruption in order to accommodate the
dozen or so women who would qualify?
3. With an all volunteer army, recruitment will always dependend on
convincing young men that combat arms is the place for them. If they
are not convinced that their female colleagues are there because they
can carry a 200 lb. wounded man as well as a guy they will not enlist.
They will see thru the hollow game being played. What happens when the
military has no volunteers is anybodies guess.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/19/05 6:34:22 AM ---