From: Brian D Williams (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 09:57:28 MST
From: "Tom Cowper" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>In an ideal world, yes. Practically speaking "sex", with or
>without actual physical contact, would be highly disruptive to a
>frontline combat unit. That may change over time. But frankly,
>by the time most people change the way they view and control their
>male/female sexual relationships, we'll be far more
>technologically advanced. Warfare itself will have changed,
>making the close association of men and women on the battlefield
>less an issue. There are strong trends today towards making the
>individual soldier much more autonomous, much more mobile, and
>much more capable. Wireless technologies, augmented reality,
>smart munitions, even things like exoskeletons, Solo-Trek and
>Segway technologies will dramatically change infantry combat.
>Hell, that's certainly one of the things Heinlein foresaw so long
>ago with the Mobile Infantry. Individual soldiers miles and miles
>apart capable of great levels of destruction.
>We're not far from that.
Another darn good post.
>> I spent mid '76 to mid 78 with VMA(AW)533 at Cherry Point N.C
>> and mid '78 to mid 79 with VMA(AW)224 in Iwakuni Japan. (MOS
>Swing with the wing. :)
A-6 Intruders, we penetrate deeper, linger longer, and drop a
bigger load... ;)
>> Okay, lets play with the concept.
>> We segregate men and women in the military now to avoid the
>> consequences of potentially complicating sexual encounters.
>> Now if we are to be fair and permit gays and lesbians to serve,
>> where are you going to put them?
>> It isn't fair to put the Gays with the "straights", or the
>> Lesbians with the "Straights" and you can't put Gays with Gays,
>> and Lesbians with Lesbians for the same reasons!
>> Ball in your court...
>Hey, I never said I had all the answers. I don't know. I'm glad
>I don't have to deal with that particular issue in a frontline
>combat unit. The leadership challenges required to keep a lid on
>things and accomplish the mission would be monumental. There
>needs to be some major cultural shifts before it would be
>accomplished without major degradation of combat effectiveness.
>But again, I think that in the next ten to twenty years the face
>of individual combat will have changed so dramatically as to make
>it a moot point. The main issue is what happens in the near term,
>and I don't know how you're going to overcome the cultural biases
>and prejudices that make it a highly divisive issue. And divisive
>issues make for poor unit cohesion and esprit.
No you didn't and I don't either.
But what you did do was to very clearly and honestly outline some
of the problems and their potential consequences, and did a great
job of it.
Having a new articulate opinion to consider is always a big help.
>Well, sure. The Navy is integrated. The Air Force is or almost
>is, and the Army is a lot more integrated than the Marines.
>Desert Storm was an interesting experiment. And the reports
>weren't all that good, though I haven't seen any scientific
>evaluations of the problems. Lots of pregnancies resulted in a
>lot of women being taken out of operational positions because they
>couldn't perform. That in itself created problems among the men
>who had to stay and take up the slack. But if they're as good
>looking as those Canadian soldiers James was talking about,
> definitely. :)
>Who thinks that Starship Troopers <the movie> was about the worst
>adaptation of a fantastic book as I've ever seen.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
Who thinks the movie was a complete bastardization of a great book,
but enjoyed it anyway.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:35 MST