Forbidden Donut

I saw that yesterday. as well as another article discussing similar topics. What I don't like is neither candidate outlines how they plan on paying for any proposes changes, especially the increase in troop numbers.

In reality they are both pretty similar. I think it will come down to who they choose as their Secretary of Defense, part of the reason I think candidates should be required to name their candidates prior to the election.

But that would be pretentiously counting your chickens before they hatch! They'd be called out on "picking out the white house drapes" or something. (I agree)

Obama does outline how to pay for everything. PAY-GO. Wanna increase the defense budget? Where that money's coming from has to be in the bill.

This is the thing I like most about Obama's defense plans:
"Obama proposes a complete review of military weapons and capabilities to reorder priorities, with more emphasis on weapons that can respond to a wider range of threats and missions and more careful scrutiny of programs that have more limited applications."

So we might not need to pepper the landscape with billions of dollars in specialized ammunition to kill 3 guys armed with rocks and a jammed AK-47?

While I'm at it. All the differences I noticed (not a whole lot, but it's there):
1. Obama proposes review of weapons and capabilities. McCain "says he wants defense dollars to go further by expanding the use of fixed-price procurement contracts"
2. Obama puts an emphasis on shorter and fewer tours of duty. McCain's emphasis is on mutual respect across the whole military.
3. McCain doesn't want to put a timetable on troop draw-downs in Iraq. Obama does.
4. Obama proposes a source for more troops in Afghanistan (Iraq). McCain doesn't.
5. McCain = Access Card for injured vets. Obama = universal healthcare so who gives a crap.
6. McCain = lip service to the Bush era military leadership. Obama "says he will have a defense secretary who listens to professional military advice."
7. BIG ONE - McCain opposes a draft. Obama does too, but adds that women should have to register with SS like men do.

Other than that, most of which is subtle nuance, they are identical.

Women shouldn't be in the draft.

I don't mind spending billions of dollars on specialized ammunition. When/if WWIII (preventing it counts too) comes about it will pay off in something more valuable than money.

Other than that I'm with Phey, Secretary of Defense is where the real decisions are going to be made.

Why not?

"Men who are not registered with Selective Service cannot obtain Federal student loans or grants."

Should women who aren't registered be treated the same then?

I think women should be in the draft. Being drafted doesn't mean you have to get a combat role. There are plenty of non-combat roles that women are very capable of doing.

Robert Gates has been one of the best Secretary of States we've had in a long while. I would be very interested in seeing either candidate retain him for the position. He's also very popular with the troops.

Word, Israel requires women to serve.

Okay... well I guess as long as there are kitchen's...

This may be completely terrible, but part of the reason is because the don't have as much upper body strength, and part because I have no idea how the average girl would handle a combat situation. Men have a more instinctive 'lets go fuck some shit up' in them. Girls do it more out of necessity. In a fight or flight situation, I would think a man would be more likely to respond to his training and instinct and do something.

But that's just a silly theory, I could be completely wrong, so please let me know if you have something a bit more factual to prove it, I'm only sexist until I have facts to deal with =p

Ignoring all of the other countries in history that have had or do have great success with women in combat, we'll just talk about our own armed forces: Women serve in combat in our military; there has never been any evidence to support what you claim.

When fervently anti-war activists were drafted and sent to Vietnam, they fought just like everyone else. Just as every person in the military will tell you, when you have bullets flying over your head, it doesn't matter how necessary the conflict is; the only thing that matters is you, your gun, and the person next to you. Why would that change just because you or the person next to you has a vagina?

Oh, and just to clear the air about your erroneous upper-arm-strength argument: our soldiers aren't bench pressing their way to victory.

Women do fill combat roles, but they don't fill infantry roles. There is a difference there. There is a big a difference between a woman flying a helo and a woman in a front line infantry unit. I'm with redbone on the body strength. Comparatively, either person with or without conditioning and exercise, a man is naturally stronger then a woman. For most things in an infantry unit, this doesn't mean much. A woman can shoot, run, spit, whatever, just as well as a man. My concern is when suddenly that woman has to throw 230 pounds of me on her shoulder and carry me to medevac. Are there some women that can do that? Yep. Are there some men that can't? Yep. But statistically, there are a lot more women that can't then men that can't. That's part of the reason not every male is allowed in the military, and not every male in the military is allowed in front line units. Health, strength, size, weight, etc.

Drafting women is fine, but they aren't fit for every role.

But you've just said it yourself: not every male in the military is allowed in front line units. If a specific woman can't perform the duties required, that's one thing. So what's wrong with holding women to the same standards rather than setting a universal policy to exclude them? If a person can do the job, they should be able to do the job. Their gender/race/sexual preference shouldn't be a variable at that point.

The two largest deciding factors are by height and weight. Using those factors doesn't require a whole lot of scientific data to determine is fit for the duty. A very large percentage of men fall into that category.

Women on the other hand, would represent a very small minority in who would be able to physically handle that same physical stress level.


I'm not going to argue and say that there are no women that can fill the role. There certainly are, but the vast majority can't. The upsides of letting a few select people do it don't outweigh the negatives and complications.

The military structure has to change to accommodate new facilities and procedures.

Psychologically, men behave differently around women then they do around other men, such as taking unnecessary risks to be a protector. Seeing a woman die has far greater psychological impact then seeing a man die.

Women react differently to physical conditioning and stress. This can lead to problems with their menstrual period, and potentially long term reproductive problems. Plus, now you have to include tampons in the MREs alongside toilet paper and Tabasco.


People have pointed out that it works for other countries around the world. Yes it has, but look at those countries. Every single one is out of necessity, not desire. Population or societal factors such as being surrounded on all sides, like Israel are the largest contributing factors to that.

I'm sure that if the US went into a major war and needed the extra bodies, they would make it work. Now however, the US has the luxury of not needing to do that.

So there isn't a valid argument for keeping women off of selective service? Just a bunch of sexism?

How many men in the military do you think operate at 100% physical fitness? 80%? 70%? 50%?

How we fight wars:


How we don't fight wars:


And interestingly, studies seem to indicate that women are easier to train in firearms, tactics, and sharpshooting. So while they can't be expected to run 15 miles with their body weight on their back... when you get there they are more likely to be successful. And we're well on our way to having robot pack mules... so why exactly is any discussion about strength relevant to women in "selective" service?

Any "psychological" issues (for which I poked around on google and found no studies or evidence) could, and should be hammered out in training. If this were an insurmountable hurdle the IDF wouldn't be one of the most effective military forces in the world.