>>27675940>In actual combat, if your country or people are in a existential threatWhen was the last time any western country was in an existential threat and when did said country combat the threat by deploying soldiers into sand country half a world away?
>then sometimes you need every single person you can field."Then sometimes", can we get any more "if"s?
Aside from that, you need people who are capable soldiers, even in times of dire need. You do not need civilians who are unfit and/or can not handle weapons and equipment.
This is why soldiers are trained and why not every citizen is a soldier.
The bullet from the gun fired by a woman is just as deadly as one fired by a man.
>The bullet from the gun fired by a woman is just as deadly as one fired by a man.Written like a true /k/ommando.
I swear, I'll be long dead before I witness the day that people on this board stop comparing "shooting guns" with "being part of a military".
Soldiers spend like 95% of their time cleaning their shit, standing around, filing paperwork, moving crates and cargo from A to B, cleaning more shit, running on the track, driving around, doing laundry, cleaning even more shit, standing attention and eating. Also playing xbox and arguing over which tv channel to watch. Literally
The other 4% are spent taking showers and taking high carb shits.
Maybe ONE fucking percent is actually spent shooting your fucking weapon.
Now if a women will not be able to perform adequatly in 99% of these "soldierly" tasks or if her presence is proven to have detrimental effects on the other soldiers performing their day to day shit, then it absolutely does NOT matter if she can shoot as well as the male soldiers can. Because it is only such a minor part of being a soldier.
