Our (volunteer) military is millions strong with millions more in reserves and militias (axillaries and NG being the most obvious examples) so no...
Our (volunteer) military is millions strong with millions more in reserves and militias (axillaries and NG being the most obvious examples) so no...
Is your goal to have the best military we can field or to conduct a social experiment without regard to the purpose of our military?
Here is what I think is likely. One-third of the men will despise their presence and may choose to not re-enlist. One-third will want to protect the women above accomplishing the mission. The other third will do what men do and seek to have sex with them.
We could have All-American Amazon Infantry Battalions with only women in them.
What do you think?
In other areas where women were admitted the standards did change. Women are generally weaker than men. So they have different physical readiness performance standards already. We should expect to see different requirements for women in combat units than for men.
I think it is a bad idea. Why are we doing this with an Executive Order instead of with legislation from an accountable Congress?
Last edited:
How many millions do you think are in the Army?Our (volunteer) military is millions strong with millions more in reserves and militias (axillaries and NG being the most obvious examples) so no...
Force Structure Changes FY 2013 Through FY 2017
U.S. Army
Eliminate a minimum of eight Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs)
Study brigade structure
U.S. Navy
Eliminate seven cruisers
Eliminate two dock landing ships (LSDs)
U.S. Marine Corps
Eliminate one infantry regiment headquarters
Eliminate five infantry battalions (four active and one reserve)
Eliminate one artillery battalion
Eliminate four Tacair squadrons (three active and one reserve)
Eliminate one combat logistics battalion
U.S. Air Force
Eliminate six combat-coded fighter squadrons (one active and five reserve component)
Eliminate one non-combat-coded fighter squadron (active)
Of the Air Force squadrons to be eliminated under the request, the active component includes one A-10 squadron and one F-15C squadron, and the reserve component includes four A-10 squadrons and one F-16 squadron. The Air Force would also eliminate 303 aircraft under this plan, of which 123 would be combat aircraft:
102 A-10
21 F-16
Of the non-combat aircraft, 150 would be mobility and tanker aircraft:
65 C-130
27 C-5A
20 KC-135
38 C-27. That means all C-27s would be stricken from the Air Force inventory.
Thirty of the non-combat aircraft would be intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft:
11 RC-26
1 E-8C
18 RQ-4
End Strength Changes FY 2013 through FY 2017
DoD’s overall military end strength (Base and Overseas Contingency Operations) reflect the changes noted above, with personnel numbers falling from:
“2,269,700 in FY 2012 to 2,238,400 in FY 2013, a 1.4 percent reduction equating to 31,300 in end strength.
By FY 2017, the overall military end strength will be 2,145,800, a 5.5 percent reduction equating to 123,900 in end strength from FY 2012,” according to budget documents. Details of personnel reductions, by service, from the budget documents:
Army Active, Reserve, and Army National Guard end strength in FY 2013 is 1,115,300 – 0.9 percent less than FY 2012.
In FY 2017 the end strength will be 1,048,200, a 6.8 percent reduction from FY 2012.
Active end strength in FY 2017 would be 490,000, down from 552,000 active duty personnel in FY 2012.
Navy Active and Reserve end strength in FY 2013 is 385,200 – 1.7 percent less than FY 2012.
In FY 2017, the end strength will be 376,600, a 3.9 percent reduction from FY 2012.
Active end strength in FY 2017 would be 319,500, down from 325,700 active duty personnel in FY 2012.
Marine Corps Active and Reserve end strength in FY 2013 is 236,900 – 2.0 percent less than FY 2012.
In FY 2017 the end strength will be 221,700, an 8.3 percent reduction from FY 2012.
Active end strength in FY 2017 would be 182,100, down from 202,100 active duty personnel in FY 2012.
Air Force Active, Reserve, and Air National Guard end strength in FY 2013 is 501,000 – 1.9 percent less than FY 2012.
In FY 2017, the end strength will be 499,300, a 2.3 percent reduction from FY 2012.
Active end strength in FY 2017 would be 328,600, down from 332,800 active duty personnel in FY 2012.
U.S. Army
Eliminate a minimum of eight Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs)
Study brigade structure
U.S. Navy
Eliminate seven cruisers
Eliminate two dock landing ships (LSDs)
U.S. Marine Corps
Eliminate one infantry regiment headquarters
Eliminate five infantry battalions (four active and one reserve)
Eliminate one artillery battalion
Eliminate four Tacair squadrons (three active and one reserve)
Eliminate one combat logistics battalion
U.S. Air Force
Eliminate six combat-coded fighter squadrons (one active and five reserve component)
Eliminate one non-combat-coded fighter squadron (active)
Of the Air Force squadrons to be eliminated under the request, the active component includes one A-10 squadron and one F-15C squadron, and the reserve component includes four A-10 squadrons and one F-16 squadron. The Air Force would also eliminate 303 aircraft under this plan, of which 123 would be combat aircraft:
102 A-10
21 F-16
Of the non-combat aircraft, 150 would be mobility and tanker aircraft:
65 C-130
27 C-5A
20 KC-135
38 C-27. That means all C-27s would be stricken from the Air Force inventory.
Thirty of the non-combat aircraft would be intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft:
11 RC-26
1 E-8C
18 RQ-4
End Strength Changes FY 2013 through FY 2017
DoD’s overall military end strength (Base and Overseas Contingency Operations) reflect the changes noted above, with personnel numbers falling from:
“2,269,700 in FY 2012 to 2,238,400 in FY 2013, a 1.4 percent reduction equating to 31,300 in end strength.
By FY 2017, the overall military end strength will be 2,145,800, a 5.5 percent reduction equating to 123,900 in end strength from FY 2012,” according to budget documents. Details of personnel reductions, by service, from the budget documents:
Army Active, Reserve, and Army National Guard end strength in FY 2013 is 1,115,300 – 0.9 percent less than FY 2012.
In FY 2017 the end strength will be 1,048,200, a 6.8 percent reduction from FY 2012.
Active end strength in FY 2017 would be 490,000, down from 552,000 active duty personnel in FY 2012.
Navy Active and Reserve end strength in FY 2013 is 385,200 – 1.7 percent less than FY 2012.
In FY 2017, the end strength will be 376,600, a 3.9 percent reduction from FY 2012.
Active end strength in FY 2017 would be 319,500, down from 325,700 active duty personnel in FY 2012.
Marine Corps Active and Reserve end strength in FY 2013 is 236,900 – 2.0 percent less than FY 2012.
In FY 2017 the end strength will be 221,700, an 8.3 percent reduction from FY 2012.
Active end strength in FY 2017 would be 182,100, down from 202,100 active duty personnel in FY 2012.
Air Force Active, Reserve, and Air National Guard end strength in FY 2013 is 501,000 – 1.9 percent less than FY 2012.
In FY 2017, the end strength will be 499,300, a 2.3 percent reduction from FY 2012.
Active end strength in FY 2017 would be 328,600, down from 332,800 active duty personnel in FY 2012.
This gives us a better starting point than the much softer "millions."
Then the answer to a future draft is Yes. There may come a time when we reinstate the Draft.Our (volunteer) military is millions strong with millions more in reserves and militias (axillaries and NG being the most obvious examples) so no...
May? There may be a time we reinstate a monarchy too.
We already did in 2008, reaffirmed that mistake this last Nov 2012.
Our (volunteer) military is millions strong with millions more in reserves and militias (axillaries and NG being the most obvious examples) so no...
Combat troops don't come anywhere near millions strong.
True. Typically about one in seven is in the combat arms. Everyone else is support or service support.
Why do you think that. Isn't the imperial president just another king?
We must obstruct king Obama at every step.
It's obvious why many think that, Obama is the sheepherder, the flock don't wander. Not permitted.
We've always had imperial presidents, King George noted his counterpart of the same name wielded more power as a republican then he did as a monarch. Besides, Obama is just using the tools Cheney (because we all know who the real power was back then) left him.
1 - It is to have the best and most cost-effective military possible to “defend” this great country of ours. The only people that refer to this being a “social experiment” are the ideologically conservative or right-wing groups.
2 - Unless you have any academic studies to ally your opinions on this, I would hazard a guess and say they are tainted by a bias.
3 - Amusing analogy, “Amazon Infantry”, but reeking with hubris. Should I refer male soldiers as Neanderthals, I would be accused of being anti-male.
4a) Can you point out to me any facts to back that up?
4b) Generally, I agree.
4c) Again, could you please point out studies or facts where women were held to a different physical standard than men in the US Military in qualifying for the exact same positions?
4d) Who is “We?’
5a) I respect your opinion but disagree.
5b) This was NOT an “Executive Order” sir. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made this decision on his own in response to a lawsuit. The president was not involved in this.
2 - Unless you have any academic studies to ally your opinions on this, I would hazard a guess and say they are tainted by a bias.
3 - Amusing analogy, “Amazon Infantry”, but reeking with hubris. Should I refer male soldiers as Neanderthals, I would be accused of being anti-male.
4a) Can you point out to me any facts to back that up?
4b) Generally, I agree.
4c) Again, could you please point out studies or facts where women were held to a different physical standard than men in the US Military in qualifying for the exact same positions?
4d) Who is “We?’
5a) I respect your opinion but disagree.
5b) This was NOT an “Executive Order” sir. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made this decision on his own in response to a lawsuit. The president was not involved in this.
What? The Commander in Chief isn't involved? Detached?
Why......blow me down as Popeye once said.
You really believe that?
Originally Posted by misterveritis
{1 -}Is your goal to have the best military we can field or to conduct a social experiment without regard to the purpose of our military? And your answer was,
Is it important to you that the "right" groups identify it for what it is? It is a social experiment just like gays in the military is a social experiment. I guess we will find out.
{2 -}Here is what I think is likely. One-third of the men will despise their presence and may choose to not re-enlist. One-third will want to protect the women above accomplishing the mission. The other third will do what men do and seek to have sex with them. And your answer was,
What a silly response. Again, we shall find out.
{3 -}We could have All-American Amazon Infantry Battalions with only women in them. What do you think? And your response was,
All male units and all female units would resolve the problems of mixed units. Why did you dodge?
{4a -}In other areas where women were admitted the standards did change. And your answer was,
Women have a lower standard to meet than men. Here is a link: United States Army Physical Fitness Test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And here are the basics for the ones most likely to be in combat:
Exercise . . . Men . . . Women
Pushup . min 42 - max 71 . . . min 19 - max 42
Situp Same standard for both
2 mile run min 15:54 - max 13:00 . . . min 18:54 - max 15:36
Men have more upper body strength and endurance than women.
{4b -}Women are generally weaker than men. {4c -}So they have different physical readiness performance standards already. {4d -}We should expect to see different requirements for women in combat units than for men.
You answered,
See above. We are the American people. The requirements for women are not likely to be raised to match the men. Instead I predict that the standards for the men will be lowered.
Therefore this is not about combat readiness. It is a social experiment.
{5a -}I think it is a bad idea.
{5b -}Why are we doing this with an Executive Order instead of with legislation from an accountable Congress?
No wonder Panetta cannot wait to get back to the land of fruits and nuts.
{1 -}Is your goal to have the best military we can field or to conduct a social experiment without regard to the purpose of our military? And your answer was,
Is it important to you that the "right" groups identify it for what it is? It is a social experiment just like gays in the military is a social experiment. I guess we will find out.
{2 -}Here is what I think is likely. One-third of the men will despise their presence and may choose to not re-enlist. One-third will want to protect the women above accomplishing the mission. The other third will do what men do and seek to have sex with them. And your answer was,
What a silly response. Again, we shall find out.
{3 -}We could have All-American Amazon Infantry Battalions with only women in them. What do you think? And your response was,
All male units and all female units would resolve the problems of mixed units. Why did you dodge?
{4a -}In other areas where women were admitted the standards did change. And your answer was,
I am authoritative. I served for twenty years.
Women have a lower standard to meet than men. Here is a link: United States Army Physical Fitness Test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And here are the basics for the ones most likely to be in combat:
Exercise . . . Men . . . Women
Pushup . min 42 - max 71 . . . min 19 - max 42
Situp Same standard for both
2 mile run min 15:54 - max 13:00 . . . min 18:54 - max 15:36
Men have more upper body strength and endurance than women.
{4b -}Women are generally weaker than men. {4c -}So they have different physical readiness performance standards already. {4d -}We should expect to see different requirements for women in combat units than for men.
You answered,
See above. We are the American people. The requirements for women are not likely to be raised to match the men. Instead I predict that the standards for the men will be lowered.
Therefore this is not about combat readiness. It is a social experiment.
{5a -}I think it is a bad idea.
{5b -}Why are we doing this with an Executive Order instead of with legislation from an accountable Congress?
Good point. I should have known that s the president is never involved in any decision that leaves fingerprints.
No wonder Panetta cannot wait to get back to the land of fruits and nuts.
*Grin* I think not. Even in a corporate/business setting, one does not not make such a monumental decision without consulting the boss. This is one of those actions that Obama, at least for appearances, wanted to distance himself from...just in case.
Similar threads
