Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.arts.sf.composition    |    The writing and publishing of speculativ    |    144,800 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 143,270 of 144,800    |
|    Shawn Wilson to Will in New Haven    |
|    Re: Plausible Characters?    |
|    29 Jul 14 10:17:45    |
      From: ikonoqlast@gmail.com              On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:30:50 AM UTC-7, Will in New Haven wrote:                     > Women tank crews or mixed tank crews would be hugely advantageous.                      Nope, which is why no one does it. Tankers actually need physical strength       women don't possess for their various duties. Setting up camo netting, fixing       tracks, and just loading the gun all require significant upper body strength.        France limited tank        crews to 5'4'' and less, but never used women.               Same for artillery, infantry, engineers and special forces. MPs have been       brought up, but MPs are not combat units. A cook can be told to pick up a       rifle and go on patrol, but that doesn't make cooks combat units either. And,       a basic combat task is        picking up the wounded guy throwing him over your shoulder (you need one hand       free for your weapon) and carrying him back to the aid station. Women can't       do that.               That country X, who hasn't been to war in the last century, does something       does not make it a good idea. Country X is free riding on US defense policy       and doesn't need a capable military.              And Israel? Nope, no women in combat roles.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca