jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Analysis of ban on women in combat - Telegraph
Analysis of ban on women in combat
Under current military rules, women are banned from serving in units which are, according to the Ministry of Defence, "deliberately required to close with and kill the enemy face-to-face".
It is argued by many supporters of the ban that a civilised society should not send its mothers, wives and daughters into the thick of a battle to kill and be killed Photo: RICHARD WATT
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
5:56PM BST 27 Sep 2008
These units include the Infantry, the Royal Marines, the Household Cavalry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the RAF Regiment. Women are also barred from serving on submarines or serve as mine clearance divers.
Up until now, it has been widely accepted within the military community that the addition of women into combat units would have an adverse impact on their operational effectiveness - although the proof for this is at best anecdotal.
It should also be remembered that this was exactly the same argument which was used when it was first suggested that women should be allowed to serve on Royal Navy warships. And although there have been a few problems, the Royal Navy would no doubt argue that it remains a world class fighting force.
It is also argued by many supporters of the ban that a civilised society should not send its mothers, wives and daughters into the thick of a battle to kill and be killed. The problem with this argument is that even with the ban in place women are already killing and being killed.
In my opinion, the greatest hurdle to women serving in combat units would be their ability to meet the physical fitness levels required to serve on operations in Helmand, where soldiers routinely required to carry in excess of 80lbs for hours on end in temperatures of 45C. But even the military accepts there are women currently serving in the Army who could meet this challenge.
Related Articles
Army warned by lawyers over women
27 Sep 2008
In Afghanistan where the British Army is expected to be based for at least 10-years, female soldiers serve as interpreters, dog handlers and medics. These soldiers, whether male or female, often find themselves at the very front of operations in Helmand, and have been forced to open fire when attacked. Women are also employed as combat jet and attack helicopter pilots, where they are required to kill. And for more than 20-years, female soldiers have served as members of the special forces working under cover on covert operations facing great danger.
It should also be stressed that the mentality of the average soldier has also changed. Women are now fully accepted within every sphere of the Army. Although they might not serve in infantry units they are invariably attached to them working as medics, signallers and drivers. And in Helmand, where there is no frontline, male and female soldiers in isolated bases live cheek by jowl and share exactly the same risks.
The ban might not be lifted just yet but the very fact that it is being discussed by the Army's top generals suggest that change is on its way.
Analysis of ban on women in combat
Under current military rules, women are banned from serving in units which are, according to the Ministry of Defence, "deliberately required to close with and kill the enemy face-to-face".
It is argued by many supporters of the ban that a civilised society should not send its mothers, wives and daughters into the thick of a battle to kill and be killed Photo: RICHARD WATT
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
5:56PM BST 27 Sep 2008
These units include the Infantry, the Royal Marines, the Household Cavalry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the RAF Regiment. Women are also barred from serving on submarines or serve as mine clearance divers.
Up until now, it has been widely accepted within the military community that the addition of women into combat units would have an adverse impact on their operational effectiveness - although the proof for this is at best anecdotal.
It should also be remembered that this was exactly the same argument which was used when it was first suggested that women should be allowed to serve on Royal Navy warships. And although there have been a few problems, the Royal Navy would no doubt argue that it remains a world class fighting force.
It is also argued by many supporters of the ban that a civilised society should not send its mothers, wives and daughters into the thick of a battle to kill and be killed. The problem with this argument is that even with the ban in place women are already killing and being killed.
In my opinion, the greatest hurdle to women serving in combat units would be their ability to meet the physical fitness levels required to serve on operations in Helmand, where soldiers routinely required to carry in excess of 80lbs for hours on end in temperatures of 45C. But even the military accepts there are women currently serving in the Army who could meet this challenge.
Related Articles
Army warned by lawyers over women
27 Sep 2008
In Afghanistan where the British Army is expected to be based for at least 10-years, female soldiers serve as interpreters, dog handlers and medics. These soldiers, whether male or female, often find themselves at the very front of operations in Helmand, and have been forced to open fire when attacked. Women are also employed as combat jet and attack helicopter pilots, where they are required to kill. And for more than 20-years, female soldiers have served as members of the special forces working under cover on covert operations facing great danger.
It should also be stressed that the mentality of the average soldier has also changed. Women are now fully accepted within every sphere of the Army. Although they might not serve in infantry units they are invariably attached to them working as medics, signallers and drivers. And in Helmand, where there is no frontline, male and female soldiers in isolated bases live cheek by jowl and share exactly the same risks.
The ban might not be lifted just yet but the very fact that it is being discussed by the Army's top generals suggest that change is on its way.
