Posted on Sep 16, 2014
What are the financial implications of women in combat?
8.18K
39
39
3
3
0
What are the true costs of women in combat positions? Will it cost more to train women, to implement them into Ranger Regiments? Has the Army provided any numbers?
Ranger School
Finance
Women in the Military
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
5
5
0
Why would it cost more? I mean...maybe they have to add a ladies room at Ranger School, and in any barracks they integrate, but to me, integrated means just that. If they are going to integrate combat arms units, they need to do it fully. Nobody wants to fight beside someone that they can't live beside....so I vote no on separate living quarters (rooms, yes. Buildings, no.)
(5)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
SSG Ashley Huiras, SGT Richard Hanner, and PO1 George Medley - I think the case could be made that a woman fully qualified for combat arms is assaulted (sexually or otherwise) she likely to have the attitude and skills to deal rather directly with the issue. It seems like the suggestion is that guys in combat arms are all potential rapists, just waiting for an opportunity (in this case, a fellow soldier). I'm not in combat arms, but if I were I'd find that implied characterization very insulting.
As for injuries - I was at New Kabul Compound yesterday (the 16th) when the casualties were brought in. The women and men who carried the casualties wore the same body armor (adjusted for height & body size) and carried the same weapons. The only injury I saw among the personnel carrying the WIA and KIA was one male who tripped on some debris, cutting his hand and banging his head. I haven't noticed any greater tendency in any of the training I've been through for women and men who are equally fit to get injured at a different rate.
The men who refuse to serve in combat arms alongside women are no different, in my opinion, than those who refused to serve alongside Americans-of-Japanese descent, Blacks, or Hispanics. I really don't care if the person who's protecting/saving my ass is male or female.
I wholehearted agree that fitness and performance standards for combat arms need to be appropriate and uniform. I've talked with enough Army and Marine infantry to know that they make allowances for size and strength on a regular basis - after all, just because that 5'3" 120 lb guy can't carry the 150 lbs of gear that someone else can doesn't mean he isn't a superb infantryman.
As for injuries - I was at New Kabul Compound yesterday (the 16th) when the casualties were brought in. The women and men who carried the casualties wore the same body armor (adjusted for height & body size) and carried the same weapons. The only injury I saw among the personnel carrying the WIA and KIA was one male who tripped on some debris, cutting his hand and banging his head. I haven't noticed any greater tendency in any of the training I've been through for women and men who are equally fit to get injured at a different rate.
The men who refuse to serve in combat arms alongside women are no different, in my opinion, than those who refused to serve alongside Americans-of-Japanese descent, Blacks, or Hispanics. I really don't care if the person who's protecting/saving my ass is male or female.
I wholehearted agree that fitness and performance standards for combat arms need to be appropriate and uniform. I've talked with enough Army and Marine infantry to know that they make allowances for size and strength on a regular basis - after all, just because that 5'3" 120 lb guy can't carry the 150 lbs of gear that someone else can doesn't mean he isn't a superb infantryman.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I was not asking about if women should be allowed in Ranger School or not. I am simply asking about the financial costs. I am in a Public Affairs class right now and I'm trying to prepare myself for an interview. I personally am working on my application for Ranger School right now. Thank you for all the answers!
(2)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
SCPO (Join to see) we're on the exact same page.
SFC (Join to see) I think we're all kind of alluding to is that costs will amount to providing bathroom facilities, and based on SSG Colette Simons' experience, even that cost could be pretty much considered a creature comfort. Personally, I think value could far outweigh cost. Have you considered approaching it from that angle, or are you just focused on cost?
SFC (Join to see) I think we're all kind of alluding to is that costs will amount to providing bathroom facilities, and based on SSG Colette Simons' experience, even that cost could be pretty much considered a creature comfort. Personally, I think value could far outweigh cost. Have you considered approaching it from that angle, or are you just focused on cost?
(1)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
If the whole point of women attending something such as a Ranger School is so that they can actually go perform as a Ranger, then due to the need of feminine hygiene products and the disposal thereof, it would logically have to cost more than males. Who shall pay for this? Is this even truly making the Armed Forces any better? I mean even without diseases...more trash is generated and has to be dealt with. I do not believe the taxpayers should eat that bill. It would be more appropriate to send the increased-costs bills to those who are pom-poming this, and have them send their own daughters into it.
Of course the first part could be a bit fecicious...I'm sure there will be some who only want to attend a school and earn a Tab thinking that will help their promotions climb as they silently disperse away from actually living the Grunt Life.
Of course the first part could be a bit fecicious...I'm sure there will be some who only want to attend a school and earn a Tab thinking that will help their promotions climb as they silently disperse away from actually living the Grunt Life.
(0)
(0)
Here is the results of a scientific study conducted by Power Point Ranger. They used the same science that they are basing Global Warming so it must be must be true.
Just think all the additional cost that are associated with bear attacks and setting up bear traps.
Just think all the additional cost that are associated with bear attacks and setting up bear traps.
(3)
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
Less than two weeks before I head to that sweet mandatory quarantine. Ready to get back home :)
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG V. Michelle Woods That sounds so Awesome. I am glad you didn't get any incurable diseases. I don't know what RP would do without you. I won't be back for about 6 more months. Have have there in quarantine. Keep an eye out for any zombie outbreaks.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SFC (Join to see).
I am astonished anyone would find possible costs to be subject to any question of any kind. We spend several billions of dollars on other military commitments at the drop of a hat. We perform new specialized training, acquire new weapons systems, build new facilities, and establish new infrastructure all of the time. These national security policies and commitments are rarely if ever reconsidered in light of either estimated or actual costs. Take, for example, the as yet non-deployable USAF F35 weapons platform where the research, development, manufacturing, and avionics costs have by far exceeded any reasonable budget estimates.
I, frankly, do not care about the minimal marginal costs of adapting our combat training and combat systems to provide the best opportunities for women and any other underrepresented communities to participate, contribute, advance, and lead in our combat, specialized, and elite armed organizations. Women have been in combat . . . often with no provision to defend ourselves . . . certainly since WWII where front lines were often dissolved by enemy action . . . and certainly during the Vietnam War where women were routinely exposed to armed combat risk . . . but were neither adequately trained, equipped, or permitted to defend themselves.
It is our national security policy and commitment to fully integrate . . . the costs be damned!!!
Warmest Regards, Sandy
I am astonished anyone would find possible costs to be subject to any question of any kind. We spend several billions of dollars on other military commitments at the drop of a hat. We perform new specialized training, acquire new weapons systems, build new facilities, and establish new infrastructure all of the time. These national security policies and commitments are rarely if ever reconsidered in light of either estimated or actual costs. Take, for example, the as yet non-deployable USAF F35 weapons platform where the research, development, manufacturing, and avionics costs have by far exceeded any reasonable budget estimates.
I, frankly, do not care about the minimal marginal costs of adapting our combat training and combat systems to provide the best opportunities for women and any other underrepresented communities to participate, contribute, advance, and lead in our combat, specialized, and elite armed organizations. Women have been in combat . . . often with no provision to defend ourselves . . . certainly since WWII where front lines were often dissolved by enemy action . . . and certainly during the Vietnam War where women were routinely exposed to armed combat risk . . . but were neither adequately trained, equipped, or permitted to defend themselves.
It is our national security policy and commitment to fully integrate . . . the costs be damned!!!
Warmest Regards, Sandy
SCPO (Join to see)
1LT Sandy Annala - well stated. The idea that the cost of getting body-armor for females is unsupportable is just short of bizarre. Yes, the ceramic plates may beed to be configured slightly differently, although from what I see it's just the same improvements made for males. If those improvements came about because the old stuff fit women poorly, then the men have benefited from the changes at least as much as the women have! I know the armor I wore in 2007 was vastly less comfortable and effective than what I have now. We adapt weapons for left-handed shooters - a smaller population than females in the military. The DoD accounting system was unable to account for over $4 *trillion* in the early 2000s - is it really the case that the hundreds of thousands spent on body armor that functions for females is breaking the bank (and has led to improved designs for males)? Or that the improved footwear will drive DoD over the edge?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
I suspect most folks are not thinking about the issue/use/disposal of feminine hygiene products as being part of those costs...or if spending that money is justified simply to soothe the older ladies of the Women's Lib movement who wouldn't dare actually send their own daughters into any battlefield. That cost shouldn't have to be eaten by the taxpayers, most of which do not really want to send America's ladies to go and fight at all. This cost is perhaps a bit smaller than many other military expenses, but all of it should be billed to the senior-most members of that very Women's Lib movement...they can at the very least put their money where their mouths are.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google