What are the financial implications of women in combat?

2014-09-16T17:40:50-04:00

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?

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 16 at 2014 5:44 PM

2014-09-16T17:44:07-04:00

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.)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 9:43 PM

2014-09-16T21:43:20-04:00

i can see how women are more prone to injury since there body doesn't produce testosterone like men do but as far as U.T.Is are concerned baby wipes are allowed at ranger school so that might help in that sense, it'll definitely have trail and error just like anything else before they get it right

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Sep 17 at 2014 1:01 PM

2014-09-17T13:01:22-04:00

In general and historically, they have cost more all around. Health costs, separate billeting/hygiene areas, different clothing, recruiting/tour completion costs, etc. The Army will most likely not present any numbers which will detract from the supposed positive aspects of greater inclusion of women. For example, if I recall correctly, early on in OEF/OIF, a Pentagon spokesman admitted that the DoD did not track women redeployed because of pregnancy.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 3:39 AM

2014-09-18T03:39:56-04:00

SFC Private RallyPoint Member.

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

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 11:02 AM

2014-09-18T11:02:18-04:00

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.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 1:01 PM

2015-01-18T13:01:36-05:00

I agree with the sentiment here in the comments that initially, there will be a price tag, but in the end it will be glossed over.
Public sentiment will be the ultimate say so for women in combat. Because soldiers can't vote on what happens in the military (the military itself is not a democracy, but America is), the public will decide on if they want this sort of equality...and congress will find a way to pay for it whether the public wants to or not.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made May 30 at 2015 11:19 PM

2015-05-30T23:19:25-04:00

why would you think there would be? more to train them? why do you think that, they dont learn any slower then men do. why would implimenting them be any more costly for a women then a man. I feel like there are people rooting for them to fail.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made May 31 at 2015 5:28 AM

2015-05-31T05:28:40-04:00

If you drop the standards, not much. If you keep the standards, its going to cost a whole bunch flying them to and from for no reason (Seeing as the rate of success is currently 0)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 10:39 PM

2015-06-03T22:39:56-04:00

It's a good question, because if anything will sink an otherwise well-received idea, it will be the accountants. Politicians who may wish to duck the question could use "spending" as a reason.

The Coast Guard had to re-design an entire ship class to stretch the hulls and make room for separate berths and latrines ("heads") for female servicemembers, recently. The Army won't have that problem because in the Training field you have porta-pots (which are private) and in the Combat field no one cares because they all dig cat holes and worry about other things like incoming fire. Army barracks will be easy to segregate: "top floor for females; bottom floor for males, violation means UCMJ!" and that's that.

The "cost" will be social and political. Seeing daughters, wives, and sisters come home in boxes may have a chilling effect on a once-supporting populace. But other nations have adjusted-- I lived in Israel for ahwile, and they have universal conscription for men and women-- and my girlfriend at the time had more "Army Buddies" then me.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 4 at 2015 9:14 PM

2015-06-04T21:14:00-04:00

Correct me if I am wrong, but just Infantry will be difficult for women due to the heavy packs, ammo, and weapon they have to carry.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jun 14 at 2015 11:30 AM

2015-06-14T11:30:46-04:00

I think this is a spurious question. If combat is required, and women are in combat positions, what it costs to get them there should be as irrelevant as it is for men.