Posted on Sep 16, 2014
What are the financial implications of women in combat?
8.48K
39
38
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: 10
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)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
yes, it *might* be cheaper to buy better footgear but maybe not. You still have to treat women differently than men and that costs money.
I wholeheartedly agree with the assessment that screening for fitness makes sense in the short term. Unfortunately, force management worships at the alter of numbers, as we saw during the hard-to-recruit years in the mid 00s in which they lowered the standards for accession. As you no doubt know SSG Simons, there's a reason they don't let former drill sergeants be recruiters: they would set the bar very high. I wish the Army could afford to be as choosey as the USMC.
I wholeheartedly agree with the assessment that screening for fitness makes sense in the short term. Unfortunately, force management worships at the alter of numbers, as we saw during the hard-to-recruit years in the mid 00s in which they lowered the standards for accession. As you no doubt know SSG Simons, there's a reason they don't let former drill sergeants be recruiters: they would set the bar very high. I wish the Army could afford to be as choosey as the USMC.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
Dependent care...yes, a whole other ball of wax. Folks sometimes forget that personnel costs (pay, entitlements, incentives, are about 50% of the Army budget and I think health care is part of that. It adds up.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
Bill Darling: So much for transparency: "The Army will most likely not present any numbers which will detract from the supposed positive aspects of greater inclusion of women."
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
Cpl Christopher Bishop Of course not, Never have, never will (until it's fatal to the country or unvarnished truth becomes en vogue). Just watch with this Ranger School thing. It will be: failure, failure, failure...eventually a small success-->It's a complete success! Forgive my cynicism, but it's based on my observations when I was in and a lot of reading of the subject matter.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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
(1)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
1) Women do produce testosterone, just less of it than men do (in general);
2) I am unaware of any research that links testosterone to decreased injury (if anything, it seems like those guys with extremely high testosterone levels get hurt more - but that's because of the fights they start).
2) I am unaware of any research that links testosterone to decreased injury (if anything, it seems like those guys with extremely high testosterone levels get hurt more - but that's because of the fights they start).
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
looking more into it i was wrong on my research but women are more prone to injury in hips and knees due to slight change in bone structure but its nothing that couldn't be prevented the more actual research i did not just trusting what he she said about it
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
Providing for Feminine Hygiene Products, and the use and disposal of them...has to have a cost above Zero. I say Send the bill to the Women's Lib folks...let them put their money where their mouths are, and have then send in some of their own daughters while they're at it (yeah right).
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
there are lots of women in the military who are volunteers and deserve all the same chances as men do. Seriously don't be so sexist.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
I'm not sexist at all. I got just as much problem with those overly-heavy married Grunts who are males, who also cannot knock out the bare minimum 3 pull-ups, not that they didn't do them in initial training, but they spend their BAH on BS-Food and lack discipline...I'm not expecting miracles, only that their fitness match up to their MOS.
In terms of people deserving a chance....they have been getting it, and failing at it. I've never been one to close down the opportunities.
People who are so fundamentally soft that they can't take a good hard look at all of the surrounding issues without crying about Sexism, Unfairness, etc...do not belong in the Grunts, I don't care what gender they are. The inability to remove your FEELINGS cap and don your LOGIC cap....gets people dead fast.
What opportunities people deserve or not....isn't even the same discussion as the COSTS of it.
In terms of people deserving a chance....they have been getting it, and failing at it. I've never been one to close down the opportunities.
People who are so fundamentally soft that they can't take a good hard look at all of the surrounding issues without crying about Sexism, Unfairness, etc...do not belong in the Grunts, I don't care what gender they are. The inability to remove your FEELINGS cap and don your LOGIC cap....gets people dead fast.
What opportunities people deserve or not....isn't even the same discussion as the COSTS of it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
And the public (taxpayers) will end up paying for it....yet another expense billed to folks who don't want what it pays for (in most cases).
Providing for Feminine Hygiene Products, and the use and disposal of them...has to have a cost above Zero. I say Send the bill to the Women's Lib folks...let them put their money where their mouths are, and have then send in some of their own daughters while they're at it (yeah right).
Providing for Feminine Hygiene Products, and the use and disposal of them...has to have a cost above Zero. I say Send the bill to the Women's Lib folks...let them put their money where their mouths are, and have then send in some of their own daughters while they're at it (yeah right).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google