Should India allow women into combat roles?

[doppelganger]

Please give your opinions for or against, with rationales.

Please try and keep this clean and not get vulgar in your jingoistic enthusiasm.

Personally I believe that women are simply not strong enough. Plus they have child rearing issues.

A woman combatant would be more a hindrance for the men fighting alongside her than a help. War is brutal, and a male's first reaction is to shield women and kids from it. That can lead to bad decisions, compromised actions.

 

[WAJsal]

Plus they have child rearing issues.

Enough said.

 

[NKVD]

Please give your opinions for or against, with rationales.

Please try and keep this clean and not get vulgar in your jingoistic enthusiasm.

Personally I believe that women are simply not strong enough. Plus they have child rearing issues.

A woman combatant would be more a hindrance for the men fighting alongside her than a help. War is brutal, and a male's first reaction is to shield women and kids from it. That can lead to bad decisions, compromised actions.

No need Now But yes they should get Combat training and have there own regiment For war scenarios

 

[doppelganger]

Enough said.

Reason I started this thread, with all due respect to the patriotic and nationalistic women here on PDF, is because yesterday on Republic Day the media and everywhere were going on and on and on about Naari Shakti and how women should be allowed to kick *** in combat, and how they could do as good a job, if not better.

Forget fighting, I don't think 99% of women have the physical strength to carry all the gear and equipment which a modern soldier needs to carry when he goes into war.

 

[WAJsal]

Reason I started this thread, with all due respect to the patriotic and nationalistic women here on PDF, is because yesterday on Republic Day the media and everywhere were going on and on and on about Naari Shakti and how women should be allowed to kick *** in combat, and how they could do as good a job, if not better.

Forget fighting, I don't think 99% of women have the physical strength to carry all the gear and equipment which a modern soldier needs to carry when he goes into war.

True but dont you think it should be one's personal decision and if she wants to do something for the country by working for the Armed forces so be it,i highly doubt if she gets any time for that as apparently most women have

Plus they have child rearing issues.

in India.

 

[salarsikander]

Hi,

Not in combat roles but more like in Administrative and medical ones, The best compassionate doctors you have are woman

 

[Lord ZeN]

Yup . Why not ?
@levina

 

[ExtraOdinary]

Reason I started this thread, with all due respect to the patriotic and nationalistic women here on PDF, is because yesterday on Republic Day the media and everywhere were going on and on and on about Naari Shakti and how women should be allowed to kick *** in combat, and how they could do as good a job, if not better.

Forget fighting, I don't think 99% of women have the physical strength to carry all the gear and equipment which a modern soldier needs to carry when he goes into war.

Soviet women in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were 800,000 women who served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war. Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. Some served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[doppelganger]

True but dont you think it should be one's personal decision and if she wants to do something for the country by working for the Armed forces so be it,i highly doubt if she gets any time for that as apparently most women have

No I don't think it is her decision alone. Nor does the nation have the luxury of allowing her the same. She would be a liability to the men fighting with her, and could cost lives. Not to mention the cost of training and maintaining such a liability that the nation has to bear.

in India.

Why? Women do not give birth and rear kids in other countries?

Soviet women in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were 800,000 women who served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war. Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. Some served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The soviets were in a fight for their survival. And the death rate was mind numbing. There simply were fewer and fewer able bodied men. Everyone fought. Even kids. Even today generations later the Russian demographic gender skew has not righted itself thanks to the huge male kill-off of the second world war.

Here I am referring to planned institutionalized induction of women into combat roles by India when it is not at war, and when it has no shortage of healthy young men for the same roles.

 

[WAJsal]

No I don't think it is her decision alone. Nor does the nation have the luxury of allowing her the same. She would be a liability to the men fighting with her, and could cost lives. Not to mention the cost of training and maintaining such a liability that the nation has to bear.

Cost of training and maintaining wouldn't be any different,plus women have served their countries before.All i am saying is should be personal decision.

Why? Women do not give birth and rear kids in other countries?

not every women.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

No I don't think it is her decision alone. Nor does the nation have the luxury of allowing her the same. She would be a liability to the men fighting with her, and could cost lives. Not to mention the cost of training and maintaining such a liability that the nation has to bear.



Why? Women do not give birth and rear kids in other countries?



The soviets were in a fight for their survival. And the death rate was mind numbing. There simply were fewer and fewer able bodied men. Everyone fought. Even kids. Even today generations later the Russian demographic gender skew has not righted itself thanks to the huge male kill-off of the second world war.

Here I am referring to planned institutionalized induction of women into combat roles by India when it is not at war, and when it has no shortage of healthy young men for the same roles.

On the contrary Indian Armed Forces have been facing a shortage of officers for quite sometime

Army faces shortage of officers - The Hindu

 

[doppelganger]

Cost of training and maintaining wouldn't be any different,plus women have served their countries before.All i am saying is should be personal decision.

Its not the same. Having the few women inducted into combat roles now means you have to provide infrastructure accordingly. Sleeping areas. Toilets. The cost of which remains the same whether they are used by 50 male jawns or 5 female jawans.

not every women.

Not all women in India do either. But then, what are you going to do when you take a young woman into a combat role? Make her sign a no marriage, no kids bond? That's a piece of paper.

On the contrary Indian Armed Forces have been facing a shortage of officers for quite sometime

Army faces shortage of officers - The Hindu

True. But combat roles is not only for officer cadre.

 

[MilSpec]

Please give your opinions for or against, with rationales.

Please try and keep this clean and not get vulgar in your jingoistic enthusiasm.

Personally I believe that women are simply not strong enough. Plus they have child rearing issues.

A woman combatant would be more a hindrance for the men fighting alongside her than a help. War is brutal, and a male's first reaction is to shield women and kids from it. That can lead to bad decisions, compromised actions.

Hi,

Don't take this as an insult, but from your views stated above, you should read more.

Physical strength is not the only parameter that defines characteristics of a combatant. Women can match and exceed endurance of their male counterparts, along with that they can surpass their male counterparts in presence of mind, exceptional focus, discipline and patience (yes patience, WWII a female polish sniper waited for 3 days in her location for the right shot) . Along with that with the right training and right placement among men, women fighters have time and again proved their mettle on the battlefield in Soviet army, IDF, US armed forces etc.

Fyi women fighter pilots have shown better resistance to higher G forces than their macho counterparts. Also Women combatants have proven themselves as exceptional snipers. Female covert ops have been responsible for changing fates of wars in modern history. So I do think women have place active combat. Absolutely YES!

 

[gau8av]

I don't like the idea of women fighting in the trenches on the frontlines.

 

[WAJsal]

Its not the same. Having the few women inducted into combat roles now means you have to provide infrastructure accordingly. Sleeping areas. Toilets. The cost of which remains the same whether they are used by 50 male jawns or 5 female jawans.


Not all women in India do either. But then, what are you going to do when you take a young woman into a combat role? Make her sign a no marriage, no kids bond? That's a piece of paper.

A jawan also has to spend his time away from his child because he wants to serve his country,women can make such compromises ,if she wants to go down that road.