• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wasn't it obvious? As of today US will lose a serious war.

Women are less then 4% of Chinas military and nearly all of them are in support roles.


Some women may have seen combat service in the Soviet Army, but there is no reason to believe it was major or effective service. The Soviet Union was big on propaganda and lies and so it cannot be said for sure that claims of women performing in combat are accurate as opposed to propaganda.

I hate to break it to you, but you not wanting to believe that women performed well in combat(which they did) doesn’t change the facts.
 
Do we know if their systems are any better?


In a battle over Taiwan, their systems would be more robust and harder to “ kill”

The US would be fighting thousands of miles from US territory, right next to China. The US would be relying on planes, ships and satellites to gather information and battlefield data. They are all among the first targets that China would focus on destroying in any conflict over Taiwan. The J20 primary role is likely to take out support aircraft like refueling planes, Radar planes etc. It will direct anti ship missiles to take out intel ships and other CnC ships

The US of course would want to hit China, but striking the Chinese mainland could result in China striking the US mainland in retaliation an escalation that most would not want to see. If the US does not strike targets on the Chinese mainland then their CnC and intel systems are likely not to be reduced very much. If the US does, given the localized nature of the battle China can replace and reinforce quicker than the US could. It’s facilities would be heavily ground based and better situated to survive most missile strikes.

Overall it means that Chinese systems in a battle over Taiwan would be more likely to survive longer and be more replaceable in the battle area than US systems. Nothing to do with being better, if the battle was taking place off the US coast, the Chinese systems would be eliminated very quickly while US systems on the US mainland would likely not be touched
 
War's have not been determined by hand to hand fights to the death in well over a millennia.
Nor apparently by the knowledge of when one uses possessive form.
 
I hate to break it to you, but you not wanting to believe that women performed well in combat(which they did) doesn’t change the facts.
There is no “facts” as far as the Soviets are concerned.
 
Nor apparently by the knowledge of when one uses possessive form.

Do you have any actual evidence for the decline of American skill-at-arms and the supremacy of Russian combat capabilities? All you have offered such far is nonsensical claims like "Russian radar beats stealth" (which coincidentally has never been proven) and you bitching about lesbians.

You sound like a Japanese general assuming himself that the superior will power of him and his troops will be enough to offset any American material superiority, right before Tokyo is incinerated.
 
Do you have any actual evidence for the decline of American skill-at-arms and the supremacy of Russian combat capabilities?
yes we’re wasting money training women for combat roles and getting tricare to pay for gender reassignment. While dismissing offices for using the term “faggotry” and accounts from foreign soldiers visiting American bases is morale is very low.


All you have offered such far is nonsensical claims like "Russian radar beats stealth" (which coincidentally has never been proven) and you bitching about lesbians.

You sound like a Japanese general assuming himself that the superior will power of him and his troops will be enough to offset any American material superiority, right before Tokyo is incinerated.
you sounds more like a Japanese general. “Russian systems can never track our planes, they’re invisible” you have this idea that we can just beat up a rival power no problem and that they haven’t spent decades developing systems to counter our weapons. It seems you are in serious denial

The very fact we’re trying to appeal to recruit gays and lesbians is evidence that politics matter more then effectiveness. The very fact we will dismiss senior offices for offending a homosexual means that we’re getting less benefit from them then they’re worth in uniform
 
Last edited:
You obviously haven’t met any heavy women in comfortable shoes…..
I guess we can repeal VAWA because apparently unfit women can beat up healthy men no problem.
 
So if Women in combat roles works there, why not here?
Because they’re not actually employed in combat roles and women in combat in Israel is at best incidental
 
Do you have any actual evidence for the decline of American skill-at-arms and the supremacy of Russian combat capabilities? All you have offered such far is nonsensical claims like "Russian radar beats stealth" (which coincidentally has never been proven) and you bitching about lesbians.

You sound like a Japanese general assuming himself that the superior will power of him and his troops will be enough to offset any American material superiority, right before Tokyo is incinerated.
Am certain he is drawing on his vast experience serving in our military.
 
yes we’re wasting money training women for combat roles and getting tricare to pay for gender reassignment.

So a completely inconsequential part of the budget?

While dismissing offices for using the term “faggotry” and accounts from foreign soldiers visiting American bases is morale is very low.

Funny how all your "sources" are vague and foreign.

The very fact we’re trying to appeal to recruit gays and lesbians is evidence that politics matter more then effectiveness. The very fact we will dismiss senior offices for offending a homosexual means that we’re getting less benefit from them then they’re worth in uniform

So I'll ask again: What specific combat capability had been degraded as a result? Artillery and air power? Combined arms coordination?

Russian can't even mass produce its own main battle tank yet you're here trying to whine about how they're so much better.
 
Because they’re not actually employed in combat roles and women in combat in Israel is at best incidental

So it sounds like you would be OK with women here having the same combat status as the ones in Israel. That’s cool.
 
So a completely inconsequential part of the budget?
it is money that needs not be spent at all.

Funny how all your "sources" are vague and foreign.
yes Baghdad bob, but you can’t hide the problem the Army is having actually recruiting people. I know more then one person who has left and one who is leaving because they feel the military has become hostile to them.

So I'll ask again: What specific combat capability had been degraded as a result? Artillery and air power? Combined arms coordination?
naval capability for sure as the recent loss of several ships to fires and mid ocean collisions has shown. And the total lack of political will to use military force on Iran when abducting our sailors.

Russian can't even mass produce its own main battle tank yet you're here trying to whine about how they're so much better.
any war we can get into with Russia will be right next to Russia or fought as a proxy war. Same with China. We clearly cannot keep recruitment up in peacetime and that would go double in a major war.
 
it is money that needs not be spent at all.

There are far more expensive things than transgender surgery that the armed forces waste money on, so this is a nonsensical argument.

yes Baghdad bob, but you can’t hide the problem the Army is having actually recruiting people.

The Army has had recruitment problems for the past 40 years. This is nothing new.

capability for sure as the recent loss of several ships to fires and mid ocean collisions has shown.

So prove that is a result of transgenders.

And the total lack of political will to use military force on Iran when abducting our sailors.

You mean when they were returned in less than 24 hours without incident after straying into Iranian waters?

any war we can get into with Russia will be right next to Russia or fought as a proxy war. Same with China. We clearly cannot keep recruitment up in peacetime and that would go double in a major war.

No it wouldn't. You know nothing of how war works.
 
It doesn’t matter. The Russians or Chinese are not recruiting women and sorority chicks with lesbian “moms” to combat roles. So if both sides suffer tech blackouts then guess who will win?
The bad ass Israeli army has been recruiting women and sorority chicks, some of whom may have lesbian moms. Seems to work.
 
In a battle over Taiwan, their systems would be more robust and harder to “ kill”

The US would be fighting thousands of miles from US territory, right next to China. The US would be relying on planes, ships and satellites to gather information and battlefield data. They are all among the first targets that China would focus on destroying in any conflict over Taiwan. The J20 primary role is likely to take out support aircraft like refueling planes, Radar planes etc. It will direct anti ship missiles to take out intel ships and other CnC ships
...
Overall it means that Chinese systems in a battle over Taiwan would be more likely to survive longer and be more replaceable in the battle area than US systems. Nothing to do with being better, if the battle was taking place off the US coast, the Chinese systems would be eliminated very quickly while US systems on the US mainland would likely not be touched

It is useful to recall the combat realities of WII and the battle against Japan. There were several doctrinal assumptions and controversies that were being debated then, as now.

1) The initial US Naval tactics on carrier deployments directed that task forces of only a few carriers each, so as to make it harder to be found in its entirety. However, Admiral Fletcher learned by experience and strongly recommended combined carrier task forces to maximize air protection. It was finally accepted in very late 1943 that such was more effective.

2) The initial presumption was that naval aviation, carriers and ships were very vulnerable to land based aircraft, partially because naval aircraft must be heavier and more robust for carrier operations (making them slower). By the end of WWII, save for Kamikaze attacks, the presumption had changed and US fleets routinely operated against the Japanese mainland.

3) Information then, as now, were critical to military forces. The first carrier force to find the enemy usually won.

4) Japanese plane radios were garbage and pilots had to use hand signals and disciplined tactics to overcome that deficiency. The US relied on better radar for ship defense, while the Japanese partially compensated with better night spotters and night vision equipment. Radar was great...when it worked.

5) The US had its own technology turned against it when, in bombing the Japanese mainland, the Japanese monitored IFF signals from US aircraft to obtain size and direction of an airstrike long before they reached the mainland.

5) The US used code-breaking, the Japanese used extensive traffic analysis of naval and merchant shipping to predict attacks. Both had much success.

6) All US military operations are very logistics heavy and, fortunately, the Japanese never exploited their submarines by using them in a campaign against merchant traffic. It was then, as now, the US militaries greatest material weakness.

It appears that the lessons of WWII are in need of revision. The US now has to return to dispersal of forces, and consequently less firepower in self-defense. As a consequence it will, as in WWII, require major increases in ship and fleet self defense weapons. Moreover, the enemy is quite aware of US dependence on a heavy chain of supply, and new methods of survivable transport to these groups will have to be developed (e.g. rockets and space trajectory for deliveries).

And, to my mind, the entire doctrine of I.T. as a substitute for actual firepower and performance is nonsensical. In an era of hypersonic missiles, new radar advances, and super maneuverable fighters in the final analysis one has to have better performing AND substantially increased numbers of fighting platforms.

If you can't stop a hypersonic missile unless you know its launching point, you don't just need better information, you need an effective point-defense system that doesn't need such information. THAT should be the lesson.
 
Last edited:
While the military was busied itself for decades focusing on getting women into combat roles and their relentless diversity training they failed to do its real job - make sure the US wins in the next war. What has been obvious for the last 20 years in the civilian world is news to our "progressive and enlightened" military leadership, i.e.; that cutting the budget for the entire US military foolishly relied on replacing quantity and quality of material and personnel spiffy new "information systems" was self-delusional pap about technological supremacy of situational awareness (even as the west was totally blind to Russian mobilization on Ukraine's 2014 border).

Hence, when Obama and Gates were busy slashing military spending on projects like the F-22, the "better information strategy" with the F-35 was touted as a cost-effective alternative. The mantra was, in so many words, why worry about the actual combat limitations of a slow and somewhat stealthy plane or bother with the advantages of a Zumwalt destroyer when we have better information? Computers and the Internet are the cheap miracle workers...right?

Whoops...turns out just like voting machines and the entire civilian world (including the producers of the remade Battlestar Galactica) ...a smart enemy can disable this "solution" with a little study.



And here's the "great news" Hyten said the US military won't be fully ready to fight with the new concept till 2030!, still using many of todays weapons, aircraft, and ships.

In other words, when Russia and China decide to attack allies, they can take what they like.
This what is so geat about our militray and our freedom of press and I may add: I have participated in wargames as a civilian observer. I is "good" to lose.
 
This what is so geat about our militray and our freedom of press and I may add: I have participated in wargames as a civilian observer. I is "good" to lose.

It's good to lose a wargame and to pay attention to the lessons learned. It's not so good to test and lose rather late in the game when it will take another 9 years to fix it.

While I am not convinced that the Chinese are yet ready to invade Taiwan (given their simple-minded fleet exercises) I am convinced that they have the ability and desire to be ready in a few years. Quite aside from the dependence of US forces on the cloud and satellite GPS and sensors, the implication that the raw number of Chinese resources, planes and missiles, can penetrate fleet defenses to inflict a huge defeat has to be more than concerning... as is the apparent inability of the US to protect its logistics train.
 
Last edited:
It doesn’t matter. The Russians or Chinese are not recruiting women and sorority chicks with lesbian “moms” to combat roles. So if both sides suffer tech blackouts then guess who will win?
Well seeing how many armchair rabble rousers are not volunteering to stand guard on the ramparts of Democracy don't belittle those who do... :mad:

If tech goes down I doubt many armies will be able to engage. Without GPS I doubt anyone will find the battle field. Most weapon systems rely on 'tech'. Having been in the mud I'll say if you see a female coming at you with an Infantry weapon I sincerely doubt she is pledging a sorority and if you ain't the baddest muther in the valley your ears might be part of her new necklace... :oops:

Well maybe not your ears, gotta get in the grass first... ✌️
 
For the record: I'll leave it up to the generals to decide if "transgenders" are effective and logistically feasible in the military.

In truth, almost all are non-deployable. Their treatments and medication means that almost all are restricted to stateside duty.
 
Back
Top Bottom