If you had to choose, would you rather operate with a child soldier or a female soldier?
Women are children. You said the same thing twice.
I'd go with the qt on the right tbqh.
The child soldier is malnourished and carries a shitty peasant rifle although he may have had more experience in combat. The female soldier probably has no real experience in combat but is trained by a well equipped army. However I'd rather have her be in Israeli or Finnish Army.
Women being shit is pretty much an exclusively American thing, mate. I served with women in the British army and they were absolutely fine. Trained alongside Royal Navy and Air Force, women were fine. Trained with a lot of EU armies too, women were fine.
On the contrary, 2 of the 4 combat medics we had attached to my squad were women and they fought absolutely fine. There were occasions where they struggled with the physical side of things, but it's biological, can't be helped. Military ethos isn't about seeing someone struggling and thinking "HAHAHAHA YOU FUCKING DYKE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE", it's about helping a fellow soldier knowing they'd do the same in any other situation if it was necessary.
I'm not some hippy dippy feminist green party voter, but man or women really doesn't matter in the forces. You're a soldier, sailor or a faggot who joined the air force.
That's fine if it worked out well enough for you, but objectively your squad was hindered by their physical biological inability to perform at the same level.
In the infantry you should optimize performance in every way possible except for when it's absolutely necessary for mission requirements, like the FET teams who engaged w/ women in Afghanistan.
Not doing so gets people killed. My unit specifically left-behind any marines who didn't have a PFT of at least 270/300 from Afghanistan.
The child soldier will eventually grow up to be a competent adult soldier with proper discipline and guidance.
The female soldier on the other hand will only excel as a tactical mobile cumdumpster.
You talking about a battle hardened, atrocity-committing child soldier? Yeah I'll take one of those, they'll fight for your to their death for a bowl of food, don't flinch at gunfire, and will do literally anything you ask them to, including gutting a baby in front of their own mother. The only drawback is that they can't hump as much gear, and you have to keep them in line to stop them from going completely apeshit and killing everything that moves.
Not trying to be edgy, but that just seems like far less of a liability than some woman who will complain if she sprains an ankle, or cries and starts peeing in her BDUs when the shrapnel starts landing too close. At least the child soldier might keep you alive.
Though not very eloquent in delivery, that's not a bad way to think about it. Too old to learn new tricks.
The implication is that the child soldier already has some experience and is capable of learning, but the female soldier is less likely to be open-minded and willing.
Pic related. They'll eat your fucking heart.
>it's about helping a fellow soldier knowing they'd do the same in any other situation if it was necessary.
Exactly. Sometimes this means that you watch "the dyke" struggle during training and when she fails you turn to her and tell her that she just ain't fucking cut for it. A group is only as strong as its weakest link and when that link breaks the whole group breaks. I wouldn't voluntarily serve with anyone who couldn't pull their weight be that a man or a woman.
The problem with women in the military is that due to feminist policies it's rarely women rising up to previously established standards but rather established standards being lowered to suit feminist political needs of breaking up the supposed "boys club".
According to the UN, a "child" soldier is <18, so a strapping young 17.9 year old from Giganiggastan with a fondness for rape, brown-brown and automatic weapons counts. I will take one of those over a platoon of entitled Western cunts.
>Fighting alongside a female soldier
Get ready to die.
Marine Corps already published a study that confirms that male soldiers outperform their female counterparts in EVERY field.
It's not sexism, it's hard scientific fact.
Depends on the woman and the child.
If the worst of both worlds though, I would take the child.
If the best of both, the woman so I could settle down and start a family with her once we've won (implying that America will ever actually fight for land)
>Implying that means anything.
It originated in the US and all it's servers are in the US. Hell, even the US created the internet.
Leave now. You have no right to be here foreigner scum.
>The computer is British
Wrong again, idiot. Babbage doesn't count, he never MADE a computer.
>John Vincent Atanasoff (October 4, 1903 – June 15, 1995) was an American physicist and inventor, best known for inventing the first electronic digital computer
Depends on what you count as a computer.
You could make a computer out of rocks laid out on the ground, and it would be Turing complete, that is, it could do all the operations that a supercomputer could do, albeit much more slowly.
Stop going on these librul sites
It isn't just the women, half the men are rampant faggots
I know plenty of women who are sick of feminism and shit, and this kind of stuff is getting meme tier
I knew a chick from so-cal that moved up to the Bay Area. She was a 6, maybe a 7 on a good day, really great body but her face was a little busted up from years of drinking and smoking, she looked older than she was. The amount of butthurt I heard from her about all of the guys going for Asian chicks was quite hilarious.
American women, shit western women in general, are lazy entitled cunts. Do you really think this quality makes for a good soldier? I'm not saying good female soldiers don't exist, but the Marine study results were not surprising to me at all.
Ive met Female soldiers I could stand. Not many. While she's be more prone to injury and wear down far quicker than a man, I could use females in mounted operations. (Strykers, Bradley, etc) I couldnt fight along side children
Child soldier will just get themselves killed, then i'd be alone.
Even if she didn't do any work, at least a trained female soldier wouldn't do anything too stupid during combat, if i'm lucky she might even load her magazine right way up.
>tfw she's not that attractive without full battle rattle on
While lacking in training and tactics, I'd go with the child soldiers. Primarily because between the two, the child soldier is going to be quite a lot less lippy and more obedient when I tell him to draw fire or carry extra gear.
Date Latinas, they're good in the bed and good in the kitchen. Why have rice and curry when you could have an entire Mexican restaurant sleeping with you. I don't know about y'all but I love me some taco. Both kinds
Mestizas are hideous for the most part. The best looking women in Central and South America are the ones with the least Indian or African blood in them.
Also Mexican food is boring as fuck. I know you're probably white, but at least try Burmese food or something else that's actually a little spicy.
>mfw the child soldiers have better trigger discipline
Dude, my whole company ran a train on this Canadian Soldierette, while visiting Nathan Smith in 2009. I respected her twice myself.
Canadian gash in uniform is no better than American gash in uniform, just with a little more decorum and lower national standards for the skills actually vital for soldiering.
Kid. I can teach the kid to do things as long as its male. The woman will never do anything.
That Swedish Survivor or whatever it was where they separated everyone by gender should be adequate proof of that. Someone else will have to post the image because I can't find it. it originally came from this board, so someone should have it.
Until they turn 25 and start getting fat in weird places while their beautiful face suddenly turns inside out and they look like ghouls from fallout with lumpy misshapen flabby middles.
Female child soldier. Giggity giggity goo!
>Marine Corps already published a study that confirms that male soldiers outperform their female counterparts in EVERY field.
>It's not sexism, it's hard scientific fact.
Under Marine fitness performance standards, which are way above everything else compared to actual combat performance and experience.
>just with a little more decorum and lower national standards for the skills actually vital for soldiering.
I'm FA and did some training with Canadian FA, their shit looked squared away but they were pretty shit at actually doing artillery.
Their observers gave us a grid outside of the impact area like three fucking times, not to mention all the other dumb shit that happened.
why do teenish volleyball players all have the same legs? total lack of any definition
>a child soldier or a female soldier
A male if at least 12 and able bodied.
That said, I'm not overly sexist, women just aren't genetically capable.
0311 (former) with a family. My wife, Aunt, and mom all agree with me. Women don't belong on a battlefield.
Canadians (and Brit roaches) being better than Americans is a meme most of the time, spread by civilians of both countries and parrotted by the weaker minded, self-hating American.
In reality, only a few countries like Denmark are better and only in highly specific areas.
>The female body is made to store fat
so that's why 'strong women' look so comfy
>Women doing anything they're told, especially in stressful situations like combat
At least with the kid you can tell him he has to do shit because you're an adult and he'll catch a beating from someone bigger than him if he doesn't.
Child soldier provided it's the one in the photo. More actual combat experience, probably more rational in combat then a female, probably bro tier who I can sniff brown brown and chew khat with, he probably knows the landscape better and he could follow orders without the victim mentality of the patriarchy telling her what to do meanwhile my third world bro will be ruthless and do almost anything he's told.
Sorry, but it's the child soldier every time.
a female. cause when you tell them to stay somewhere they fucking stay somewhere
>WHERE IS CARL?!?!
>All this female hate.
I'd take the girl soldier just because I know they have the training I do and the resoources I do. If you take the 12 year old who just got strapped with an AK and thrown into the war goodluck trying to get him to hit anything.
>tfw I spend enough time on this mongolian rice cooking forum that I get this reference
On the other hand, historically speaking, sides that manage to mobilise their women do fairly well.
If I'm fighting alongside a woman, my supply lines are shorter than those of my opponents, I have local support, I have enough to eat, plenty of weapons and ammunition and I'm probably in a defensible situation.
If I'm fighting alongside a child, I'm fighting an unpopular war, without the support of the locals. I'm going to be hungry, weapons and ammunition poor, and we'll be alone against superior forces.
In either case the lion's share of the fight will fall to me, so I might as well be in a winnable fight.
From a psychological perspective the greatest error armies are making to date are attempting to alter primary group relationships in the name of liberal progress.
>what is primary group
primary group theory was based off the idea that men fought for one another for the man next to them, and their combat motivation would be influenced by whether or not they felt attached to the group they were affiliated with. As a result, many arms have attempted to create an "spirit de corps" through sports, conventions and regimental events to hone this primary group attachment, and by extension combat motivation
>where do women fit in
by allowing women on the front line, you potentially alter the primary group dynamics that currently existed in the traditionally male dominated army. This in turn can lead to a potentially catastrophic loss of primary group motivation, or potentially a rise in it. However, as this is a fairly new introduction to warfare this has yet to be proven for or against, but it is a colossal gamble on an armies individual integrity.
In my own opinion, men in groups act differently around women; men that would once happily fall into subservient or lower roles within the group dynamic instinctively begin to challenge their place in the hierarchy, and what would have been a perfectly peaceful male group becomes a chaotic vying for control to prove on an instinctive basis their superiority to other men in the group to women.
Therefore, women should only be allowed into frontline duty in female only regiments; this prevents interfering in current primary group relations whiles also allowing women the chance to fight for their country.
I was a child soldier.
Would operate again with my old team. Anytime!
>On the other hand, historically speaking, sides that manage to mobilise their women do fairly well.
All propaganda. Women don't have the instinct to be a fighter, the instinct that is a part of any normal male even if he's a child. It's like throwing or learning to fight: it isn't completely learned, as a good portion is innate. Boys are just little men with less brains and brawn, the way I see it. Women aren't made to handle stress and don't have the skill set to perform well.
You can see this for yourself in the real world. If you've ever been in a stressful situation with a woman you would know women can't deal with it. Even if they do manage to keep themselves together they are fighting their instincts that tell them to go find a man. Boys handle stress fine. They might not handle it as intelligently or as competently as a man, but their mental make-up allows them to stay calm, generally speaking.