Without getting into -4 STR shitposting, how does the female body work? How strong can they get and, purely based on their physical ability, how capable would a woman be of functioning in a military unit?
>Inb4 "adventurers are exceptional"
A lot of fantasy settings also have highl(over?)representation of women as nameless soldiers.
Lots of women could function in military units, the biggest issue with having females in the military would be sexual rather than their ability.
Holding formation and being skilled with weapons is what is important in soldiers, but having females in a camp mostly full of guys in a time like that is a recipe for disaster.
Depends how grim/realistic you want your setting though.
In a world where there are dragons and wizards having females with equal representation in military aspects is something that really shouldn't bother you.
>Without getting into -4 STR shitposting, how does the female body work?
For 75% a mans wage
I think at peak fitness, a woman is about 60% as capable as a man. By military standards that gap would be even greater. Then there's all the social issues of having mixed gender units. Which makes me wonder why they don't just have female-exclusive units and not have to deal with the problems to begin with.
The real interesting thing would be to see, in the next 20-40 years when cybernetics, robot bodies, and exosuits come along, and then you not only completely eliminate the physical differences between men and women combatants, but also possibly the social if identity doesn't even come into play.
Imagine a near-future unit where the woman is cybered up and is physically more capable than all the men combined, or there are just remote controlled robot soldiers or something and you don't know the gender or identity of the person steering it.
I don't. It could be completely wrong, I just seem to recall hearing that number or statistic somewhere. I don't remember the exact number but I know it was more than 50% though not much more.
>I think at peak fitness, a woman is about 60% as capable as a man.
Don't do this to me. Don't destroy my femdom fantasies.
>The real interesting thing would be to see, in the next 20-40 years when cybernetics, robot bodies, and exosuits come along, and then you not only completely eliminate the physical differences between men and women combatants, but also possibly the social if identity doesn't even come into play.
At that point it is literally the "What a shame" scenario. Your original body will no longer matter it will just be version number of your cybernetic rig.
However, having remote controlled or even autonomous robots doing physical labor instead of humans is a much more realistic scenario.
>Without getting into -4 STR shitposting, how does the female body work? How strong can they get and, purely based on their physical ability, how capable would a woman be of functioning in a military unit?
This will not be a good thread.
They're completely unsuited to combat and the average woman would horribly lose a fight with a below average man.
You just ignore that shit in fantasy for the same reason you don't stop wizards from casting spells because they wouldn't be able to in the real world.
The average woman has 60% as much upper body strength as the average man. At peak fitness, this gap increases exponentially.
Consider the following records:
Male Clean and Jerk: 586 lbs
Female Clean and Jerk: 418
Male Backlift: 6270 lbs
Female Backlift: Less then 2000 [can't find exact figure]
Male Squat: Over 1200 lbs
Female Squat: 800 lbs
Its just a totally different ballgame. Women are, on average and peak, weaker then men. Women being soldiers is just as much fantasy as dragons and wizards are.
He means under "ideal circumastanes." The gap between individuals if far greater than the average gap between genders. Same goes for the apparent myth that "men can't multitask but women can" studies showed that on average women are slightly better at multitasking but the variance between individuals is magnitudes greater than the average between genders.
Even among male soldiers there are some that are just outright terrible.
With both ancient and modern militaries, a large factor is the weight of the gear being carried around, which is calibrated to fit on the average man.
If you can somehow get around this need (many fantasy settings have ways around supply lines and supplies in general) then it should really just be a matter of flavour.
>completely unsuited to combat
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
>the average woman would horribly lose a fight with a below average man
This isn't about fistfights, anon. This is about war. Given a decent weapon and some physical training, anyone can hurt anyone else. No amount of muscle mass or bone density is going to keep you from getting cut the fuck up and bleeding out.
Sure, sure. It's just that when you look at them, it's instantly obvious why men and women have separate categories.
Strength is the most obvious, but even things that are more about speed and agility still go for men.
>Shorter by a wide margin
>Have less reach
>Less running speed (due to hip bone)
>Less shock absorption (because of less muscle)
>Less capacity for oxygen and blood flow (smaller chest cavity)
>Far less testosterone
>Far inferior grip strength
It's not even a close contest. Why do people keep making these threads? The genders are not even close to being equal physically, it's obvious to anyone who even basically observes human behavior and society.
>Hur why aren't women soldiers? They can be equal to men as soldiers right?
>Literally not a single fighting unit throughout the history of the world that featured females in any way that wasn't the result of an honor guard/pageantry or as a result of utter desperation
>No point throughout the entirety of human history were females were considered more disposable then males
>Literal reproductive mechanics including both mensuration AND pregnancy insures females are less capable of going out on campaigns or being away from safe conditions for long periods of time.
The only reason why people keep making these threads is retardation or b8, there can't be any other way.
Just imagine her as being part giant, a goddess, or better yet a Gnoll girl.
Or you could just get a better fetish. Femdom is the ultimate normie fetish, it's kind of irritating.
No, but the average woman is also less durable then the average man, can carry less equipment than the average man, can work for shorter periods than the average man, and last but not least, warfare requires muscle.
The idea that any faggot with a sharp object is as good as any other faggot with a sharp object is bullocks. A 6'8 juggarnaut in fullplate is going to tear through manlets like tissue paper, 'skill' be damned.
>how capable would a woman be of functioning in a military unit?
Sun Tzu started with women. The Emperor's concubines, if I remember correctly. If a legion can be raised out of pampered courtisans, then any woman can be a soldier.
Saying that physical strength and capability aren't massively relevant to modern combat is just ridiculous.
Especially >>44601788, given how much weight a soldier has to carry around.
Confirmed for armchair weebs who don't even camp much less do combat.
Well, maybe. But it's just not AS HUGE a deal nowadays when you have have a big gun that tears through everything doing the heavy killing.
It's not like it's back in the days of swords and shields where you physically had to get in someones face and cut them in half manually
Leaving out the part where the Emperors male soldiers were massively fucking incompetent?
That's like saying a female MMA fighter could kick your basement dwelling ass and then acting like that's an impressive feat.
>how capable would a woman be of functioning in a military unit?
If you mean melee military units like you depict, there is absolutely no contest between your average healthy woman and your average healthy man. There are even historical examples of all (or mostly) female units never winning a fight.
If you mean more modern military units, well, guns are a great equalizer in a lot of things. If you were interested in including female military units in your game but you still want to keep things kinda "realistic", they'd have to be a ranged unit. Perhaps bows or crossbows or something, although less upper body strength means less draw on a bow and ability to pull a crossbow. Or if you don't mind mixing a little steampunk into your fantasy, just give them guns.
Women simply aren't built for combat. Not being a /pol/ shill here, it's simply a repeatedly proven fact.
cheesecake pic is posted just for fun and not to be taken seriously.
to be fair, we long seince abandoned the "big millitary battle" style of war, it's more about short scrimishes and city battles now. Im willing to bet that most women can do fairly well, escpiecialy sience they are more violent than man when push comes to shove
They'd obviously get men, mules and other simple beasts to do the heavy lifting in between fighting. Duh.
Besides, though the load a soldier has to carry may be heavy, it isn't olympic-class weightlifting levels of heavy.
You gravely misunderstand the point of this story. It's not that Sun Zu turned the concubines into warriors. It's that he was asked if he though he could teach discipline to anyone, and replied that even these women who obviously had no virtues of war could do. Then he taught them discipline and showed everyone how he could make the women do tricks.
It's... not exactly a story that promotes women. The point was that he could even make something as unsuitable as those women do basic formations.
AS huge a deal, no. Still, it means that unless the women use a shit-ton of tactics to control the engagements then they're most likely going to get their ass stomped in any one battle, and in any protracted conflict where maneuverability and endurance becomes a thing their completely screwed.
Guys are pretty much bred for conflict and fighting, whereas women are geared towards having kids and they give up a lot of capability in other areas for that.
It's just a simple fact. You'll always have the occasional outlier, and I'm not saying a woman won't be as capable as any man just because she's a woman.
But peak male combat performance is always going to out-perform peak female combat performance, and quite frankly it turns out being a lazy shit is one point where the genders are equal so it's not like every woman in the military is going to be trying their hardest while the guys are fatass base slobs.
>It's not like it's back in the days of swords and shields where you physically had to get in someones face and cut them in half manually
Swords aren't even that physically intensive to use, and if you really want to get easy mode you can use a spear. If you can stand in position and point a long stick at the enemy, you can work in a spear formation.
Of course being stronger helps, but that also helps today. Big guns are nice, but:
>You need to carry a lot of ammo to function in a prolonged conflict
>You need to carry supplies for the functioning of your unit and your own survival
>You need to carry medical supplies in case a comerade gets wounded
>You may need to carry that comerade himself, who might as well be a 200cm guy who weighs 110 kg
>You will be marching and patrolling a lot more often than you will be fighting, meaning you need stamina
>It's always possible that some kebab runs at your unit brandishing a sword, meaning you need to bayonet him down rather than open fire and risk hitting your own men and/or innocent bystanders
There is a very, very good reason why the military today still has physical standards, most likely higher than those of a peasant levy army.
You'd think wrong. Modern soldier's equipment weighs more then plate, and is less evenly distributed.
The average soldier has to carry over 50 lbs on his back, and be able to fight effectively, and be able to carry someone ELSE off the battlefield if necessary. None of this the average woman can do, even trained.
Nevermind the durability problem, which just cannot be fixed by anything short of genetic engineering. Women break easier, they are weaker with weaker bones.
Unless you are 6'3 and named Helga, join the Air Force. Because the army can not use you.
You misread my post.
I'm saying that a manlet in fullplate with a sword will tear through a juggernaut without the same equipement wite ease.
I'm not talking about the muscle required to go to war, that's another matters and I agree with you on that.
Ehhhhhhh . . . . .
I dunno about that man. I mean, is the juggernaut completely unarmed? Otherwise it's "Blunt object to the head while blocking the sharp object (also, let's take a moment to lawls at the manlet who went into battle using his sidearm ahahaha manlets.)"
I'd still place my bet on the 6'8" combat monster vs. the 5'8" manlet who lives in his parents castle.
. . . . . yeah, you have never gone camping even have you.
>That feel when you love strong women
>That feel when, as a consequence, you hate most if not all women
At least there's always my Chinese cartoons.
>The average soldier has to carry over 50 lbs on his back, and be able to fight effectively, and be able to carry someone ELSE off the battlefield if necessary. None of this the average woman can do, even trained.
Insofar as that is concerned, I will agree with you. A manlet in full plate will likely kill a giant without it. Same with a woman in armor vs a naked man. Armor in general is a massive edge.
Doesn't help that we don't have the same biological drive to compete like that so the number of women who aim for things like that is a lot smaller, or I believe it to be anyway, than the same cross section of the male population.
60% sounds way off because pound for pound the strength and endurance difference is pretty low.
The average soldiers equipment is around 60-70 pounds, bearing in mind that women have far slimmer shoulders and thus far less potential for muscle in the upper body by nature of a smaller skeletal system not to mention difference in the shape of pelvises that vastly increases the load on the hips and lower back of women, even in modern day combat the unfortunate truth is that women often vastly under preform when compared to men. The reason there is no female rangers isn't because it's a boys club, it's because the female body just isn;t designed to be put under that sort of stress, biologically, their role is to survive and give birth, dying while fighting and hunting is incredibly counter productive and thus they simply aren't built to fight and hunt and preform feats of phyiscal prowess like a man is.
>Imagine a near-future unit where the woman is cybered up and is physically more capable than all the men combined, or there are just remote controlled robot soldiers or something and you don't know the gender or identity of the person steering it.
The point isn't whether they perform as well as men or whether they can bear as heavy a load as men.
The point is whether they can do so well enough to kill the other guys.
You don't need to be the best of the best in order to function, anon.
But it would be fucking cool if they did.
Honestly, I'd take a thread with worldbuilding for a race that solves all war through ritual weightlifting over the shitshow these totally unnecessary threads always become.
No, the point is you want the best of the best, because we are under no shortage of soldiers.
We don't have a fat manlet division, we don't need a woman division. Its literally just having weaker soldiers we don't need so people who don't fight feel better about themselves, and people who do fight die because their comrades are subpar.
Our society's mad desire to ignore evolution and biology has gone too far.
While that's largely true you're still making the mistake of comparing taking inferences from a whole population and then applying it to the individual. Of course if you take an average height and weight man and have him face off against an average height and weight woman of course he's biased to win because on average we're shorter and weigh less than you are. But if you take a man and a woman of the same height and weight with the same level of fitness, it's going to be a close match.
I don't feel like a discussion held on a board for taiwanese pictographs is going to have more weight than a professional evaluation.
>Nigger, the military is about much more than just killing dudes
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Oh really? Pick up a sword, drive it straight through a man in armor. If you can, give your sword to a child, and ask for the same result.
I'll wait. If you honestly work with swords and yet don't understand that the amount of POWER you can put behind a weapon matters, you shouldn't be working with swords.
I can see female Tank Soldiers, as they'd be smaller and better able to fit in the cramped confines of a tank (For example, only the smallest Russain soldiers were selected for tank duty as they made the insides as small and cramped as possible). Also physical strength would be less of an issue there save in repairing shed tracks and the like.
Historically women have fought either as special units, but more often in a defensive role. When the enemy is at the gates, it doesn't really matter that women can't march as long, or can't carry as much weight.
If by same level of fitness you mean average man and olympian level athlete female, sure. If you mean two high level athletes where one happens to be a rather large woman the guy would crush her.
>No, but the average woman is also less durable then the average man,
In all fairness, the most durable human male on Earth is more or less equally vulnerable to everyone else to puncturing and cutting injuries because when it comes right down to it we aren't built to sustain those very well.
There's this one article I read years ago written by a woman who was in the army, and she talked about how she was given the opportunity to be one of the guys. She tried to keep up with them for a month or so and was struggling all the way. A big issue throughout her experience was that if she was to keep up with them when on the regular long marches, she'd end up being unable to carry all her equipment at the same time so another soldier would end up having to carry it if she was to keep going - in a real-world combat situation this would be absolutely the last thing you want. Everyone needs to carry their own weight.
Eventually she dropped out because she was literally physically destroyed and the stress on her body nearly rendered her infertile, plus iirc it gave her osteoporosis (can't remember the exact medical details of why). I think it took her something like the better part of a year to recover properly and even then she still has some persisting issues as a result of this.
Her point was that women need to accept that they aren't on the same level as men. If they want to try then go ahead but the bar should absolutely not be lowered. Our aim as a society should be equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
>and there is a drug that negates the menstrual cycle.
I hope that drug also negates every other point made in this thread regarding basic female physiology.
Since you appear to have missed it: what matters most is body size and muscle cross-sectional area. If you take a woman and a man of the same height and the same weight the differences between their body size and muscle cross-sectional area are going to be minute.
Tolerating g forces is a big deal since it means you're less likely to black out when performing high speed maneuvers. But yes there are other things to it but none of them are particularly favored by the male sex.
Men are stronger, faster, more decisive (even when wrong), have higher thresholds for pain, have better hand-eye-coordination, locational awareness and spatial recognition.
If you are the weaker sex, just comfort yourself with the fact that females are still much better at having boobs. (and social stuff, colors, managing groups, not getting sick/immune system, non-violence in general).
You're so concerned with the physical yet you men are so retarded to not think about their psyche.
Women are incompetent in anything battle related in all areas.
You're no different from the creationists arguing against evolution, hope you realize that.
>If you take a woman and a man of the same height and the same weight the differences between their body size and muscle cross-sectional area are going to be minute.
But that's wrong and you're wrong.
>You don't need to be the best of the best in order to function, anon.
As someone who actually served in the Armed Forces, holy fuck is this shit true.
Some guys who made it into Basic were ripped dudes who were beyond the pale, some of the best athletes I've ever seen. Others (including myself originally) just barely passed the bar sometimes.
And you know what? The recruiter and drill instructor doesn't care. At all. Caring never even enters into his thought process. The CONCEPT of caring never enters his thought process even.
The idea is to make everyone reasonably fit, but most especially to shoot straight and for the love of god TAKE FUCKING ORDERS. Some of the best candidates who joined up washed out because they wouldn't just shut the fuck up and do what they were told, while shorter skinnier guys like me passed because I could do that.
What makes a professional army isn't strength or speed or endurance; that's hero worship "be all you can be" "one man can make all the difference" bullshit that likely hasn't applied for a very long time.
What makes a professional army now are five really simplistic things; numbers, firepower, good logistics, discipline, and training (as in in tactics and coordination and skills, not fitness).
The physical stuff I've seen keep getting a pass even if the guy isn't nearly as great as some others; you don't need to be "peak human", you just need to be "eh, good enough".
>its rib cage is more rounded and smaller,
> and the pelvis generally not as high.
Small creature size
>This, combined with the female's weaker tendons & ligaments and a narrower intercondylar notch, causes increased susceptibility to injury of the ACL in female athletes.    
>In contrast, the pelvis of the human male appears to be slightly more optimized (narrower) for walking
Men: +5 feet movement
>Males in general are seen to have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.
Men: +1 CON
>Males have a more pronounced Adam's apple or thyroid cartilage (and deeper voices) due to larger vocal cords.
Men: +2 incoming crit damage, called shot to the neck
>Gross measures of body strength suggest a 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.
Assuming 10 is base STR, -4 STR to women seems fair
>Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 56% greater lung volume per body mass.
+50% underwater breathing time
The only way to balance this is to inject survivalistic elements into the RPG and force men to eat about 1.5x what women need... which again, is fairly realistic
He's right, though. Proportionally, men have more muscle and the potential to develop more, owing partially to higher skeletal mass and partially to testosterone.
Sure, you can argue that if women had the exact same amount of muscle, then logically they'de be as big and strong, but that's exactly the point: they're not, and are not predisposed to become such.
I think what a lot of people are getting at here is that the section of the female population that meets "good enough" is smaller than the same for men, disregarding all non-physical factors.
Except it's not. Did you not take high school science?
Females carry more body fat, and much less muscle. Even if you train to the same "level", without resorting to testosterone and de facto gender swapping, males would outlift and outrun any female at peak fitness. Regardless of how similar they are in height and weight.
>This isn't about fistfights, anon. This is about war. Given a decent weapon and some physical training, anyone can hurt anyone else. No amount of muscle mass or bone density is going to keep you from getting cut the fuck up and bleeding out.
You seem to have a romanticized view of what war during the melee weapon age was like.
Hint: it was a lot of pushing and shoving, with the occasional pike or spear hitting from a distance. Most deaths did not happen during the clash.
They happened when someone was toppled over and killed with a misericorde, or poked to death from a spear.
All of the things you quoted directly contribute to the ability of someone to knock another over. No guile is going to magically topple someone on the ground.
I've got something you don't, cunt. Testosterone. It means even if in terms of proportion we're the same height and breadth, I still have significantly more muscle mass than you. Testosterone also means it's easier for me to gain muscle, easier by a long shot. And that is how it always will be and how it always has been. At peak fitness a woman will always be weaker than a man by a long shot. At the average level of fitness required for the military, the same applies.
Deal with it. This is the reality of the situation. People are different.
Who then died later of disease, trench warfare, poor conditions, worse tactics, and simple attrition.
WWI is a bad example for a lot of things, because there's a high probability that everyone who was ever saved by something just died later in the war anyway because of the truly disgusting casualty rates.
Am I the only one who hates women more and more as I learn more and more about them? I'm starting to think that maybe our ancestors had the right idea, that maybe women are nothing more than machines for producing children.
This is really the argument, sure women CAN make strong exceptional warriors but they will more than likely not. It's a great bait including the adventurers are exceptional quip because frankly, adventurers are exceptional and should be treated as such.
Actually no. The biggest problem IS in fact physical.
While there are plenty of women capable of doing some of the required exertion, they're in the top percentiles of fitness - very well beyond the average woman's capabilities. Conversely, the average man will be able to do this shit if he doesn't cheat his way through basic training.
Even with technological advancements, some differences remain critical. Tougher to piss with a full load, but that's minor. Less women are able to pull themselves up while wearing full gear - and thus more likely to require a helping hand, or simply take more time. In a combat situation this could endanger you or worse yet leave you with the knowledge that one or two people on your team died because you could not keep up.
Again it's not as though there are none that can pull it off (see those rangers), there's just many wise enough to realize they're not in that top level of women and take on other duties. It also turns out that despite what they constantly tell us, women aren't ACTUALLY more pain-resistant (their bodies just happen to produce a metric fuckton of drugs when they're giving birth), and their often more compact frames which help with vehicle conditions are counterbalanced by marginally lower spatial capabilities.
Again though: as long as they can pass the tests properly, there is/shouldbe no problem. It's really only a problem when shit like that NYFD affair occur, where pencilpushers obsessed with good PR force incompetents into the force by lowering standards or forcing exemptions/double-standards, and people that would have NEVER have made the cut if they were men end up causing incidents "because it's sexist if they don't".
Because that is fucking DANGEROUS
That's probably true, honestly.
But let me tell you, I never served in a single unit where there wasn't at least one guy who slowed down EVERYONE, and everyone knew it, and in none of those cases where those people women.
I was glad to get out of infantry honestly, I don't think I was ever physically or mentally suited for it and always felt like I was on the bottom percentile.
>because there's a high probability that everyone who was ever saved by something just died later in the war anyway
So they shouldn't have used helmets because they were going to die anyway?
This isn't exclusive to WWI, this is the story of military development since time immemorial. There are always factors that will cause casualties (welcome to planet earth, welcome to war) and great thinkers have always tried to reduce casualties in all fields, from wooden shields to canned food to steel helmets to theoretical futuristic armor.
WW1 is an excellent example because of all the shit that was tried, some succesfull and some less so.
>also firearms render this bullshit unessecary
Moving the goalposts much? Read the fucking thread. There's more to being in the military and combat situations than being able to point and shoot a fucking gun, such as moving around with the 70lb+ of equipment on your back.
Probably. Women are better at a host of other things not related to war/violence/fitness, the single most important being anything to do with other people/emotions and social maneuvering.
Women are every bit as good distance runners as men, perhaps even more so. This means they'll be about as good in the march as men will, assuming they aren't exceptionally burdened. They could be entirely capable warriors--the gap there is much, much smaller than it is for raw athletics or hard labor. The issue is that they're generally too valuable for such societies to risk; population bounces back better with more females around. Guys are fundamentally expendable. So that means an army with a pile of women... maybe they have overpopulation problems. Maybe they go to war not to win, but to kill their women (and surplus men too). Could be a fun dystopic kind of deal.
>Maybe try learning something about them from real life first.
I have, and that's the problem. You're going to get your butts hurt and call me a fedora tipper or whatever, but I find it harder and harder to find redeeming factors in women, to the point where I simply cannot be attracted to them. It has gotten to the point where I have to separate the idea of a woman from its reality in order to make sense of my heterosexuality.
>Inb4 'hurdurdurf you're gay xDDD'
I'm sure there are others, but since sll of this discussion is irrelevant to real life it doesn't matter so much.
Think of it this way; you probably deserve to be hated just as much just by being yourself every day of your life. Most people aren't particularly useful contributors to society, and have a job that literally any other person with training can do. Or in some cases have a job that serves no real purpose and get paid tons of money for it anyway and then get fooled into think the money means they somehow matter.
I think that we can all agree that women should be drafted into single-gender units and forced to go fight pointless wars in the desert for the current hegemon.
It's just feminism, of course
I can confirm this. My cousin went through basic recently, and the drill sergeants and trainers in general are terrified of getting charged with sexism or even more batshit stuff like sexual assault, so they don't push the women that hard at all. You'll see female soldiers lagging behind in a march or even carrying half the necessary gear and getting passed. Hopefully they washed out later.
Yes I know, that's why i specifically pointed out "all things equal". What the other moron was saying amounted to "a woman with the same stats as a man could never beat a man because the average woman can't be an average man".
Yeah I'd never want to be in the infantry even if I could join. Fuck that.
>Male Squat: Over 1200 lbs
>Female Squat: 800 lbs
That's equipment assisted - with 5m elastic bands on knees, a triple kevlar suit that stretches and needs 500-600lbs of weight to even bend into a squat position.
It's like comparing biking to running.
Male squat record is 1047 lbs with elastic wraps on knees.
938 lbs without wraps and drug tested.
Female squat record is 650 lbs (and the woman in question looks like pic related).
Female squat record made by an actual drug tested woman is 577,5 lbs.
You shouldn't Snipe innocent civilians with incendiary statements like that, anon.
Antisemitic insults like that are a DIME a dozen.
>All settings with firearms have modern military units, armor, and tactics
I was actually referring to Old West through Vietnam tech levels, but I won't stop your retardation.
As someone who actually served, I legitimately couldn't give a fuck either way in fact.
From my personal experiences individual effort affects tactical victory and goal-meeting in such a marginal way that it doesn't matter.
>>Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 56% greater lung volume per body mass.
>+50% underwater breathing time
Not just that, it traslates to running endurance, weightlifting capacity, and a hundred other things.
>I'm going to assume you were a faggot who put them on a pedestal and your vision of what they should be is ruined.
Depends on what you call a pedestal. Feminism promised me women I could call my equal in each and every way, and that is what I expected. Women themselves raised my expectations of women so high, none of them could fulfill them.
Perhaps if I grew up in the 1820s, engrained with the idea that women are overgrown children, I could've found them endearing simply because I wouldn't be disappointed.
Then you meet shit people.
Which is not really that surprising because most people are shit.
Next time you go out try to keep tabs of how many dudes you hate as well and you'll realize that you just hate people and not just women.
or you just want a chick that acts like a dude, and good luck with that one because they're at most one in 50.
Wasn't there this boy who was so good at hockey, he outperformed the adult women he played with and was banned from playing with them because of it, and then had to go to court just to continue doing what he's talented at?
>Yeah I'd never want to be in the infantry even if I could join. Fuck that.
I didn't want to be either but it's a bitch getting anyone to look at you for officer-rank jobs like Intel and analysis of you couldn't get a commission.
Eventually I got accepted and everything got a lot better, but ironically the process of being shot at and then deciding who gets to be shot where because of what intel we did or didn't have more or less turned me off to the whole "heroism and patriotism" thing, and I am now convinced women can be let if they can pass grade simply because the romantic idea of the physical ability of the modern soldier mattering more then other factors is just a made-up fantasy commercials tell you.
As a man of Jewish descent, I don't like jokes about us Jews.
I think they often cement prejudices and misinterpretations of the Jewish people and culture.
But, every now and then, even I enjoy a good laugh and feel that I shouldn't be so serious about everything.
So I have a very good joke about the holocaust here, if anyone wants to buy it.
Newest edition of Runequest gives Halflings a fucking terrifying amount of penalties to everything. They roll their Strength on 2d6 and roll 1d3+6 for Size. The stats for humans have a maximum of 18.
An average halfling has a good chance of dealing literally 0 damage with a melee attack, because holy fucking shit they're tiny and feeble.
For some reason the game still arms the example halfling with a shortsword (for them) and a sling instead of large reach weapons and crossbows that could ease that pain somewhat.
No, I have plenty of friends and have been married for three years at this point. But I'll fully admit most people I meet just don't interest me in the slightest beyond an academic interest in hearing their stories.
I still try to help as many people as I can though, which I'm not sure what that says about me; either that I'm cynical and trying not to be, that I'm an idealist who turned cynical, or that I'm just trying to prove myself wrong or what.
>The only way to balance this
The thing is basically that you are paying a certain level for a certain level of strength. What you should do is instead assign male and female NPCs appropriate strengths, but it shouldn't affect PCs -- because, again, they pay for strength 10, strength 15, or strength 18, or str 1-5 in WW, or whatever.
In the RPG I'm working on, you basically just select a size for your character, some characters are going to be fitter than others, but by and large how rough and tough your char can be will depend on your size. Most girls are going to be smaller, so most girl chars will be weaker. That's how i see it anyway.
Gods, don't remind me.
Two years ago I got a fat black chick. We're talking tubby, angry, expects everyone to treat her like a queen walking talking finger-wagging stereotype here (and people wonder why we always go for white women). It was very clearly implied to us that bitchqueen lardo here was our commitment to equality. In other words, she was gonna pass.
Luckily, there's one thing you can't smooth over, and that's keeping hash in your asscrack. Certainly this one was never going to be infantry, but we managed to keep our standards high enough for even the desk workers, even if just once.
This is why waaay back before "in the day" you couldn't actually be any kind of elected official without having had gone to war. Because chickenhawks pull off these stunts.
Noncom duties where they perform just about as well as any man. Medical, intel, supply, logistics, the background stuff that really makes 90% of everything possible.
It's all very boring and also it matters more then anything the very best, very fittest, most highly trained soldier in the entire history of world could do, which right away dispels the entire myth of the importance of the individual and his skill.
A lot of this shit both in the military and out of it about women comes down to some folks basing their automatic assumptions that everything will work at 100% efficiency at a BASELINE, which in my practical experience is so far from being true it can't even see what the truth looks like from where it's standing.
To be fair, they're not intended to be playable as such, and the stats are in the bestiary. Literally anything from the bestiary would be playable if the DM allowed you to, since it tells you the stat rolls that you can use to generate a creature, as well as the average stats.
By default, only humans are playable.
Oh, and I guess halflings have a bonus to dexterity and intelligence, since they're nimble and smart. But those bonuses are much less than the penalties. Of course, Runequest does not try to be a balanced game and the default setting from the Book of Quests puts forward that minotaurs might totally be a PC-eligible race.
Minotaurs have literally inhumanly high physical stats and this is a game where a normal human can kill or maim another with one good weapon blow. A minotaur would be fucking ridiculous as a PC
Those /pol/ guys are always saying Jew this, Jew that. The Jews are behind everything, the Jews are bad.. and now they're just up and making cruel jokes now, it's always about how the Jews are stingy, Jews are cheapskates; that's nothing but an anti-Semitic canard perpetuated by mindless parroting bigots, I'm not buying any of this crap.
how old was this boy? 10 year old males, 14 year old males and 17 year old children are very different.
And people do mature at different rates.
I don't mind small races being smaller and weaker but they do pigeonhole 'em into certain weapons.
Military training is about making the slowest guy (there is always a slowest guy) be above a certain line. That's it.
What this thread is all about is that women on average would be the slowest guy (girl) and that it would be more difficult to bring her up to the line.
The factors that cause this are innumerable and mostly biological.
Also you all know that the -4 STR thing is more or less correct.
>"we have to genocide them before they genocide us, if we don't oppress them they might try to take the land we took from them back!"
If the desk monkeys count as military then I count as a policeman.
Israel is one of the best equipped countries in the Middle East. If you're still getting genocides, it's for the best.
Well I can see the appeal of constantly beating people over and over but there isnt much point unless there is something approaching an equal match up.
Yeah but while that 90% might keep the 10% running most of the time the guys you are fighting arent going to be as worried by the guys doing reports as the guys whos job it is to kill them.
Well their goal, as that of Iran, is the destruction of Israel as a thing, without necessarily wanting the death of every jew in it (they're totes metaphorical bro). Still genocide though, 100%.
>Military training is about making the slowest guy (there is always a slowest guy) be above a certain line.
That's real helpful info coming to the guy who was one of the guys passing the aforementioned line. Just super contributory there.
I'm just arguing in the end matters a lot less then people think it does, mostly because physical fitness is one of the absolute last factors (and a non-determining one) in determining actual military success.
Well first off, the countries that created it should've fucking known better than to put ANYTHING into the fucking middle-east. Because there's never historically been already way too much going on in that fucking hellhole.
That said: no one has a problem with people defending themselves.
... EXCEPT when the "Defending themselves" is "from the other guys continuing to breathe in what we decided is also our fucking land", and the "Defending" is done by systematic and deliberate annihilation of civilian infrastructure using numerous weapons that constitute grave violations of numerous conventions purposefully against unarmed noncombatants.
We don't like what those monsters in the US did with their little "enemy combatants" stunt and guantanamo over in the west either, just so you don't think you're the only one we have a problem with. But "all the other genocidal torture tyrants are doing it" is not a good excuse.
Taking issue with Israel for being murderous assholes with a penchant for blowing the heads off children after forcing them out of their homes with sustained bombardment and white motherfucking phosphorous has not a fucking thing to do with Judaism, and quite frankly it's a goddamn disservice, as it paints the entire religion in a horrific fucking light whenever someone tries to hide atrocities behind it.
YWHW didn't do it, a bunch of assholes did it and claim everyone hates them for loving him when they're called on being dicks.
Okay imagine you need to create an organism to survive. You make it as smart strong and agaile as possible. Now imagine you need to make a secondary model that for large amounts of time is physically incapable of strenuous activity and can't afford to spend calories on anything but the kid it's creating. The concessions to that fact that evoltion had to make are why women are biologically incapable of outdoing men physically.
>mostly because physical fitness is one of the absolute last factors (and a non-determining one) in determining actual military success.
What? No. As he said, its about BASIC physical fitness, and BASIC physical fitness is an absolute requirement for military success. Again, we're talking about BASIC physical fitness, people's bodies not being a nonfunctional wreck.
Another big issue is (unflatteringly) infection. Woman hygiene objectively requires more care than a man's, particularly their lady parts.
And when you consider some of the harsher conditions soldiers end up in, having one of your troops in a life or death situations with persistent pain between their legs is a big issue.
The hell I can't.
I got to both get shot at and decide who gets to be shot at, the least I'm allowed to do is dispel illusions even if I'm not equipped to clarify the overall issue.
Go ask the army. This isn't a new question, and the military as an instituiopn has years of experience trying to figure out what should be expected of women and men in terms of physical ability.
Minimum requirements for Arm Basic Training Physicla Fitness Tests (PFT):
Age Group Gender Push-Ups Sit-Ups 2-Mile Run
17 - 21 Male 35 47 16:36
17 - 21 Female 13 47 19:42
22 - 26 Male 31 43 17:30
22 - 26 Female 11 43 20:36
We see that on upper body strength (Push-Ups) women are expected to perform at 35%-37% of male capacity, or just over 1/3.
In core strength (Sit-Ups) women are expected to perform as capably as men.
Finally in endurance (2-Mile Run) women perform at about 15%-20% worse than men.
This indicates is that women would reduce the speed of an army on the march to about 85% of it's potential, and would not be reliable on the front lines, as using most weapons and holding-up a shield requires significant upper body strength. The core strength equivalency indicates that women would be a suitable substitute for men in more generalized physical activity, like setting up a camp. This is why historically women have served as support personnel (i.e. camp followers) but not front line soldiers.
If you really want/need women as combatants then you should emphasize special training in martial disciplines which emphasize core strength over upper-body strength and technique over endurance. In RPGs this would mean monk/rouge/assassin classes, and/or an emphasis on martial arts skills/feats.
Okay, so the Israelis aren't taking part in an actual genocide.
They're still forcing Palestinians to live in a virtual apartheid. Which is..better but still pretty shitty, all things considered.
The average woman is fairly unsuited for combat. Recent studies by various Western militaries that are trying to get woman put into combat roles have shown this. Women in Army Rangers training suffered huge dropouts, not because of psychological pressure or anything gay like that, but because of microfractures to the hips and legs sustained during training.
It's literally a matter of bone structure and muscular development which are both largely governed by hormones in childhood and adolescence. Exceptional individuals do exist, and in history we have seen women fight in wars many times, but it should not be construed as a normal activity that most women could do.
There's also the matter of sanitation, which effects women far more negatively than men (the less said about that, the better) and of course, social issues. Mixed-sex units have repeatedly performed more poorly than all-man units in every test.
And this is with guns. Imagine how horrible it would be if it were with halberds and axes. Yes, there are certainly women out there who could hold their own in that environment, but those instances would be extremely rare.
I'm not normally one to try and spoil peoples' fun, but right now in real life there are militaries lowering the standards for entry so that women can take on firefighter and military positions because denying them would be considered sexist. This is how Hultgreen died, and she almost took one person with her. It's only going to get worse if we continue the trend en-masse.
But it doesn't. Read the article that was linked to in the thread somewhere. You had all-male units outperforming gender integrated units on all areas (marksmanship, performance, tactics etc) as well as women simply not being able to do stuff that men are able to AND having a higher injury ratio.
In reality that would translate to the women being the slowest guy and the entire unit being brought down because of them. In other words, women in combat roles is a bad proposition because it makes the unit perform worse.
>If you really want/need women as combatants then you should emphasize special training in martial disciplines which emphasize core strength over upper-body strength and technique over endurance. In RPGs this would mean monk/rouge/assassin classes, and/or an emphasis on martial arts skills/feats.
Assuming a realistic RPG where the characters aren't heroes already capable of doing impossible bullshit at a baseline of course. Which of course means not D&D, which is probably what OP was talking about by laws of averages.
Actually, you know what?
This isn't a world building thread anymore and it's not even about traditional games in the vaguely only barely related way things like Quest threads are, and that's just fucking sad, contributing less then a quest thread. No system has been mentioned, no game has been brought up, no play experience has been mentioned, no game theories have been brought up, and no world building has been done.
You need to stop using arguments like this to explain evolutionary theory.
Evolution does the PATH OF LEAST EFFORT OR RESISTANCE
You know why women are physically poor? Because men would either take care of them OR they would just rape them and pass on the genes anyway. That is the sad truth, and is why women are not physically capable. They never had to be.
But then they wouldn't be "At war" and "Threatened" anymore.
And any department that exists for specific reasons can tell you it's not good if that reason goes away.
Israel doesn't want the palestinians completely gone (just reduced to scavenging tribals that occasionally can still fire a rocket but are mostly just enjoyable to watch languish in despair and agony) because that would be bad for politicians that got where they are thanks to current conditions, bad for the military top-brass (as opposed to the soldiers who occasionally *do* get fucking rockets shot at them) and contractors who depend on this "war footing" for maximum lucrative goodness, bad for the intelligence services who'd just lost the 'need' for their newest budget increases, and thus also bad for international relations with their closest allies who are mostly this despite what's going on because they get paid a lot of money selling them materiel.
It's just like the DEA, who'd lose most of their operating raison d'etre (that's french for budget) quickly if all those cartels and smugglers stopped dealing drugs and guns across the border every day.
And just like the FBI and NSA, who need regular terrorist activity (and are quite adept at making some, no less) because if we're not "being attacked", we don't need them to be anywhere near as monolithic or powerful as they are and will become.
There's no firemen without fire, no police without crime. And people in charge of things that have placed them above the law who don't want to lose THEIR jobs?
They're gonna make damn sure they get to keep it a long time.
>This isn't a world building thread anymore and it's not even about traditional games in the vaguely only barely related way things like Quest threads are, and that's just fucking sad, contributing less then a quest thread. No system has been mentioned, no game has been brought up, no play experience has been mentioned, no game theories have been brought up, and no world building has been done.
I'll repost my earlier post and expand
>Setting has 1960's level technology, every faction primarily uses firearms
>Drugs suppress the menstrual cycle to the point where females can serve in the armies just fine
>At the end of the day, it doesn't matter your race of gender- the Things From Beyond can eviscerate you no matter your STR stat
>They're still forcing Palestinians to live in a virtual apartheid.
The Palestinians are totally vicious and intractable, 89%ish support terrorist attacks on civilians, flat out. It is of absolutely no relevance to me who is to blame -- but yes, the Israelis have been offered all sorts of lush, cozy lands for free that are uninhabited, but because Israel was founded by fanatical theocrats they wanted their nasty chunk of desert from the Brits, and who used terror tactics even to persuade other jews to come with.
And yet -- who fucking cares? The Palestinians having a legitimate reason for their grudge (most grudges have a legitimate reason behind them). Ancient history is not relevant.
When you have a population who almost entirely supports terrorist attacks on your civilians, obviously you have to keep them separate to some degree and keep armed forces on high alert.
When you have a group of completely vicious people who genuinely cannot be reasoned with, whether the 'occupiers' are good or bad, they're going to have lots of opportunities to be made to look bad. The Palestinians do their very best to try to discredit the Israelis.
Me? I don't have a horse in that race, except that Israel's our greatest ally. I do know that if I go to Palestine, I'm going to be fucking kidnapped or killed because of ancient history, and if I go to Israel, I'm not going to be.
Women are less likely to be colorblind since the more common type is an X chromosomally recessive trait.
Of course no one is going to want to roll on a table for X chromosomally recessive diseases.
That entirely depends on who you're targeting.
If you shoot at me, and I respond by napalming your entire village, particularly when I'm fairly sure you're not even there right now anyways... That's not just.
It's the *disproportionate* responses, and the responses deliberately targeted at unrelated shit miles over like schools and hospitals, or never so much as disciplining our guys when they decide "oh look children playing with a ball I'm gonna make their heads explode" that are the problem.
They're also cause for much of the retaliation. Because even if you get the guy that threw a grenade your way, you now have two dozen people who've lost everything to your response, may not have all that long to live themselves either due to complications (and an expected lack of medical supplies), and can't see anyone dressed like you are without vivid flashbacks of when they dug out their mother's torso from the childhood home that's now several craters.
I mean what exactly do you think that guy is going to do now with what time he has left?
Of course, Israeli leaders *know* this. They're not stupid. But they're not at risk of being killed, some nameless civvies or shmucks forced to patrol the strip are the only ones available for one-arm-billy over there to retaliate against.
>Israel is one of the best equipped countries in the Middle East
Literally the only reason why Israel still exists. Well, that and Arab militaries being fucking horrible even if they have the technological upper hand. The Samson option helps too.
When you get down to it, the bottom line is that in these conflicts, you will have one side that makes an effort to avoid killing civilians and one side that makes every effort to kill civilians.
I think >>44602207 was thinking of [pic attached], though this woman was a Marine, not Army.
>by systematic and deliberate annihilation of civilian infrastructure using numerous weapons that constitute grave violations of numerous conventions purposefully against unarmed noncombatants.
I hope you're not talking about the Geneva Convention, since if you have read the Geneva Convention, you'd be aware that merely performing military actions out of uniform or at least without a weapon drawn is itself a war crime, and that likewise according to the Geneva Convention, blowing up whole city blocks to wipe out the enemy's facilities are perfectly legitimate. The Geneva Convention is nothing like a code of playing nice. In virtually all the ways regarding the Geneva Convention the Palestinians cannot win and the Israelis cannot lose.
Its like a more modern version of the code of chivalry, which endorses fights being 1v1, etc. Its about ensuring the underdog loses, if you want to be cynical about it.
Fuck all this bellyaching and whining. Let's go along with the assumption that women are in fact physically weaker than men. What advantages do women have over men and how can these advantages be integrated into an RPG?
I can think of a few off the top of my head, such as better social/emotional functioning. I also remember reading somewhere that women are better at identifying colours than men due to their evolutionary history that involved them gathering fruits, berries and plants while the men were out hunting. The ability to see the minute difference between one kind of edible red berry and one kind of poison berry with a very slightly different shade of red meant all the difference between life and death.
Come on, I want shit like this. No more dumb arguing over MEN STRONK/WOMEN STRONK, I want to know what women can actually do better than men. Let's be productive you fucks.
This is also why in some species they're *huge* in comparison to males.
Doesn't happen where the offspring have extremely high energy requirements (don't let the vegan hiding his ten artificial supplement bottles fool you: we literally cannot live on just grass. Not humans) due to high density brain structures though, because as it turns out, that plus slow development/long-vulnerability-stage in offspring is fucking draining on the female.
Being smaller isn't just a matter of "not needed". It's also a positive trait, as much lower energy requirements make a massive difference in survival once you factor making kids.
The Israelis have a responsibility to stop rocket attacks on their communities, which, ineffective as they often may be, the goal is to kill civilians. This is like the Bajorans and Cardassians all over again; the goal is to provoke them into a disproportionate (but still 100% legit by the Geneva Convention) counterterrorist action.
And note, while the Israelis have a responsibility to protecting their people, they have no responsibility to protect the enemy.
If this was WW2, we'd deal with terrorists by carpet bombing their city into bloody rubble until they either surrender or until their city is GONE. And that's if you're lucky.
Man no, I'm euro and my military is made of people who want to go to exotic lands, meet foreign people and culture, and shoot them until they stop moving, and that's plenty ok.
Watching over the country when there's a terrorist threat or helping in disasters' just a side job.
Actually, independents AND the UN investigations have found no evidence whatsoever of palestine doing any out-of-uniform attacks in this way. Every time they've gone in on israel's claims to such acts, it turns out to be unrelated unarmed civilians.
Blowing up city blocks to wipe out enemy facilities when your intel shows there are none is not perfectly legitimate. It's a war crime.
For non-adventurers? Basically nothing.
Adventuring women are statistical outliers, far more than men, is all. THEY get to HAVE an 18 that they put somewhere else, or even have it in STR themselves. Sure, they'll never be Heracles, but like 95% of the population doesn't have a fucking 18 strength either.
The problem is that a lot of the stuff they're good at tends to be social stuff, which is a morass of nature vs. nurture.
Physically, they seem to be good at making and having babies. Which is pretty important. I believe they have stronger immune systems and since they more easily store body fat and tend to have slower metabolisms they're better at surviving periods of starvation?
>Actually, independents AND the UN investigations have found no evidence whatsoever of palestine doing any out-of-uniform attacks in this way.
The rockets? The suicide bombers? Remember?
>Blowing up city blocks to wipe out enemy facilities when your intel shows there are none is not perfectly legitimate.
Its not exactly a secret that Hamas attacks from civilian positions whenever possible to minimize counterattack and maximize propaganda -- and while I may be hesitant to blow the whole city block away, its 100% legitimate by the Geneva Convention to do so.
Just from their mass out-of-uniform attacks on Israel, Hamas is a mass of irredeemable war criminals by Geneva Convention standards.
To come up with a way to crucify Israel in this respect, one needs to come up with a new definition of morality in which the side that minimizes killing civilians is evil and the one that maximizes killing civilians is good.
Yes. There are no remotely popular RPGs where stats and stat distribution are intended as simulationist in nature, even if their *effects* may be.
You get a char of a given race and of a given set of stats. Its up to you to rationalize it.
And for the record, yes I do give female chars typically about -4 to -8 str points lower than their male counterparts, whenever possible.
I think it's a joke, just like some US official (I think it was Rice, but don't quote me on that) saying that the problem with the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur.
It's even funnier when you realise France has more economic freedom (and thus entrepreneurs) than the US because all the help to new businesses means even more people get to try and succeed.
i got a solution for you, stop hanging out with the "popular" croud and stard with the normals/nerdys ones. Most women are chill as long as you take them for drink and nod for two hours from time to time, this gets all the bullshit out
They're very good at political backstabbing and conniving, but that's a product of the "feminine culture" they build around their workplaces between each-other.
Male politicians can be just as capable, and you have just as many silver-tongued brainwashers.
For every Angela Merkel or Vladimir Putin, there's a Sarah Palin or Mike Duffy
And "making/feeding babies" isn't just 'important'. Evolutionarily speaking it's top priority.
It's just that in our society, it's not "special" because it's half the population. we NEED it to be that way, but you can't be "special" because sure you can make a baby, but so can most other women of appropriate age range. In fact it's STRANGER to be unable to do so which is why so much money gets poured into that side of fertility research.
Comparatively speaking, look at the sliver of money that goes into male-specific disorders or illnesses compared to female issues. Seriously. Prostate and Testicular cancer budgets say hello and also ow.
As for immune systems, that turned out (as often) not to be true. Each gender has their own immune quirks; high testosterone does slightly suppress immune response to infection, which isn't good for men, but also helps reduce autoimmune disorders; women have more arthritis, lupus, etc issues as a result.
Theirs is more active/paranoid to reduce the chance of things spreading through the placenta, but those same specialization tweaks have rendered it more likely to overreact, overstress, or self-destruct
I don't know what to tell you bud, I read the opposite elsewhere. Probably didn't calculate it the same way. I doubt France/the US would've fallen/risen that much in the few years it's been since I read that.
Those are individual criminals/terrorist acts, not an army.
And many of those claims about civilian positions are exactly the kind of thing that often have ended up debunked.
So did (to show it isn't just israel; but "others doing it" does not make it better, and civilians not part of Hamas are double-victims here) the US, when it spent half an hour bombing a clearly demarked, well known about MSF hospital back in october - up to and including having AC-130s actively gunning down people trying to escape the building after the hospital communicated with authorities to ask them to stand down.
They also claimed they were shot at by that place. Then "from nearby" when it was shown there were no weapons there, then "oh well we got called in to do CAS by friendly forces that were cornered", and finally "well our internet was down lol but we have a veto you're not investigating shit" after it got shown that no, there'd not been so much as a fight or crossfire in the area at all that day.
Huh well, my bad. Apparently there's internationally recognized ways to rank this.
I remember what I read was some article about the free-est countries in general and it mentioned that.
Not him, but if you look at the country profiles in more detail the only category in which France scores significantly worse than the US is "muh small gubmint"
In all other categories they're highly comparable.
There are a number that are obsessed with *something*, but the stats themselves aren't a simulation. The closest they will get is matching max strength to the author's perception of max strength, but the strength numbers themselves aren't based off whether the PC is male or female, broad or svelte, tall or short, or eats oats or ice cream habitually.
This is why people call bullshit when Israel goes "but we're at war with a hovel on the other side of the beach" to explain literally having used children as human shields (WTF), why they call bullshit when Hamas claims they just wanna free their captive people right as soon as they've completely wiped israel off the map, why everyone calls bullshit when Putin says he doesn't want to take ove.... no wait he pretty much straight up said he was gonna take that one.
It's fucking disturbing when a KGB "El Presidente for Life" makes you go "hey at least he's honest!"
Geopolitics in general is just a way of finding internal excuses for our terrible behavior to members of our species that other people will readily accept because we either dislike them or want their stuff.
Or not, sometimes.
Sometimes the excuse isn't even given.
>It's fucking disturbing when a KGB "El Presidente for Life" makes you go "hey at least he's honest!"
De Gaulle once said that every leader has to either deceive his country or his electorate. Putin can afford to do neither simply because he has no electorate to begin with.
>So did... the US,
We didn't even call in the air strike, the Iraqi army did, and as it turns out they were, in fact, harboring terrorists and war criminals afterall. Intelligence failures are a bitch, but karma did bite the hospital staff in the ass.
Wow. Lie much? They used that one already btw. Turned out it wasn't true, thus the fallback to "we had communications problems at the time" they eventually claimed.
And MSF "harbors" nothing. They have agreements with basically every OTHER country in the world that they provide free medical aid to anyone. No weapons allowed. They don't even get to defend themselves. Patient goes in, you get treated, and then you leave. That's IT.
Afghani special forces DID storm the compound after the bombing stopped btw, and that turned out to have been on bogus info given to them too.
Yeah, that's right. "Iraqi army" indeed.
Kunduz is in northern Afghanistan.
Actually it's doctors without borders; you can basically just wait a few hours for the terrorist to hobble out and nab him while he's high on painkillers.
All you need to do is not pretend you're Rambo and storm a frickin mash unit.
Sorry, Afghan army, reflex.
After reading up a bit, the problem seems to be with the AC 130 finds its targets, possibly.
Ultimately, these sorts of things happen when you're trying to deal with irregular forces. It does suggest its stupid to be snooty when Russia hits civilians, but mistakes are always going to happen as long as terrorists and I Can't Believe They're Not Terrorists like Taliban are starting shit.
The Geneva Convention exists less for idealistic reasons and more for practical reasons -- not following its guidelines tends to cause a massive breakdown in the ability to reach a peaceful conclusion and to avoid innocent targets.
Shit's going to happen until the insurgents clean up their act.
Given that hospital had been around for years already the "mistakes" would have to be every step of the way from those who authorized the strike down to the flight plan (why were they even there) do those who confirmed the target, the crew themselves who had a clear line of sight to it, and then back to the communications apparatus that decided there were more important things to do than passing a "you're shooting the wrong people" message along.
People decided to light the place up and had a field day watching the little people do the bullet dance as they fled the building after the main operating theaters were shredded.
Things were probably a little less "tragic mistake times eight" and a little more "Evil Haro thought it was a great idea too"
It'd just have to be basically anywhere on the chain of command, not on the entire chain of command, for such to happen.
If we were cool on purposefully destroying as much infrastructure as it takes to win a counterinsurgency like in the Civil War and WW2, we would have won the Iraq war in a year or so. Nobody has the guts to do that sort of thing anymore, so lets not pretend it was intentional.
Actually the most likely scenario is false information given by Afghan forces. They weren't too fond of the facility due to its refusal to admit anyone carrying weapons, which meant that very often their men would be turned away due to their refusal to disarm before entering.
Canadian reports, at least, state
>Immediately after the Strike, Afghanistan's national security adviser told a European diplomat that his country would take responsibility because "we are without doubt, 100 per cent convinced the place was occupied by Taliban"
They insisted it was a command center and weapons facility, and urged for it to be destroyed. The information given ensured any strikes would at least be out of 20mm gun range, as this would have made the situation extremely obvious, probably before the gunships even opened fire.
The question does remain how and why they continued to pound it for an hour straight, half of which was after having gotten confirmation that that was NOT what they thought they were shooting, but it would definitely not be the first time Afghan intel is falsified for political aims. They've been using the US obsession with Taliban to do all kinds of dirty work for years now.
It takes 30-60 minutes to do basically anything in the military. Hell, it takes about 10 minutes for cops to typically stop shooting at a vehicle after they've received confirmation its been neutralized or not the target, etc.
>The U.S. 3rd Special Forces Group knew the hospital was treating patients, according to a daily log by one of its senior officers written Oct. 2. Doctors Without Borders had made sure the U.S. military command in Kabul had the exact co-ordinates of the hospital.
US intel also showed the hospital active as a DWO medical facility. So the strike shouldn't have been authorized in the first place. There's a hole in the chain of command on the US side too, in other words, as somehow that location is all of a sudden out of nowhere "a taliban location we're about to hit" at the last minute, just long enough for it to get hit until they doublecheck their data.
Maybe some corruption, or maybe afghanistan has some better hackers than we thought and used us like a goddamn puppet.
To be fair, the cops will start "I had reason to fear for my life"ing even if it was already visibly neutralized in the first place.
Even the military would probably go "wait, there's nothing left and the rocks are on fire, I think it's already neutralized"
I'm not ragging on cops, but people do necessarily have to use less personal judgment when they are subject to any of the following:
1. fighting as part of a team
2. fighting under orders
3. fighting in accordance with protocols
4. perceived to be personally threatened
Except the "massive weight" isn't beyond moderately /fit/ people, and discipline and skill are more important to modern combat. The level of strength required to be a 21st century American soldier is nowhere near the peak of human fitness that armchair theory crafters go on about. Just like 18 is not the peak human strength achievable, just the peak at character generation, (and not even that anymore, depending on what version of D&D you use)
Statistically, women are less muscular than men, but at the same time, they have less pressure to *GET HUGE*. The few who do are more than enough for an Anon's Amazon fetish.
>You need to carry a lot of ammo to function in a prolonged conflict
We use intermediate rounds and load-bearing gear for exactly this reason. Ammo is lighter than you seem to think, anon.
>You need to carry supplies for the functioning of your unit and your own survival
And you leave it at an FOB.
>You need to carry medical supplies in case a comerade gets wounded
And it comes in a convenient lightweight pack. You're not going to treat a sucking chest wound in-situ, you're gonna throw some styptic at it, apply pressure and some bandages, and get the guy to the rear as fast as you can. Any more than a pound or two of medical gear is wasted on your average soldier.
>You may need to carry that comerade himself, who might as well be a 200cm guy who weighs 110 kg
If the top 50% of men can do this and the top 30% of women can do it, then those are the ones who should be allowed to serve. If you can lift the weight, then you can lift the weight.
>You will be marching and patrolling a lot more often than you will be fighting, meaning you need stamina
Measured how, precisely? Moreover stamina can be built. Not every guy comes into basic meeting the physical criteria: some wash out, others get sat at the "special tables", etc. Training can really level the playing field.
>It's always possible that some kebab runs at your unit brandishing a sword, meaning you need to bayonet him down rather than open fire and risk hitting your own men and/or innocent bystanders
If you're not British, chances are you've never had to fix bayonets. Your typical Jihadi isn't charging you on camelback with a scimitar, he's at least 100 yards away shooting at you through a hole in a wall, or else jerking himself off while his bombs do the dirty work.
I'm not gonna weigh in one way or the other, that's what we have flag officers and politicians for. But you've said a LOT of dumb shit and never got called for it.
Not him, but IIRC the typical soldier's gear that they're expected to carry ways significantly more than a full suit of plates that a knight would wear, and most of it is in a big old pack on the shoulders instead of spread out all over their body. It's a hell of a lot of weight to be carrying around for very extended periods of time.
The actual weight differs depending on your role, though. Light infantry obviously carries less and heavy infantry more, though heavy infantry is usually mechanized so they don't march for hours with their packs on their backs. And of course, there's the poor sod who has to carry the machinegun.
As a man of Chinese descent, I am totally fine with jokes about my small penis and that I can't get L and R right (This is actually somewhat true, I was quite proud of my diction up to highschool, then in order to take a diploma course locally, I joined a course where the majority of students spoke Mandarin. Although my Mandarin never improved, I noticed that for some reason, I had a problem with the Ls and Rs after studying there for a year. This has since been corrected, but it was still an eye opener. Apparently the exposure to the language and decreased use of English, did modify my speech).