My friend argues that he would take 2 women to every 1 man in

>>33910490
women aren't made to be inna military

>>33910506
Thats pretty sexist tho.

Lets assume they are.
100 men vs 200 women. Are women better?

>>33910490
>Also said technology can fill in for weaknesses that women have
He is correct that technology could bring a woman up to par with her male counterpart, but if you gave that same tech to the male then she would be left in the dust. Plus, technology fails and should never be used as a crutch, lest it become a liability. If your powered exoskeletons shit the bed, the male could take the bergen off it and still ruck, but I'm not convinced that the majority of females could do the same.

File: derf.jpg (96KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 750x750px

>>33910490
It has taken 100,000 years for us to get to our current physical builds and evolutionary roles. If, IF we somehow made women then warriors of our species and no men would ever fight in wars again then maybe in the next 50-75,000 years would women be equal to or even better than men physically.

>>33910539
Ever done a ruck march with females?

>>33910539
But it's not? Are you saying women on average are as physically capable as men?

women are ok in the military. just not combat roles

>>33910490
>Also said technology can fill in for weaknesses that women have
Like? Exoskeletons?
Why would anyone want to outfit females with powered suits just to bring them up to male standards?

>>33910490
How many women does it take to screw in a light bulb?

They can't. It's not in their job description.

strong efficient bipedal locomotion and easy child birth require to different hip designs.

women trying to keep up with men in running and march end up with blown knees and hips fairly soon. torn ACLs are fairly common injuries in girls' soccer.

File: Grief.png (56KB, 450x333px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 450x333px

It's not strictly a matter of physical biological differences, it's a mental one too.

Disregarding things like women in combat roles suffering from muscular atrophy and infertility from exposure, there's a mental switch in men that automatically makes them want to defend women. As it would stand male soldiers would rather protect their female squadmates than accomplish their task.

There's the mental aspect of women too, imagine the solder next to them gets shot in the face and their brains get splattered on her. She's not going to put the mission first and grieve later, she's gonna lock up and freeze in shock, bringing down the squad's fighting effectiveness.

Then there's the logistical side of it, female soldiers would have to have their own living spaces in F.O.B's meaning pushing men into already cramped spaces together, on top of having them build the women their own private latrine, all while out in the field for months.

This argument comes from people who see images of American soldiers walking along highways or about to breach a door or gate and think "oh is that all it is to be a soldier? Women can totally do that!" When there's so much more going on besides that.

Tl;Dr no, for physical, mental, and logistical reasons not purely social ones like people believe. And no technology will ever even the playing field.

>>33910539
No, the men can out perform the women, are cheaper to keep healthy than women and can be in the field for longer periods of time than women. In a few months less than a quarter of those female soldiers will be able to fight due to non-combat related illness and injuries

>>33911575
Exploded kneecaps
Exploded kneecaps everywhere

Heatcases
Heatcases Everywhere

Torn ACL'S
Torn ACL's Everywhere

White Knight Pack Mules
White Knight Pack Mules Everywhere

Disgusted DS's
Disgusted DS's Everywhere

>>33911558
Do you really think we'll be around in 50-75,000 years? If the ayys haven't got us by then,we'd have probably wiped ourselves out.

>>33911663
ur just a racist, girls can do anything!

What if the enemy makes the female soldier a POW, feeds her well, then rape her for a baby? If it's a boy, thats a loyal soldier, if it's a girl, thats another baby maker.

Correct me if I missed something obvious.

>>33911945
Absolutely, I'm all for gender equality.

A woman should be able to make a sandwich in whatever part of the house she desires.

>>33911965
you sound like a turk

>>33911558
>women start getting killed as often as men
>no one to give birth to and raise more men and women
>population declines rapidly
There's a reason a higher percentage of boys are born during wartime rather than girls.

>>33911592
This

>>33911965
>Turkroach mentality

>>33912168
Can't say it doesn't work.

>>33912094
Since when is making fewer mouths to feed a bad thing?

>>33912214
Ask Germany in 1945

>>33911592
This.

Biology and physiology don't give a fuck about muh ideals. Women inherently have more flexible ligaments (necessary for childbirth), and thus lower capability for sustained weight-bearing locomotion without increased risk of injury. This isn't even going into the emotional/mental stress caused by hormonal spikes from the menstrual cycle.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1322903/
>ACL laxity increased significantly throughout the menstrual cycle when comparing baseline with peak levels of estrogen and progesterone.

Just google "estrogen ligament laxity" if you need more info.

>>33912222
Czeched

But I mean as a bi product of war instead of doing it artificially.

File: f4c45cda3f5621e7dcd6236440375195.jpg (233KB, 1000x1336px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1000x1336px

>>33911558
what does evolution matter when we have science? scoup out womans brain and stick in robot body. woman now physical equal of man brain in robot body.

>>33910539
Tits or get out

>>33911663
>she's gonna lock up and freeze in shock
What evolutionary advantage is there for this behaviour in women?

>>33912321
Moar robit grillz plox

File: 1486122611300.jpg (14KB, 303x276px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 303x276px

>>33912321
>womans brain
>equal to man brain

>>33912409
T-Rex cant see you if you dont move

>>33910490
Technically both yes and no. If you have women do the same as male. No. If you specialize rolls to women then yes. To be fair I approve of females in military and draft.

Women can work as well as men in many aspects but brute force and other items no. So we have to find a balance. I give you... lighter rifles. Say the P90 or similar. Bags on back need to be lighter of course. The issue is the military is trying to make them equal and that is the problem. Find a way to make them match what is on the ground to improve performance. Work as a proper team is required. Quick action female is desired if she can move faster than another guy hauling the same shit as you.

If the females need something special. They do it themselves. If males need something special they do it themselves. No sugar coating for anyone.

File: 1470775019916.jpg (380KB, 1280x776px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1280x776px

>>33912424
>man brain best brain
>men transgender 3x more than women

men stop winning so much

>>33910490

but it only takes one woman every one hundred to make the autists here upset the plate of chicken tendies

File: 1488035535093.jpg (1MB, 2400x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x3000px

>My friend argues that he would take 2 women to every 1 man

I too would take 2 women over a man. Don't see the issue here.

File: 1490184465035.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

>>33910490

>>33912728
>Quick action female is desired if she can move faster than another guy hauling the same shit as you.
A man would move faster wouldn't he? Besides, if you have to reduce the weight and change the rifle for something more expensive at no real advantage, wouldn't it be both cheaper and more effective if we simply didn't let women fight?

File: Cucked.jpg (122KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 960x720px

>>33911575
>>33911817

>>33910490
>My friend argues that he would take 2 women to every 1 man in an army.

Well women are stupider and have a greater bovine like hearding instinct so for basic meat grinder role they would be ideal.

That being said the society that begins to primarily field women in meat grinder roles of military age and fights a national war will have decimated its child bearing capacity and fail.

So as the history of civilisation teaches us it is a loosing strategy,

A society of 100 people 20 elderly and 20 children 60 adults goes to war with another society of equal demographics.

One side sends 60 men and women that take 50% casualties the other side sends 30 men that takes 66% casualties. One side nominally ;looses.

Now the 'winner' has 15 women of child bearing age and 15 men.

The 'looser' has 30 women and 10 men.

Which is why no culture in the history of civilisation was stupid enough to do this until now.

In essence demographically speaking men are expendable. Which is exactly what history shows.

Start killing large numbers of women of child bearing age in military duty.

Your society dies.

So it is a loosing plan. National suicide.

File: iq.png (41KB, 485x308px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 485x308px

>>33913968
>women are stupider
>women have a tighter distribution of IQ compared to men
>military recruits from the dumbshit side of the curve

pic related: arrow is the military's target IQ

>>33914014
Source for arbitrary chart?

" In any very large sample tested men are over-represented at the top and bottom. In short, the standard deviation for IQ is higher in men than in women."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201410/are-men-really-more-intelligent-women

If you want to arbitrarily pick very intelligent people or very stupid people you pick men.

If you pick women you have less chance of drawing a very intelligent person.

You are wrong.

Like I say women are good meat grinder material but utilising them in large numbers in a national war is societal suicide.

>>33914014
You picked at the first three words of that guy's post and ignored the rest.

>>33914073
>In short, the standard deviation for IQ is higher in men than in women

topkek, that is literally what the chart is depicting.

are you in the military?

>If you want to arbitrarily pick very intelligent people or very stupid people you pick men.

indeed, the latter is where the military gathers said meat.

>>33914102
When he said "women are stupider" I don't believe he meant IQ.

>>33914082
>You picked at the first three words of that guy's post

maybe he shouldn't start his post with an incorrect declaration

>>33914102
The military traditionally for thousands of years selects men because they are demographically expendable.

That is ultimately the beginning and the end of any discussion relating to women in the military.

I requested the source for your chart as it depicts the medial of the bell curve as slanted towards females which is incorrect

There are real differences between the sexes with males having a 4-8 point advantage which become noticeable after the age of 15. Before adolescence females in fact have an advantage. The difference between the sexes is greatest for spatial intelligence. The difference is reflected in the brain size difference (corrected for body size) between men and women. Further this “real” difference “explains” male superiority in arts, business, education and science. It is this position that attracts most social commentary and criticism.

>>33914133
Who would be more 'intelligent' in a combat situation? Men or women?

>>33914132

if you are referring to the herding instinct, that is a wholly incorrect metric to assess whether a male or female crowd would commit mass suicide on order

that would be the submission/rebellion trait, and academics had no luck finding a sexual association with that trait.

>>33914149
>Who would be more 'intelligent' in a combat situation? Men or women?

On average men due to special reasoning.

The point is women are not as expendable as men when it comes down to genetic survival

One man can inseminate numerous females. 10 men and one woman and you have one child. Ten women and one man and you get ten children.

You let your childbearing age women die en mass and your society dies.

>>33914147
>source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

footnotes 8 and 9

The best contribution women can make to the military success of a nation is ultimately to get on their backs and get pregnant. The least vital role they have is combat and it is the least intelligent strategic use of them.

>>33914184
Maybe you misread my post.

>>33914193
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligencefootnotes 8 and 9

I'm afraid Wikipedia is not really a helpful source on the subject particularly due to the intense political pressure placed on any academic study relating to the matter, all of which attempt to reason away the practical effect of males having a greater brain mass.

The basic issue of males being expendable in combat roles while females are not is in fact empirically observable in history.

It is why we have not a single surviving example of a culture with a female warrior culture. Perhaps such a thing once existed but it logically would have been demographically obliterated.

The Darwin award for nations goes to putting females of child bearing age in combat roles.

>>33914184

you mean spatial? does that even factor into a task that mainly depends on muscle memory and familiarity.

necessity for intelligence in the military is restricted to non-combat personnel.

File: femcops.jpg (30KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x480px

What are you all talking about? Strong independent women with guns make the best fighters. Pic related.

>>33914263
>I'm afraid Wikipedia is not really a helpful source on the subject

footnotes are there and they live outside wikipedia. feel free to post studies that back your side of the story.

>warrior culture

probably because there is no such thing as a warrior culture

>>33914269
In terms of national victory se is misemployed and would be better off in a pair of suspenders taking a load of sperm and breeding.

The side that on a mass scale uses women in a military function in all out war always looses as with in one generation their former opponents will massively outnumber them. The scenario only changes when you have artificial wombs in which case women become equally expendable.

>>33914301
Artificial wombs + natural wombs is better than articial wombs alone.

>>33914278
>>warrior cultureprobably because there is no such thing as a warrior culture

Really?

Not to big into anthropology either are you?

May I recommend
INTELLIGENCE IN WAR - SIR JOHN KEEGAN

And on warrior culture 'A History of Warfare'

By the same author.

He is a man.

That may make it unacceptable reading for you even if he has spent a lifetime studying the topics.

>>33914331
>Artificial wombs + natural wombs is better than articial wombs alone.

It is irrelevant really as they do not exist at present and therefore the long standing fact of male expendability in war and the need to preserve the breeding age females stands.

The first nation that breaks this precept and engages in a full national war with high casualty rates will cease to exist.

File: 1411279396475.png (15KB, 278x510px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 278x510px

>>33914269
>that pic

uhh...

>>33914269
Is that pistol held by some string or something?

>>33914357
>INTELLIGENCE IN WAR

that is a book on intelligence gathering and analysis, as opposed to personal intelligence (a la IQ). meat grinder grunts don't give two shits about intel analysis. apply yourself.

>Not to big into anthropology

oh lawdy. are you? the "warrior culture" myth has popped up repeatedly on this shitty board from violence-obsessed teenagers so at least some people might read up on the topic.

to summarize contemporary rough consensus in the field, warfare and fighting was a means to an end, usually some economic prize, and less usually, some sort of religious ritual. the fighting was never the end itself, therefore warrior culture is at best a misnomer.

yes you will cite the books that document that some ancient cultures were steeped in violence, and that is great and i agree with their conclusions. but those books never prove the existence of a warrior culture, i.e. warfare for the sake of fighting.

File: 1321816207235.gif (19KB, 298x374px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 298x374px

>>33910490
2-to-1 translates to a pretty high volume of fire difference on the battlefield.

All other factors (training, equipment) being equal, I think the numerical advantage would swing the balance in the woman's favor.

There may be a greater probability of exceptional individuals on the male side, but no serious strategist is going to plan their strategy around the chance that one of their men is a Medal of Honor candidate.

If we were talking special-forces tier operators, I think the men would stand a much better chance at victory. At that skill level biological differences would be more obvious, but if we're talking about the average enlisted who stays fit enough to pass a PT test, and isn't going to be fit or trained far beyond what the US army currently requires, I'd place my money on volume of fire, even with the female PT standards being slightly lower as they are now.

I do think the standard should be the same, but that's another topic altogether.

(and yes, for multi-generational conflicts, the best strategy is to outbreed the enemy, then migrate and corrupt their culture. See: current state of the EU)

>>33914265
>necessity for intelligence in the military is restricted to non-combat personnel.

The stupidity of females in strategic matters is apparent in their embracing entering females of child bearing age in front line combat en mass as a matter of equality. Media depictions of it being an issue related to feminism (whatever that is) such as 'GI Jane' (see attached trailer) are evidence for this.

There is no comprehension or attempt to comprehend the need to 'win; that is the heart of warfare, Should the breeding age females be decimated then you loose. That simple. The very fact that popular female 'feminist' perception cannot grasp this further illustrates why females are unfit for warfare both at the demographic level and indeed at the level of strategic thinking.

The plain fact is that in any total war between two societies 'GI Jane' is in fact best strategically employed taking a load of sperm and breeding rather than entering the military may be disdainful to ideologies unconnected with reality but it is true. It always has been true and it always will be true in the current status quo of means to reproduce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDrXl6WOPZA

>>33914516

why do you cite the need to preserve child bearing women in a military as some sort of existential issue? the number of combat soldiers in the US military is probably somewhere between 100k to 200k and the population of the country is 321 million. the last mass casualty war fought by this country was almost 150 years ago.

>why females are unfit for warfare both at the demographic level and indeed at the level of strategic thinking.

i am amused by the irony of your statement when your strategic argument is completely contradictory to current reality.

File: pavlichenko1.jpg (22KB, 400x273px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x273px

>>33914516

total military personnel including reserves is around 0.6% of the population. let's be generous and assume a 1/3 ratio for combat to non-combat positions.

if half or even all of them were women, the demographic impact would still be negligible, so your demographic argument is invalid.

concerns over biological differences and fitness are more convincing, however.

>>33912321
>scoup out womans brain and stick in robot body

Or we could just genetically modify people.

File: untitled.png (187KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 500x334px

>>33914471
>oh lawdy. are you? the "warrior culture" myth has popped up repeatedly on this shitty board from violence-obsessed teenagers so at least some people might read up on the topic.to summarize contemporary rough consensus in the field, warfare and fighting was a means to an end, usually some economic prize, and less usually, some sort of religious ritual. the fighting was never the end itself, therefore warrior culture is at best a misnomer.yes you will cite the books that document that some ancient cultures were steeped in violence, and that is great and i agree with their conclusions. but those books never prove the existence of a warrior culture, i.e. warfare for the sake of fighting.


There is no myth in relation to the massive anthropological and cultural evidence for warrior castes and warrior culture. This is near universal in both time and geography in all continents. Ritual warfare or as you would see it war for the sake of it is indeed part of these cultures.

You have not read a 'history of warfare' or associated anthropological studies or you would know you are in plain fact wrong. Warfare has and will continue to have more aspects to it than 'a means to an end a clausewitzian proposition .which is empirically false.

Pic related
A battle scene from Robert Gardner's Dead Birds (1963), a cinematic study of ritual warfare among the world's last Stone Age tribes.

>>33910490
I would rather fight 1 man than 2 women. Even if they make worse soldiers, they would still have significantly higher chances given they can do things like flank and suppress while advancing much easier and more effectively.

File: Kim_campbell_a10.jpg (76KB, 419x640px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 419x640px

>>33910490
He does understand the difference in physique and mentality, correct?

Anyhow, women can take part in roles such as fire support that don't involve heavy lifting and extreme stress, such as drone operating and piloting.

Every woman I've worked with in and out of the military has generally been bad at their job. Even worse if they're in a leadership/supervisor role. I sometimes wonder what the medical field would be like if nurses were all males.

>>33914628
>total military personnel including reserves is around 0.6% of the population

Not in the event of total war. You are effectively referring to a peacetime situation. Further please note that age of utility for military service and child bearing age overlap.

File: strangelove.jpg (17KB, 400x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x320px

>>33914678

in a modern total war, the use of strategic nuclear weapons will kill off most of the population regardless of who's in the military.

afterward, of course, you'd want to rebuild the population, but there probably won't be any organized effort to do that for decades.

>>33914670
>He does understand the difference in physique and mentality, correct?Anyhow, women can take part in roles such as fire support that don't involve heavy lifting and extreme stress, such as drone operating and piloting.


And in doing so you make them immediate strategic targets. Irrespective of how you cut it the concept of widespread use of women in combat in wars is national suicide. It is quite amazing to see the lessons learned over the last 10,000 years thrown away in the face of reason to suit a flawed ideology with no limits of destructivity towards the nations that facilitated it

>>33914696
>in a modern total war, the use of strategic nuclear weapons will kill off most of the population regardless of who's in the military.afterward, of course, you'd want to rebuild the population, but there probably won't be any organized effort to do that for decades.

Lots of assumptions there relating to nuclear war. None of which detracts from the fact that in all wars military and command infrastructure are primary targets. Should those targets contain a high percentage of breeding age females the side employing them automatically begins loosing in the first exchanges.

>>33910490
Lol no, because in terms of cost for every woman you field you could field at least 1.5 as many men.

For logistics sake youre getting a better soldier for less money.

Technology is going to make up for the physical weaknesses of females, never, even in possible future designs such as powered armor the ability of a man to take more physical punishment on top of the exact same technological advantages a woman would get.

No.

Women in combat is stupid.

>>33914651

nope, you are wrong. the consensus i described is what the academics roughly agree upon. to them, the idea of a warrior culture is a fantasy.

ritual warfare is exactly that, a ritual to fulfill some cultural need. a means to an end.

i will give keegan's book a whirl, but let's be honest here, he is not an anthropologist. i did notice his criticisms of clausewitz were roundly denounced by a multitude of people, and clausewitz's commentaries being a modern take of politicized warfare, one wonders if keegan has any merit at all when discussing pre-historic/ancient cultures.

File: lemay.jpg (193KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x739px

>>33914733

in a counterforce strike, you're talking about missile silos and airbases, which won't contain a significant number of military personnel; in a countervalue strike, you end up with most of your cities reduced to radioactive ash and your civilian population dead or dying.

conceivably, tactical nuclear weapons might be used against troop formations or other large congregations of military personnel, but this would likely escalate to one of the above scenarios fairly quickly.

>>33914773
Acedemic concensus, of which you claim there is one and of course there isnt, is an arguement of ad populum.

Get fucked retard.

>>33914651
>A battle scene from Robert Gardner's Dead Birds (1963)

and in said film, inter-tribal warfare was a religious ritual to avenge the dead and satiate the ghosts: a means to an end, as mentioned before.

another non-example of a so-called "warrior culture".

>>33914773
Try reading, What Its Like To Go To War.

The author explains how alot of the way war was conducted, for whatever reason, was spiritual.

Such as in ancient greek times warriors would stay in their respective units bonding and winding down before being kicked back into society perminantly.

Just seeing how cliquish military types are is evidence enough for a warrior culture.

Ps, women make shit soldiers.

>>33914792
>Acedemic concensus, of which you claim there is one and of course there isnt, is an arguement of ad populum.

of course there is such a fucking thing. note my use of the guarded "rough consensus".

by the way, said dissenting minority is going after the peaceful savage theory. claiming the existence of a "warrior culture" is far beyond attacking the peaceful savage. the reason no reputable academic talks about a warrior culture is because it is fucking bullshit.

File: Deadbirds6.jpg (132KB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 400x299px

>>33914773
>nope, you are wrong. the consensus i described is what the academics roughly agree upon. to them, the idea of a warrior culture is a fantasy.ritual warfare is exactly that, a ritual to fulfill some cultural need. a means to an end.i will give keegan's book a whirl, but let's be honest here, he is not an anthropologist. i did notice his criticisms of clausewitz were roundly denounced by a multitude of people, and clausewitz's commentaries being a modern take of politicized warfare, one wonders if keegan has any merit at all when discussing pre-historic/ancient cultures.


You have not read the book. You had not read it or it seems even heard of it prior to my introducing it yet you have the temerity to draw conclusions based on reading criticisms that you have harvested in the last ten minutes that fir your flawed assumptions and breath-taking lack of knowledge on the topic.


You appear to be trying to draw on some aspect of utilitarianism in relation to ritual warfare. I suggest you actually read benthams utilitarianism. I doubt you have.

As regards your perception of consensus. There may be a perception of a consensus that the earth is flat and female but that does not make it true either. In immediately inciting the cause of the herd I can only assume you are a female and therefore of limited capacity in such dialogue without some system of positive discrimination to assist you.

Pic related
ritual warfare between tribes of farmers in Papua New Guinea.

I suspect the truth is however irrelevant to you as you approach reality from an ideological standpoint where it must be forced to fit preconceptions rather than accepting empirical observation. Nope is not a sufficient logical response.

>>33912409
It lets the men solve the problem without a distracting hysterical person in their face.

>>33912284
Thats what the fuck he's talking about you double nigger.

Examples of warrior cultures

1)Maori
2)Samurai
3)Pre Christian Ireland
5)inca
6)Norman
7)Plains Indian
8)Spartan
9)Prussian
etc etc etc etc etc

All contain warrior castes and had distinct warrior cultures due to that.

File: Hurr3.jpg (36KB, 521x501px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 521x501px

>>33910490
In my experience, 1 woman can take up to 30 men from the army

>>33914910
>There may be a perception of a consensus that the earth is flat and female but that does not make it true either.

You might have a point if said dissenters could prove their shit. Alas, they cannot. Warrior culture is a myth created by angst-ridden teenagers.

>You appear to be trying to draw on some aspect of utilitarianism in relation to ritual warfare

Utility is not the only thing that drives human action. This is a stupid interpenetration on your part.

>I doubt you have.
topkek

>You had not read it or it seems even heard of it prior to my introducing it yet you have the temerity to draw conclusions

Obviously, I have not read Keegan's book, I said as much But I didn't draw conclusions. I simply question Keegan's bona fides as an anthropologist. He is obviously a shitty political historian but that didn't stop him from running his mouth on the topic

>Pic related
Not to your fantasy, it isn't.

>you approach reality from an ideological standpoint
Oh god, the irony.

>accepting empirical observation
Yes, you might want to note that when people fight, that does not indicate a warrior culture.

>>33911663
>she's gonna lock up and freeze in shock, bringing down the squad's fighting effectiveness.

because that kind of behaviour has never been heard of in males.

>>33914773
In 1960 he was appointed to a lectureship in Military History at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, the training establishment for officers of the British Army. Holding the post for 26 years, he became senior lecturer in military history during his tenure. During this period he also held a visiting professorship at Princeton University and was Delmas Distinguished Professor of History at Vassar College.

So he is an 'academic' o some notable standing and according to you in complete disagreement.

QED there is no consensus outside your mind.

File: 1448782804277.jpg (91KB, 499x647px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 499x647px

>>33910539

If you have 200 women who are just as well trained, experienced, have the same physical standards, and met the same demands as men then yeah, sure. Women could win depending on the scenario.

The problem is that most women don't meet all of the above for several biological and social reasons. So your hypothetical is retarded.

>>33915018

he is not an anthropologist. stick to what is relevant.

and as mentioned before, keegan's foray into political history was roundly mocked.

>>33910490
>technology can fill in for weaknesses that women have
>implying said technology will not make men even better as well
>it takes a fucking cyborg superwoman soldier to match a standard vanilla human male

anon I think you need new friends.

File: 20170417_104122.png (36KB, 125x152px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 125x152px

>>33910490
I just want a female DS for my femdom fetish.

>Female Killhat approaches.
>My dick wiggles
>She begins screaming in my face and I am now diamonds.
>Tells me to drop down and do push ups and immediately cum with the force of a thousand suns.
>Killhats face when she sees a pool of cum around me as I kiss it each time I go down.

>>33914845
>thinks people bonding via shared experience proves a warrior culture

hot damn

>>33914014
>arrow is the military's target IQ

lol Maybe in burgerland...

>>33914992
>>33914992
>Warrior culture is a myth created by angst-ridden teenagers.

John Desmond Patrick Keegan
15 May 1934 was 59 when he wrote 'a history of warfare'


You have not read the book yet you feel equipped to disagree with it based on what?

Your type have polluted universities and bent all knowledge and learning towards falsehood.

Strategically female combatants is a disaster that is self evident an indeed why historically female combatants are a rare exception. Yet logic and the reasoning of all our ancestors cannot be allowed challenge the predispositions of your itchy cunt.

The existence of warrior culture is only in doubt in the minds of those who need to pretend there is no such thing as it is incompatible with their ideological stances. To do so with any grasp of history is to lie.

File: Kahless.jpg (45KB, 671x545px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 671x545px

>>33914773
The basis for ritual warfare does come from the the evolutionary/anthropological territorial, resource, and other tribalistic disputes of ancient humanity, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that elements of these relatively contemporary cultures were explicitly stated to be war for the sake of honor or what have you.

The average Spartan citizen not only believed that through war they would dominate ancient Greece, they believed it to be inherent to a Spartan that they would die in battle, or to be honored by dying in battle, very similar to a Klingon. It is thus a part of their culture; they are a warrior culture.

>>33915044
>he is not an anthropologist. stick to what is relevant.and as mentioned before, keegan's foray into political history was roundly mocked.


It was not as you put it mocked, it was criticised except by a clique of ideologically driven idiots with less credentials and expertise than the author because it offended their narrow clausewitzian sensibilities . Ironic given that Clausewitzs morality was in every sense a progression of Prussian warrior culture ethics.

Either way you have not read it so you are literally just spouting bullshit and have no opinion of your own.

File: 1464599837401.jpg (977KB, 1400x1812px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 1400x1812px

>>33914634
because the flesh is weak

the machine body doesnt have to be humanoid either

>>33915044
Now get your suspenders on and fuck for victory. Its your duty, stop getting in the way of the men who are and have been dying on your behalf for hundreds of generations and do your part as they do instead of being a liability and acting as a subversion mechanism.

>>33915196
>it was criticised except by a clique of ideologically driven idiots with less credentials and expertise

ahahahahahaha. spoken like a true ideologue. all disagreeable opinions is ideological! everyone else is wrong, even if they chair the departments keegan worked in!

>You have not read the book yet you feel equipped to disagree with it based on what?

Nothing I said is in regards to this specific book. I mock the myth of a warrior culture on the many, many books that have been written before and after Keegan's book, by people who are actually educated in the relevant topic. I read three of Keegan's books (WW1, WW2 and Face of Battle), absolutely nothing in those books indicate any sort of understanding of human culture.

>Your type have polluted universities and bent all knowledge and learning towards falsehood.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>The existence of warrior culture is only in doubt in the minds of those who need to pretend there is no such thing as it is incompatible with their ideological stances

Ah yes, the self-evident truth. Who's the ideologue now?

>>33915162
>they would dominate ancient Greece

as you say, a means to a political end.

note that their full citizens were given land and political powers. just another job with benefits.

>>33915196
>Ironic given that Clausewitzs morality was in every sense a progression of Prussian warrior culture ethics.

Power politics is a manifestation of a "warrior culture"?

Now that is a novel interpretation. And by novel, I mean retarded.

>>33915379
>the men who are and have been dying on your behalf for hundreds of generations
It greatly bothers me that this has been the case for all of human existence yet is ignored by feminists who think that getting catcalled is the greater threat.

>>33915603

it bothers me greatly that people are stupid enough to believe in the military "dying on your behalf"

>>33915621
Why did people historically go to war other than for financial gain? To protect their country and their women.

>>33915641
>other than financial gain
>financial gain

there's your someone else's behalf

pro-tip: aggressor versus non-aggressor is a very important moral distinction

>>33914773
/k/ should get IDs so I can figure out which fucktards are samefagging
this person must be handicapped or is a "muh stronk black womyn" uni-sent poster

>>33915686
What about Russia in WW2? Are we going to ignore the millions of Russian men forced into conscription to protect the country and women or are going to pretend it had something to do with financial gain?

>>33915065
>people bonding and hashing out how fucked up it is to watch your friends die infront of you and taking another h7mans life doesnt prove warrior culture


Hot damn.

Why do you insist of covering your ears and screaming?

Is warrior culture a bad thing to you?

You cant stand it existing so you sperg?

>>33915432
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And this is why no one takes women seriously.

If you can read about anything from cuchulain to the samurai, inca castes, plains Indians,spartans etc etc and believe that there is and was no such thing as warrior culture you are clinging to being an idiot so hard and so desperately that it means your ideology has put you in an untenable situation. That means your ideology is wrong and incompatible with reality,.

That's tough on you.

You are now 'expert' on what departments keegan worked in, you still have not read the book and literally all you know is dredged up from searching in the last half hour.

>>33915432
>I read three of Keegan's books (WW1, WW2 and Face of Battle), absolutely nothing in those books indicate any sort of understanding


I think you are a liar. A lot of ideological feminists are. You clearly had never heard of a history of warfare until I mentioned it yet come back and claim to have read the other books this man (who was a lecturer in military history for 26 years in one of the most prestigious military establishments in the world) wrote.

Tell me. If people like you who are in fact obviously ill read, lying and deceitful in promulgation of ideologies like feminism continue to corrupt and distort all academia in service of a lie, what long term effect do you think you will have on knowledge?

Will you be most pleased when you have destroyed all subjects and understanding?

Will that be a good?

It seems to me if you succeed then the society that allowed such a cancer will in fact cease to exist.

A loudest mooing is not truth.

>>33915838

that would be a coping mechanism

>Why do you insist of covering your ears and screaming?

lol epic debate tactic

>You cant stand it existing so you sperg?

pot, meet kettle

>>33915867
>that would be a coping mechanism>Why do you insist of covering your ears and screaming? lol epic debate tactic>You cant stand it existing so you sperg?pot, meet kettle

You do realise you lost any debate whatsoever regarding female combat duty in the military and warrior cultures some time ago an are now merely pouring shit further on what you represent by meting the stereotype of the ill educated, historically illiterate, logically flawed feminist lunatic to perfection?

>>33910539
>Thats pretty sexist tho.
The truth cannot be sexist.

>>33915838
>You cant stand it existing so you sperg?

The fact that warfare has and continues to shape much of the evolution of civilisation and that it was an inherently male dominated activity as evidenced by warrior cultures is an anathema to leftists and feminists.

So yes. They need to cover their ears and splerg.

File: 100_1127.jpg (427KB, 1000x894px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1000x894px

>>33915857
>And this is why no one takes women seriously
>ideological feminists
pro-tip: a surefire sign of a losing ideological argument is the need to use labels.

>If you can read about anything blah blah blah
you missed the cultural context. reading != understanding. as mentioned before, means to an end. say it with me.

>You are now 'expert' on what departments keegan worked in
>thinks such a designation exists for easily verifiable facts
whewlad

>I think you are a liar.
I think you're an idiot. Lying implies intent to deceive. pic related though. yes, i know, owning a book doesn't mean you've read it. you would be exhibit A for that truism.

>blah blah blah
if i succeed that one of the cancers on this shitty board with be excoriated

File: upset.png (93KB, 300x367px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 300x367px

>>33915905
>You do realise you lost any debate

Yes, you won the debate. Only dreams now.

>>33914473
A infantry force of men would have a hugely greater mobility, carry more equipment and operate for longer periods of time.

A force that moves faster, further and with more firepower generally beats a larger, slower, worse armed force.

>>33910490
Not at all - women drag down units.

>>33914670
>Anyhow, women can take part in roles such as fire support that don't involve heavy lifting and extreme stress, such as drone operating and piloting.

Do you think women and men are equal in their ability to operate drones, or piloting?

>>33915935
>post a circle-jerk comment
>accuses others of splerging

the irony... it is overwhelming

>>33910539
It's sexist to assume that 100 men vs 200 women is considered the fair scenario

>>33910490
It depends who they are led by. Battles have been won under worse circumstances.

>>33915947
>>33915947
>a losing ideological argument

That is your position not mine. I don't have an ideology.

All I see in your posts is trite ad hominem a lack of reasoning, citation (other than laughably enough Wikipedia) , logic or knowledge.

You have not cited a single source stating that there is no such thing as a warrior culture in your defence.

Neither have you addressed the obvious strategic demographic flaw in employing females of breeding age en masse in combat roles.

Not alone have I read keegans book. I have also listened to his lectures and published on warfare myself (in print).Not a pleasure you will enjoy as he is now deceased. My speciality is insurgency and counter insurgency

You are hopelessly out of your depth but to me represent little more than the sad corruption of human progress and knowledge by a small petulant and economically spoiled generation of women who have as it stands nothing to offer the world except ill informed screeching.

>>33915947
>if i succeed that one of the cancers on this shitty board with be excoriated

Succeed in what? Making a fool of yourself?

Further if you think this board is so shitty then feel free to vanish. You are far to low a calibre to participate here in any meaningful way.

As regards warrior culture may I also refer you to on killing and its role in mitigating PTSD.

I'm sure you are familiar with on killing by Dave Grossman?

There is no shame in failure. For a warrior the only shame is in not trying.

Dave Grossman, On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace

You should be. It is on the USMC and most western militaries reading list for officers. If you actually know anything about what you are seeking to discuss.

File: 1466657208227.jpg (146KB, 654x539px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 654x539px

>>33910539
I'm pretty sure a force of ALL women would end up combat innefective within short order without ever firing or receiving a shot in anger
>marches half-3/4 as fast with less gear per person
>Fucked up knees.jpg
>Battalion level coinciding periods.jpg
>crippling injuries from normal shit like using a fully loaded backpack or a light fall
Then comes the #not_all_women things like
>Needing to dig a shithouse and sleep in tents every night
>Having no one to dig said shithouse for them
>Needing sleep
>Infighting and cliques
It'd be like that swedish survivor show meme where the women couldn't even build a hit and were sunbathing while starving to death

There is a reason why Israeli all women units are rear rear rear guard troops whose primary purpose is to take cute photos

>>33914709
10k worth of ideology has shown the using the resources you have, no matter the source, helps with victory. Keep your flawed ideology to yourself.

>>33915989
I think it's up to an individual basis.

>>33916002
>the irony... it is overwhelming

Sit down take a breather. You are overcome with a rush female emotions and need a break.

Try brushing your hair to help relax and make yourself prettier.

>>33912321
No
>Scoop out woman's brain
>Replace with machine mind

>>33916075
>10k worth of ideology has shown the using the resources you have, no matter the source, helps with victory. Keep your flawed ideology to yourself.


Can you translate that?

Would you like to interpret WHY warfare has for most of human history been a male activity?

Just the boys being unfair?

Nothing to do with casualties in breeding age females being demographic suicide in war?

>>33914997
For men that is the ultimate cowardice
For women it is the default reaction to adversity, let alone visible death/being under fire.

Maybe if a girl was raised on a steady diet of /b/ Gore threads and liveleak she'd be amoral enough to not go into quasi shock from exposure to extreme violence but the resultant mental problems would probably dwarf the supposed gain

File: Ambush.gif (26KB, 599x348px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 599x348px

>>33916069

I mean, it depends. Are we talking about a battle after a forced march, or going straight into combat from a position of rest? Does each side have time to prepare defenses? How familiar are the combatants with the terrain and conditions? What kind of leadership does each side have?

I can definitely envision scenarios where a numerically-superior (or even equivalent) force of inferior soldiers prevails, but the devil is in the details.

>2 women to every 1 man in the army
How about instead, you keep those two women at home and 20 years from now you can put 6 men in the army?

File: drone swarm.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>33916132

how about we just keep all of them at home and send our autonomous death robots to shit all over the enemy from afar?

>>33916064
>I don't have an ideology.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>trite ad hominem
Says the guy who has been shrieking about feminists for multiple posts. Good lord.

>a lack of reasoning
Says the guy who uses the self-evident truth argument as a reverse reductio ad absurdum

>You have not cited a single source stating that there is no such thing as a warrior culture
People can develop their own outlooks after reading the works of other people. It's how scholarship works. I already stated my conclusion: means to an end. Criticize it as you see fit instead of your self-evident truth bullshit.

>Neither have you addressed the obvious strategic demographic flaw
I'm not even talking about that topic, but other people already made fun of your stupid shit:
>>33914619
>>33914628
>>33914696

>I have also listened to his lectures and published on warfare myself
And you still made that ludicrous argument on female breeding population in a contemporary context? Holy shit that is some amateur hour shit.

>sad corruption of human progress and knowledge
You really sound like a communist now.

>Succeed in what?
Putting to bed the teenage fantasy of a warrior culture. I know this is an internet origami board of zero consequence but it is still a small victory nonetheless.

>On Combat
Really, you're going to mention (not cite) a book which literally every person has heard of because of the GWOT's consequence on mental health. By the way, absolutely nothing in that book backs your warrior culture fantasy, so why you are mention it is beyond me.

How the American soldier in Vietnam was first psychologically enabled to kill to a far greater degree than any other soldier in history, then denied the psychologically essential purification ritual that exists in every warrior society, and finally condemned
and accused by his own society to a degree that is unprecedented in Western history. And the terrible, tragic price that America's three million Vietnam veterans, their families, and our society are paying for what we did to our soldiers in Vietnam

The Psychological Cost of
Learning to Kill in War and Society
Lt . Col. Dave Grossm

Note his reference to warrior society. Something our apparently hormonally challenged female poster denies exists.

>>33916126
>WFM stormtroopers employ a mix of gorilla tactics, harassment, and tactical retreats
>The FEMEN collective forces collapse from internal pressures, injury, and illness within a matter of weeks.

If we're going to pretend it's a stand-up fight why is the numerically inferior side on the offensive instead of dug in with overlapping fields of machinegun fire and light mortars?

Why would a numerically inferior foe offer a stand up fight against a dug in enemy when they could be skirted or combatted through alternative harrying tactics?

>>33916223
>Really, you're going to mention (not cite) a book which literally every person has heard of because of the GWOT's consequence on mental health. By the way, absolutely nothing in that book backs your warrior culture fantasy, so why you are mention it is beyond me.

>>33916224
>, then denied the psychologically essential purification ritual that exists in every warrior society

Again. Thank you for proving you are unread, lacking in knowledge and wrong.

>>33916080

As before: labels are an ideologue's last gasp. That you need to use labels as ad-hominems instead of the usual tactic of using them to prejudicially dismiss disagreeable arguments is doubly damning.

>>33916064
>I don't have an ideology.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I am genuinely curious as to the kind of publications that can be produced by someone with this sort of dialectical attitude. Kindly provide a list of works?

>>33916224
>Conditioning and training equals muh warrior culture
>Literally the first modern conflict with a ridiculously high K/D ratio in our favor due to a massive technological imbalance unseen since colonialism
>Going this far with social science but not realizing the reason behind the vilification of war and soldiers was part of the Soviet plot to rot America from within

>>33916223
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You keep typing this. Is this the kind of screeching sound that works for you in person when confronted with something that is factually contrary to your ideology?

A sort of brain freeze reaction to reality intruding?

Perhaps you could replace it with

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

And make it your own because beyond the boundaries of your own head you are conveying nothing more.

Empirically observable truth is the basis for all science by the way. Unless you wish to observe history and tell me that the vast majority of combatants were female. It is the kind of lie that is no doubt within your small brains capacity.

>>33916262
>society is now culture
>society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

that means he is referring to a group of people, not a culture. and certainly not a culture where war was deliberately sought out as an end. this is especially obvious for the US military in vietnam, where widespread sedition was openly practiced by the end of US involvement.

apply yourself.

Going into leafland military not sure how women are in there military will have to carry their packs on marches or can I tell them to fuck off?

>>33916278
>Going this far with social science but not realizing the reason behind the vilification of war and soldiers was part of the Soviet plot to rot America from within


I'm inclined to agree. Nonetheless Grossman does have valuable insights. For me one of these is that warrior culture mitigates PTSD.

>>33916294
No answer to this or a history of warfare.
Just more moos as if the persistence and duration o the moos will suffice alone.

>>33914973
>Examples of warrior cultures1)Maori2)Samurai3)Pre Christian Ireland5)inca6)Norman7)Plains Indian8)Spartan9)Prussianetc etc etc etc etcAll contain warrior castes and had distinct warrior cultures due to that.


No answer to this either

>>33914516
>Should the breeding age females be decimated then you loose. That simple.

>>33916292

"Haha" and its extended use is a commonly accepted term for amusement, I'm sorry if this triggers you. I don't judge people who use cow sounds to denote amusement, feel free to use your suggestion for yourself.

>Unless you wish to observe history and tell me that the vast majority of combatants were female

Note how you take the goalposts and hurl them into orbit. I never even made that observation in any case, so your use of this truly shit-tier strawman stinks of desperation.

File: 1324782395257.jpg (249KB, 922x735px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 922x735px

>>33916248

i didn't assume anything

you could just as easily have had 100 /k/ommandos and /pol/lacks doing a frontal assault against a fortified position, or soviet partisans successfully laying an ambush against some late-war german POG supply unit.

or, as you said, it could be a bunch of dumb antifa feminists vs delta force, in similarly lopsided conditions.

basically, context matters.

>>33916298
Sorry its 1am im tired what I mean is "Do I have to carry womens shit in the Canadian military?"

>>33916294
>a culture where war was deliberately sought out as an end.

What is ritual warfare?

My you really have so much to learn.

>>33916334
>triggers

I see you really are just some piece of SJW shit doing a second rate arts degree.

>>33916331
>>Should the breeding age females be decimated then you loose. That simple.

>>33916331
>>Examples of warrior cultures1)Maori2)Samurai3)Pre Christian Ireland5)inca6)Norman7)Plains Indian8)Spartan9)Prussianetc etc etc etc etcAll contain warrior castes and had distinct warrior cultures due to that.

No answer just words like triggered strawman and all the hallmark lingo of the sjw idiot

>>33916308
Warrior class and warrior culture are two entirely different concepts

The modern day citizen soldier is if anything more classical in origin than most systems of the political/economic elite also being the warrior class. But in western society that distinction has been breaking down since the Anglican style of yeoman (Freeman) came into prominence as a wealthy non noble class from the late 14the century onward in most of Europe. First as a contract soldier backbone of European militaries in the high medieval period leading to conscript/volunteer armies

>>33916331
>No answer to this
I'm sorry you are illiterate. Try scrolling up.

>No answer to this either
Already did. I said you confuse demonstrated political goals and ritual objectives (the ends) with the war (the means). For example, the samurai and prussians were entirely subservient to their political masters. The Spartans had demonstrated political goals (this was also mentioned). The Maori used war as a quasi-judicial system.

Besides, you threw out that list with zero backing evidence, the reasonable response is to dismiss it without consideration. That I bothered to give the above retort is more than it deserves.

>Should the breeding age females be decimated then you loose. That simple.
Three people addressed your demographical bullshit already. Mathematically, your argument makes zero sense. Try harder.

>>33916342
>If we assume one side is retarded then...
No force of 100 will attack a dug in force of 200, whether it's men, women, children, or paraplegics. How that force will respond to that force of 100 shelling the shit out of their position is another matter

>>33916368
>Warrior class and warrior culture are two entirely different concepts

Perhaps but both exist and have existed and to deny that is nonsense.

females in the military are fucking worthless, even as just a piece of ass.

t. veteran

>>33916096
>Can you translate that?

If you have the chicks to do the work, and they're willing, why not? So long as standards aren't lost, no problem. Course that's a problem with a lot of NATO countries, since they did just that.

>Would you like to interpret WHY warfare has for most of human history been a male activity?

Mostly technology. Women are physically weaker on average, and having them on the frontlines in 1v1 combat was almost always a recipe for disaster. However they did take up camp follower roles, and sometimes did engage as guards.

>Just the boys being unfair?

Common sense. Doesn't need a couple of studies to state why (though studies help). Warfare isn't about what's fair. If it's fair, your causalities mount.

>Nothing to do with casualties in breeding age females being demographic suicide in war?

Nothing to do with that. Look pal, I don't think women on the frontlines is a good idea. But support roles can easily be taken up by those confident and willing, no matter the sex.

>>33916365

If you're the one that is triggered, that means you are the SJW.

>no answer

Posting something twice doesn't make it any more true.

I could ask you the same, but I already know you have no logical foundation for your violence fantasy.

File: banzai.jpg (54KB, 500x422px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x422px

>>33916386

o rly?

>>33916382
>>33916382
>the samurai and prussians were entirely subservient to their political masters.

the Tokugawa shogunate begs to differ. You have no knowledge on these topics whatsoever. For a great deal of Japans history the political class was under the control of the warrior caste.

>>33916389
>dat self-evident truth again

One is real, the other is a fantasy.

>>33916389
Warrior culture defined as "a culture that seeks put war for wars sake" has never existed

Militarized cultures such as Sparta, where the free warrior class both fought external threats for defense and gain while also supressing internal issues from their massive slave population, aren't "warrior cultures" unless you want to consider every culture with a permanent military class a "warrior culture"

>>33916411
>the shogun is not a politician

oh for fucks sake

File: chosin.jpg (424KB, 2930x2197px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 2930x2197px

>>33916386

"We used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea... use ya for sandbags."

>>33916382
>>Should the breeding age females be decimated then you loose. That simple.Three people addressed your demographical bullshit already. Mathematically, your argument makes zero sense. Try harder.


Not alone does it make sense it is historically evident. If your breeding age female die then you loose. You seem to have difficulty understanding this perhaps because you find it uncomfortable that the most meritorious role a female can have in a total war scenario is in fact to breed.

>>33916408
And look how that turned out for them everywhere where there were more bullets than nip corpses. IE everywhere but the Philippines in the opening months of the Pacific theater

File: 1388714747934.jpg (157KB, 985x663px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 985x663px

>>33916436

Well, yeah, but I wasn't arguing it was a good idea; just that it wasn't unknown to the annals of warfare.

>>33916431
>Proving my point
Heavily outnumbered the US killed so many chinks retreating to the 38th parallel that they had to dissolve the army they sent and reassign the remaining men post war.

>>33916426
>>the shogun is not a politicianoh for fucks sake

Are you seriously on here trying to claim that the Tokugawa shogunate was not a warrior culture?

Hint. A key symbol of authority globally is a sword.

>>33916417
>Warrior culture defined as "a culture that seeks put war for wars sake" has never existed

What is ritual warfare?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4

>>33916434

you already brought up the total war tangent and it was summarily dismissed by another poster

more importantly, framing this discussion in the context of a total war is blatant intellectual dishonesty: there is been no total war half a century, the state of the world today indicates there will probably not be another for some time.

no public debate on females in the military has even used this argument, for you to bring it up in a narrow context is just irrelevant hypothetical that is not worth consideration.

>>33910539
>let's assume they are
What do you even mean? Mentally or physically? Or both? Do the women just become men? The two hundred probably win then.
Human men aren't the best possible design for combat. If we were to assume that the women become some sort of armoured, shapeshifting monster, the women could probably win 50 to 200

As reality currently stands, however, no, 100 random men will likely win against 200 random women.

>>33916393
tank u 4 ur cervix
also any stories of women being idiots in the military so I know what I am getting my self into?

>>33916453

are you seriously on here claiming the existence of a warrior culture?

late medieval japan had a warrior class that takes orders from a political class. seems eerily familiar...

>>33911558
>It has taken 100,000 years for us to get to our current physical builds and evolutionary roles
Incorrect. Homonids have been around for about 5-6 million years. Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for about 150,000 years. So it actually too us about 5.85 million years to get to the evolutionary state that humans are at now.

>>33916466
>literally a ritualistic display to satiate societal superstitions

that means it is not a warrior culture

>>33916468
>more importantly, framing this discussion in the context of a total war is blatant intellectual dishonesty: there is been no total war half a century, the state of the world today indicates there will probably not be another for some time.


So you are saying that there will never be another total war?

That's nice dear.

Have you ever heard of Neville Chamberlain?

>>33916518
>probably not... for some time

That is obviously not the same as "never". Book that as another example of your blatant intellectual dishonesty.

>>33916518
Is your reading comprehension so fucking bad you have to ask if he thinks there will never be another total war even though he specifically said "there will probably not be another for some time" what the fuck is wrong with you are you retarded?

File: 1136460790918.jpg (761KB, 3000x2272px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 3000x2272px

>>33916518

but what about
>>33914696
>>33914784

???

>>33916512

I don't need to type another word. You have sought to deny for example that Sparta or Japan were at different stages warrior cultures, ignored the demographic effect of sending breeding age females into combat and the demographic consequences, out right lied about what you have read.

I don't need to type another word.

However I have no doubt that someone who has a personal vocation to attack truth in the cause of some bunch of noise called feminism will continue to think that mooing loudly and often is a substitute for looking at reality an drawing honest conclusions. You need that to live in a comfortable falsehood that makes you far more important than what you primarily are, a biological mechanism for gestation.....no doubt that though fills you with horror. Nonetheless it is the truth..

>>33912190
Then why was it Europe that went on to dominate the world and not the Turks? Then why are you shitskins slime on the underside of the world?

>>33916579
>sought to deny
Note the wording: yours is the self-evident truth, others seek to deny it. A textbook definition of intellectual dishonesty.

>out right lied about what you have read
Where? Or is this more intellectual dishonesty from you?

While we are at it, can you provide a list of your published works?

>feminism
>a biological mechanism for gestation
oh lawdy, I should be the one calling it done. This labeling shit stopped being funny many posts ago, now it is just sad af.

>>33916682
MOO

>>33916682
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_EsxukdNXM

>>33916691

Did you take up my advice? I am so glad.

Express yourself.

>>33916714
>Did you take up my advice? I am so glad.Express yourself.

MOOO!

>>33916579
>>33916579
>You need that to live in a comfortable falsehood that makes you far more important than what you primarily are, a biological mechanism for gestation.....

KEK

>>33916742

The irony here is that if women need to be preserved as breeding stock for a total war, that makes women the most important and valuable resource.

This guy must be a feminist.

>>33915748

try reading the pro-tip

>>33914014
That chart doesn't say what you think it says.

The iq bell curve is proof men are both smarter and dumber than women. It's why most people scientists etc are men, and also why they're 90% of prisons.

Men are more spread out over the chart, women cluster around an average, which is why women are average intelligence, not smarter, not dumber.

>>33916838

look where the arrow is pointing. that is where the military operates.

>>33915717

another sure sign of a intellectually weak person: the need to prejudicially dismiss disagreeable thoughts

then again nobody has ever praised the average /k/unt for being erudite

>>33916349

addressed at least a half dozen times already

try learning how to scroll up

>>33910490
No, its easy to break women in war due to them not being mentally fit let alone physically for killing. Men are made for war, its hardwired into men to fight and kill.

Sure you get some cowards that are a rare exception but no where near the amount of women.

Also a enemy force that combines both women and male soldiers into groups is also very easy to destroy, target the female soldiers by wounding them and watch the retarded male soldiers try to rescue her only to get picked off while she bled out on the ground because she wanted fucking equality.

File: __original_drawn_by_ayyh__2383807a12e9bece1f2043adfbbd7cac.jpg (302KB, 1300x1939px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1300x1939px

Women should be given training for disipline sake, no "GURL POWER" nor "EMPOWERMENT XDD" nonsense, they need real training because everyone needs to be disciplined and prepare for anything.
Women should not be taken to war, a dead man is a dead man; a dead woman is a bunch of dead babies (considering we were living in better times).

Maybe we can get the hot exception that makes the perfect soldier (if only they did not bleed once a month). But they are exceptions, not rules

>>33916497
Actually, for Caucasians and mongoloids, we didn't show till 40k to 10k years ago. When we were cross breeding with neanderthals.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 511x288px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 511x288px

>One man + 50 women = 50 babies
>50 men + 1 women = 49 dead men and 1 babie
CASE CLOSED.

>>33910539
Just not how it works.
By genetic design men will endure more because more muscle mass and testosterone.
It is that simple.

File: Triggering strong womyn.webm (873KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 500x500px

>>33910490
look at em get that penis envy

File: women in the army.webm (3MB, 696x528px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 696x528px

>>33910490

>>33918812
cute...

>>33916125
This

>>33913868
still at the back

>>33918812
That was laugh worthy

>>33918812
>>33919310
her reaction makes it look as if she's shooting with out earpro.

>>33919644
I can't really see what makes her upset either though, at 0:54 it looks like she ejects hot brass onto her knuckle, but she's wearing gloves?

>>33914696
>in a modern total war, the use of strategic nuclear weapons will kill off most of the population regardless of who's in the military.
With the numbers of nuclear arms deployed today, this is not a possibility.

>>33914784
>in a countervalue strike, you end up with most of your cities reduced to radioactive ash and your civilian population dead or dying.
Unlikely for the same reasons as above.

File: 1489443197476.gif (2MB, 500x391px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x391px

>>33912862
>men transgender 3x more than women
that's a problem of society

telling kids shit like this, produces braindamage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz1nKFoGQyI

>>33910539
The main problem being that if you can afford to pay 200 women you could just pay 200 men since the pay is the same for the same rank.
Less logistics problems because you need to manage more stuff for them instead of the just throw everyone in the same tent as it is for men.

I have served with women a nonburger army and they could manage and do their job. They were PoG but so was I. For the role they had, it worked okay but realistically, any substitute to their job could do the same thing but without needing separate tents and others.

If you couldn't find enough people to fill their boots it would be one thing, but it wasn't the case. I, myself, support women being forced to go through conscription (our situation) because of political, not practical reasons.

>>33911591
OR none they just sit there and bitch in the dark

>>33911965
Die Roach

>>33912409
It shuts them up long enough for men to resolve said crisis

>>33912409
"All animals must be able to fly, because what would be the evolutionary advantage in not being able to fly?"

Animals don't evolve to have abilities they don't need. If your species is designed for the different sexes to perform different roles then you don't build them equally.

>>33911945
>race.
>not gender.
Why isn't Liberalism classified as mental impairment.

>>33911817
It's not the pack mules fault women are in their squads. You're still responsible for your squad mates, no matter how fucking useless they are. As long as you show the proper disdain for having to pull other's weight I can't fault them for making sure the whole group finishes the drill.

>>33910539
Youre fucking retarded

>>33910490
even your buddy admitted he need 2 women to every man

>>33910539
Fuck off

>>33912222
Kinda like germany 2017

File: wa.jpg (297KB, 972x1283px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 972x1283px

>>33919984

even if we assume only a few hundred missiles getting through, that's still enough to flatten most major cities and industrial areas.

even so, the vast majority wouldn't die from the initial attack, disease and starvation would be the real killers.