Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: nanis@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Jeff Nanis)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Women in combat MOS's
Message-ID: <1991Jun29.015240.3318@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 29 Jun 91 01:52:40 GMT
References: <1991Jun25.025044.28238@cbnews.cb.att.com> <1991Jun27.021812.5323@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nanis@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Jeff Nanis)
	I don't think this is an inappropriate topic for sci.military,
however, I would like to see the topic organized into several sub-topics.
The issue of women in combat roles falls neatly into three somewhat
distinct arguments:

	a) Women flying combat missions in aircraft. Issues here involve
G-tolerance, reflexes, and implications of shoot-down, capture, and treatment
as POWs.

	b) Women onboard ship. Combat or not, this involves issues of
physical strength, pregnancy,  and fraternization in close quarters.

	c) Women in ground combat. This involves physical strength, endurance,
and the aforementioned POW problem.

	Posters, Bill, everyone, I think if we can keep these issues 
separate and identify _what_ we mean when we talk about "women in combat",
the discussion will be much less prone to emotional flame wars.

--
Jeff Nanis                            Radars 'r' us.  
nanis@ll.mit.edu                      An official opinion? Not on my life.