"1)If a woman can pass the training for any aspect of military service why should she not be allowed.
I agree."
In reference I think to serving on the front line?
This isn't as black and white as what it might seem. For example, if you substituted "Prince William" for "a woman" and yes "she" for "he" too, then you can see what I mean. There are issues other then being able. I know that you could do it. For sure. There would probably be great women rambo's than could well be even better than men.
The issue in this particular case is that women would be targets in front line fighting. It is obvious that politically it would be a no goer. It's hard enough for countries with body counts from conflicts, let alone them being women. This is well known and will be exploited by the enemy. Therefore, if women are going to be targeted they then become a liability in front line fighting and could cost lives.
My question then is, if it could be established that yes, women would be targeted, therefore making them a liability, would you insist in sending women to the front line in the quest to prove yourselves?
