http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21210585

We kinda do with the SAS-associated units of course, but standard infantry? I can see more reasons against than for, currently.

Part of me thinks that, on average, a women's smaller physique has to be a disadvantage. But another part of me thinks 'set the selection criteria appropriately and if they pass, let them get on with it'.

Certain armies have had front line female soldiers for quite some time and it's not proved a disaster. I linked to a TED talk ages ago that was a Dutch military officer doing a presentation on whether it's possible to have 'a moral war'. The start of the talk was a solider handing an assault rifle to him which he could use as a prop to lead into his proposition. The solider who handed him the weapon was a woman who had been injured in active combat. You'd have to assume that if women soldiers proved unsatisfactory they would have ben removed from the front line pretty sharpish. The army aren't prone to letting their own people get killed in combat, it's bad for morale.

Jon

If theyy can carry the required kit and keep up the pace, then no reason why not if they want too.

Shouldn't lower the physical requirements though

As other's have said, if they pass muster then what's the problem.

The only arguments against that I can think of are the same as those against gay men - lovers might be distracted or act dangerously when their partner is under fire, or personal tiffs could upset General Moral. Personally I don't think it should make any difference to a soldier's actions whatever relationship they may have.

I suppose bleeding might be an issue if you're being pursued by certain aliens.

The same rules would apply though as with any military, serving personnel aren't allowed to fight with partners, they aren't even allowed in the same company or regiment, when my sister and brother-in-law started dating they had an interview with their commanding officers which determined whether they were going into the same field of expertise, luckily my sister was an air traffic controller and my brother was going into engineering. People in relationships would be posted separately as serving personnel as well, which generally causes one to leave the service so they can travel together when different postings come up.

I don't see any issue with women fighting as front-line troops, they are held to the same standards and training and they are perfectly aware of the possible outcomes, just as men are.

You want to go and be a bullet catcher for some politicians war?
Go right ahead.
I've no issue with it at all.

What are the arguments against women in the armed forces?

They run like a girl.

I know guys who would run like a girl.

In all honesty, set the bar and let through anyone who passes- be it male or female.

They throw like a girl too.

Mostly the physical side of it, but relationships (I guess that ranges from extra curricular activities to bitchiness), PMS with an assault rifle (no joke, looked at in the US), the psychological impact (there's little data, especially around torture as you'd imagine)... I mean you could argue about sexism, generalizations and God knows what else with any one of those.

I suspect the difference will be in torture - women are more likely to be raped/turned into sex slaves. But if they're willing to put their life on the line, then I'm all for it.

Well, Men are already raped during torture so I doubt that's much of a deterrent. I'm not personally interested in going to war, but I know people who are, they have done the training, done the hard work and they want the right to fight for their country just like the men.

The relationship thing is interesting. I recall being taught at school that the Spartans were encouraged to bum each other as they'd feel closer to and fight harder for the man next to them.

'You won't shag him? Call yourself a man?'