Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Wed Feb 20 19:45:02 2002
Hey, guys, got a few things on my mind that need
asking.

Firstly, can anyone explain to me exactly how vectored
thrust works (but in layman's terms)? Or, if it's
described well in any particular book, tell me where
it is?

Secondly, can anyone tell me what ELITE US forces
allow women? I mean, I know ladies can get into the
army, the navy, the air force and the Marines...but
what about the Rangers? Force and Battalion Recon?
Delta Force? The Green Berets? Navy SEALS? And if a
unit doesn't allow women, is it because they simply
don't allow women, or is it because their requirements
are so tough that no woman has ever managed to meet
them yet?

Thirdly...okay, well, I won't bother the list with
this one. There are a few parts to it. If someone
knows anything about how the Secret Service operates,
though, could you send me a private message?

Thanks, guys.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Wed Feb 20 20:05:01 2002
> Firstly, can anyone explain to me exactly how vectored
> thrust works (but in layman's terms)? Or, if it's
> described well in any particular book, tell me where
> it is?

Umm.....that's a tough one.....it works kinda like magic? It just does!
LOL

>
> Secondly, can anyone tell me what ELITE US forces
> allow women? I mean, I know ladies can get into the
> army, the navy, the air force and the Marines...but
> what about the Rangers? Force and Battalion Recon?
> Delta Force? The Green Berets? Navy SEALS? And if a
> unit doesn't allow women, is it because they simply
> don't allow women, or is it because their requirements
> are so tough that no woman has ever managed to meet
> them yet?
>

Not a single one of them........as far as I know they don't even let
women into combat arms units
Actually I may have to amend that one.....I know women can attend
airborne school and air assault school, they may actually be able to
attend ranger school because any MOS (military occupational specialty)
can become a ranger. I'm fairly sure however that they can't, and I
know it's a definite no to special forces (green berets) and delta force

> Thirdly...okay, well, I won't bother the list with
> this one. There are a few parts to it. If someone
> knows anything about how the Secret Service operates,
> though, could you send me a private message?

Duh....how can anyone know how they operate? They're secret! LOL
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Wed Feb 20 20:05:07 2002
Rand Ratinac wrote:

> Firstly, can anyone explain to me exactly how vectored
> thrust works (but in layman's terms)?

Imagine a powerful house fan. It blows air across the room. When
tilted over it blows air to the floor.

Vectored thrust uses jet engines (the fans) blowing their exhaust out of
ducts that can turn from facing back to facing down. In the modern
Harrier, the ducts have, IIRC, a 90 degree arc. From straight back to
straight down. By 2060, I imagine that vector thrust aircraft have 100+
degree arcs for added manueverability. As for vector thrust ground
vehicles (T-birds), they probably have a 45 degree arc from 10 degrees
forward to 35 back. Most of the thrust is used to cushion the vehicle,
the rest for manueverability.



> ... And if a
> unit doesn't allow women, is it because they simply
> don't allow women, or is it because their requirements
> are so tough that no woman has ever managed to meet
> them yet?

I imagine it's a mix of both, leaning more toward the harsh
requirements.

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

I will not have captives of one sex guarded by members of the
opposite sex.

Used Without Permission
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (George S Waksman)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Wed Feb 20 20:15:02 2002
>Firstly, can anyone explain to me exactly how vectored
>thrust works (but in layman's terms)? Or, if it's
>described well in any particular book, tell me where
>it is?

Basically, instead of flying by changing the direction air surfaces face (rudders and
airleons) like normal airplanes, a vectored thrust vehicle "flys" by aiming its
jets.

Compare the way a harrier jet takes off to that of any other airplane; the harrier aims
its jet outtakes down and fires its jets to go straight up, any other plane fires its
engines and goes forward until it has enough speed to generate sufficient lift with its
wings to take off.

The difference between a harrier (jump jet fighter) and a thunderbird is that the jump jet
fighter can aim its engines straight back and fly like a normal plane whilst a thunderbird
must keep its engines pointed partially down in order to maintain altitude.

-George Waksman
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Wed Feb 20 20:25:02 2002
In a message dated Wed, 20 Feb 2002 7:52:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, Rand Ratinac
<docwagon101@*****.com> writes:

> Hey, guys, got a few things on my mind that need
> asking.
>
> Firstly, can anyone explain to me exactly how vectored
> thrust works (but in layman's terms)? Or, if it's
> described well in any particular book, tell me where
> it is?
Well I am going to give this a try, If anyone else has a better way of explaining how VT
works, or if I did not understand my readings please let me know.

Vector Thrust works on a simple concept of push, you have an energy source, Ducted Fan,
Jet Engins, turbo props, etc. This source of energy (thrust hear after) on standard
vehicles generally push in one direction, however add a nozel (kind of like a short hose
that can stand up to the energy/heat/power) this nozel can be moved and directed to change
the general direction of the thrust. This will couse 2 things to happen.
First you loose a little bit of power (this is considered negligable compared to the
benifits)
Second your monuverability increases derastically.


So for example,
Take a Vehicle add 4 VT ports(This could be ported from one power source {low powered
vehicle and cheaper to build} or from 4 individual sources{more powerful and more
expensive}) now not only do you have the ability to float you off the ground, but you can
go foward, backword, and side to side with little resistance, becouse the nozels can move
very quickly and change the direction of the thrust.

I hope this answers your questions, and if I misunderstood what I have read please let me
know.

Thank you,
Jeff
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Wed Feb 20 20:25:07 2002
> Vectored thrust uses jet engines (the fans) blowing
their exhaust out of ducts that can turn from facing
back to facing down. In the modern Harrier, the ducts
have, IIRC, a 90 degree arc. From straight back to
straight down. By 2060, I imagine that vector thrust
aircraft have 100+ degree arcs for added
manueverability. As for vector thrust ground vehicles
(T-birds), they probably have a 45 degree arc from 10
degrees forward to 35 back. Most of the thrust is
used to cushion the vehicle, the rest for
manueverability.

So a Harrier jet is an example of vectored
thrust...marvellous.

> > ... And if a unit doesn't allow women, is it
because they simply don't allow women, or is it
because their requirements are so tough that no woman
has ever managed to meet them yet?
>
> I imagine it's a mix of both, leaning more toward
the harsh requirements.
> Iridios

Sorry, Iridios - what I meant was, for any specific
unit that does not allow women to join it, what are
their specific reasons. As in, a case by case basis. :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Wed Feb 20 21:05:01 2002
> Not a single one of them........as far as I know
they don't even let women into combat arms units
Actually I may have to amend that one.....I know women
can attend airborne school and air assault school,
they may actually be able to attend ranger school
because any MOS (military occupational specialty) can
become a ranger. I'm fairly sure however that they
can't, and I know it's a definite no to special forces
(green berets) and delta force

I thought that might be the case.

Hey, do you know if there's any kind of legislation
being worked on at the moment about women in combat
roles?

> Duh....how can anyone know how they operate? They're
secret! LOL

:P

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Wed Feb 20 23:35:01 2002
> Hey, do you know if there's any kind of legislation
> being worked on at the moment about women in combat
> roles?
There's tale to the fact that there's a few chicks being placed into
armor, infantry, combat engineer, and field artillery slots to see if
they can do the job but I've seen nothing and won't say anything until I
do see it myself.
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 05:05:18 2002
According to Rand Ratinac, on Thu, 21 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> Firstly, can anyone explain to me exactly how vectored
> thrust works (but in layman's terms)? Or, if it's
> described well in any particular book, tell me where
> it is?

It's very simple: fit a jet engine with one or more exhausts that can be
turned, which means the hot gases coming out of the exhaust can be aimed in
a specific direction. Whatever way it's aimed in, the aircraft will move in
the opposite direction -- action = reaction and all that.

The best current example is the Harrier attack aircraft: it has four
exhausts, two on either side of the fuselage. When they're aimed downward,
the aircraft moves vertically or can hang in one place (and blasts a hell
of a lot of noise toward anyone nearby, I'll add as a personal experience
note :) while if they are turned to point backward, the aircraft will gain
forward speed.

> Secondly, can anyone tell me what ELITE US forces
> allow women?

No women in combat units in the US, so SOF (Special Operations Forces) will
not admit any.

> And if a unit doesn't allow women, is it because they simply
> don't allow women, or is it because their requirements
> are so tough that no woman has ever managed to meet
> them yet?

I saw an item on TV some time ago that mentioned that women can meet the
requirements with not too much difficulty (not much more than men can)
given decent preparation -- IOW, by training well before they would apply,
rather than only start doing that after acceptance into training.

However, a problem is that, in modern western armies, training standards
for regular units are generally lowered for women (sometimes officially,
but more often by the instructors being forced to look the other way in the
interest of letting enough women pass to meet political requirements). Why
this is a problem, is because if politics decides women should be allowed
in SOF, this might happen there as well -- with even more undesirable
results than in regular units.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 07:50:01 2002
>From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
>Hey, do you know if there's any kind of legislation
>being worked on at the moment about women in combat
>roles?

There was an attempt here in the UK to put through legistlation to allow
women in frontline combat outside the navy but it died very very quickly.
Women in combat roles, particularly combat infantry roles was something we
(used collectively for the government) just couldn't hack.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 07:55:01 2002
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Rand Ratinac wrote:

> Thirdly...okay, well, I won't bother the list with
> this one. There are a few parts to it. If someone
> knows anything about how the Secret Service operates,
> though, could you send me a private message?
>

...and this news just in.. men in black were seen entering the residence
of a Mr Ratinac today, who has not been seen since. Police are describing
the disapearance as "deserved"......

--
john@*****.net http://www.kript.net/shadowrun
Quick! How does one Unsummon a Demon Lord!?!
SRGC SR1+ SR3++ !SR2 h b++ B--- UB IE+ RN+ !W ma+++ gm M-- P-
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Joshua Mun)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 08:50:01 2002
Rand Ratinac wrote:
>
> Hey, guys, got a few things on my mind that need
> asking.
>
> Firstly, can anyone explain to me exactly how vectored
> thrust works (but in layman's terms)? Or, if it's
> described well in any particular book, tell me where
> it is?
>
The explanations so far have been quite accurate as to how vectored
thrust works but with the exception of a one they have all focused on
how the harrier jump jet and other similar jet powered vtols work. The
marines Osprey is another example of vectored thrust. In this case the
thrust comes from two high powered turboprop fans and instead of
rotating the ducts they rotate the entire engine. Another example of
vectored thrust is in the new f-22 advanced fighter jet. In this case
they use vectored thrust purely to enhance the maneuverability of the
plane. Some later versions of the f-15 used vectored thrust as a kind
of air brake by reversing some of the thrust produced by the jet
engines. vectored thrust is merely a means by which the direction of
the pushing power of an engine can be changed so as to create a desired
affect (vertical flight, increase maneuverability, increased
deceleration, etc.)

> Secondly, can anyone tell me what ELITE US forces
> allow women? I mean, I know ladies can get into the
> army, the navy, the air force and the Marines...but
> what about the Rangers? Force and Battalion Recon?
> Delta Force? The Green Berets? Navy SEALS? And if a
> unit doesn't allow women, is it because they simply
> don't allow women, or is it because their requirements
> are so tough that no woman has ever managed to meet
> them yet?
>
women can enter the seal training but can not become seals. I am not
sure about the other elite forces but so far no women are allowed in any
combat arms units. There is and has been for some time a push in the
legislature to allow women into these roles but so far it has not
happened. The reasons given for not allowing them in have been numerous
and in some cases well thought out. Some say that women just can not
hack it. Others that women would be unfairly treated or that they would
cause a lack of unit cohesion. Others point to what would happen if
they were to become prisoners of war. In any case there is a strong
inertia that has to be overcome before they would be let into combat
positions. IMHO if a woman could perform up to the same standards as
the men I see no reason why that woman should be barred from any job
that men are allowed to do. I am not one that is in favor of lowering
the standards for women unless the standards for the men are lowered
along with them. If a certain level of performance is necessary it is
necessary for both men and women and the standards should reflect this.
Ok, I'm off my soap box now.


--
--------------------
"...Capitalist success [in the new information economy] is possible only
as long as most of the researchers remain 'communists'."
- Dr. Pekka Himanen (The Hacker Ethic)

"Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life."
- Bertolt Brecht
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (lance dillon)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 09:00:02 2002
Joshua Mun wrote:

>
> > Secondly, can anyone tell me what ELITE US forces
> > allow women? I mean, I know ladies can get into the
> > army, the navy, the air force and the Marines...but
> > what about the Rangers? Force and Battalion Recon?
> > Delta Force? The Green Berets? Navy SEALS? And if a
> > unit doesn't allow women, is it because they simply
> > don't allow women, or is it because their requirements
> > are so tough that no woman has ever managed to meet
> > them yet?
> >
> women can enter the seal training but can not become seals.

I heard of one reasoning behind this. Some seals won't allow women because
they go in the water, and women bleed. One smell of blood in the water and
you'll have a serious shark problem.
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 09:30:01 2002
>Firstly, can anyone explain to me exactly how vectored
>thrust works (but in layman's terms)? Or, if it's
>described well in any particular book, tell me where
>it is?

The Harrier jet fighter. But, seeing as I am getting all this in digest
form, this has probably been answered better by others.

>Secondly, can anyone tell me what ELITE US forces
>allow women? I mean, I know ladies can get into the
>army, the navy, the air force and the Marines...but
>what about the Rangers? Force and Battalion Recon?
>Delta Force? The Green Berets? Navy SEALS? And if a
>unit doesn't allow women, is it because they simply
>don't allow women, or is it because their requirements
>are so tough that no woman has ever managed to meet
>them yet?

To my knowledge (Derek probably knows more on this), there are no women
currently serving in any special forces branch. This may have a variety of
political explanations, but the bottom line is, woman are not placed in a
position to act as ground combat troops in the American military. Since
being ordered to jog through a mine field under enemy fire to lob a grenade
into a machine gun nest and then die is not my idea of a good way to spend
Saturdays, I cannot imagine why this is a bad thing. But it is sexist,
since many women are just as qualified as men to become expendable field
assets. Just watch the footage of the Longest Race or other survival
challeges. Now, in the 2060's, gender discrimination may or may not be a
factor in deciding how someone can die for their country. I would guess
that the UCAS would no longer bar women from ground combat roles. Japan
remains would not put women in ground combat units, but would definately
allow women bodyguard roles, even on dangerous assignments. The elven
nations seem to have no gender prejudice about combat. Aztlan would not,
but many of the NAN would. The CAS probably would as well. European
nations would each have their own take, but I would bet Germany would let
women fight, while the Mediterranean countries would not. The Scandinavian
countries would almost certainly allow woman in combat roles if they wanted.
The Middle East and Southern Asia would probably not. With merc groups
and corp armies, the whole equation gets completely tossed. Each group
would be different.

>Thirdly...okay, well, I won't bother the list with
>this one. There are a few parts to it. If someone
>knows anything about how the Secret Service operates,
>though, could you send me a private message?

Actually, the SS and U.S. Treasury Dept. would be a good study for any
GM/player who thinks a government cannot keep up with corps for scary
security forces. The full details of the Secret Service structure and
operations are probably not known even to the Secret Service. (jk)
Under their current authority, they can step into any case involving
telecommunications fraud (decking), illicit financial transaction across
state lines or US borders (any payment to runners, if you want to be
nasty...the government may not be able to touch the corps, but the deniable
assets are prime targets), and most acts of terrorism or espionage carried
out on domestic soil (everything else that runners do, just about). The
Secret Service is a quiet, powerful organization with INTERNAL oversight.
They police themself. Illegal phone tap? Time for a retroactive court
order. (this may sound like an overly paranoid assessment...but this
organization is VERY hard to research for the average private citizen) Now,
IIRC in the Lone Star SB, the FBI/NSA/SS merged into the UCAS FedPol, while
the DEA/ATF were rolled into LS. Think about what that would mean for the
average runner who mucks around in a government host. They will be up
against people who are above the law, because the UCAS will NOT tolerate LS
interference. They are going to be very territorial given the methods that
formed LS.

In answer to your question though, I think whoever said "duh, their secret"
pretty well nailed. You can try to check their web page. You can check the
Treasury Dept. page too. I think you will find that the only window on SS
affairs is 30 years out of date.

Korishinzo
--now under SS surveillance ;)

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 09:40:01 2002
>From: Joshua Mun <grenaldi@*********.net>
>The
>marines Osprey is another example of vectored thrust. In this case the
>thrust comes from two high powered turboprop fans and instead of
>rotating the ducts they rotate the entire engine. Another example of
>vectored thrust is in the new f-22 advanced fighter jet.

The osprey is not a Vectored thrust design, granted some of the principles
apply but it is a tilt-rotor craft and has its own principles which would
complicate explainations more than nessecary, the F-22 may vector its jet
exhaust but again it is not a vectored thrust aircraft. A couple of
prototypes have been built which are vectored thrust along with the
Harrier's replacement but that hasn't been given a designation to my
knowledge but the Harrier is the only production military aircraft to be
based around vectored thrust.
More importantly it's one everyone recognises. (and a british design)
<Cue Flag waving, National anthem...etc>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 10:35:02 2002
At 02:45 PM 2/21/2002 +0000, Lone Eagle wrote:
>>From: Joshua Mun <grenaldi@*********.net>
>>The
>>marines Osprey is another example of vectored thrust. In this case the
>>thrust comes from two high powered turboprop fans and instead of
>>rotating the ducts they rotate the entire engine. Another example of
>>vectored thrust is in the new f-22 advanced fighter jet.
>
>The osprey is not a Vectored thrust design, granted some of the principles
>apply but it is a tilt-rotor craft and has its own principles which would
>complicate explainations more than nessecary, the F-22 may vector its jet
>exhaust but again it is not a vectored thrust aircraft.

More specifically, a vectored thrust vehicle constantly vectors the thrust
provided by the engine. In the case of the Harrier the thrust is being
vectored even when it's in forward flight mode.

The F-22 can vector it's thrust, but it doesn't continuously vector the
thrust. The thrust is only vectored (by making adjustements in the exhaust
nozzle) during maneuvering. But when it's flying straight and level the
thrust isn't vectored (it leaves the engine and goes straight out the back
of the aircraft).

The Osprey's thrust isn't vectored at all. The rotors are indeed tilted,
but the thrust generated by the rotors isn't changed or redirected in any way.

:)

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
--
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (CJ Tipton)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 12:40:02 2002
Actually, Doc, there is a U.S. special ops background that will
accommodate women. Try Air Force Para-Rescue. Because they are not
classified as a
combat unit (I laugh), women are allowed entry. The same is not true of
USAF Combat Control and Tac-P operators, who are classified as combat
unit members (thus excluding women) and have almost identical entry and
physical training requirements to the para-rescue operator.

Anybody who thinks women shouldn't be allowed in combat is really just
dodging getting their hoop kicked by my sister.

As for legislation, their is always legislation in the works to give
women a broader role (no pun intended) in the military. It rarely goes
anywhere,
but there is always legislation in the works.

COWBOY(chases the rant away with a stick and a can of body spray)
CJ
Arkades@****.com
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 14:35:08 2002
According to Ice Heart, on Thu, 21 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> I would bet Germany would let women fight

I take it you are talking about a different Germany than the one in which
women were restricted to being medical personnel and playing musical
instruments in bands until last year, right? :)

> The Scandinavian countries would almost certainly allow woman in combat
> roles if they wanted.

RL story: Probably the largest firefight between UN forces and Bosnian
Serbs during the Bosnian civil war was a Danish tank unit destroying some
Serb tanks, anti-tank guns and infantry after said Serbs had fired on them.
This action saw the unit commander's Leopard 1 MBT expend its entire main
gun ammunition load -- when asked why, her reply was, "Because that was all
I had."

> The Middle East and Southern Asia would probably not.

Except Sri Lanka, I suppose. The Tamil Tigers have large numbers of women
soldiers, one of the reasons being that women are treated much more as
equals of men by the TT than in the government-controlled parts of the
country.

> Korishinzo
> --now under SS surveillance ;)

That is _not_ a good abbreviation here... :/

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 15:00:01 2002
At 20:18 21.02.2002 +0100, Gurth wrote:

> > I would bet Germany would let women fight
>
>I take it you are talking about a different Germany than the one in which
>women were restricted to being medical personnel and playing musical
>instruments in bands until last year, right? :)

And if "we" hadn't been forced to do it, everything would've been fine...

<snip>

> > The Middle East and Southern Asia would probably not.
>
>Except Sri Lanka, I suppose. The Tamil Tigers have large numbers of women
>soldiers, one of the reasons being that women are treated much more as
>equals of men by the TT than in the government-controlled parts of the
>country.

Don't forget the recent suicide-attack by a palestinian woman...

> > Korishinzo
> > --now under SS surveillance ;)
>
>That is _not_ a good abbreviation here... :/

Somewhat, yes. I'm curious what he means, though :)


--
Arclight @*********.de
I won't turn into a snake. It never helps.
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gak The Great)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 16:25:02 2002
Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, Gurth whispered:
> According to Ice Heart, on Thu, 21 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> > I would bet Germany would let women fight

> I take it you are talking about a different Germany than the one in which
women were restricted to being medical personnel and playing musical
instruments in bands until last year, right? :)

At least they're starting.. and if I'm lucky, I don't have to do any
[censored] service (*hope*)
tho I fear I will.. :(
AFAIK the women that did enroll (only normal forces, I think) since then did
fairly well, statistically as good as we men did. Of course that could be
false figures.

> > The Scandinavian countries would almost certainly allow woman in combat
> roles if they wanted.

> RL story: Probably the largest firefight between UN forces and Bosnian
Serbs during the Bosnian civil war was a Danish tank unit destroying some
Serb tanks, anti-tank guns and infantry after said Serbs had fired on them.
This action saw the unit commander's Leopard 1 MBT expend its entire main
gun ammunition load -- when asked why, her reply was, "Because that was all
I had."

That's got a certain, screwed logic to it ;)
<nitpick>
I take it you mean she did that (the expend thing) without having to;)
</nitpick>

> > The Middle East and Southern Asia would probably not.

> Except Sri Lanka, I suppose. The Tamil Tigers have large numbers of women
soldiers, one of the reasons being that women are treated much more as
equals of men by the TT than in the government-controlled parts of the
country.

I'd say this is true to a certain extent for all (most) feedom
fighter/revolutionary/terrorist organizations.

> Korishinzo
> --now under SS surveillance ;)

> That is _not_ a good abbreviation here... :/

true..

speaking of surveillance.. I did get an ominous e-mail 'bout a year ago
after I joked 'bout the NSA with a friend (over e-mail). It warned me from
something.. like, once they're on your tail, they'll never let go.
<dark irony/sarcasm>
So rest assured, the US spy system does work, and will probably fend off any
danger to the state. If they happen to mention it by e-mail..
</dark irony>

-- GAK THE GREAT

"Ein Ring, sie zu knechten, sie alle zu finden,
Ins Dunkel zu treiben und ewig zu binden,
Im Lande Mordor, wo die Schatten drohn."
Sauron aus "Herr der Ringe von J.R.R. Tolkien
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Arclight)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 17:15:02 2002
At 22:32 21.02.2002 +0100, Gak The Great wrote:

<snip>

>At least they're starting.. and if I'm lucky, I don't have to do any
>[censored] service (*hope*)
>tho I fear I will.. :(

You know, it's called duty because it's not supposed to be fun ;)


--
Arclight @*********.de
I won't turn into a snake. It never helps.
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Thanatos)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 17:40:02 2002
> Firstly, can anyone explain to me exactly how vectored
> thrust works (but in layman's terms)? Or, if it's
> described well in any particular book, tell me where
> it is?

I meant to save the message talking about the Harrier jump-jet but I
didn't. Just to point out, though, that the engine nozzles on a Harrier
can swivel from 0 degrees (horizontal) to 98.5 degrees (forward of
vertical) allowing it to actually fly backwards. And yes, they are
incredibly loud.

The F-22 utilizes a technology called thrust vectoring. Similar to the
theory of vectored thrust, the term is applied to conventional fixed wing
aircraft that feature rear mounted engine nozzles capable of directing
thrust in any direction beyond horizontal. NASA toyed with this
capability several years ago, modifying both an F-16 and an F-15 airframe
to utilize the concept. Until now, the Soviets have been the only ones to
have the technology on a combat aircraft (Su-27/35/37).

The real key distinction between vectored thrust aircraft and low-altitude
vehicles is speed and maneuverability in various flight regimes. Vectored
thrust aircraft are still rather clumsy and slow in hovering/low-speed
flight as their control surfaces/systems are not optimized for that flight
regime. SVTOL is primarily designed into a chassis to allow it to operate
from confined areas or undeveloped/improvised landing
strips. Low-altitude vehicles, on the other hand, I've always pictured as
being blended wing in body or lifting body chassis, possibly utilizing the
wing in ground effect concept for low altitude lift and
maneuverability. Thrust comes from a number of gimbal mounted turbine
engines spaced equally along the sides of the vehicle, housed within
armored nacelles to protect them from FOD and hostile fire. As opposed to
a jump-jet, an LAV would be highly maneuverable and very quick to react
while in a low-speed/low-altitude hover.

And just because I'm curious, why are you asking about this?

ACP

-------------------------------------------------------------

The essence of life is struggle and its goal
is domination. There are higher goals and
deeper meanings, but they exist only within
the mind of man. The reality of life is war.

-- The Way and The Power
Lovret
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 18:50:01 2002
lance dillon wrote:

> > women can enter the seal training but can not become seals.
>
> I heard of one reasoning behind this. Some seals won't allow women because
> they go in the water, and women bleed. One smell of blood in the water and
> you'll have a serious shark problem.

If (and I stress the "If") that truly is the reasoning for some, then
it's not really thought out. Men can bleed too. Especially after
getting shot, cut, or blasted with explosives. A women's natural
bleeding (sorry no real polite way to put it) is not constant and can be
controlled.

IMO, the biggest reason for excluding women from special forces is the
harsh requirements, and that most women wouldn't be able to meet them.


--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

I will treat any beast which I control through magic or
technology with respect and kindness. Thus if the control is
ever broken, it will not immediately come after me for revenge.

Used Without Permission
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 18:55:02 2002
Gurth wrote:

> > Secondly, can anyone tell me what ELITE US forces
> > allow women?
>
> No women in combat units in the US . . .

This is not true. Women are beginning to make inroads to normal combat
units. Slowly. IIRC, there was a Marine scout unit that came under
fire in Kuwait and one of the Marines was a woman. You won't see as
many women as men (probably ever) because of psychological and
biological differences between women and men. As someone else said
before, if a woman can meet the requirements set for men to enter combat
units they should be allowed.


--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

All naive, busty tavern wenches in my realm will be replaced
with surly, world-weary waitresses who will provide no
unexpected reinforcement and/or romantic subplot for the hero or
his sidekick.

Used Without Permission
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jed Mitten)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 19:40:02 2002
> > The Middle East and Southern Asia would probably not.
>
>Except Sri Lanka, I suppose. The Tamil Tigers have large numbers of women
>soldiers, one of the reasons being that women are treated much more as
>equals of men by the TT than in the government-controlled parts of the
>country.

I have also heard the Israel exclusively uses women as their "drill sgt.s"
because, if a woman can do it, all the men are pushed that much harder to
match her performance.

Jed

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 26
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Joshua Mun)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 20:15:01 2002
Iridios wrote:
>
> Gurth wrote:
>
> > > Secondly, can anyone tell me what ELITE US forces
> > > allow women?
> >
> > No women in combat units in the US . . .
>
> This is not true. Women are beginning to make inroads to normal combat
> units. Slowly. IIRC, there was a Marine scout unit that came under
> fire in Kuwait and one of the Marines was a woman. You won't see as
> many women as men (probably ever) because of psychological and
> biological differences between women and men. As someone else said
> before, if a woman can meet the requirements set for men to enter combat
> units they should be allowed.
>
I think the scout unit you are talking about was a scout helicopter
unit. In the U.S. Military a scout helicopter is not a combat arms unit
thus women can fly scout helicopters.


--
--------------------
"...Capitalist success [in the new information economy] is possible only
as long as most of the researchers remain 'communists'."
- Dr. Pekka Himanen (The Hacker Ethic)

"Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life."
- Bertolt Brecht
Message no. 27
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Joshua Mun)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 20:25:01 2002
Lone Eagle wrote:
>
> >From: Joshua Mun <grenaldi@*********.net>
> >The
> >marines Osprey is another example of vectored thrust. In this case the
> >thrust comes from two high powered turboprop fans and instead of
> >rotating the ducts they rotate the entire engine. Another example of
> >vectored thrust is in the new f-22 advanced fighter jet.
>
> The osprey is not a Vectored thrust design, granted some of the principles
> apply but it is a tilt-rotor craft and has its own principles which would
> complicate explainations more than nessecary, the F-22 may vector its jet
> exhaust but again it is not a vectored thrust aircraft. A couple of
> prototypes have been built which are vectored thrust along with the
> Harrier's replacement but that hasn't been given a designation to my
> knowledge but the Harrier is the only production military aircraft to be
> based around vectored thrust.
> More importantly it's one everyone recognises. (and a british design)
> <Cue Flag waving, National anthem...etc>
>
I always thought the name vectored thrust came from the fact that you
were able to change the vector or angle of the thrust thus if a aircraft
is able to change the vector of the thrust produced by its engines it is
using vectored thrust. I could very well be wrong but this seemed very
reasonable to me. Now in the case of the f-22, if what you say is true
then the harrier only uses thrust vectoring since in level flight the
thrust is straight through which is most of its flight time.



--
--------------------
"...Capitalist success [in the new information economy] is possible only
as long as most of the researchers remain 'communists'."
- Dr. Pekka Himanen (The Hacker Ethic)

"Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life."
- Bertolt Brecht
Message no. 28
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 20:25:09 2002
> I think the scout unit you are talking about was a scout helicopter
> unit. In the U.S. Military a scout helicopter is not a combat arms
unit
> thus women can fly scout helicopters.

This falls into the same category as combat engineer units....in the
army a female can be a combat support engineer but not a combat
engineer, the difference being very very minute in actual training and
jobs, however the support engineers will be the ones picking up the
identified mine fields after the unit's been led through by the combat
engineers (just an example)
Message no. 29
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 20:45:02 2002
Joshua Mun wrote:

> I think the scout unit you are talking about was a scout helicopter
> unit. In the U.S. Military a scout helicopter is not a combat arms unit
> thus women can fly scout helicopters.

No. I specifically remember it being a ground unit. But... My memory
may be failing me.

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

My pet monster will be kept in a secure cage from which it
cannot escape and into which I could not accidentally stumble.

Used Without Permission
Message no. 30
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Anders)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 22:15:02 2002
----- Original Message -----

:
:
: : IMO, the biggest reason for excluding women from special forces is the
: harsh requirements, and that most women wouldn't be able to meet them.
:
:
: --
: Iridios

No, I know plenty of tough enough women, and there are a lot of guys who
barely make it out of Basic.
Some who don;t
--Anders
Message no. 31
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Thu Feb 21 23:50:02 2002
> No, I know plenty of tough enough women, and there are a lot of guys
who
> barely make it out of Basic.
> Some who don;t
> --Anders


Speaking from personal experience with the US Army.
ok lemme say this, the only way you can fail out of basic is if you're
a) a total physical slug with no aptitude for exercise, b) a mental
reject that can't take someone stressing you so much, or c) you're a
quitter
(I'll apologize for my terminology but it's the only way to get across
my contempt for the changes the army's undergone in its training.)
This is today's army, not the army it used to be, the training now turns
out total pussies. There isn't any physical abuse to beat you into
shape or the proper mentality. There isn't any screaming and yelling to
make you a harder more emotionally stable person. There isn't any of
the things that our grandfathers would have gone through when they
underwent BASIC COMBAT TRAINING. Not one thing about today's basic is
capable of preparing you for any form of combat, it's not even called
Basic Combat Training anymore like it used to be, it's now called
Initial Entry Training (IET). The advanced courses are similar in their
degredation of standards however still maintain their advancement beyond
the lessons learned in IET however that isn't saying a whole lot.
Ranger, Sapper, Special Forces, and Delta Force schools are VERY
mentality intensive, for the most part the only ways to get cut from
these schools is quit mentally, physically, or medically. It's not as
hard as everyone thinks to survive these schools as long as you're
determined to complete the school.
Message no. 32
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 02:15:02 2002
> > I would bet Germany would let women fight
>
>I take it you are talking about a different Germany than the one in >which
>women were restricted to being medical personnel and playing >musical
>instruments in bands until last year, right? :)

I am talking about the post Eurowars, Saeder-Krupp dominated Germany of the
2050s. I don't think the good dragon cares what gender field assets are, so
it would be political suicide for anyone else to voice objection.
:)

> > The Middle East and Southern Asia would probably not.
>
>Except Sri Lanka, I suppose. The Tamil Tigers have large numbers of >women
>soldiers, one of the reasons being that women are treated much >more as
>equals of men by the TT than in the government-controlled >parts of the
>country.

I will amend my special classification of merc groups, and corpsec teams, to
include any non-government sanctioned paramilitary unit.

>That is _not_ a good abbreviation here... :/

For that, I sincerely apologize. I believe Marc had the correct abreviation
of USSS.

Korishinzo

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 33
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Mikko V. I. Parviainen)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 03:20:02 2002
> The Scandinavian countries would almost certainly allow woman in combat
> roles if they wanted.

I don't know about Scandinavian countries, but at least in Finland women
can go into the army, and they get the same training and do the same
things. As regular soldiers, that is, but that is all most men do.

The military service is obligatory for men, about 80% pass it (one tenth
goes into civil service, one tenth has medical problems or such.) I think
something like 200 women are taken into service. From 1995 to 2001 1600
women had completed the women's voluntary military service. I think about
30000 men get into service each year, so women are still a minority.

Women will have to pass tests to get into the military service, mostly
physical, I think. As I never saw a woman soldier during my service, I
don't have any first-hand accounts, but it seems that the women who go
into service are quite fit and more motivated than the men. About half of
the women in service get NCO training, which is quite a bit more than
usual.

There was some commotion a year or so ago about the first women graduating
as officers, so that path is also open. I wait for the time that we have
our first woman as the commander of the defence forces. B-)

(And no, Finland is not part of Scandinavia, even if that is what you were
told at school B-)

--
+++++++++[>+++++++++<-]>-.<+++++[>+++<-]++>++.<++[>++++<-]+>+.<++[>----
<-]>-.>+++[>++++++++++<-]++>++pare@***.fi<+[>++++<-]>+.->+[>++++[<<--->
>-]<-]<.>>+++++++[<++++++++++>-]++++[<+++++>-]<-.>[-]>+++[>++[<<<---->>
<>>-]<-]<<.+.>[-]++[<++>-]<.++.[-]>[-]++++[<++>-]<++.>>++[>++[>-<-]<--]
Message no. 34
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 05:40:10 2002
According to Arclight, on Thu, 21 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> Don't forget the recent suicide-attack by a palestinian woman...

Though that was (so far) a one-off occurrence. It surprises me that they
haven't done that before, though -- after all, if all suicide bombers are
men, then security forces only need to keep an eye on half the people...

> > > --now under SS surveillance ;)
> >
> >That is _not_ a good abbreviation here... :/
>
> Somewhat, yes. I'm curious what he means, though :)

The US Secret Service.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 35
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 05:41:02 2002
According to Gak The Great, on Thu, 21 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> AFAIK the women that did enroll (only normal forces, I think) since then
> did fairly well, statistically as good as we men did. Of course that
> could be false figures.

Like I said, it could be because standards are lowered, officially or
otherwise. However, the only way to know if that's the case or not would be
to ask a Bundeswehr instructor, preferably off the record :) I couldn't tell
from the documentary about female soldiers I watched a few months ago on
ZDF, though.

> <nitpick>
> I take it you mean she did that (the expend thing) without having to;)
> </nitpick>

What I meant was that Denmark has female tank platoon commanders, in combat
units. (Israel also has female soldiers just about everywhere, including in
tank units, but not in front-line ones.)

> > Except Sri Lanka, I suppose. The Tamil Tigers have large numbers of
> > women soldiers
>
> I'd say this is true to a certain extent for all (most) feedom
> fighter/revolutionary/terrorist organizations.

Depends on the culture; I doubt you'll find many female Taliban fighters,
for example.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 36
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bryan Pow)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 06:45:01 2002
>: : IMO, the biggest reason for excluding women from special forces is the
>: harsh requirements, and that most women wouldn't be able to meet them.

>No, I know plenty of tough enough women, and there are a lot of guys who
>barely make it out of Basic.
>Some who don;t

The main reason for keeping women out of the military in general is because
men tend to act stupid in hostile situations. Tests have shown that
militaery men have a much harder time concentrating on the job at hand when
there is the slightest chance that a woman in their team is in danger. This
makes the men act wierd and means that the women feel like they aren't being
trusted, which leads to discord in the ranks.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 37
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lone Eagle)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 06:50:02 2002
>From: Joshua Mun <grenaldi@*********.net>
>I always thought the name vectored thrust came from the fact that you
>were able to change the vector or angle of the thrust thus if a aircraft
>is able to change the vector of the thrust produced by its engines it is
>using vectored thrust. I could very well be wrong but this seemed very
>reasonable to me. Now in the case of the f-22, if what you say is true
>then the harrier only uses thrust vectoring since in level flight the
>thrust is straight through which is most of its flight time.

The difference is this, the F-22 develops thrust in the engines, which are
placed in line with the aircraft's normal direction of flight, and pumps
exhaust out at the rear. It is capable of vectoring its thrust.

Air IN --> Engines --> Exhaust OUT

The Harrier also develops its thrust in the engine (the main reason it is
being replaced is the fact that with only one engine it is not able to carry
the loads required of a combat fighter-bomber) but rather than simply
throwing the exhaust out at the rear of the plane it ducts it to the
Vectored thrust Nozzles. It is incapable of not vectoring its thrust.

Nozzle -> Exhaust OUT Nozzle -> Exhaust OUT
! !________
!______________________ !
_! !
Air IN --> Engine ------> ___________!
___________
_ !
______________________! !
! ________!
! !
Nozzle -> Exhaust OUT Nozzle -> Exhaust OUT



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 38
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 10:35:02 2002
<snipt!(TM)>
> And just because I'm curious, why are you asking
about this?
> ACP

Vectored thrust? Because I've never been entirely sure
whether it was a purely jet thing, or if turbofans or
other methods of propulsion could qualify as VT, as
long as they could be vectored, of course, and I
thought it'd be worthwhile to get the full story while
I was at it.

Thanks to everyone who's replied, btw.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Message no. 39
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 11:45:01 2002
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Iridios wrote:

> IMO, the biggest reason for excluding women from special forces is the
> harsh requirements, and that most women wouldn't be able to meet them.

Actually, the biggest thing keeping women out of combat positions
(including Special Ops) is politics.

Marc
Message no. 40
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Joshua Mun)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 13:20:01 2002
Derek Hyde wrote:
>
> > No, I know plenty of tough enough women, and there are a lot of guys
> who
> > barely make it out of Basic.
> > Some who don;t
> > --Anders
>
> Speaking from personal experience with the US Army.
> ok lemme say this, the only way you can fail out of basic is if you're
> a) a total physical slug with no aptitude for exercise, b) a mental
> reject that can't take someone stressing you so much, or c) you're a
> quitter
> (I'll apologize for my terminology but it's the only way to get across
> my contempt for the changes the army's undergone in its training.)
> This is today's army, not the army it used to be, the training now turns
> out total pussies. There isn't any physical abuse to beat you into
> shape or the proper mentality. There isn't any screaming and yelling to
> make you a harder more emotionally stable person. There isn't any of
> the things that our grandfathers would have gone through when they
> underwent BASIC COMBAT TRAINING. Not one thing about today's basic is
> capable of preparing you for any form of combat, it's not even called
> Basic Combat Training anymore like it used to be, it's now called
> Initial Entry Training (IET).

Speaking as someone who has gone through the new basic and made it, I
can say that while it is true that the drill sergeants are not allowed
to hit or even touch the soldiers it is not true that they are not
allowed or even refrain from yelling at the soldiers. As a matter of a
fact they yell almost constantly. I have heard that in the all male
basics they only pay lip service to not hitting the soldiers. In any
case, while yes, the basic is not the same as it was, it is still not a
walk in the park. Also, Basic is still called Basic Combat Training.
IET is the name for Basic and Advance Individual Training (AIT)
together.


--
--------------------
"...Capitalist success [in the new information economy] is possible only
as long as most of the researchers remain 'communists'."
- Dr. Pekka Himanen (The Hacker Ethic)

"Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life."
- Bertolt Brecht
Message no. 41
From: shadowrn@*********.com (malcolm)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Fri Feb 22 16:15:06 2002
>women in spec forces

yep we haven't had a good war in a long time , some accomplishment
considering our past , not to be sexist in any way , but most world
militaries recognise the need for future generations to continue the
"struggle" this can be achieved by many women and few (very tired, but
happy) men , hence the aversion to place women in the combat line , unless
there will be no future generation , this is why genocidal behaviour is
counter productive to militaries , instead of discouraging the opposition
you double their number ( at least ) ,

my own country ( 12 years ago ) only allowed volunteers into admin or
medical posts , but followed the same PC attitude , that a women
automatically went on officer training ( no women had below the rank of
squad leader but most had pips ) at the same time conscription forced all
white males ( yep i am from the RSA ) into National service , ( even called
national service men ) , now consider the fact that if women want equal
rights there should be no reservation for officer training or special
treatment that would not be equal rights but sheltered employment ,( now
they only accept volunteers) but that was the bad old days and my personal
opinion ,

i have no aversion to women in combat , provided they are capable of doing
whatever is required and ordered of a soldier at that specific time , and
believe me i know very few women ( or men ) capable of doing some of things
i have seen and been ordered to do , but that was the naivete of youth ( 18
and life to go )

BTW I am pro equal rights provided they are Equal rights ,

KANNIEMEERNIE Korperaal , (former)military pacifist
" All animals are equal , some more equal than others " Animal farm ,
Message no. 42
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Anders)
Subject: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)
Date: Sun Feb 24 12:50:01 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Hyde" <dhyde@*********.net>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: RE: DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions)


: > No, I know plenty of tough enough women, and there are a lot of guys
: who : > barely make it out of Basic.: Some who don't
: > --Anders
: :
: This is today's army, not the army it used to be

...
(massively snipped):
...

Sorry for the sore toe, I went thru Basic in the Vietnam era.
--Anders
:

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about DPToQ (Doc's Periodic Torrent of Questions), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!