I don't care if the fire department sends a kid and an 80-year-old to save me from a burning building as long as they meet the same standards. I don't care if my car's seatbelt is made of paper and engine firewall is made of plastic as long as they meet the same standard. It is all word games until people start dying.

You imbecile, by standards we mean effectiveness in real scenarios. If a plastic meets the same standards as a metal plate when stopping bullets (hypothetically), then that means they both have the same capacity to save lives. If plastic has less capabilities, it will obviously be rejected.

Have you read any information about this? Or just spouting off because you are unfamiliar with and dislike the military? Women in combat will result in more U.S. troops dying.

Then don't conscript women into the bloody military! They're not being absolutely [i]forced[/i] to do this, and actually accepting them is up to the discretion of the one in charge. If women don't want to be on the front lines, then they won't sign up for the front lines. You're reacting to this like the moment this is accepted, you'll suddenly see only female soldiers motherfuсking everywhere.

The U.S. hasn't drafted people into the military since the Vietnam War. 14.5% of U.S. troops are female. 92% of female U.S. soldiers in a 2014 survey said they do not want combat roles. A Sept. 2015 Marine study found that units with both sexes performed worse on 69% of measured tasks than all-male units, females had more than twice as many injuries, slowed the unit down, and were less accurate shooters even if they had more marksmanship training. Fairness is unimportant in this. What matters is casualty rate and who wins battles. Any number of female combat soldiers greater than zero will mean statistically more casualties and injuries, and degraded combat performance. These are real lives we are discussing, not our little make-believe kingdom of fairy rainbows. Have you ever even met a member of the U.S. military?