https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...bing-operations.html

Royal Australian Air Force pilots are taught to think of women and take a 'gender perspective' during bombing operations.

The 'Gender in Air Operations' doctrine informs pilots what they should do before dropping bombs in war zones to ensure women aren't placed in danger.

It gives the example of how destroying a bridge used by enemy troops could force local women to walk further to fetch water or wood.

Although destroying this target may provide a military advantage against the enemy, the second order effect may mean that, due to the gendered social roles, women need to travel further afield, on unfamiliar and less secure, well-known or well-lit routes to gather water and firewood,' the doctrine said.

The program has been designed to encourage a 'new way of thinking' in which vulnerable woman aren't at an increased risk of violence or threat.

Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association NSW/ACT president Bruce Relph said the program will also protect pilots.

the writer of this story has misinterpreted what Relph said. It doesn't "protect" pilots

'This is going to make the pilot hesitate, afraid he might be charged with war crimes, and that puts his life in danger because the enemy will not be hesitating to shoot him down,' he told The Daily Telegraph.

However former army officer Bernard Gaynor said: 'We need our Defence Force to train combat warriors, not social justice warriors. The sooner Defence returns to its core business the better.'

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this story is bizarre, but it is being reported by multiple news agencies

Sounds like to me they should take him for a ride at 40,000 ft and kick his out the door.
Chute is optional.

I normally take my Benicar at night, but I just might have to take a double dose right now. What a cart-load of unmitigated bullshit. Bruce Relph is a fugging moron. I hope Mr. Gaynor gave him this look:



JSMH...

Here is the doc:

http://airpower.airforce.gov.a...n-Air-Operations.pdf

Gender in Air Operations

The part about bridges is on page 16

first part of the doc:




and a Gender Advisor will be needed

[/url]

It’s a good idea, but half-measures aren’t going to fix the fundamental problem.
What they need to do is simple: Do what the song says, “Ain’t gonna study war no more,” disband the military entirely, and ask representatives from all the other countries in for a massive group hug.* No more nasty ol’ bombs and warplanes, and no one—regardless of gender—gets hurt.

* Due to lack of alternatives, some representatives may arrive in what appear to be warships and military transport planes, and perhaps even demonstrate their skydiving skills by parachute, but don’t worry, none of the guns and stuff they bring along for part of the show will be loaded.
I’m pretty sure.

Frank Burns (teaching English to Koreans): "Get us out of the U.N."

I got to "United Nations Security Council" and sad F it, just bomb the bastards at home and be done with it.

Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand seem to be in some kind of competition to see which can out-crazy the others

Ahhh... The UN. Kick them out of NYC. No more funding. Demolish the building. Pave over the site.
Maybe they can move to Australia!

So, it’s kinda like LBJ and Robert McNamara’s war policy and ROE updated to the 21st century.

This is a late April Fools joke right...had to check the calendar

quote:

This is a late April Fools joke right

My initial reaction was similar.

But I posted the link to the actual doc (above)

[/url]

Parts of the doc stress having women in decision making positions.

Other parts are very strange.

How sexist is this....just because I have a penis they don't care how far I have to carry water.

Can anyone see Patton saying, "Hey before we attack I need to conference with SME and get input from GFP and GENAD. Hold all operations until they clear the plan of attack."

Where is Airsoft Guy?

As he would say:

"You can't hug kids with those arms!"

First off, it's not "gender" it's "sex". Gender is a grammatical construct used to specify suffices of nouns and pronouns and forms of verbs in some languages. There are usually 3 "genders": masculine, feminine, and neuter. Living creatures have a "sex" and there are only 2: male and female. The use of "gender" as a substitute for "sex" is deplorable and should cease.

Secondly, this policy is total fecal matter. If a bridge needs to be destroyed for military reasons--destroy it! It's destruction's effects on the local population (especially to one specific sex) are immaterial.

flashguy

Reminds me of the old joke about the end of the world...

-The Washington Post: "God says world to end tomorrow; women and minorities hardest hit."

I'm a proponent of total war. Just like a physical fight on an individual basis - avoid it if at all possible. Take steps to de-escalate and de-fuse, but if a fight becomes necessary, then do whatever it takes to win. No such thing as a fair fight. If destroying physical infrastructure will hasten the end to a conflict, do it. If hammering the 'civilian' population will cause the enemy to surrender or render them ineffective - do it. Whatever it takes, once the balloon goes up it's win at all costs.

Maybe we should have not bombed the shit out of Japan and Germany during WWII and just enroll their Military leaders in an Conflict resolution /anger management course.

quote:

First off, it's not "gender" it's "sex".

The doc included this:




which I found confusing.

"gender does not equate to women" who ever said it did ?

and gender determines a person's position and value ? really ?

Civilized people are gonna have a pretty damn hard time winning wars if they worry about inconveniencing the citizens of their enemy nations.