LogFAQs > #969977388

funkyfritter posted...

Pretty sure any relevance gender had to warfare vanished when we invented tanks, planes and ICBMs.

Ground troops are still a necessity, though. It's the main reason why we haven't fully gone all-in on a fully mechanized and automated military.

Armored vehicles and artillery strikes can soften up a target area, and things like aircraft and even unmanned drone attacks can take out specific targets, but to really control a given area you still need infantry. At which point the individual physiology and training of the soldiers becomes an issue again.

At least until we invent full mech support frames for troops (which we're working on!). But even then individual psychology still plays a role...



Yellow posted...

Even in modern militaries, it's been shown that women on the battlefield directly lead to more friendly casualties.

If I remember correctly, it was either proven or at least hypothesized that that particular phenomenon is at least partly based on the fact that men tend to act differently in combat when women are present. Male soldiers are more inclined to prioritize the safety of the woman over the mission or their own safety, which in turn makes them more prone to making stupid mistakes.

So it's not so much that women are less effective in combat, it's that women make men less effective in combat.



Yellow posted...

Nunchucks are also stupid. They are probably the most useless "weapon" if you could even call them that.

To be fair, they sort of fall into that weird category where they were originally invented to be something you could use as a weapon but also pass off as a non-weapon. Like how the tonfa were originally threshing tools, but were basically turned into batons you can use to beat the shit out of someone.

When nobles make it illegal for peasants to have weapons, peasants tend to make weapons out of their farming tools or other stuff. So you get less effective weapons, but they're easier to hide or justify when you get caught.