Actually it's confusion. You highlighted the part about only 500 out of 2000 survived the war. I'm trying to discern if you think that putting women in combat is a good idea, after having highlighted that, or if you were just ignoring that part because WOMEN SNIPERS!
I brought up the matter of the female Russian snipers to illustrate that they have in fact been effective in combat.
I just highlighted the whole numbers thing to offer some perspective on it. The 2000 was the important part, so don't read too much into it. I'll leave it to someone else to calculate the overall casualty rate during that conflict if a comparison would be valuable.
To answer you directly as to whether women in combat should be held to the same physical standards as men, I offer the following. Note this is apart from the possible sexual-erotic-romantic difficulties it may pose, or other problems, such as the menstrual cycle matter:
Disclaimer: I have never been in the military, nor, obviously, in combat. So here's my ivory-tower theory on the matter of women qualifying to a universal arbitrary standard of physical abilities for combat.
Look at it this way. The role of the 9mm pistol in combat is different from the role of the various long arms. One does not expect the pistol to deliver effective accurate fire at 600 yards*. Nor does one expect a Jeep to take the same role as a battle tank.
Similarly, one does not expect a C-130 gunship to take on the same role as an F-111.
In these comparisons, their, so to speak, "MOSs" are different, yet all of those are effective in combat.
If you follow these parallels, I see no reason why it should be necessary for a female soldier to meet the same arbitrary physical requirements of (let's say) doing 20 pullups as male combatants.
Just as it is not necessary to require the official sidearm to penetrate a helmet at the also-arbitrary 300 yards* for long arms.
Or a C-130 to dogfight with a MIG.
That's my non-professional ivory-tower opinion on the matter.
Challenge away.
Terry
* Or whatever the hell it is lately. And when I say "arbitrary," I mean what's the difference between 300 yards and 301 yards... or, for that matter, 20 pullups as opposed to 21 pullups. Or 19.
(And incidentally, I seem to recall the same kind of debate as to the mental capacity of negroes (nowadays, "blacks") to be effective in combat. Yet (I am told), the first casualty of the Shot Heard
'Round the World was probably a black man. Their role in the Navy was limited to stewards and cooks, and in the Army, later on, to artillery. Took a bit of balls for the military higher-ups to change that.)
