[squiggleblaz]

Sure okay, let's be serious. The fittest and strongest Swiss woman is fitter and stronger than the least fit and weakest Swiss man. How much overlap does there need to be before it's a serious concern?

Hopefully diet and health today are much better than in the past - probably there's a huge overlap between the tail of women who are not in top decile today, and men who were fit enough to join a century ago. To the extent that there's not, since woman ore exclude, there probably could be with a small amount of training. If a person of a certain strength a century ago was capable of serving their country, why isn't an equivalently strong person today capable?

Moreover, there's many duties in the army that don't directly require top decile strength. Naturally, some of these will need to be done by people who are recovering (since, having recovered, perhaps they will be top decile again). But the amount of technical skill in modern warfare is considerable. A woman could control a drone strike fair easier than a man in recovery.

Aside from snide comments, do you have any reason to think half an army is better than a whole one?

[thrower123]

Fortunately, we don't have to faff about with probablies and suppositions. We have the distributions measured, and political factors aside, it is settled.

Anybody that can get through the training and meet the standards ought to be able to serve. Putting people that can't perform in combat is going to get them, and others, killed though.