Military May Lift Ban on Women in Submarines....

[RabidAlien]

BTW, this threat/discussion has been going on since the early/mid '90s, when I was in, and according to a crusty old bastard of a chief that I had once, its been going on pretty much since women were allowed to be in the military (not just as WAVEs and WASPs). There are simply too many obstacles to making this happen, no matter how much certain groups may want to see it happen.

[comiso90]

True RA but i think subs are a whole lot different

[ToughOmbre]

Can't see it happening. No more than I could see women in a combat MOS (Infantry, Artillery, Armor).

TO

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by comiso90

True RA but i think subs are a whole lot different

I don't quite get your point in context with RA's
are you saying that it IS likely to happen?

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by Colin1

I don't quite get your point in context with RA's
are you saying that it IS likely to happen?

I was acknowledging that as RA pointed out, it's a discussion that has been going on a long time but females in subs are a whole lot different than the military as a whole.

>>are you saying that it IS likely to happen?

i didnt

I sure hope not! If it does, it will be symbolic on a training sub.

.

[Butters]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

The thing is with pregnancies is that once a woman gets pregnant, their life on sea duty is over....

Its sort of a way around the system... That and alot of em are too stupid to carry a condom with them...

And as far as a civilian society wanting this, the only ones I know of that "want" this are politicians and women...

Ill bet u 10,000 dollars not a single submariner wants this to happen....

I was wondering if taking advantage of Navy policy had something to do with it. Guess so...

As far as 'who wants it' being restricted to politicians and women -well, politicians have to at least pay lip service to what their constituents want, and women DO make up at least 50% of the voting population.

And as for your little wager - Hmmm...seems to me that if I offer a bunch of submariners a thousand bucks to say that they'd like this to happen, at least one of'em will take me up on it. That leaves me with a cool nine grand easy money

All kidding aside, I don't see it as a good thing either. As Comiso points out, the drama and inevitable strife caused by cramming a bunch of horny, lonely men and women into a metal tube for months at a time, can only have a negative affect on the smooth operation of a submarine. But again, you have to convince the public that the cost of the decrease in military efficiency outweighs the benefits to those women who feel it is their constitutionally protected right to have equal access to ALL publicly financed jobs.

That the submariners may not like it is not the issue. They have to do what the public wants. That, or just quit and set up their own 'No Girls Allowed!" submarine club where they can pool their money to buy and maintain their own Boy's Only submarines. Not sure how that would work out. Those things are friggin' expensive! And if their wives won't even let them buy that big screen TV they keep beggin' for...

The submariners and others who oppose a co-ed sub policy have to do what their opposition does. Let their representatives know that when voting time comes around, they'll be voting for the people who support their viewpoint.

And please, before anyone starts flaming me for being a ACLU-card carrying socialist fem-nazi -I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate

JL

[GrauGeist]

Another thing those idiots in the "great white tower" aren't taking into consideration:
When a female soldier, sailor, airman, etc, gets pregnant, it takes an able-bodied person with all thier training and experience out of the service pool...meaning now they have to replace that person with another person with the same set of skills WHILE keeping the pregnant one "on the payroll" so to speak...

I can see women serving in close quarters like surface vessels, tanks, helos and similiar equipment where thier mission is of short duration, or accomodations that allow for free movement.

But not a sub...and I still say that the half-wit people pushing this stupid idea need to go aboard a sub and spend a few months at sea on a typical tour...

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by GrauGeist

Another thing those idiots in the "great white tower" aren't taking into consideration:
When a female soldier, sailor, airman, etc, gets pregnant, it takes an able-bodied person with all thier training and experience out of the service pool...meaning now they have to replace that person with another person with the same set of skills WHILE keeping the pregnant one "on the payroll" so to speak...

Sounds about right
plus getting her off a surface vessel shouldn't really stretch them resource-wise; getting her off a sub could (probably would) compromise the sub's position. If an agency with a 'vested interest' knew when she left port and then where/when she came up, they could also work out her speed. I'm no submariner but I'm led to believe that it's important to keep that sort of info hushed.

If the plan is to NOT lift her out when she comes to or close to term then some part of the sub will need to be given up for obstetrics. Somehow I can't see that on a combat vessel but it doesn't answer the first point either.

Looks no-win to me, sounds like a good idea someone once had over lunch.

[RabidAlien]

Originally Posted by comiso90

True RA but i think subs are a whole lot different

Comiso, I spent the majority of my enlistment as a submariner. Been out to sea pokin holes in the ocean many many times. I may not know much else, but I do know that women on subs will NEVER work out. Other than the occasional (and very rare) specialist female rider, they will not be permanently assigned to subs. Nothing against them and no slights on how capable they may be to do their jobs, but there's still a lot of simple logistics problems. Subs are NOT big enough to have seperate male/female quarters, storage, or heads (shower/bathroom). Not to mention that, after 40 straight days out at sea, tempers are running pretty frikkin high and people are just ready to see sunlight again...throw a generally emotional female in there who's PMS'd at least once during that time, and something will happen. So unless they want to borrow the Soviet's example of double-hulled boats (two subs inside one outer shell..don't think they made too many of those, they're supposed to be friggin huge), subs are going to remain "boys only clubs".

[Clay_Allison]

My brother is currently on board the USS Buffalo. I've heard very detailed descriptions of life on a fast attack sub. It would be an unmitigated disaster for the sub fleet. There is no room, there is no privacy, there is extreme job stress, there is no restraint in the way the crew members talk to each other. You want to tell a crew of people on a psychological breaking point to walk on eggshells around someone who needs 6 kinds of special treatment? Good luck.

[sabrina]

All right, I'm a woman myself and I totally agree that this isn't going to work....I can see where they're coming from, and I think it's great that we have strong, unselfish women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country....

....but there are plenty of places in which to do so....plenty of opportunities in the army, navy, air force, marines, you name it, without causing a potential BIG problem by cohabiting on board a cramped submarine. I really don't think this is going to be a pretty situation...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

They should just have an all women crew. Might be an interesting thing to try out. I say this because I personally do not have a problem with women on submarines. I think women could do the job just as good as men could. I however do not think that women and men can co-exist on a submarine without major problems ranging from hostility, sex, and the fact that there just is no room to have separate living and hygiene spaces in the cramped confines of a submarine.

[RabidAlien]

That scenario has been tossed about as well, Adler...the common deterrent to that, the one everyone repeats at the deckplate level (meaning...the worker-bees, not the policy makers) is that women, in groups for long periods of time, tend to synchronize "cycles". The Powers That Be are (supposedly) worried about what would happen with a nuclear submarine with 150 cranky women aboard, and possibly nuclear missles.....once a month, a belligerent nation disappears in a radioactive cloud....

Doubt that's true, or all of the story, but the rumor of an all-female crew is as old as the rumor of females on subs. Nobody I've talked to has had any problems with the idea of an all-female crew, and we do enjoy the laugh at the thought of missiles popping out of the ocean at certain times of the month...

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

They should just have an all women crew. Might be an interesting thing to try out. I say this because I personally do not have a problem with women on submarines. I think women could do the job just as good as men could. I however do not think that women and men can co-exist on a submarine without major problems ranging from hostility, sex, and the fact that there just is no room to have separate living and hygiene spaces in the cramped confines of a submarine.

The problem is, you need an experienced submarine crew in place to train new crew members. New sailors have to pass qualifications on a large number of tasks and watch stations. You don't put some brand new crew on board a sub, complete with chiefs and officers, with NOBODY qualified. On a submarine there is no room for extra personnel, that means that you need to be able to do your job and any number of others, because there are no specialized backups. That means that the sub can only integrate a certain amount of new crew at a time, and that's with experienced Chiefs, First Classes, and officers.

There is NO RATIONAL PURPOSE in having a female on a submarine. There is no advantage to the military in doing that.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

The problem is, you need an experienced submarine crew in place to train new crew members. New sailors have to pass qualifications on a large number of tasks and watch stations. You don't put some brand new crew on board a sub, complete with chiefs and officers, with NOBODY qualified. On a submarine there is no room for extra personnel, that means that you need to be able to do your job and any number of others, because there are no specialized backups. That means that the sub can only integrate a certain amount of new crew at a time, and that's with experienced Chiefs, First Classes, and officers.

There is NO RATIONAL PURPOSE in having a female on a submarine. There is no advantage to the military in doing that.

I hear you and agree with you.