Navy intends to let women serve on subs.........

[ZonieDiver]

Maybe this movie was waaaay ahead of its time:

[brown77]

Originally Posted by zauber1

Why not make a 100% female sub crew? This would be a career making slot and would also be a good platform to demonstrate the killer instincts of the female of the species.

If there's any truth to the theory behind Menstrual Synchrony (also known as "The Dormitory Effect") better make sure that isn't a nuclear sub. Time of the month could get pretty tense down there, taking "killer instincts" to a whole new level

[Richard]

Maybe it's a recruiting ploy???

Here's a suggestion for the new dolphins for qualified submariners.

USS W.J. CLINTON, SSBN 68 ('Wolf' Class), to be the first co-ed submarine?

Richard's $.02

[brown77]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

We only aim at people who say idiotic things. Duck.

We do indeed

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

One thing I have always been curious about is, if we ever did have a war where you had all-female crews, would they do things like this?

For example, crews are famous for painting aircraft with ferocious animals and other artwork on them in the U.S. military, with female crews, would we see an inverse of this, say ultra-cutesy-looking stuff, but the more cutesy, the more ferocious the pilot/crew?

For example, bomber planes with cupcakes painted on the side?

Probably not. I think you'll find that women in combat historically have been pretty tough. I doubt there were any cutesy looking stuff on the Russian girls' planes.
Soviet Women Pilots

[LarryW]

Afchic, we have a difference of opinion. That's fine because it's just the way God made Americans. It's my own belief that opinions are based upon a person's life experience and convictions are based on the conclusions one makes from those experiences. That having been said, what follows is my opinion:

The sub issue is one of living conditions, not job related so to speak.

The issue to be addressed is not just "living conditions". It is a matter of existing within a parameter of combat arms. The worn out argument that women can't fight as good as men is (IMO) bogus. I have worked with women, served along side women in the military, and have worked for military women up through the grade of Captain (0-6). Some I have found to be professional in every sense with courage, good leadership skills, and a clear vision of the mission/task at hand. Some have proven to be absorbed with themselves and their own sexuality, and not worth the powder it would take to blow them up. I consider those two extremes to be not unlike male leaders appointed to similar positions.

As far as living conditions in submarines are concerned, please indulge me with this story about submarine life: The day JFK was assassinated the submarine I was embarked in as a TM3 (E-4) was forced to get underway (emergency sortie) from Yokosuka, Japan. We were ordered to proceed to an area in the Northern Pacific and conduct "independent operations", snooping around basically. Our deployment was to last 45 days. Because food stores were not going to be readily available, we stuffed every imaginable cranny on that boat with cases of canned goods. Now, in diesel submarines the first priority for water consumption was for the batteries, second priority was for drinking, and the third was for bathing. For 45 days the only men, of the 85 men assigned in that boat, who had the luxury of a shower were the cooks (2) and the Messcooks (2). The showers they took were "Navy Showers", whereby one would quickly get wet, secure the water, soap up, turn on the water to rinse, then get out. Showering daily was not an option, however. Variations or delays were not tolerated. The rest of us enjoyed sponge baths when we could, but certainly not daily. There were no laundry facilities in the boat. The injection temperature (the temperature of the sea water outside) was barely enough to keep it a liquid. Inside the boat it was colder than all get out. We wore most of the clothes we had most of the time. This was our life for those 45 days. As sometimes happens (but thankfully not often) our relief slicked a main bearing enroute to relieve us, and as a result we were obliged to turn around and spend another 45 days on station. Oh, we managed to rendevous with a tin can (once) for some additional chow, but they had no mail on board for us, no one left the boat, and we didn't get any clean clothes.

I have lived with men in very close quarters. We all acted in a professional manner. Did I shower with them, of course not, but none of the guys on my team had a problem with me having the very limited shower facilities for a few minutes every day. Can't imagine that some kind of "out of the box" thinking will be used to integrate women onto subs.

I very respectfully suggest that you have no idea what it's like to live with 85 men the majority of whom have only had a sponge bath in the last 90-days. Yes, that was a diesel submarine, and today's boats are Cadillacs in comparison. But, todays submarines still have the required and trained for ability to remain at sea for periods extending well past the 90 days of a current deterrent patrol.

If neither sex can act in a professional manner, than both sexes should be drawn and quartered. You act professionally, then there shouldn't be a problem.

We are in violent agreement.

I don't think anyone with a brain will say that because women serve on subs, therefore they should be allowed to be a QP/SEAL/PJ….Somehow I don't think that applies to subs, in many cases.

The "goose/gander" argument is not one joined by those "with a brain". It is a purely PC convention the lazy bastards who make policy use to justify what they hope will gain them a favorable impression from the MSM. That having been said, if women are allowed in submarines then you can bet someday we will see "G.I. Janes" in a team of Quiet Professionals.

Finally, the nuclear deterrent triad was comprised of missiles in silos, bombs dropped from long range aircraft, and by nuclear submarines deployed at sea. Women served in the first two with pride and accomplishment. Unlike the submarine element, those in silos and aboard long range bombers were not confined for 90+ days at a time. It is my opinion that the current training and readiness posture of the submarine element of that triad should not be subjected to risk just to satisfy the PC attitudes of people who sit on cows but imagine they are bull riders.

I appreciate and greatly respect your opinion. We just have had different life experiences that have brought us to differing conclusions.

v/r,

[Buffalobob]

In my graduating class of SFOC there was probably less than 10% of the officers that I would have trusted to hold my back. Of the NCO's I knew at 10th Gp I would have trusted about 80+% to walk slack for me.

She can walk slack for me any day of the week if she is willing.

I weighted all of 172# in RVN. Upper body strength doesn't count for as much as a calmness under fire and a nice touch on the trigger.

In the picture, of the two of them, who would you rather take one single cold bore shot at you at 1000 - 1500 yards? Take your pick, its your life. I trained them both.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

One thing I have always been curious about is, if we ever did have a war where you had all-female crews, would they do things like this?

For example, crews are famous for painting aircraft with ferocious animals and other artwork on them in the U.S. military, with female crews, would we see an inverse of this, say ultra-cutesy-looking stuff, but the more cutesy, the more ferocious the pilot/crew?

For example, bomber planes with cupcakes painted on the side?

Yeah, because all women are cutsey!!

[afchic]

Originally Posted by LarryW

Afchic, we have a difference of opinion. That's fine because it's just the way God made Americans. It's my own belief that opinions are based upon a person's life experience and convictions are based on the conclusions one makes from those experiences. That having been said, what follows is my opinion:



The issue to be addressed is not just "living conditions". It is a matter of existing within a parameter of combat arms. The worn out argument that women can't fight as good as men is (IMO) bogus. I have worked with women, served along side women in the military, and have worked for military women up through the grade of Captain (0-6). Some I have found to be professional in every sense with courage, good leadership skills, and a clear vision of the mission/task at hand. Some have proven to be absorbed with themselves and their own sexuality, and not worth the powder it would take to blow them up. I consider those two extremes to be not unlike male leaders appointed to similar positions.

As far as living conditions in submarines are concerned, please indulge me with this story about submarine life: The day JFK was assassinated the submarine I was embarked in as a TM3 (E-4) was forced to get underway (emergency sortie) from Yokosuka, Japan. We were ordered to proceed to an area in the Northern Pacific and conduct "independent operations", snooping around basically. Our deployment was to last 45 days. Because food stores were not going to be readily available, we stuffed every imaginable cranny on that boat with cases of canned goods. Now, in diesel submarines the first priority for water consumption was for the batteries, second priority was for drinking, and the third was for bathing. For 45 days the only men, of the 85 men assigned in that boat, who had the luxury of a shower were the cooks (2) and the Messcooks (2). The showers they took were "Navy Showers", whereby one would quickly get wet, secure the water, soap up, turn on the water to rinse, then get out. Showering daily was not an option, however. Variations or delays were not tolerated. The rest of us enjoyed sponge baths when we could, but certainly not daily. There were no laundry facilities in the boat. The injection temperature (the temperature of the sea water outside) was barely enough to keep it a liquid. Inside the boat it was colder than all get out. We wore most of the clothes we had most of the time. This was our life for those 45 days. As sometimes happens (but thankfully not often) our relief slicked a main bearing enroute to relieve us, and as a result we were obliged to turn around and spend another 45 days on station. Oh, we managed to rendevous with a tin can (once) for some additional chow, but they had no mail on board for us, no one left the boat, and we didn't get any clean clothes.



I very respectfully suggest that you have no idea what it's like to live with 85 men the majority of whom have only had a sponge bath in the last 90-days. Yes, that was a diesel submarine, and today's boats are Cadillacs in comparison. But, todays submarines still have the required and trained for ability to remain at sea for periods extending well past the 90 days of a current deterrent patrol.



We are in violent agreement.



The "goose/gander" argument is not one joined by those "with a brain". It is a purely PC convention the lazy bastards who make policy use to justify what they hope will gain them a favorable impression from the MSM. That having been said, if women are allowed in submarines then you can bet someday we will see "G.I. Janes" in a team of Quiet Professionals.

Finally, the nuclear deterrent triad was comprised of missiles in silos, bombs dropped from long range aircraft, and by nuclear submarines deployed at sea. Women served in the first two with pride and accomplishment. Unlike the submarine element, those in silos and aboard long range bombers were not confined for 90+ days at a time. It is my opinion that the current training and readiness posture of the submarine element of that triad should not be subjected to risk just to satisfy the PC attitudes of people who sit on cows but imagine they are bull riders.

I appreciate and greatly respect your opinion. We just have had different life experiences that have brought us to differing conclusions.

v/r,

Thanks for providing me your thoughts. And you are right, we have different opinions and I respect yours as well.

As far as leadership is concerned, leadership is leadership. Either you are a good leader or you are not, and I believe it has absolutly nothing to do with your gender. I have met a hell of alot more men in leadership positions that are concerned about aspects of their gender than women. On that we agree.

As far as the living conditions are concerned, I respectfully disagree. Do you honestly think there is any difference between the two sexes in the example you gave? If the women are professional, and understand what the mission is, I doubt you are going to have very many that complain about not getting anything other than a GI shower. I have gone 45 days without anything more than babywipes. I stunk just as bad as the men I was with, and they were the ones complaining about not having a shower, not the women. Now granted we were on a flightline, so the stentch only really got to you in the tents, but none the less, if things such as showering is the only beef, then I think women will learn to deal with it, just as men did. It is a learning process.

Once again, is the concern the ability to perform your duty, or is it living conditions? Are there jobs on a sub that a women physically can't perform? If she can't perform at the standard set, then she shouldn't hold that AFSC (or whatever it is called in the Navy). If she can perform to the standard set, she will get used to being at sea, just as men have, and will perform professionally.

[Plutarch]

Great, continue to use the military as a social experiment. I suppose blue nose day will now become as lame as wog day has. Sad.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Plutarch

Great, continue to use the military as a social experiment. I suppose blue nose day will now become as lame as wog day has. Sad.

How is it sad to allow women to do a job they are trained to do, as long as they can meet the standards?

When I was a cadet in ROTC I was at a function in which the CSAF stated women had no place in the cockpit of a fighter. Low and behold the regulation changed, and women are now flying in combat, and doing so honorably. Good thing we decided to do a social experiment.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by afchic

With that point aside. Women do not get pregnant on their own. If you all have a problem living with women in an environment, such as a submarine, keep your pecker in your pants, and then you don't have to worry about it. Last time I checked I woman can not physically impregnate herself. Is it going to happen, of course it probably will, but to lay the blame soley at the feet of women is just dumb. You all have as much to do with it as we do. If neither sex can act in a professional manner, than both sexes should be drawn and quartered. You act professionally, then there shouldn't be a problem.

I have a lot of respect for you afchic, but I must disagree with you on this one.

I do not know if you have been in an attack boat, but there is not a lot of space for anything, to include privacy. It struck me as not much larger than a couple of C17 fuselages end to end. Sailors are hot racking and sleeping in the open on torpedo tube racks. There are only a couple of showers. IIRC, there are two small washers, and two dryers. Petty officers are stacked very closely, storing almost everything thay own in the 6-8" of space under their mattress, and the only single room on the boat is the skipper's quarters. The other officers are stacked four or five to a single room, with the top of the bottom bunk being even with the floor. There is no doctor, only a limited duty corpsman.

Men get women pregnant. True. But all male crews do not get pregnant. Ever. Now, when the first one gets pregnant, we can divert from the mission to the nearest port, and UCMJ her and the male(s) she identifies as the possible father(s), kicking them all off the boat. Great, now I am down TWO or more crew members, and there are not a lot of extra people on a sub. The Navy already has a problem with female sailors who get pregnant to avoid sea duty. This doubles the duty some men must pull, breeds resentment in the force, and will not help.

You put 120 male sailors on a boat for six months with females, I guarantee they are going to have sex, somewhere, somehow. Guaranteed. It is what people their ages do, with a lot less guilt and stigma than we had growing up. Some will probably get pregnant. Others will cause fights and resentment between crew members. Drama. Probably a double standard for physical requirements as well.

The real question I have is, is the Navy so short of sub crew members that they have to find females to help them out, or is this just a continuation of a social experiment?

TR

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by brown77

If there's any truth to the theory behind Menstrual Synchrony (also known as "The Dormitory Effect") better make sure that isn't a nuclear sub. Time of the month could get pretty tense down there, taking "killer instincts" to a whole new level

OH, it's true. Can you even begin to imagine? No offense to all the women here, seeing as I am one myself, but my God it would be PMS on steriods times a gazillion.

I've written a few bubble heads in the past, this would not be a good idea IMO.

[Kyobanim]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I do have a question to pose to all.

If not now, then when? And why not now?

[GratefulCitizen]

Question from a non-military person regarding "leadership":

Isn't a big part of "leadership" ability reflected in the willingness of others to follow?
It would seem that leadership could be undermined purely by the ingrained attitudes of subordinates, however wrong those attitudes may be.

Here in the civilian world, a man's height has an unreasonable/unfair effect on his ability to "lead".
Life's not fair.

Attitudes can be changed, but is it worth the necessary dedication of time and resources to affect that change?
Is this consistent with the mission of the military?

This is not meant to be disrespectful.
Just curious how significant these "unfair" factors are in the military.