The issue of whether women should be assigned to submarines gets dragged out every few years. A lot of people in and out of the Navy think there is some sort of grand mystique to being in the "Silent Service," but actually, the work is long, sleepless, cold, dirty, smelly, and damn dangerous. I know because I was there and I know the few here who were in the Silent Service would agree. Now, I know that women have served admirably and with courage and determination in war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was there too and I can say that as difficult and dangerous as it was/is in OEF-OIF, submarine duty, essentially a perpetual accident waiting to happen 24/7 can be more dangerous. I attached an article that was posted on Military.com below. Read it and let me know what you think.
Why not? I think any willing and able citizen should be able to do whatever they want to do, as long as they can qualify. I thought in America, we stood for Freedom and Liberty, and that it was for everyone, not just some.
__________________
Don't let their ignorance and hate intimidate.
Yes I do. If they want equal rights and equal pay they should have to serve anywhere and do any job that a male armed forces member has to do, including combat.... Men and women serve side by side in the Israeli Army. Yes that definitely includes my daughter who is active duty Air Force.
__________________ USAF SSgt 80-86 IN GOD WE TRUST NRA MEMBER
If a woman wants to serve on a sub, I think that option should be open to her. However, there is a good argument as to whether the distraction of having women on board is a good thing or not. But, I have met some female marines that I would not want mad at me!
__________________
Dedicated to SwedeSteve, Arkansashunter and Ezearln. Rest in peace my friends.
i dont think they should be . i have lead both soldiers and sailors in all male and mixed company both and i have found in almost all instances of mixed company that there was a high degree of tension and the root of it was always from the women.
add to that the special needs of women and the restrictions placed on bubbleheads and you are just asking for more trouble
in maybe a 100 years or so but i dont think we are all equal enough yet to be able to perform our duties professionally . there are exceptions but it needs to be consistant before you can trust ALL of the crews Lives in the situation and the fate of the world
Yes I do. If they want equal rights and equal pay they should have to serve anywhere and do any job that a male armed forces member has to do, including combat.... Men and women serve side by side in the Israeli Army. Yes that definitely includes my daughter who is active duty Air Force.
The truth is that in addition to submarines, women cannot serve in Navy and Army Special Forces, Marine 0311 infantry, Army 11B infantry and other Army combat arms MOSs. However, through "point of contact" such as serving as MPs, motor transport, and as other combat support and support troops, and in combination with the unintended circumstances of both proximity and timing, our brave women warriors have found themselves on the cutting edge with their male counterparts. That was not the initial plan when women's roles were expanded. Marines have a philosophy that their women Marine warriors are to be trained as warriors and able to fight on the cutting edge, but not purposely placed in any position where they are in an immediate combat scenario. The Marines are the only branch of service that have that model and actively implement it.
White Rook - I commend your daughter for her service and her fine parents for bringing her up right. I question though whether military service should demand "all things from all people." Case in point; my wife was a medical technician in the Air Force and served in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. She was equipped and trained to perform her job in the medical field and armed and trained to defend herself. I would expect nothing less from the Air Force. However, I would not want our country to expect her to close with and engage the enemy when there are men who should take on that chore. Again, the "Marine Model" that I mentioned comes to mind.
__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Was "Your" Voice Heard Today? NRA-ILA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Opponents of lifting the ban have argued for decades that space is at a premium on submarines. To accommodate privacy needs of females, including separate berthing and "heads" or toilet/shower facilities, would be "prohibitively expensive," Navy has argued. Watch duty, bunk management, extra supplies and incidents of fraternization and harassment would complicate submarine life, according to one study done for the Navy in 1994."
__________________ You only have the right's your willing to fight for......
Maybe they should have a few subs that are all-women and then they would not have to worry about it.
That was actually considered once, but it fell under the auspices of sexual segregation. Also, there are simply some functions where lots of men able to exert brute strength such as in a damage control situation, including fire and flooding scenarios, precludes the notion of an all female crew.
__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Was "Your" Voice Heard Today? NRA-ILA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The truth is that in addition to submarines, women cannot serve in Navy and Army Special Forces, Marine 0311 infantry, Army 11B infantry and other Army combat arms MOSs. However, through "point of contact" such as serving as MPs, motor transport, and as other combat support and support troops, and in combination with the unintended circumstances of both proximity and timing, our brave women warriors have found themselves on the cutting edge with their male counterparts. That was not the initial plan when women's roles were expanded. Marines have a philosophy that their women Marine warriors are to be trained as warriors and able to fight on the cutting edge, but not purposely placed in any position where they are in an immediate combat scenario. The Marines are the only branch of service that have that model and actively implement it.
White Rook - I commend your daughter for her service and her fine parents for bringing her up right. I question though whether military service should demand "all things from all people." Case in point; my wife was a medical technician in the Air Force and served in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. She was equipped and trained to perform her job in the medical field and armed and trained to defend herself. I would expect nothing less from the Air Force. However, I would not want our country to expect her to close with and engage the enemy when there are men who should take on that chore. Again, the "Marine Model" that I mentioned comes to mind.
we have become a nation of political p...ys, unable to finish a war, only capable of getting young people killed for corporate interests, useless, no matter what party is runnung things.
imagine, .... female service people arriving home in body bags, equal opportunity my a..
we are not israeil.
btw, i don't think we should ever send troops to fight, unless we are prepared to totally annihilate the other side.
ltlv, I will try to address each of your concerns in the order that you brought them up:
We have become a nation of political pu$$!&$? Perhaps.
Even the Israeli Defense Force doesn't earmark their women for combat. Because Israel is a small country and the fluidity of the conflict there, women may “find” themselves in the fight, but they are not the “fist” of the IDFs capabilities.
With that said, the Iraq War was won ... twice. First it was against Saddam Hussein and the Baathists; and then again against al-Qaeda, and Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Iraq has since had two successful national elections and the implementation of an integrated and highly trained Iraqi Army that has already averted the civil war that American leftists in the MSM and in the Congress were gleefully hoping for. The Iraq War would have ended much earlier if the anti-war left had not been undermining our efforts from day one.
As far as our proud women warriors; there is a place for them. Now as in World War II, we can't win wars without them. Granted, they should be able to serve closer to operations than they did 60+ years ago, but I don't think they should be intentionally placed in harm's way either … as they are now. Again, I refer everyone to the highly successful "Marine Model" of training women warriors to fight, arming them to fight, but keeping them out of the fight whenever possible. Perhaps then, we would not have so many fatalities among our women. Perhaps too, more men could step up to the plate and serve in time of war and national urgency than have so far.
Finally, the theory of total annihilation is good in the proper context. During my years in the submarine service, we called it Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD, which was a cornerstone to thermonuclear warfare. I don't think that that is what we have here.
__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Was "Your" Voice Heard Today? NRA-ILA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to the reader comments on http://www.military.com/featur...15240,201577,00.html, it doesn’t look to good for Admiral Mike Mullen’s suggestion that women be allowed to serve on submarines. The last time this was suggested was in 1994 during the Clinton Administration and it was killed by all the Navy wives who fired up the [then] beleaguered Clinton congress just before they were flushed out buy the conservative movement to get rid of them. The Navy and the Silent Service is obviously against this PC scheme, so I guess Admiral Mullen knows he will have to make his move quickly before a likely ’94 style sweep of the Congress happens in 2010.
__________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Was "Your" Voice Heard Today? NRA-ILA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ltlv, I will try to address each of your concerns in the order that you brought them up:
We have become a nation of political pu$$!&$? Perhaps.
Even the Israeli Defense Force doesn't earmark their women for combat. Because Israel is a small country and the fluidity of the conflict there, women may “find” themselves in the fight, but they are not the “fist” of the IDFs capabilities.
With that said, the Iraq War was won ... twice. First it was against Saddam Hussein and the Baathists; and then again against al-Qaeda, and Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Iraq has since had two successful national elections and the implementation of an integrated and highly trained Iraqi Army that has already averted the civil war that American leftists in the MSM and in the Congress were gleefully hoping for. The Iraq War would have ended much earlier if the anti-war left had not been undermining our efforts from day one.
As far as our proud women warriors; there is a place for them. Now as in World War II, we can't win wars without them. Granted, they should be able to serve closer to operations than they did 60+ years ago, but I don't think they should be intentionally placed in harm's way either … as they are now. Again, I refer everyone to the highly successful "Marine Model" of training women warriors to fight, arming them to fight, but keeping them out of the fight whenever possible. Perhaps then, we would not have so many fatalities among our women. Perhaps too, more men could step up to the plate and serve in time of war and national urgency than have so far.
Finally, the theory of total annihilation is good in the proper context. During my years in the submarine service, we called it Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD, which was a cornerstone to thermonuclear warfare. I don't think that that is what we have here.
sns,
i am ambivalent/or in agreement with most of your post. i am unable to properly respond without reducing myself to one of those who rant.
except to say, i did not think there was anyone who believed as u do about iraq.
a war started on a lie, just like that other useless war, viet nam, killing our young people, so costly that many other more useful programs cannot be implemented.
btw, i don't think we should ever send troops to fight, unless we are prepared to totally annihilate the other side.
pat
Amen to that. And as long as you have 535 egotist looking out for his/her own a** first we are never going to finish one in a way we can hold our heads up.And never accomplish anything except to kill a lot of brave men and women.
When all is said and done. More is said than done.
One of the problems Gene Roddenberry had to deal with when he was putting the concept of Star Trek together was whether or not to have a coed crew. He wanted one for future story reasons and because, as was mentioned by White Rook and SnS, women should be able to serve anywhere in any MOS for which they are qualified - GR was quite liberal when considering roles (in the duty sense) for women. That was ultimately the way he went. In the first pilot, Captain Pike's XO was a woman. In TOS, one of his department heads (Lt. Uhura) was a woman, and we saw women as engineers, gunnery department personnel and as a JAG, in addition to senior roles in the diplomatic service. Roddenberry had no problem with women serving in any position for which they were qualified.
One problem the mores of the time would not allow Star Trek to discuss on-air but which Roddenberry as the show's creator and guiding light, Herb Solow of NBC and Gene L. Coon (the line producer) had to think through regarding the Enterprise's coed crew was sex and birth control on a starship out a long way from anywhere. The solution they finally settled on was that female crew members would receive a single, monthly injection for contraception.
US submarines are on patrol for 60 to 120 days at a time depending on world tensions and the mission. That means there is the issue of menstrual periods if you were to assign women to the nuke boats. There are now contraceptive methods that effectively stop women from having periods for extended lengths of time, so that problem could be eliminated from the equation. That also would prevent the consequences of any sexual activity that might take place. I know that privacy on a nuclear boat is next to nonexistent for anybody but the senior officers, but after 16 years at sea I know that sailors are ingenious. If a male and female sailor wanted to get it on, they'd find a way, believe me.
As for berthing and washing, that could be solved by having shower hours and segregating the females into one berthing area and if necessary adjusting the duty hours of the women to accommodate the available bunk space. It is a problem that could be solved.
However, I also take the point made by SnS that there are some things in a submarine, especially damage control, that absolutely require brute strength. I don't hold with 'adjusted physical standards' for jobs that require brute strength. On a submarine there is just no room for someone who can't pull his or her weight all the way in all areas. I suspect the requirement that women have to meet the same physical standards as men before being allowed to go to sub school and then to serve in the submarine fleet would disqualify almost all the women who wanted to serve in submarines.
I know everyone dreams of a world where everyone is perfectly equal in all respects. But the reality is that people are not equally capable, equally smart, equally motivated, equally strong, or equally honest. We need to acknowledge this and make assignments of female service personnel with that reality in mind. And to me, that means that females ought not to be allowed to serve in submarines. Not because of a lack of smarts but rather because of the fact in an emergency, they might not have the physical strength to deal with the problem and survive it.
One of the problems Gene Roddenberry had to deal with when he was putting the concept of Star Trek together was whether or not to have a coed crew. He wanted one for future story reasons and because, as was mentioned by White Rook and SnS, women should be able to serve anywhere in any MOS for which they are qualified - GR was quite liberal when considering roles (in the duty sense) for women. That was ultimately the way he went. In the first pilot, Captain Pike's XO was a woman. In TOS, one of his department heads (Lt. Uhura) was a woman, and we saw women as engineers, gunnery department personnel and as a JAG, in addition to senior roles in the diplomatic service. Roddenberry had no problem with women serving in any position for which they were qualified.
One problem the mores of the time would not allow Star Trek to discuss on-air but which Roddenberry as the show's creator and guiding light, Herb Solow of NBC and Gene L. Coon (the line producer) had to think through regarding the Enterprise's coed crew was sex and birth control on a starship out a long way from anywhere. The solution they finally settled on was that female crew members would receive a single, monthly injection for contraception.
US submarines are on patrol for 60 to 120 days at a time depending on world tensions and the mission. That means there is the issue of menstrual periods if you were to assign women to the nuke boats. There are now contraceptive methods that effectively stop women from having periods for extended lengths of time, so that problem could be eliminated from the equation. That also would prevent the consequences of any sexual activity that might take place. I know that privacy on a nuclear boat is next to nonexistent for anybody but the senior officers, but after 16 years at sea I know that sailors are ingenious. If a male and female sailor wanted to get it on, they'd find a way, believe me.
As for berthing and washing, that could be solved by having shower hours and segregating the females into one berthing area and if necessary adjusting the duty hours of the women to accommodate the available bunk space. It is a problem that could be solved.
However, I also take the point made by SnS that there are some things in a submarine, especially damage control, that absolutely require brute strength. I don't hold with 'adjusted physical standards' for jobs that require brute strength. On a submarine there is just no room for someone who can't pull his or her weight all the way in all areas. I suspect the requirement that women have to meet the same physical standards as men before being allowed to go to sub school and then to serve in the submarine fleet would disqualify almost all the women who wanted to serve in submarines.
I know everyone dreams of a world where everyone is perfectly equal in all respects. But the reality is that people are not equally capable, equally smart, equally motivated, equally strong, or equally honest. We need to acknowledge this and make assignments of female service personnel with that reality in mind. And to me, that means that females ought not to be allowed to serve in submarines. Not because of a lack of smarts but rather because of the fact in an emergency, they might not have the physical strength to deal with the problem and survive it.
cyrano,
thats a test of strength not gender. do u believe that there are not women stronger han the average submariner?
forget about adjusted physical standards, there are plenty of women who could pass.
sexual activity???? gay guys aren't smart enough to find a way?
I agree that maybe on average men are stronger then women...but I know some mighty burly women and some little weak men. A hand-picked all-female crew would be as serviceable as a all-male crew.
__________________ I'm here for a good time, to h*ll with the red wine, pour me some moonshine!
