Women on submarines

[bobchase]

Unlike Steve's April Fools joke...this time it may be real.

Bob

Military may lift ban on women in submarines

Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:31am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Pentagon officials are calling for an end to the U.S. military's historical ban on allowing women to serve in submarines.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the top U.S. military officer, advocated the policy change in written congressional testimony distributed by his office to reporters on Friday.
"I believe we should continue to broaden opportunities for women. One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring (women's) service aboard submarines," Mullen said.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said he was "moving out aggressively on this."
"I am very comfortable addressing integrating women into the submarine force," Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, said in a statement.
Women account for about 15 percent of the more than 336,000 members of the U.S. Navy and can serve on its surface ships. But critics have argued that submarines are different, pointing to cramped quarters where some crews share beds in shifts.
Nancy Duff Campbell, an advocate for expanding the role of women in the U.S. armed forces, said it would be easy to resolve problems associated with so-called "hot-bunking."
"They say, 'How could we have the women sleeping in the same area as men?'" said Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC).
"But they already separate where the officers sleep from the enlisted, so it's not like it can't be done."
Roughead said the problem of sorting out accommodations on the U.S. fleet of 71 submarines was not insurmountable.
Allowing women on submarines would be another step forward in expanding the role of women in the U.S. military. Last year, a woman was promoted to the rank of four-star general for the first time.
Women are still barred from traditional frontline combat roles in the U.S. military. But female soldiers often run the same risks as men in Iraq and Afghanistan, where bombings and other insurgent attacks can happen almost anywhere and target any U.S. unit.
(Reporting by Phil Stewart; editing by Paul Simao)

[Thomen]

http://subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=156634

[Sailor Steve]

Wasn't my joke - was Neal's

[TLAM Strike]

Of the 42 countries that operate submarines, Sweden, Spain, Norway, Canada and Australia allow women to serve on them...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092503385.html

One thing that article dosn't mention is that Norway has also had a Female CO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solveig_Krey

BTW Norway operates(ed) Kobben class subs which are about the size of the Control Room of a 688 class sub. So the USN should just ask them how they intergaded woman in to the crew, because whatever problems could crop up in something that size they must have delt with them on the first week.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Well, I can see it working if the entire crew were female (I don't think it's a good idea to mix genders on warships for reasons which should be self-evident).

In all seriousness, I also wonder if it would be good if an entire crew were having PMS simultaneously due to cycles syncing up.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

In all seriousness, I also wonder if it would be good if an entire crew were having PMS simultaneously due to cycles syncing up.

Thats actualy a myth. A womans cycle may be the same as another wormans but thats just random chance. Think of it as the windshield wipers and turn signal on a car, at some point they maybe operating in sync but then they go out of sync.

[Onkel Neal]

Female mids eager for submarine duty: Up to 7 academy seniors could be among first women aboard




It's creeping up on us.

[goldorak]

Nice it was time.

[ETR3(SS)]

This will destroy the esprit de corps of the submarine community. Submariners aren't stupid people. I see retention rates dropping significantly after this is implemented. Affirmative action at its best here.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

This will destroy the esprit de corps of the submarine community. Submariners aren't stupid people. I see retention rates dropping significantly after this is implemented. Affirmative action at its best here.

Other navies have women in service in subs and it works.

[ETR3(SS)]

Because if everyone else does it we should too? How many of those navies operate nuclear submarines?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Because if everyone else does it we should too? How many of those navies operate nuclear submarines?

What does nuclear power have to do with women serving aboard subs ?
You do know that modern AIP subs can stay in continuos operation for over a month ? Whats the difference with a nuclear sub that can stay in operation for 90 days and then has to go back to port to resupply ?
Citing nuclear propulsion for noit wanting women in subs is a strawman argument.

[ETR3(SS)]

Yes I am aware of the endurance of modern AIP submarines. My point being that a nuclear subs endurance is much longer than a month and on an Ohio class can be the full 90 days. Also there is no need to pull into a port to resupply. Many a time my boat has taken on supplies while not in a port via a smaller boat.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Yes I am aware of the endurance of modern AIP submarines. My point being that a nuclear subs endurance is much longer than a month and on an Ohio class can be the full 90 days. Also there is no need to pull into a port to resupply. Many a time my boat has taken on supplies while not in a port via a smaller boat.

Ok, but what has "boat endurance" have to do with having women onboard ?
Is it acceptable to have them on subs that go on patrol for 1 month, but not acceptable to have them on subs that go on patrol for several months ?
Why should that be ?

[ETR3(SS)]

We didn't have any stores onboard like the surface boats do. So when the women run out of tampons then what?

Here's another thing to consider. The whole reason the Navy is looking at putting women on submarines is because there is a lack of male volunteers. The reason for that is the Navy's fault. Every week bus loads of plebes are taken down to Bethesda Naval Hospital so they can get eye surgery. Reason for this is that the Navy can put more pilots in the cockpit. Before the days of PRK and LASIK if you had glasses you had 2 choices, surface fleet or subs.

Want another reason? Women are held to a different standard than men yet are doing the same jobs. For one the physical standards are different. Female standards are in some areas HALF of what it is for a male. Now whats something a woman can do but a man can't? That's right get pregnant. If a woman wants to have children I don't care. But if that woman becomes pregnant while attached to a sea command she transferred to a shore command for a period of two years. Someone has to take her place in the fleet, and that someone is a man. What did he do to deserve getting his shore cycle cut short? Not exactly "equal opportunity."

I am quite fervent about women in the military in general. This is probably best attributed to my first hand experience in the Navy. Having served afforded me an opportunity to see things that the average person doesn't get to see.