Women on submarines

goldorak · 11-23-09, 08:26 AM

Nice it was time.

ETR3(SS) · 11-23-09, 12:13 PM

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 · 11-23-09, 12:18 PM

Quote:

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) · 11-23-09, 12:30 PM

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

goldorak · 11-23-09, 12:33 PM

Quote:

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) · 11-23-09, 01:35 PM

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 · 11-23-09, 01:40 PM

Quote:

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 ?

11-23-09, 12:13 PM	#2
ETR3(SS) Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Between test depth and periscope depth Posts: 3,021 Downloads: 175 Uploads: 16	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. __________________ USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine.

11-23-09, 12:30 PM	#4
ETR3(SS) Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Between test depth and periscope depth Posts: 3,021 Downloads: 175 Uploads: 16	Because if everyone else does it we should too? How many of those navies operate nuclear submarines? __________________ USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine.

11-23-09, 01:35 PM	#6
ETR3(SS) Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Between test depth and periscope depth Posts: 3,021 Downloads: 175 Uploads: 16	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. __________________ USS Kentucky SSBN 737 (G) Comms Div 2003-2006 Qualified 19 November 03 Yes I was really on a submarine.

11-23-09, 08:26 AM	#1
goldorak Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 2,320 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Nice it was time.