US Navy Mans Two Nuclear Subs with Women

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by generalderpanzertruppen

Australia became the second country in the world to allow women to serve on submarines in 1998. I don't see why some of you guys seem to have a problem with them serving in the Silent Service. We haven't lost a single Collins class sub because of women serving onboard, why would it be an issue for the USN? Get with the times guys!

It would be different if Australia operated SSNs/SSBNs. Whole different situation there. It's a lot different when you're on a diesel boat that stays out for a lot less time than nucs. Not to mention stays a lot closer to home for the most part.

PD

[Captain Vlad]

The joke itself seems...well, actually it is in poor taste a bit. Like someone else said, a taunt.

What's funny, though, is seeing all the opposition, all the same excuses used against female fighter pilots, etc, being trotted out again. Boys afraid to share their toys with the girls.

Grow a pair, gentlemen.

[scrag]

Talking with a good friend of mine that I work with the rest of the crew is not fond of them at all - actually dread having to deal with them or so it seems.

Norway had a female skipper - the difference is cultural to some extent.
The big experiment of integrating woman into front line service (Navy wise) has met with limited (at best success) We were all laughing at the messages from the Carrier that deployed with them on a Med Run (first ever). They ended up with some very interesting problems vs some very enterprising woman who knew how to make some money. Mast's cases rose, fights rose, etc.

The Navy can not by regulation can not assign a female to a ship that can not provide seperate facilities. End of story.

[hamiltonus]

And here I thought I'd go all April Fool's without a single prank. Thanks for covering me, Subsim!

MH

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by GSpector

WW, have women actually been in Space up to 6 Months. If there average time in Space is about 30 days, I don't see a problem or the comparison.

Yes, actually... and one more...

What would happen if just 1 lady actually came aboard and was not aware she was pregnant? I realize in most cases, women do not give birth in 6 Months but what kind of condition do you really think she would be in, say after 3 months.

What happens if a guy got hurt on the boat (enough that he can't work) and you can't evac him?

Frankly, I see a lot of moving the goalposts when it comes to subs and women.

"Women just don't have what it takes to serve on subs."
Women serve on subs ... they aren't sinking.
"Yeah, but our subs are different."\

Originally Posted by scrag

But ask the Aussie's how they like the female crew members (none that I spoken with are very happy with it)

Specifics?

[XanderF]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

It would be different if Australia operated SSNs/SSBNs. Whole different situation there. It's a lot different when you're on a diesel boat that stays out for a lot less time than nucs. Not to mention stays a lot closer to home for the most part.

PD

Indeed. Even our SSNs stay underwater for orders of magnitude more time than the diesels in the two navies mentioned, forget the boomers. It's really not a valid comparison.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Yes, actually... and one more...

Are you REALLY comparing a PhD biochemist with an enlisted sailor? Really??

Surely, you realize the difference in professionalism between enlisted and even officer ranks, and you'd compared that to a Doctor of Philosophy as an equivelant example?

To whit, I'd argue that the case against female OFFICERS serving on submarines is a weaker argument. By nature, officers - and certainly command officers - are mostly 'segregated' anyway. Whether one is female or male makes less difference than it would otherwise appear. The only real argument standing in the way is the inability for most to meet the physical requirements - but I can certainly imagine exceptions to this (higher-ranking female officers with the requisite training to serve on a submarine and the ability to meet all of the same physical requirements required of the male crew) - and these women certainly could make a good case for being allowed on the boats.

But for ordinary crewman? I really can't imagine that ever happening on a nuke.

[GSpector]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Yes, actually... and one more...

What happens if a guy got hurt on the boat (enough that he can't work) and you can't evac him?

Frankly, I see a lot of moving the goalposts when it comes to subs and women.

"Women just don't have what it takes to serve on subs."
Women serve on subs ... they aren't sinking.
"Yeah, but our subs are different."\

Good argument, except that your comparison does compare experience with experience. As for the guy that gets hurt, that's a bit different then getting pregnant, unless he stays wounded for 3-6 months and if he did, I would certainly expect him to be very moody, most of the time. Either way, he would be in the way until the injury healed. Unless it's some X-Files type injury, I don't think the guys injury would end with an extra mouth to feed.

I looked at the 2 astronauts and with Lucid's age being 65, it would not give me a problem with having her as a Commander of a Sub. For one thing, I don't think there would be much chance considering she was born in January 14, 1943 and other then being on the MIR which has better facilities as far as size then the Shuttle) for 188 days, I did not see any 6 Month flights. The same for Williams (born September 19, 1965 ). Their combined Space Flights were very impressive though. William's at 42, could but I doubt she would accidentally get pregnant anytime soon so I would not be worried about her either. Both seem to be very professional in their fields.

As someone mentioned, women as crewmen just would not work out. If it ever happened, it would probably have to be an all woman crew. The only 3 positions I could see a female holding on a Co-ed Sub would be CMO, XO or Captain.

[Zero Niner]

Found it, but I suppose I'm too late...?

[Marinero706]

So far, not one person has responded to my legit argument against women in nuke boats. Not one person who's argued in favor of it has had time in the nuclear training pipeline, supervising and working with females in a submarine nuclear plant. So if all you've got to offer is "it's not fair", or "the USN is hidebound", please relax and enjoy the joke.

I have no doubt in my mind that women can mentally (i.e.- psychologically and IQ-wise) function in a submarine environment. I'm also certain that with a little adjusting, the men would handle it, too. But the physical capability question remains. IF the Navy would start making females take the same PFT that males do, I'd begin to reconsider. DACOWITS would pitch a fit if they did, though.

The pregnancy issue is not insignificant. Every person you lose puts one watchstation port and stbd. Not a pleasant way to spend 6 months (or even one month).

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Okay, I was fooled in the other thread.

But, just a thought: would it still be 'manning'?

In today's world it would be called personning. No Seamen or seawomen anymore.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Whats sad about it?

Yeah exactly whats sad about having one woman in a confined space with 100 or so males for sevral months ? :rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

Ask the judge when she files for rape

[NefariousKoel]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Fooled Bill? The highest compliment

Guys, if you have time, spread the link to other websites, blogs, and forums, it's a blast to watch this unfold across the web.

Way ahead of you - I posted it over at Madcow's the instant I saw it and got a couple people on the first. :rotfl:

http://www.madcowssteakhouse.com/viewtopic.php?t=20204

[GunnerGreg]

I've now gotten this from three different, but all VERY IRATE former submarine sailors...

This is one of those things that takes on a life of its own.

The funny part is, the more hate and discontent they try to stir up, the better the idea is likely to sound...

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

In today's world it would be called personning. No Seamen or seawomen anymore.

Crewing. And seafarers. COMMERCIAL SHIPPING FTW! Office policies applied to the maritime world! W0000t!

Seriously, some merchant mariners still bitch about having to work with women (Stewards and cooks are fine; oilers, somehow... You need dangly bits to read gauges, I guess), and they've been around for a while. I don't know why, but generally, the louder someone moans about it, the more rooted in "tradition" they are. Tradition: Because if it's newer than me, it sucks.

Seriously, the only issue is privacy. If she's too stupid to use the pill or a pregnancy test, she shouldn't be anywhere near military hardware, anyway.

There's also the statistical fact that women usually have shorter careers at sea; but I don't see how that fact can be used in light of government's anti-discrimination policies.