Military may lift ban on women in submarines

[Andy in NH]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090928/od_nm/us_submarines_women_odd

Mon Sep 28, 10:31 am ET
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)

.

 

[icyclefar]

I'm all for equal opportunity but somehow I'm thinking this is going to cost billions by the time they implement it.

 

[Bob P]

loads of seamen rejoice

So to speak

 

[MARINE96]

Wonder what my father-in-law thinks about all this. He did 8 years under the water as a submariner. I'll have to ask when I see him agian. The response should be intresting for sure.

 

[Zappa]

Oh well, it'll weed out the fat chicks anyway, if they can't fit down the hatch they don't get on.

 

[Fixxah]

.

 

[Marcus5aurelius]

Another case of damned if you do, damned if you don't brought about by anti segregation laws. They can either:

1. Waste room on an already cramped sub to let women stay seperate
2. Let women share same beds and get sued
3. Don't let women in and get sued

...how is this making things better?

 

[RI_John]

I work as a private contractor for the Navy, mostly on subs (Virginia class). Female contractors go on subs already. They have for a long time. A woman who works for me spent weeks at a time on 6 different subs doing tech evals before new equipment was deployed.

She said it was okay, but got a lot of grief from the older chiefs. She used the officer's head and didn't have to hot-rack. She said the first day/night out with a new crew would be weird, but then no one seemed to care after that, everyone's working all the time anyhow.

And, since someone will ask, yeah, she's pretty hot!

 

[icyclefar]

I work as a private contractor for the Navy, mostly on subs (Virginia class). Female contractors go on subs already. They have for a long time. A woman who works for me spent weeks at a time on 6 different subs doing tech evals before new equipment was deployed.

She said it was okay, but got a lot of grief from the older chiefs. She used the officer's head and didn't have to hot-rack. She said the first day/night out with a new crew would be weird, but then no one seemed to care after that, everyone's working all the time anyhow.

And, since someone will ask, yeah, she's pretty hot!

pics or your lying

 

[TomH]

Sounds like a good step forward to me. The only real barriers should be the logistics of facilities, but that's the case with any base/ship etc.

 

[levergun]

Oh well, it'll weed out the fat chicks anyway, if they can't fit down the hatch they don't get on.

As a future submariner I don't know what to think. I think on one hand it would cause a lot more trouble. But on the other I would help morale a lot.

 

[P-14]

Ok, let them on the subs. But, won't they want to play with all the torpedos?

 

[NavyRedneck]

If this were a business decision you'd do a cost/benefit analysis:

cost:
Huge manning risk due to pregnancy, ie port and starboard watches if you have to medevac a woman who got pregnant in the middle of a 3 month patrol (yep, happens on surface ships all the time).
You'll have to decrease work-standards. Yeah, sure, 10% of the women out there will work just as hard as the men but on a submarine every man works his butt off or they get tossed off (yep, happens all the time). The only solution is to reduce the standard of work.
Submarines are stressful. From personal observation, 99% of submariners under arduous circumstances resort to hard work and ingenuity. A certain percentage of women resort to their gifts of sexuality and manipulation. That's a problem in the close confined quarters of a submarine. And yes, I have personal observation of those results, too.

benefit:
appease a few politicians/admirals-seeking-political-office who want votes and don't give a frozen-monkey-turd about military readiness


In the end it won't matter. It'll become another political hot button and the military will do as it's told.

 

[0311]

I was on USS Germantown (LSD 42) with BLT 2/5 and about half the crew of the boat was comprised of female sailors. Once we were underway we (The Marines) were tasked with what amounted to "sex patrol". Apparently there was a huge problem with crew members having carnal knowledge of their shipmates. We had to wear the Shore Patrol armbands that had SP on them when on duty, that is where we came up with the term "sex patrol".

A side note: Most [of the US Navy's] boats were not designed for a male/female crew. We used to see the female sailors walking from the female head to their respective berthing area in nothing more than towels.

 

[owningpeoplesince1984]

My Dad did 32 years in the Navy and 90% of that was under the surface,,, I wonder what he will think of this... If you ask me, prior Army Ng, I think this is a load of b.s. No room on subs for women,, keep them on the surface.....

 

[TomH]

I'm surprised to see all the sexism here. If the men are as well trained and disciplined as claimed then maybe they can keep it in their pants. Just my 2 cents. If they give into the temptation then they aren't fit for duty.

 

[Robbie]

We took a female engineer onboard for a week on the OK City while test firing some tomahawks into Alabama back in 95. She slept in the torpedo room with the rest of the riders and used the head aft of the torpedo room with one of her "cronies" standing watch. Riders are different than crew. A girl here at work asked me how could they find privacy to do anything? I said they are sailors,they'll figure it out. One article said they wanted to introduce 20 females onto a boat all at once. They would all be non quals but I guess that part would be douable. As far as privacy if I was the COB I would treat everyone the same everybody is blue,some are just bumpier, and not worry about it. Yes you are going to have fraternazation problems just like every other command that has male/female crews. If you treat everybody as a Bluejacket it would maybe work,special privilages different qualification standards and you are guarenteeing failure. But I am just an old retired Chief what do I know.

 

[Gonzo]

There was some interesting lesbian action involving a toy of some major proportions aboard the Roosevelt on my last cruise.

We busted up a prostitution ring on the Enterprise when I was aboard.

Also on the Roosevelt, a male E-8 was found rather involved with a female E-5 that worked for him. The televised Captain's Mast was rather entertaining, especially since the ship's Command Master Chief was the first female CMC of a carrier, and one tough cookie. The most memorable quote from it was when the CMC made her one and only statement to the E-5: "There are better ways of climbing the corporate ladder than on your back".

That being said, the military is an unnatural condition to be in, and people are going to be people, no matter what. The military maintains discipline better than any other group I have ever worked with, but no matter what, where people are involved, failures will happen.

Our military is a purely voluntary force. Subs are volunteers within that. No one ever just finds themselves assigned to a sub. If chicks want to run silent and deep(), I don't have problem with it. And I believe the Navy will implement it in an efficient and resourceful manner, that will net far more successful integration stories that are never reported than unsuccessful ones that are over reported.

(on a personal note, I firmly believe that the better-looking (I won't say good) females in my squadron were given unfair advantages regardless of their performance over their not-as-good-looking and male counterparts. But that was one helicopter squadron, less than 200 sailors, in the entire Navy. I can't speak for the rest of it.)

 

[terraformer]

One article said they wanted to introduce 20 females onto a boat all at once.

I can see the major positives of this from a purely management and research perspective. If you allow only one and she fails, it kills the whole process. Yet, there are males who fail too. The key is to compare failure rates and the only way to do that is to get enough of them under water. Either all on one boat or across lots of boats. Given the logistical and political issues of dumping a boatload of women across a bunch of subs, it makes more sense to put a manageable number on one boat, partition off the quarters into male/female and eliminate that as a variable for now and play with the arrangements again when at sea. A few can fail and they are swamped by the majority who make it. Plus they get a support system to work with and discover what works and what doesn't.

If someone is thinking and they want this to work, this is how they would likely go about it.

 

[Gonzo]

My berthing on the Roosevelt was one deck above a female berthing. We had to pass through it on a ladderwell (doored off) to get to the lower decks. Every time I went through there with Jake "Naked Jake" Thompson, he would turn to me and say "Smell that?" I'd ask what. He'd reply "Boobs" and we'd keep on going.

I named my son after Naked Jake. My wife doesn't know that though.

 

[Robbie]

You are not going to be able to partiton off spaces at least on a fast attack. Men will be exposed to the naked parts of females and females will see the naked male form. To try and do otherwise is a waste of time,money and resources. Deal with it.134 of your closest friends in a 360ft single wide trailer. The problem will be senior female enlisted. When the Navy initially put females on ships to include CVN 69 Eisenhower they just dumped a bunch of junior females onboard. If you did do 20 in the inital "trial" none including a Chief would be qualified in submarines. The other problem is how do you detail them(sea to shore rotation). Again my feeling is if you are going to do it treat everybody as Navy blue. Hammer anybody for fraternazation and continue mission.

 

[NavyRedneck]

I'm surprised to see all the sexism here. If the men are as well trained and disciplined as claimed then maybe they can keep it in their pants. Just my 2 cents. If they give into the temptation then they aren't fit for duty.

Submarines are a unique platform. You see, everyone there depends on everyone else. Everyone on a submarine is qualified to rig the ship for dive. Rig-for-dive valves and other devices are critical items numbering over 1000that if mis-positioned could endanger the lives of the crew. Yep, one screw-up and the submarine could be in big trouble. Yet many of these valves get operated daily. On this small ship you also have a nuclear reactor (Chernobyl or Three Mile Island come to mind) but instead of run by 100's of individuals, is run by a watch-section of 10. And remember this reactor isn't run like a commercial reactor where you start it up and run 100% for months on end. Navy reactors get started up and shut down routinely (even at sea) and constantly change power. Where else in the world do you find this level of complexity and danger? Maybe on space shuttles? Yes, they have mixed crews but how many crew-members are 18? Did you ever go 3 months without seeing a woman when you were 18? It's not about keeping it in your pants. It's not even about the other 159 crew-members keeping it in their pants. It's about un-necessary distractions that prevent you from operating at 100%. I've seen un-necessary distractions cause fires, hydraulic ruptures, maintenance foul-ups, etc. Some of those events required emergency action to save the lives of everyone onboard.

Have you ever heard of Scorpion or Thresher? Or more recently, the Kursk. A submarine is one of the most amazing machines in all of history but it demands respect and diligence. A politician choosing to insert women is doing neither of that. Show me some benefits and I'll be inclined to think that good can come of this. Until then I will call this exactly what it is... a political ploy.