|
Post by MacBeth on Apr 29, 2010 10:27:58 GMT -5
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military's ban on women serving on submarines passed quietly into history Thursday morning. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates notified lawmakers in mid-February that the Navy would be lifting the ban, unless Congress took some action against it. And Navy spokesman Lt. Justin Cole said Thursday morning that the deadline for Congress to act passed at midnight. The Navy plans a press conference later Thursday to talk about the new policy. "There are extremely capable women in the Navy who have the talent and desire to succeed in the submarine force," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said hours after the congressional deadline passed. "Enabling them to serve in the submarine community is best for the submarine force and our Navy. "We literally could not run the Navy without women today," Mabus said in a statement released by the Submarine Force headquarters in Norfolk, Va. The Navy expanded the number of assignments available to women 15 years ago, allowing them to serve on surface ships but deeming that their service on submarines would cost too much. In preparation for changing the old policy, the Navy has worked out a plan to phase in women by allowing them to begin serving on submarines that will not require costly alterations to accommodate females. The Navy plans to start by assigning three female officers each in eight different crews of guided-missile attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines. That involves two submarines on the east coast and two on the west coast. Officials said that since more living space is available aboard those subs, it won't require modification to the vessels, allowing the Navy to move faster to include women. The female officers would be assigned after completing the 15-month submarine officer training pipeline, which consists of nuclear power school, prototype training, and a submarine officer basic course. The first subs to get women each have about 15 officers and roughly 140 enlisted personnel. Women make up 15 percent of the active duty Navy – there are 52,446 out of the force of 330,700. "Today, women earn about half of all science and engineering bachelor's degrees," said Vice Adm. John J. Donnelly, commander of submarine forces. "There are capable women who have the interest, talent, and desire to succeed in the submarine force. Maintaining the best submarine force in the world requires us to recruit from the largest possible talent pool." ___ www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/navy-to-allow-women-to-se_n_556547.html
|
|
|
Post by gael on Apr 29, 2010 10:46:16 GMT -5
UGH! why would anyone fight for that! Claustophobia!!!
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Apr 29, 2010 11:17:09 GMT -5
One of our sons signed up for sub duty - a joke when Canada refers to submarines.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Apr 29, 2010 11:31:36 GMT -5
You fight for it because a sailor should be a sailor, not sailor-lite
|
|
|
Post by gael on Apr 29, 2010 17:18:06 GMT -5
I'm not sailor material I trow! I would not opt for the crow's nest... nor submarines! or even want to sleep in one of those close quarter bunks! nope. gimme a tent and some good shoes, so I can have open spaces!
Oscar.. did your son like Submarine duty?
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Apr 29, 2010 17:42:39 GMT -5
My Dad was on both an aircraft carrier and sub in WWII - his quick reflexes were required on the carrier, his height in the sub
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Apr 30, 2010 3:17:49 GMT -5
Oscar.. did your son like Submarine duty?
He starts in July. Right now he's on course in BC. At 6'2" he might find subs a bit confining.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Apr 30, 2010 7:18:35 GMT -5
My Dad always claimed to be 5'8" - in the real world, that meant barely 5'6"
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on May 1, 2010 10:30:21 GMT -5
Oscar.. did your son like Submarine duty?He starts in July. Right now he's on course in BC. At 6'2" he might find subs a bit confining. That's great, Oskar! I did not know you had any children serving in the military.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 1, 2010 14:11:02 GMT -5
I wonder what special accomodation needs to be made for women on submarines?
Frankly I think anyone who signs up for sub duty must know that it comes with living in very close quarters... being in the military requires lots of sacrifices already, such as giving up much of your freedom to do exactly what you want to do exactly when you want to do it, the right to refuse most kinds of orders, etc. What I'm getting at is I hope that the "expensive modifications" don't include needing his/hers restrooms and his/hers showers. If it comes right down to it, if it means males and females doing their personal hygiene in the same room at the same time, that's what it means. If we're to treat male and female soldiers as interchangeable, it will have to include this area as well.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 1, 2010 17:23:25 GMT -5
I wonder what special accomodation needs to be made for women on submarines? An all-female crew would eliminate the most obvious objections. Can't see any reason why it would be less effective.
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on May 1, 2010 18:38:18 GMT -5
I also wanted to add that for the record I am opposed to having women on submarines. It's a bad idea.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 2, 2010 2:57:18 GMT -5
Can you say why it's a bad idea?
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on May 2, 2010 6:49:54 GMT -5
I think not having men and women, gay and straight, tall and short, black and white serving together is a bad idea.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 2, 2010 8:21:13 GMT -5
I'm not seeing why it need to be an all-female crew either. If there is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole, I would say the same thing goes for sex: If you're getting shot at, you do your job, period. As for peacetime, well, you know what you signed up for, and our military is allegedly professional enough to deal with coed units. If it isn't, then we need more training, or to accept different recruits who aren't sawdust-for-brains.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 2, 2010 15:43:40 GMT -5
I'm not seeing why it need to be an all-female crew either. If there is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole, I would say the same thing goes for sex: If you're getting shot at, you do your job, period. As for peacetime, well, you know what you signed up for, and our military is allegedly professional enough to deal with coed units. If it isn't, then we need more training, or to accept different recruits who aren't sawdust-for-brains. I mentioned an all-female crew because one of the main objections in the past has been that the extremely limited space on a submarine prevents duplication of facilities such as bunks, showers and toilets.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 2, 2010 17:01:18 GMT -5
That's what I'm getting at... I'm thinking that if one wants to serve in a submarine, then one should accept the virtually nonexistent privacy and modesty that such a cramped environment requires. That is, why not a co-ed crew that shares bunks, showers and toilets.
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on May 2, 2010 18:01:35 GMT -5
Some years ago I had an all too short an adventure as one of the crew of the sail training schooner Winston Churchill. A total mixed crew of (40) of us were billeted together in a tiny space in three tier bunks with absolutely no privacy and shared ablutions with no problems at all.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 3, 2010 3:19:09 GMT -5
That's what I'm getting at... I'm thinking that if one wants to serve in a submarine, then one should accept the virtually nonexistent privacy and modesty that such a cramped environment requires. That is, why not a co-ed crew that shares bunks, showers and toilets. I agree with you. It's just that duplicated facilities is the only reason I can ever recall being given for not doing this before.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on May 3, 2010 7:11:02 GMT -5
Yes, that has been used.College dorms have adapted well with RAs establishing times for male and female use of showers, etc. until separate facilities could be created (and many have not because of the expense). I am sure the brain power of the Pentagon can come up with something LOL
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 3, 2010 7:22:05 GMT -5
I am sure the brain power of the Pentagon can come up with something LOL Your faith is touching.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on May 3, 2010 7:23:47 GMT -5
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on May 6, 2010 18:37:08 GMT -5
Yes, that has been used.College dorms have adapted well with RAs establishing times for male and female use of showers, etc. until separate facilities could be created (and many have not because of the expense). I am sure the brain power of the Pentagon can come up with something LOL Well, the military should NOT be looking to colleges to gain insight about anything; instead, I'd argue it should be the other way around.
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on May 6, 2010 18:57:37 GMT -5
That's what I'm getting at... I'm thinking that if one wants to serve in a submarine, then one should accept the virtually nonexistent privacy and modesty that such a cramped environment requires. That is, why not a co-ed crew that shares bunks, showers and toilets. To Pax (and Wheelspinner as well), It's easy to say that it's no big deal to station women on submarines. But for us to accept that notion then we also have to pretend that having young men and young women in severely cramped quarters under the sea (and for extended periods) will NOT cause any problems potentially affecting the mission of the submarine. And that's just ridiculous. How we've been doing things all along has worked just fine. Why mess with a good thing? Additionally, the military is NOT supposed to be like regular society; instead, it's supposed to structure itself in a way that gives the United States (or any country) the most effective fighting forces. Unfortunately, the military is not immune to political and societal pressures, such as the kind of thing happening here with the submarines. So at times the military has had to "adopt" to new things; however, I don't have to agree with those things. And I'm also not going to pretend that these changes won't come with new problems of their own. Pax, have you ever toured the WWII-era submarine sitting in Cleveland harbor?
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on May 6, 2010 19:22:00 GMT -5
Men and women serve well together in all sorts of other circumstances - and in other militaries around the world. But it does seem the practice for the US to want to have the military include only white, straight males. We have overcome one of those descriptions despite your exact argument. Might be time to make a change. Time to get over their shortcomings in coping and starting to live in the real world.
It may also be time to recognize that our military is being populated by those accepted under lower and lower standards. Somehow the exclusive club is losing its luster.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on May 6, 2010 19:26:14 GMT -5
• How It Will Be Implemented CNN reports, "A phased approach is being considered under which officers -- who already have separate living quarters -- would be the first to go co-ed, followed by crews, with the women bunking together, the official said. Crew space would have to be modified prior to that happening, the official added. The submarines expected to carry women initially would be the larger ones -- nuclear-powered, missile-carrying submarines known as SSBN and SSGN, the official said." • Coed Subs Work For Other Navies The Christian Science Monitor's Taraneh Ghajar Jerven argues, "there is no evidence that integrating crews will undermine national security or cause social disruption. In fact, the practice of submarine crew integration has been successful for Canada, Australia, Norway, and Sweden. A study commissioned for NATO found that on Canadian Victoria-class submarines, 'Women have been seamlessly integrated into the environment with few problems. No attempts have been made to segregate the genders, and no special provision has been made for bunking or shower facilities.'" • Military Needs All The Women It Can Get Scripps' Bonnie Erbe writes, "Women now make up some 15 percent of the all-volunteer services, and have become crucial to keeping the nation's military operational ... While integrating women into the armed services has created some problems, no one ever talks about the necessity the all-volunteer forces have created. There's a shortage of Americans volunteering for the services. Were it not for the large number of women seeking to serve, Congress may well have had to reinstitute a draft." www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Debating-Whether-Women-Should-Serve-on-Navy-Submarines-3415
|
|
|
Post by patchoulli on May 7, 2010 18:49:50 GMT -5
Men and women seem to do just fine together in the close quarters of space capsules. Seems doable to me on a sub.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on May 8, 2010 6:54:59 GMT -5
Well, the military should NOT be looking to colleges to gain insight about anything; instead, I'd argue it should be the other way around.
Let's see - the military is populated with those that, until 9 years ago, would have been rejected.....and you see them headed in the right direction ?
Okie dokie.....
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 8, 2010 7:54:31 GMT -5
I understand that a college education is not necessary for a successful military career.
But-- why are they actually a BAD thing if one is looking for a successful military career?
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on May 8, 2010 7:58:43 GMT -5
I understand that a college education is not necessary for a successful military career. But-- why are they actually a BAD thing if one is looking for a successful military career? Because all tertiary education is bad.
|
|