Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on May 23, 2010 20:36:34 GMT -5
Women have been part of the International Space Station crew since March 2001 www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/index.htmlFrom the dates there, it seems that the crews are there for about 6 months. In fact, sleeping is pretty comfy in space because you can slumber without gravity's incessant pull, according to Canadian astronaut Julie Payette, who has been living aboard the linked space station and shuttle Endeavour for more than a week. "We sleep very well in space. Can you imagine?" Payette told reporters in a recent interview broadcast by NASA. "We have a sleeping bag each, and when you get into it you float in the sleeping bag. The sleeping bag floats in the module. So all you have to do is just attach it somewhere, which is a good idea by the way because during the night while your sleeping you might start drifting and end up somewhere you didn't intend to be in the first place." ....................... NASA's first space station, Skylab, and Russia's Mir space station did include a shower facility for crewmembers. On Skylab, astronauts floated into the shower, pulled up a privacy curtain, and were able to shower in water from a push-button hose and dry off using a vacuum system. But on the International Space Station and NASA shuttles, astronauts have a squirt gun that shoots water and a wash cloth. They also have a special rinse-less shampoo to keep their hair clean. "We wash like we would if we were on an expedition or a camping trip or something," Payette explained. "It works." www.space.com/missionlaunches/090827-sts127-space-sleeping.htmlHmmm....I'm not sure this is a valid comparision to this discussion How many people are aboard at one time? Six?
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on May 23, 2010 20:53:12 GMT -5
I have an idea. I guess you could call it a WHAT'S NEWS "Fact Finding Mission" or field trip. Pax, you've had some great insights and comments in this thread. And I know I'm not the only one here who really respects your viewpoint and has for years. So I think it would be really cool--and only if you have time--if you toured the USS Cod Submarine, giving us your thoughts and impressions of the sub in relation to the issues discussed in this thread. Actually, I think you'd find it neat. But again, that's only if you have the time. I know you're busy. I'm only suggesting this because you live in Cleveland and the USS Cod is in Cleveland harbor and open for tour. I've toured it before. It was a lot of fun going down into that sub while imagining what it must have been like to live and work on it--with a bunch of other people. In fact, I was astounded that so many humans lived and worked on such a crowded vessel of that size! The USS COD Submarine is open for visitors every day of the week from May 1 through the end of September. Our daily hours are 10am - 5pm Eastern time. (1000 - 1700). Please note: In order to allow even minimal time to visit the boat our entrance gate will be closed at 4:30pm (1630).
School field trips to COD have been very popular and are encouraged as an educational and entertaining experience for area youngsters. Free parking and substantial discounts from the already nominal admission fees are provided. Please call (216-566-8770), or use the e-mail address below to make arrangements for field trips. During our off-season our telephone is not answered, so please use e-mail to contact us.
We are located on Lake Erie in downtown Cleveland, Ohio at the western edge of Burke Lakefront Airport and about one block east of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on May 24, 2010 6:41:51 GMT -5
So, again, it is numbers that affects human behavior? Fine. Once again I will then propose all female sub crews since this is such a problem for the male sailors, and counter to what other navies have experienced.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on May 24, 2010 9:47:33 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. Don't forget that if USian men and women lack so much self-control that they are inable to serve on subs together they certainly don't have the self-discipline needed for post-secondary edication.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 24, 2010 13:28:17 GMT -5
Visiting the submarine will be fun. However, I see nothing about such a visit that would change my mind about needing to just try coed crews to see which set of assumptions -- and they are assumptions -- are closer to being correct. The most that I could say -- and probably would say, upon having visited -- is, "I can see where coed crews could be a problem, but all we can do is try it and see if that fear is borne out."
Something that keeps popping to the top of my head in this conversation and I keep rejecting saying anything because it always strikes me as too irrelevant. But if it keeps coming to me, maybe it is relevant, after all. Army rangers are a special branch of army, basically, special forces. They train themselves to do some pretty gross things. I think it serves more than a macho purpose -- it's to train them to get past any hangups they have had growing up, which would be distractions if not near-phobias, and focus on the mission. I point this out because I think there are a lot of hangups and assumptions we civilians are bringing as we imagine what life would actually be like serving in a military environment, particularly a rather extreme one such as a submarine. My assumption is that our normal hangups about sexuality can and would be driven out of submariners. Those of us who argue that men and women "can't" serve together aboard a submarine assume that they can't.
No way to know but to try.
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on May 29, 2010 23:01:17 GMT -5
Visiting the submarine will be fun. However, I see nothing about such a visit that would change my mind about needing to just try coed crews to see which set of assumptions -- and they are assumptions -- are closer to being correct. The most that I could say -- and probably would say, upon having visited -- is, "I can see where coed crews could be a problem, but all we can do is try it and see if that fear is borne out." Something that keeps popping to the top of my head in this conversation and I keep rejecting saying anything because it always strikes me as too irrelevant. But if it keeps coming to me, maybe it is relevant, after all. Army rangers are a special branch of army, basically, special forces. They train themselves to do some pretty gross things. I think it serves more than a macho purpose -- it's to train them to get past any hangups they have had growing up, which would be distractions if not near-phobias, and focus on the mission. I point this out because I think there are a lot of hangups and assumptions we civilians are bringing as we imagine what life would actually be like serving in a military environment, particularly a rather extreme one such as a submarine. My assumption is that our normal hangups about sexuality can and would be driven out of submariners. Those of us who argue that men and women "can't" serve together aboard a submarine assume that they can't. No way to know but to try. That's an interesting way of looking at it, Pax. I think you're right in some ways. At the same time, though, I doubt that those "hangups" or whatever they're called are ever totally driven out by any kind of military training. And don't forget that Rangers are all men. About the sub trip: In no way am I suggesting that a trip for you to the sub would suddenly change your mind or anything. No, I have way too much respect for the thought-provoking way you go about developing your opinions to suggest anything like that, Pax. Instead, the sub trip--at least to me, anyway--represents a real opportunity for us (and you). We discuss a LOT of subjects here. But how often has one of our "discussers" had the chance (due to proximity) of actually experiencing something (in a limited fashion) that relates so closely to a much-debated thread? I also enjoy your writing and perspectives. So I'd be personally interested in what you had to say about being on the sub.
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on May 29, 2010 23:03:01 GMT -5
Beth, by the way, Joe Sestak (a retired Navy admiral) disagrees with my position on the women-on submarines issue. I guess that's another reason for you to support him.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 30, 2010 11:31:53 GMT -5
Ok, I will definitely visit the sub. :-). I was planning to anyway, but this is a commitment, now.
Rangers are all men, yes. This does raise the related issue of gays in the military. Aside from pregnancy worries, the "no women on submarines" argument is based entirely on sexual tension, opportunities for sexual abuse, etc. What about gays?
One could argue that the gay problem would be more manageable (a) because only 10% of the population is gay. One could also make the argument that gays would know better than to try something with many of their peers, because there is the very real danger that they'll get their ass kicked if they do. In a straight scenario, the worst one can get is rejected.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on May 30, 2010 12:51:57 GMT -5
While on the topic of the US Navy one of our son's mates did some cross-training on a US carrier. According to him, there are certain areas on that carrier where one doesn't venture depending on ethnicity since there is "gang turf" on board. Apparently, the ship's commander goes around with two armed guards wherever he goes.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on May 30, 2010 20:42:44 GMT -5
Gang turf? On a boat?
Now we're really sunk.
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on May 31, 2010 23:42:55 GMT -5
Ok, I will definitely visit the sub. :-). I was planning to anyway, but this is a commitment, now. Rangers are all men, yes. This does raise the related issue of gays in the military. Aside from pregnancy worries, the "no women on submarines" argument is based entirely on sexual tension, opportunities for sexual abuse, etc. What about gays? One could argue that the gay problem would be more manageable (a) because only 10% of the population is gay. One could also make the argument that gays would know better than to try something with many of their peers, because there is the very real danger that they'll get their ass kicked if they do. In a straight scenario, the worst one can get is rejected. I think you answered your own question about the gay issue, Pax. After all, haven't gays--even closeted-- been on subs already? Women haven't been on subs at all. Additionally, gays on subs have not led to the kinds of problems we may face by placing women on subs. On a coincidental note, this being Memorial Day weekend meant certain channels like AMC and TMC were showing a lot of military/patriotic films. One of them, a 1959 movie called Operation Petticoat, is about a World War II submarine forced to take on a group of Navy nurses. As expected, this created some funny moments on the sub as the men and the women tried to coexist in such close quarters. At one point, the boat was accidentally painted pink. Then there was the captain who told his crew to "pretend that they [the nurses] aren't women." Initially, the captain was totally opposed to allowing the women on the boat at all, saying their presence "could create conditions not consistent with normal submarine operations."Hell, I wish I had seen the film a few weeks ago. I could have used that one line and saved myself a whole lot of writing.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jun 1, 2010 6:49:33 GMT -5
"gays on subs have not led to the kinds of problems we may face by placing women on subs."
DADT was put in place precisely because of fears that gays in the military would, as the screwball comedy you mentioned succinctly put it, "create conditions not consistent with normal operations." That fear was not realized, as you pointed out. No disruption at all has occurred with gays on boats. Though one could argue that gays in the American military is not a valid experiment for this question precisely because they haven't been allowed to serve openly.
In any event, I think, in the case of both gays serving openly in the military and women in the military, the only way to find out what would happen is to try it.
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on Jun 6, 2010 17:07:51 GMT -5
"gays on subs have not led to the kinds of problems we may face by placing women on subs." DADT was put in place precisely because of fears that gays in the military would, as the screwball comedy you mentioned succinctly put it, "create conditions not consistent with normal operations." That fear was not realized, as you pointed out. No disruption at all has occurred with gays on boats. Though one could argue that gays in the American military is not a valid experiment for this question precisely because they haven't been allowed to serve openly. In any event, I think, in the case of both gays serving openly in the military and women in the military, the only way to find out what would happen is to try it. The only thing with being" willing to try" something is that the consequences of failure are MUCH more serious when it comes to the military. We better be darn careful with the "changes" we make.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Jun 6, 2010 17:15:51 GMT -5
Yes, by all means stick with that. It proved to be right on when talking about black sailors in years past.
It is time for everyone, including sailors and soldiers, to grow up or get shipped out !
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jun 6, 2010 18:21:06 GMT -5
Brian, they said the same things about blacks in the military, and women (at all) in the military. The wheels didn't fall off.
If nothing else, if "reduced military effectiveness" turns out to be real and permanent, then the best military to try it out on is the one whose effectiveness is acknowledged by everyone to be unrivaled by any other military on Earth -- the US military. It has effectiveness to spare, by the boatloads. Pun somewhat intended.
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on Jun 12, 2010 23:51:30 GMT -5
Beth and Pax, I know a lot of folks have compared this issue with the struggle that black soldiers and sailors faced. The problem with that argument is that the analogy just doesn't match up. We're talking about two different things.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Jun 13, 2010 8:43:42 GMT -5
No, both are baseless discrimination. The fears of the the results of ending that discrimination may be different, but there are from the same place.
I am done trying to explain why wrong is wrong. If that is how you feel, please make sure you examine that closely.
And in years to come when this is as far in the past as integration of the services is, think about these conversations.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jun 13, 2010 10:14:59 GMT -5
is the one whose effectiveness is acknowledged by everyone to be unrivaled by any other military on Earth -- the US military.
That's a joke, right?
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Jun 13, 2010 12:15:12 GMT -5
Certainly made me smile.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jun 13, 2010 16:16:41 GMT -5
US Loses Half Its Fleet In War Game Against Iran/Iraq The US armed forces are playing down the significance of a massive war game they played last month in which they only beat their opponent, an unnamed Middle East state, because they changed the rules half way through. Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper in charge of the opposing army says the US only won after he sank half their fleet using suicide tactics. The US promptly said that was outside the rules and 'refloated' the fleet. The US also ordered the enemy not to fire on their troops as they landed on beaches but the Pentagon assures the press the games involving 2 years of planning were a total success. www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=25024
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jun 13, 2010 16:18:49 GMT -5
Pentagon preps for economic warfare By EAMON JAVERS | 4/9/09 4:18 AM EDT Text Size: The Pentagon sponsored a first-of-its-kind war game last month focused not on bullets and bombs — but on how hostile nations might seek to cripple the U.S. economy, a scenario made all the more real by the global financial crisis. The two-day event near Ft. Meade, Maryland, had all the earmarks of a regular war game. Participants sat along a V-shaped set of desks beneath an enormous wall of video monitors displaying economic data, according to the accounts of three participants. “It felt a little bit like Dr. Strangelove,” one person who was at the previously undisclosed exercise told POLITICO. But instead of military brass plotting America’s defense, it was hedge-fund managers, professors and executives from at least one investment bank, UBS – all invited by the Pentagon to play out global scenarios that could shift the balance of power between the world’s leading economies. Their efforts were carefully observed and recorded by uniformed military officers and members of the U.S. intelligence community. In the end, there was sobering news for the United States – the savviest economic warrior proved to be China, a growing economic power that strengthened its position the most over the course of the war-game. The United States remained the world’s largest economy but significantly degraded its standing in a series of financial skirmishes with Russia, participants said. The war game demonstrated that in post-Sept. 11 world, the Pentagon is thinking about a wide range of threats to America’s position in the world, including some that could come far from the battlefield. And it’s hardly science fiction. China recently shook the value of the dollar in global currency markets merely by questioning whether the recession put China’s $1 trillion in U.S. government bond holdings at risk – forcing President Barack Obama to issue a hasty defense of the dollar. “This was an example of the changing nature of conflict,” said Paul Bracken, a professor and expert in private equity at the Yale School of Management who attended the sessions. “The purpose of the game is not really to predict the future, but to discover the issues you need to be thinking about.” Several participants said the event had been in the planning stages well before the stock market crash of September, but the real-world market calamity was on the minds of many in the room. “It loomed large over what everybody was doing,” said Bracken. “Why would the military care about global capital flows at all?” asked another person who was there. “Because as the global financial crisis plays out, there could be real world consequences, including failed states. We’ve already seen riots in the United Kingdom and the Balkans.” The Office of the Secretary of Defense hosted the two-day event March 17 and 18 at the Warfare Analysis Laboratory in Laurel, MD. That facility, run by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, typically hosts military officials planning intricate combat scenarios. A spokesperson for the Applied Physics Laboratory confirmed the event, and said it was the first purely economic war game the facility has hosted. All three participants said they had been told it was the first time the Pentagon hosted a purely economic war game. A Pentagon spokesman would say only that he was not aware of the exercise. More... debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?77184-Pentagon-Conducts-quot-War-Games-quot-For-Global-Economic-War.-U.S.-Loses-To-China-Thanks-To-State-Bush-Left-Us-In
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jun 13, 2010 16:20:54 GMT -5
US 'loses' war games US spy agencies have played out "war games" to consider possible pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and concluded that strikes would not resolve Washington's standoff with Tehran, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday. "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating," an unnamed air force source told the magazine in its latest issue. The central intelligence and the defence intelligence agency played out the possible results US strikes, the magazine reported. Hawks within President George W Bush's administration have advocated for regime change in Tehran - through covert operations or force if needed, Newsweek said. But with US-led forces facing almost daily attacks in Iraq, no one in Bush's cabinet has taken up the cause, the report said. The United States believes Iran is using a civilian nuclear programme to mask a weapons development effort. Iran insists its nuclear programme is strictly aimed at generating electricity, despite suspicions it is seeking to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons. Uranium is enriched through centrifuges to make what can be fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also the explosive material for atomic bombs. www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_15... www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x840087
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jun 13, 2010 17:28:27 GMT -5
Pentagon preps for economic warfare
Just what role does the military imagine it would play in countering economic threats? This is the perfect example of how the US seems to think the military is the answer to all its problems.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jun 13, 2010 17:31:29 GMT -5
Pentagon preps for economic warfareJust what role does the military imagine it would play in countering economic threats? This is the perfect example of how the US seems to think the military is the answer to all its problems. Rather ironic that their military spending is driving them into bankruptcy.
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on Aug 15, 2010 11:27:14 GMT -5
I was away for several days last week on a trip, doing a number of things in the Pittsburgh area.
One of the places I visited was the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh's North Shore area.
In addition to other interesting attractions at the center, one of the things I toured was the USS Requin, a retired submarine that sits behind the center, moored in the Ohio River. Folks here may recall that I've talked about my previous tour of the USS Cod, another retired submarine housed in Cleveland harbor.
Both submarines--the USS Cod and the USS Requin--were built during World War II. Unlike the Cod, however, which was retired shortly after the war, the Requin played a role in the Cold War as well--remaining in service for nearly 25 more years before finally being retired.
During my tour last week I spent nearly 45 minutes inside the USS Requin; it was interesting as hell. Subs fascinate me--the equipment, the atmosphere, the living space, the history. I tried to imagine the brave sailors who had once manned the vessel. Submariners are truly a special breed. I also tried to imagine what it must have been like to serve on such a ship. Honestly, it was hard to imagine that 80 men once crewed the boat. And as cramped as the sub seemed inside, it would have been even more cramped each time the sub left port: Excess provisions that couldn't be stored in the limited storage areas had to be stored all over the boat --leading to even narrower passageways and compartments.
The sub's controls, instrument panels and equipment were basically as they were when the vessel was still in operation. Additionally, there were various pieces of crew belongings left on the sub--paperbacks, letters, mementos from "home." These items-- found on board when the ship was retired--are now preserved museum-style in small glass cases. It was also made obvious that submarines were certainly a "male" domain. For example, in the sub's small galley (eating area) hung small pictures of Betty Page, Jane Russell and other female sex symbols of yesteryear.
Another cool thing about the tour was that in various sections of the ship were small video screens where tourists could learn more about how the sub worked by clicking a button and watching a short video. I was able to learn even more about subs while watching some of these videos.
As for the question of whether men and women should serve on subs together, my mind was not changed by this latest tour.
I've now toured two submarines, and my opinion on this subject is the same: Men and women serving on subs together is an extremely poor idea.
Generally, I believe that those who favor male/women crews fall into one of two categories:
1. They are somehow under the impression that life on a submarine is the same as life everywhere else (a workplace, a college campus).
2. They support male/female crews because doing so is a "politically correct" idea and the current popular thinking calls for the the military to be made to be just like everywhere else (a dangerous concept).
Men and women together on subs?
A very irresponsible idea....
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Aug 15, 2010 13:42:49 GMT -5
Interesting that, after again deciding why others disagree with the only right position on an issue (yours), you miss what has been said over and over.....
WE ARE ALL SUPPOSEDLY EQUAL CITIZENS OF THE SAME NATION. WE ARE ALL SUPPOSEDLY ADULTS. WE NEED TO START DUMPING THOSE THAT CANNOT ACCEPT THOSE TWO THINGS AND LIVE ACCORDINGLY.
But thanks for the truly condescending analysis.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Aug 15, 2010 13:59:44 GMT -5
A shame that USians stopped evolving in the 1800s, eh, Brian? Is it because of the water?
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Aug 15, 2010 14:01:34 GMT -5
It can't be that, oskar - you are just being all PCy about this.
|
|
Brian
Super Duper Member
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by Brian on Aug 15, 2010 15:18:02 GMT -5
Interesting that, after again deciding why others disagree with the only right position on an issue (yours), you miss what has been said over and over..... WE ARE ALL SUPPOSEDLY EQUAL CITIZENS OF THE SAME NATION. WE ARE ALL SUPPOSEDLY ADULTS. WE NEED TO START DUMPING THOSE THAT CANNOT ACCEPT THOSE TWO THINGS AND LIVE ACCORDINGLY. But thanks for the truly condescending analysis. Beth, in no way did I intend for my remarks to be condescending towards anyone. But if there are those here who get that impression, my apologies. Recall, however, that I used the term "generally." I did not entirely place people into one of two categories. This is what I wrote in my other post: Generally, I believe that those who favor male/women crews fall into one of two categories:
1. They are somehow under the impression that life on a submarine is the same as life everywhere else (a workplace, a college campus).
2. They support male/female crews because doing so is a "politically correct" idea and the current popular thinking calls for the the military to be made to be just like everywhere else (a dangerous concept).And sure, I realize that my viewpoint is not popular here. But let's be honest about something: I've taken the time to tour two submarines now. I've maintained somewhat of an interest in military submarines going back to when I was a kid. I've read things about them; I've watched shows about them. In other words, I've not just "formed an opinion," out of thin air. I've also taken the time to learn about the topic--both from informational sources and firsthand. So although you and others don't agree with me, my opinion on this issue certainly has just as much worth as the opinions of others here.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Aug 15, 2010 15:38:10 GMT -5
You have toured subs, fine. But that has nothing to do with all of us being held accountable for our actions. And that applies to sailors of all genders.
I heard your points and read them very carefully. I also have no need to have you agree or disagree with my positions, and I am pretty sure you have no need for the same from me.
And had your most recent post on the topic been about opinions on the topic and not your perception of why the opinion of others have nothing to do with the topic at hand, I would not have responded - I believe we will continue to disagree on this. But not because I am too PC or am incapable of understanding that life on a sub has no relationship to any other way of life in the world. I disagree because I know that there will be issues in any change of circumstances, but I also know that we cannot continue to condone discrimination or continue to choose to support those "serving the country" who are incapable of being fully functioning adults, not just hormonal teens who have never grown up.
We continue to let slide all the things that are wrong because it is hard to change. But that cannot be our fallback position any longer. We have made much progress in the last 100 years in many areas. But we are falling back. That cannot be acceptable.
And to address your knowledge of subs, I could tour auto repair shops until I died and still not know what it takes and what they go through to fix cars. I am glad you have a passion about subs, but this is abour people and what is right and wrong. And for that, I do not have to watch shows - but I have taked the time to learn about the real topic - both from informational sources (such as other nations that have made this work pretty smoothly) and in firsthand life experience. And that, by your definition, is an "informed position"
|
|