Navy To Allow Women To Serve On Submarines

[oskar]

It's beginning to look as if the only ones with sexual obsessions are USian Puritans.

[Brian]

May 8, 2010 8:11:33 GMT -5 oskar said:

It's beginning to look as if the only ones with sexual obsessions are USian Puritans.

Yeah, that must be it, Oskar.

[Brian]

Beth writes: "Men and women serve well together in all sorts of other circumstances."

But that's just it: Military service is different than "other circumstances."

[Brian]

May 7, 2010 18:49:50 GMT -5 patchoulli said:

Men and women seem to do just fine together in the close quarters of space capsules. Seems doable to me on a sub.

The United States hasn't had space capsules since the mid-1970s. And when we did, there were no coed crews. It's also important to remember that the longest Space Shuttle missions are just over two weeks. That's far different than a sub that may be at sea for many months.

[Brian]

May 8, 2010 7:54:31 GMT -5 Pax said:

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?

My point about colleges is that we shouldn't look to college living arrangements if we're looking for guidance on how to structure our military.

The military is NOT like college.

For instance, just because we now have coed dorms at colleges does not mean we should have coed submarines in the Navy.

[oskar]

Co-ed subs work for other nationalities. Does the USian military have self-control issues?

[wheelspinner]

May 12, 2010 2:01:18 GMT -5 oskar said:

Co-ed subs work for other nationalities. Does the USian military have self-control issues?

Yes.

[oskar]

Better training methods for USian military?

[patchoulli]

"The United States hasn't had space capsules since the mid-1970s. And when we did, there were no coed crews. It's also important to remember that the longest Space Shuttle missions are just over two weeks. That's far different than a sub that may be at sea for many months."

Perhaps I called them "space capsules" when they should have been called something else. The living quarters on space missions are even more confined than those on subs. Here's a list of the women who've been part of the crew on some of those missions.
1983 Sally Ride
1984 Kathryn Sullivan
1992 Kathy Thornton
1992 Bonnie Dunbar, Ellen Baker
1992 Mae Jemison
1993 Ellen Ochoa
1995 Eileen Collins
1996 Shannon Lucid
1998 Lisa Malone, Eileen Hawley, Linda Harm, Susan Still
1998 Nancy Currie
1999 Eileen Collins

I don't understand what your beef is, Brian. Do you really think that men and women in the US military would act like a bunch of animals when confined to close quarters with each other on a sub? I would fully expect a few to find each other attractive, and would even partake in a little hanky-panky, but I just can't see it being a problem. Seems like officers would put a fast stop to anything that got out of control.
Or is your bigger beef actually with the fact that women are being allowed to finally be fully included in all facets of the military? That would be a pretty old-fashioned viewpoint.

[Pax]

Regardless of country, the military is by far the most highly disciplined group of persons. If persons in the military "can't control themselves," that doesn't say much about the human race's collective capacity for judgment and self-restraint.

It doesn't ring true to me. I think women on subs is fine, and if it is a problem on American subs, it's a problem with American culture, not human nature in general.

[Brian]

May 12, 2010 2:01:18 GMT -5 oskar said:

Co-ed subs work for other nationalities. Does the USian military have self-control issues?

Then again, if other nationalities do something, is that the reason why the United States should do it too?

[Brian]

May 12, 2010 6:06:16 GMT -5 patchoulli said:

"The United States hasn't had space capsules since the mid-1970s. And when we did, there were no coed crews. It's also important to remember that the longest Space Shuttle missions are just over two weeks. That's far different than a sub that may be at sea for many months."

Perhaps I called them "space capsules" when they should have been called something else. The living quarters on space missions are even more confined than those on subs. Here's a list of the women who've been part of the crew on some of those missions.
1983 Sally Ride
1984 Kathryn Sullivan
1992 Kathy Thornton
1992 Bonnie Dunbar, Ellen Baker
1992 Mae Jemison
1993 Ellen Ochoa
1995 Eileen Collins
1996 Shannon Lucid
1998 Lisa Malone, Eileen Hawley, Linda Harm, Susan Still
1998 Nancy Currie
1999 Eileen Collins

I don't understand what your beef is, Brian. Do you really think that men and women in the US military would act like a bunch of animals when confined to close quarters with each other on a sub? I would fully expect a few to find each other attractive, and would even partake in a little hanky-panky, but I just can't see it being a problem. Seems like officers would put a fast stop to anything that got out of control.
Or is your bigger beef actually with the fact that women are being allowed to finally be fully included in all facets of the military? That would be a pretty old-fashioned viewpoint.

I understand your point about the space missions; but again, those missions never lasted for much more than two weeks at the very most.

Sub missions are much longer. We're talking about several months at a time here. And in the case of nuclear subs, we're talking about several months where the subs don't even surface.

First, I'm sure that having women on subs will eventually lead to calls to modify the living quarters, allowing for separate compartments, separate showers, etc. Sorry, but a submarine's living space is already cramped enough as it is. Second, there there will be problems such as pregnancies and sexual assaults, both forcing the subs to surface in order to remove certain personnel from the sub. Our nuclear subs--our "best" and most reliable nuclear deterrent--are only as good as their ability to stay hidden. The problems created by putting women on submarines will lead to incidents that compromise our submarine forces. Sorry, but my main concern with the military is doing things that make the most sense for our military strength. Something that may seem "unfair" in the civilian world might make all the sense in the world when it comes to the military. That's a reality. And just because something is unfair to a particular person (or group) doesn't mean that we structure our military to compensate for it. The military is not all about equality in the way we look for it in the civilian world. And it can't be.

[Pax]

Personally, I call for women on subs, sharing the living quarters, showers, etc.

Creating separate living quarters on a submarine is simply not possible.

It's time for men and women to be able to serve together.

[Brian]

Pax, have you ever toured the USS Cod in Cleveland harbor?

I recommend it.

www.usscod.org/

[Pax]

I haven't. I'll do so.

That said -- women are smaller than men on average. It would actually improve life on a sub if a significant number of the crew were women.

If NO accomodation by gender is made, of course, and they're all treated as just soldiers doing a job, which they are.

[Pax]

ps., our military, as I understand it, takes recruits and "tears them down so they can build them up." I am assuming that this is so they can strip away the baggage of old assumptions and habits, and remake you into "just another soldier." They can't take ALL of your personality away, of course, but this strategy DOES give the military a LOT of control over training, attitude, behavior... and even the assumptions one might make about all aspects of gender segregation. In short, I think this is at most a training issue.

[wheelspinner]

Assuming assignments to sub duty is voluntary, it is obvious that the sailors concerned would not have any hangups about shared quarters, or they wouldn't volunteer. Problem solved.

[Pax]

No hangups, or at least, an understanding and at least grudging acceptance of what the job requires regarding living arrangements. Absolutely.

[MacBeth]

It is the same nonsense over and over - first it was impossible to integrate the all white boys club, now it is the (unrealistic) all straight, sex crazed boys club.

Excuses, excuses - and all of them make the men in the military out to be incapable of conducting themselves like military men. If I were a man, I would be insulted by the constant impliction that my gender was so fragile that it cannot tolerate anything but complete uniformity at all times.

Maybe what the military needs is real adults, and if you believe those that believe that this sort of thing is impossible, that might just be a military made up of gays and women. It is the straight men who are struggling to cope.

[Pax]

To that end, I am a little concerned for the female submariners. Not all US military are exactly enlightened. A number of the women I think can expect to be verbally harrassed, and some will probably be physically abused, until the idea filters through the men's thick heads that women really do belong on submarines and are as capable and reliable as the men at doing the job.

[MacBeth]

That is the way of these things. If the women do not expect that benavior, they are kidding themselves. I am sure they would have experienced it long before they were assigned.

[Brian]

May 14, 2010 7:11:27 GMT -5 Pax said:

I haven't. I'll do so.

That said -- women are smaller than men on average. It would actually improve life on a sub if a significant number of the crew were women.

If NO accomodation by gender is made, of course, and they're all treated as just soldiers doing a job, which they are.

Yeah, try to go if you can. I was able to tour the whole sub during a trip I took over to Cleveland several years back (and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, too! )

I can't remember the number of men I was told actually served on the sub at one time. But whatever that number was, I can remember being astonished that so many bodies had to work and live together in such a small, crowded space--and under wartime conditions. It really made me think.

[Brian]

Folks, I'd also like to point out that I certainly understand how a male-only submarine policy is unfair to women. There is no doubt about that. I realize it. It's not a nice thing to exclude them as an entire group.

But there is another question at issue: Do we sometimes have to forgo equality concerns when it comes to having our most effective military forces possible?

I think the answer is, unfortunately, yes.

[oskar]

But there is another question at issue: Do we sometimes have to forgo equality concerns when it comes to having our most effective military forces possible?

I think the answer is, unfortunately, yes.

Were I in the US Navy I'd be rather offended by that statement. It suggests that US Navy personnel can't achieve that which the Navy personnel of other nations have done successfully.

[Pax]

I'm not clear on the specifics of how women on a submarine would necessarily reduce military effectiveness.

[Brian]

If the women are sexually assaulted, the sub will have to surface to evacuate those involved. If women on the sub get pregnant, the sub will have to surface to evacuate them.

Submarines are different than surface ships, Pax.

Our submarines rely on stealth and on the ability to remain hidden. A surfacing sub reveals its position. That may be less of a concern than it was during the height of the Cold War, but it's still important nonetheless.

Placing women on subs WILL lead to problems that we are not faced with now; that is a fact. Even those who support placing women on subs have to realize this.

And is mentioning "other nations" really a valid comparison? First, most nations don't even have much of a submarine force. Second, most of the submarine-equipped nations don't have nuclear missiles on their subs like we do; moreover, our submarine nuke forces have been the most secure part of our nuclear deterrent for many years.

Our submarine forces have always worked great just how they are. Why mess with them solely on the basis of mirroring an equality standard existing in the civilian world?

The military is a different animal, folks. It has to be.

[oskar]

Could be that Brian is correct; that USians cannot control themselves as well as those of other nations.
Not a very high opinion of those serving in the military, though.
And, it would seem to me that if the US military has so little self-discipline then there's a far more serious problem than women on subs if you want the most effective military forces possible.

[Pax]

"Submarines are different than surface ships, Pax.

Our submarines rely on stealth and on the ability to remain hidden. A surfacing sub reveals its position. That may be less of a concern than it was during the height of the Cold War, but it's still important nonetheless.

Placing women on subs WILL lead to problems that we are not faced with now; that is a fact. Even those who support placing women on subs have to realize this. "

Brian -- I just want to be clear on my reading of what you're saying above -- You're saying that having women on submarines will force them to surface more often?

[oskar]

Would the subs suffer PMS?

[oskar]

Placing women on subs WILL lead to problems that we are not faced with now; that is a fact.

No, that is a statement.
The "fact" is that your statement has been disproven by other nations.