# Military May Lift Ban on Women in Submarines....



## lesofprimus (Sep 28, 2009)

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.

Military may lift ban on women in submarines - Yahoo! News


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 28, 2009)

Maybe they can make all Women submarines and all men ones! Just Kidding. 

I really don't know what to say other than it would be awkward with such tight quarters.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 28, 2009)

Awkward aint the word... Ive been deployed on Subs in the past, attack subs only tho.... There is ZERO privacy and no room on the Subs for seperate female accomodations...

Imagine having 12 women on board a Ballistic Sub that never surfaces and goes out on 3 month deterrant patrols.... 

U wanna talk about problems, Christ Almighty.... What the hell are these people thinking???

After 3 weeks at sea, these women will be the target of every stiff dick in the tube....


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 28, 2009)

hahah  

Ya they shouldn't do that then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2009)

Not sure what to think either. I don't really agree with it, that is for sure...


----------



## beaupower32 (Sep 28, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> After 3 weeks at sea, these women will be the target of every stiff dick in the tube....




Agree here. Just dont think its a good Idea.


----------



## Butters (Sep 28, 2009)

Seems to me that there's an easy solution to this problem: Drop the ban on homosexuality while you're at it, and crew the subs exclusively with gays and lesbians.

At least that way, the women won't be the targets of all the 'stiff dicks'. And maybe living aboard a pig boat will be a little nicer once it's been tastefully decorated...

All aboard the fabulous USS San Francisco, sweeties!

JL


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 28, 2009)

I see this opening a whole new can of worms if this were to go through. As has been said before, there is just no "personal" space on a sub.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 28, 2009)

"Russian sub! I've got Ivan at 3,000m on an intercept course, he's flooding his tubes"
"Sound general quarters! Turn her into the attack, increase speed to eight knots"
"Aye sir"
"Flood tubes 1 through 4"
"Sir, I can't"
"Why not?"
"They're full of shoes"
"Goddamn!"
"Bridge to torpedo room - who've we got down there?"
"Torpedo room, Ensign Betty Boop reporting"
"Ensign Boop, get those damn shoes outta my tubes NOW, lady"
"Oooooh grouchy! One thing atta time willya? I'm doin' my hair down here"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> "Russian sub! I've got Ivan at 3,000m on an intercept course, he's flooding his tubes"
> "Sound general quarters! Turn her into the attack, increase speed to eight knots"
> "Aye sir"
> "Flood tubes 1 through 4"
> ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2009)

What are they thinking on this?

I don't think the gals will be in trouble from the "meat rockets" as much as I fear for the guys and thier sanity...

Just think about it, women all over the place PMS'in, cranky and wanting thier "space"...


----------



## DBII (Sep 28, 2009)

LMAO

DBII


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Sep 29, 2009)

Down Periscope (1996) 

My cousin served in the Navy in the 1980's and he said the USS Enterprise was called "The Love Boat" because of all the women who got knocked up during the deployments. 
IMO, no matter what is decided this is not going to work very well.


Wheels


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2009)

I do remember one deployment at the end of my Naval career where one of the support ships, which had a compliment of 200 females on board, came back into port with 60 pregnancys....

60 out of 200....


----------



## 109ROAMING (Sep 29, 2009)

Les!


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 29, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> I do remember one deployment at the end of my Naval career where one of the support ships, which had a compliment of 200 females on board, came back into port with 60 pregnancys....
> 
> 60 out of 200....



Anything that compromises combat readiness is unacceptable. It's not the abilities of women that should be a concern but the dynamics of male/female relationships in such surroundings.

I'd be more open to the possibility of an all female sub crew.
... and i will be the Captain.

... stow the "seaman" jokes

.


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 29, 2009)

Funny stuff there Comiso!


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2009)

I agree 100% Frank, the distraction is unavoidable with titties bouncin around everywhere....

I brought up this discussion with my son yesterday and compared it to Aliens 2 where they had the Space Marines, male and female, showering and living in the same quarters.... 

Thats the only way life on a sub would work, but it'll never happen.....


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Sep 29, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> I agree 100% Frank, the distraction is unavoidable with titties bouncin around everywhere....
> 
> I brought up this discussion with my son yesterday and compared it to Aliens 2 where they had the Space Marines, male and female, showering and living in the same quarters....
> 
> Thats the only way life on a sub would work, but it'll never happen.....



Agreed, I think that society isn't really ready for something like this yet. There would just be too much temptation. 
I can see a double-sword issue here, though. One one hand, if this ban remains, pro-feminists groups will complain that the military is being sexist, and violating a woman's option to serve on a submarine. 
On the other hand, though, if this ban is lifted, I bet you that the same pro-feminist's groups will complain about the lack of privacy for women about a sub, and "crusade" for better living conditions. 
Just my opinion, but I can see something like this happening.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2009)

Agreed...

In close quarters like that, you're going to get people bumping into each other, basically physical contact in the course of duty...this could end up being fertile grounds for sexual harassment suits and all that crap.

A submarine is a highly specialized machine of war, it's not a luxury liner...

What they need to do, is get these people who are wanting to make subs a coed environment, and put 'em aboard for a typical tour...that'll give 'em a clue.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Sep 29, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> A submarine is a highly specialized machine of war, it's not a luxury liner...



Exactly!!!!

Agree 100% guys


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Sep 29, 2009)

Hey, since a few of us have been discussing if a sub had an all-female crew, I figured that this could bring a very light look at this idea.
Hope no one is offended by this. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGqwh_0gUvY_


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 29, 2009)

I looked at the title, and thought no way.....

Needless to say I had to click it, LMAO....Nice.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 29, 2009)

This has got to be one of the worse ideas I have heard in a while out of the DOD. Tight quarters, no privacy and long deployments are the norm on a sub. Throw in mixed sexes and I see a lot more Navy pregnancies. I got one short hop in a Los Angeles class sub for a 2 week journey. That was enough for me.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 30, 2009)

Wonder who thought of the idea to begin with?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 30, 2009)

A woman???


----------



## RabidAlien (Sep 30, 2009)

109ROAMING said:


> Les!



     That was perfectly timed, bro!

Having served aboard submarines my whole Navy enlistment, I will say this: IT. WILL. NOT. WORK. Period. There is simply NO extra room to accomodate a separate women's head facility, and while various class boats have one or two smaller off-the-beaten-path bunk areas, the tight quarters and close contact is going to be too much. Might as well load a bunch of lawyers and sexual-harassment suits in with the food....


----------



## Butters (Sep 30, 2009)

If this is what 'civilian'society wants, then the Navy will just have to adapt -just as it has adapted to other things that society wanted.

I'm sure that no one here is so naive as to believe that DOD policy is exclusively predicated on the maximization of warfighting capability. The military is not a culture that exists in isolation of civilian society,no matter that some might wish it were so. It draws its resources, both personel and material, from civilian society, and its very raison d'etre is to serve the needs and desires of that society. It's just how it is...

One thing that struck me is the large number of pregnancies on the ship that Les mentioned -what's the deal with this? Is the military going to have to incorporate lessons on how babies get made into their basic training regimens, or is there just some kind of naive, ideologically-driven institutional policy of 'Just Say No!", that precludes the access to contraceptives aboard ship?

Face it, people are gonna have sex whether it's 'allowed' or not. But that doesn't inevitably have to lead to mass pregnacies...

JL


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 30, 2009)

The thing is with pregnancies is that once a woman gets pregnant, their life on sea duty is over....

Its sort of a way around the system... That and alot of em are too stupid to carry a condom with them...

And as far as a civilian society wanting this, the only ones I know of that "want" this are politicians and women... 

Ill bet u 10,000 dollars not a single submariner wants this to happen....


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 30, 2009)

You cant argue with the numbers.. Like Dan is pointing out there are a hell of a lot of pregnancies... and if 4 out of 10 get pregnant, that only means the other 4 were more careful... (with 2 being solely carpet munchers)

just think of all the interpersonal drama it represents.. competition, jealousy, hurt feelings... no place on a sub


----------



## RabidAlien (Sep 30, 2009)

BTW, this threat/discussion has been going on since the early/mid '90s, when I was in, and according to a crusty old bastard of a chief that I had once, its been going on pretty much since women were allowed to be in the military (not just as WAVEs and WASPs). There are simply too many obstacles to making this happen, no matter how much certain groups may want to see it happen.


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 30, 2009)

True RA but i think subs are a whole lot different


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 30, 2009)

Can't see it happening. No more than I could see women in a combat MOS (Infantry, Artillery, Armor).

TO


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 30, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> True RA but i think subs are a whole lot different


I don't quite get your point in context with RA's
are you saying that it IS likely to happen?


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 30, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I don't quite get your point in context with RA's
> are you saying that it IS likely to happen?




I was acknowledging that as RA pointed out, it's a discussion that has been going on a long time but females in subs are a whole lot different than the military as a whole.

>>are you saying that it IS likely to happen?

i didnt

I sure hope not! If it does, it will be symbolic on a training sub.

.


----------



## Butters (Sep 30, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> The thing is with pregnancies is that once a woman gets pregnant, their life on sea duty is over....
> 
> Its sort of a way around the system... That and alot of em are too stupid to carry a condom with them...
> 
> ...




I was wondering if taking advantage of Navy policy had something to do with it. Guess so...

As far as 'who wants it' being restricted to politicians and women -well, politicians have to at least pay lip service to what their constituents want, and women DO make up at least 50% of the voting population.

And as for your little wager - Hmmm...seems to me that if I offer a bunch of submariners a thousand bucks to say that they'd like this to happen, at least one of'em will take me up on it. That leaves me with a cool nine grand easy money

All kidding aside, I don't see it as a good thing either. As Comiso points out, the drama and inevitable strife caused by cramming a bunch of horny, lonely men and women into a metal tube for months at a time, can only have a negative affect on the smooth operation of a submarine. But again, you have to convince the public that the cost of the decrease in military efficiency outweighs the benefits to those women who feel it is their constitutionally protected right to have equal access to ALL publicly financed jobs. 

That the submariners may not like it is not the issue. They have to do what the public wants. That, or just quit and set up their own 'No Girls Allowed!" submarine club where they can pool their money to buy and maintain their own Boy's Only submarines. Not sure how that would work out. Those things are friggin' expensive! And if their wives won't even let them buy that big screen TV they keep beggin' for...

The submariners and others who oppose a co-ed sub policy have to do what their opposition does. Let their representatives know that when voting time comes around, they'll be voting for the people who support their viewpoint.

And please, before anyone starts flaming me for being a ACLU-card carrying socialist fem-nazi -I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate 

JL


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 30, 2009)

Another thing those idiots in the "great white tower" aren't taking into consideration:
When a female soldier, sailor, airman, etc, gets pregnant, it takes an able-bodied person with all thier training and experience out of the service pool...meaning now they have to replace that person with another person with the same set of skills WHILE keeping the pregnant one "on the payroll" so to speak...

I can see women serving in close quarters like surface vessels, tanks, helos and similiar equipment where thier mission is of short duration, or accomodations that allow for free movement.

But not a sub...and I still say that the half-wit people pushing this stupid idea need to go aboard a sub and spend a few months at sea on a typical tour...


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 30, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Another thing those idiots in the "great white tower" aren't taking into consideration:
> When a female soldier, sailor, airman, etc, gets pregnant, it takes an able-bodied person with all thier training and experience out of the service pool...meaning now they have to replace that person with another person with the same set of skills WHILE keeping the pregnant one "on the payroll" so to speak...


Sounds about right
plus getting her off a surface vessel shouldn't really stretch them resource-wise; getting her off a sub could (probably would) compromise the sub's position. If an agency with a 'vested interest' knew when she left port and then where/when she came up, they could also work out her speed. I'm no submariner but I'm led to believe that it's important to keep that sort of info hushed.

If the plan is to NOT lift her out when she comes to or close to term then some part of the sub will need to be given up for obstetrics. Somehow I can't see that on a combat vessel but it doesn't answer the first point either.

Looks no-win to me, sounds like a good idea someone once had over lunch.


----------



## RabidAlien (Sep 30, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> True RA but i think subs are a whole lot different



Comiso, I spent the majority of my enlistment as a submariner. Been out to sea pokin holes in the ocean many many times. I may not know much else, but I do know that women on subs will NEVER work out. Other than the occasional (and very rare) specialist female rider, they will not be permanently assigned to subs. Nothing against them and no slights on how capable they may be to do their jobs, but there's still a lot of simple logistics problems. Subs are NOT big enough to have seperate male/female quarters, storage, or heads (shower/bathroom). Not to mention that, after 40 straight days out at sea, tempers are running pretty frikkin high and people are just ready to see sunlight again...throw a generally emotional female in there who's PMS'd at least once during that time, and something will happen. So unless they want to borrow the Soviet's example of double-hulled boats (two subs inside one outer shell..don't think they made too many of those, they're supposed to be friggin huge), subs are going to remain "boys only clubs".


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 30, 2009)

My brother is currently on board the USS Buffalo. I've heard very detailed descriptions of life on a fast attack sub. It would be an unmitigated disaster for the sub fleet. There is no room, there is no privacy, there is extreme job stress, there is no restraint in the way the crew members talk to each other. You want to tell a crew of people on a psychological breaking point to walk on eggshells around someone who needs 6 kinds of special treatment? Good luck.


----------



## sabrina (Nov 8, 2009)

All right, I'm a woman myself and I totally agree that this isn't going to work....I can see where they're coming from, and I think it's great that we have strong, unselfish women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country....

....but there are plenty of places in which to do so....plenty of opportunities in the army, navy, air force, marines, you name it, without causing a potential BIG problem by cohabiting on board a cramped submarine. I really don't think this is going to be a pretty situation...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2009)

They should just have an all women crew. Might be an interesting thing to try out. I say this because I personally do not have a problem with women on submarines. I think women could do the job just as good as men could. I however do not think that women and men can co-exist on a submarine without major problems ranging from hostility, sex, and the fact that there just is no room to have separate living and hygiene spaces in the cramped confines of a submarine.


----------



## RabidAlien (Nov 8, 2009)

That scenario has been tossed about as well, Adler...the common deterrent to that, the one everyone repeats at the deckplate level (meaning...the worker-bees, not the policy makers) is that women, in groups for long periods of time, tend to synchronize "cycles". The Powers That Be are (supposedly) worried about what would happen with a nuclear submarine with 150 cranky women aboard, and possibly nuclear missles.....once a month, a belligerent nation disappears in a radioactive cloud....

Doubt that's true, or all of the story, but the rumor of an all-female crew is as old as the rumor of females on subs. Nobody I've talked to has had any problems with the idea of an all-female crew, and we do enjoy the laugh at the thought of missiles popping out of the ocean at certain times of the month...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 9, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They should just have an all women crew. Might be an interesting thing to try out. I say this because I personally do not have a problem with women on submarines. I think women could do the job just as good as men could. I however do not think that women and men can co-exist on a submarine without major problems ranging from hostility, sex, and the fact that there just is no room to have separate living and hygiene spaces in the cramped confines of a submarine.


The problem is, you need an experienced submarine crew in place to train new crew members. New sailors have to pass qualifications on a large number of tasks and watch stations. You don't put some brand new crew on board a sub, complete with chiefs and officers, with NOBODY qualified. On a submarine there is no room for extra personnel, that means that you need to be able to do your job and any number of others, because there are no specialized backups. That means that the sub can only integrate a certain amount of new crew at a time, and that's with experienced Chiefs, First Classes, and officers.

There is NO RATIONAL PURPOSE in having a female on a submarine. There is no advantage to the military in doing that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The problem is, you need an experienced submarine crew in place to train new crew members. New sailors have to pass qualifications on a large number of tasks and watch stations. You don't put some brand new crew on board a sub, complete with chiefs and officers, with NOBODY qualified. On a submarine there is no room for extra personnel, that means that you need to be able to do your job and any number of others, because there are no specialized backups. That means that the sub can only integrate a certain amount of new crew at a time, and that's with experienced Chiefs, First Classes, and officers.
> 
> There is NO RATIONAL PURPOSE in having a female on a submarine. There is no advantage to the military in doing that.



I hear you and agree with you.


----------



## renrich (Nov 18, 2009)

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the current administration stays in power along with the current congress mix, there will be women on subs and eventually women in the combat arms of the Army.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 18, 2009)

renrich said:


> You can bet your bottom dollar that if the current administration stays in power along with the current congress mix, there will be women on subs and eventually women in the combat arms of the Army.


they may be stupid but they can't do magic. Admiral Donald and every other Navy Admiral will tell them that they'll be glad to as long as a new submarine is built that makes it possible. As it is, not going to happen. They just physically have no place to put them.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 19, 2009)

> They just physically have no place to put them.


Actually Clay, there is, and its the one place that would never work:

Hot bunking with male shipmates....


----------



## Maestro (Nov 19, 2009)

I do remember hearing about a female sailor in the Canadian navy filing a lawsuit against the Canadian Forces a few years back. She was serving on a traditional surface ship and said she had been a victim of sexual abuses by male sailors (story doesn't tell if it was a simple assault (i.e. grabbing a boob) or a rape).

And as I said, it was on a surface ship, where there is a lot of room compared to a submarine.

Is it possible that a single girl serving on a ship with hundreds of men full of testosterone can easily become a victim of sexual abuses ? Hell, yes. (Though it does not in any shape or form excuse the scumbags doing such things.)

Would the same situation in a thighter vessel lead to more accidental sexual assaults ? (I.E. Trying to fix a part on an engine and (whoops) touch the woman's chest/ass with your elbow, making her go cry "rape" to the Admiralty.) I'm afraid so.

My personnal advice is keep them away from the subs.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 19, 2009)

You know, it's not the rape/assault/whatever, you'd have to worry about. Sub crews work 18+ hours a day underway, they don't have time. It's the pressure of dealing with the constant mix of adrenaline and fatigue of sub life and then have to deal with the absurd drama that women would create. 

Women already are a huge distraction to the Navy. They drop out way way way more (pregnancy, threatening suicide, whatever to get out), they jump the chain of command and run to the Captain at the slightest thing whenever they want attention. *As individuals some female sailors are fine*, but as a group they do nothing but damage the ability of the Navy to run smoothly without having to referee everyone's interpersonal conduct down to what jokes they tell. 

My brother knew a guy in training who was thrown out of the military for telling a dirty joke (he got to the punch line just as a female walked into the room) she dropped out later in training. The girl got another guy thrown out for breaking up with her (basically) and then eventually dropped out herself. The Navy lost two perfectly good nukes because they couldn't say no to a person who did nothing but waste their resources and quit.

It really is typical, they demand "equality" then demand special treatment.


----------



## Messy1 (Nov 20, 2009)

Just too tight of quarters, no personal space which has been said. too many what ifs that could happen. I think some men/woman could handle it, but it only takes one bad apple to ruin the load.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Nov 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> It really is typical, they demand "equality" then demand special treatment.



Ain't that the truth


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 23, 2010)

I have to admit, I am surprised:

*Navy says it is ready to end ban on women in submarines - CNN.com*



Washington (CNN) -- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has notified Congress of plans to allow women to serve aboard submarines, a Defense Department official said Tuesday.

Letters of intent were sent Monday to Congress, which has requested briefings on the matter, said the official, who asked not to be identified. There will be no vote on the matter in Congress.

The change was recommended by the chief of naval operations and the secretary of the Navy in addition to Gates, the official said, adding that there was no opposition to the move among Navy leaders.

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-power, missile-carrying submarines known as SSBN and SSGN, the official said.

Women joined the crews of the Navy's surface ships in 1993, but officials had previously cited limited privacy and the cost of reconfiguring the vessels in arguing against their joining sub crews.

Last September, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead described himself as "very comfortable addressing integrating women into the submarine force."

"Accommodations are a factor, but not insurmountable," he said.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 23, 2010)

Well, thats the end of the seamen jokes.


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 23, 2010)

hahahaha Chris 

Like from Austin Power's "Want to ride my sub, it's long and hard and full of seamen."


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 23, 2010)

Well, the Navy has driven the sub fleet far enough into the ground, they might as well finish it off.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 23, 2010)

While I can certainly see the issues that are brought up and while they are understandable, I do not think it will be nearly as bad as people are saying. There's no reason women shouldn't be allowed to serve in any capacity in the military, besides perhaps old prejudices. And that extends past the people making the decisions, and to the male crew members as well. People need to realize here (here being crewmembers etc) that women are equal to men and there's no reason they can't or shouldn't serve in any capacity. And yes, I understand that there may be higher dropout rates due to pregnancy etc, but really, I don't think it's fair to lump women into one large group that is apparently detrimental to the group as a whole with a few individuals being fine, but should be considered as a group to be fine, but with certain individuals causing problems. Having said that, it's give and take, so if women want to serve anywhere, and want equality (which I believe is very deserved), they need to actually get it, instead of special considerations. I'm not trying to seem hostile here or anything, so I apologize if that's how I come across!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 24, 2010)

That's great when you're dealing with individuals, or theories. In real life, submarines are a cramped, high-stress environment where tempers flare and screamed profanity and sometimes physical conflicts go on. Guys are in there working 18 hours with extreme discomfort and no breaks and they deal with their issues internally. On a submarine the guy next to you is a guy who you can have a fistfight with one day and count on to work like a madman right next to you the next day. No amount of equality is going to make up for the fact that the sense of teamwork and mutual trust aboard the submarine is going to be destroyed by the officers getting involved in matters that never went above the Chief before. 

Women in the Navy already jump the chain of command over everything from dirty jokes to relationship issues and introducing a dynamic of distrust to an environment where you have to trust your co-workers will be a disaster.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 24, 2010)

Okay one last time...

Whats long, hard full of semen and likes to go into deep dark places?


----------



## ccheese (Feb 24, 2010)

The "powers that be" in the US Navy seems to think it will work on the larger subs. I rode the Tullibee for three days, and 
you could not put a female anywhere on that sub, it was just too small. According to the most recent news, the 2010 
Grads from the Naval Academy will be the first to serve on a sub........ officers, of course !

Charles


----------



## ccheese (Feb 24, 2010)

renrich said:


> You can bet your bottom dollar that if the current administration stays in power along with the current congress mix, there will be women on subs and eventually *women in the combat arms of the Army*.




This is being considered as we speak. The current administration has nothing to do with it, it's the top Army
brass.

Charles


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 24, 2010)

ccheese said:


> This is being considered as we speak. The current administration has nothing to do with it, it's the top Army
> brass.
> 
> Charles



Don't think the Army brass can make that decision. I believe that it's congress Charles. Women are barred by law from serving in the three combat MOSs, Armor, Artillery, Infantry.

They are allowed to fly, as pilots, in combat since the Clinton Administration.

TO


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 24, 2010)

I don't see a single thing that is accomplished militarily by accepting women into these roles. Making a military decision for a political reason is wrong 99% of the time.


----------



## Maestro (Feb 25, 2010)

ToughOmbre said:


> Don't think the Army brass can make that decision. I believe that it's congress Charles. Women are barred by law from serving in the three combat MOSs, Armor, Artillery, Infantry.
> 
> They are allowed to fly, as pilots, in combat since the Clinton Administration.
> 
> TO



I thought girls were accepted in the USMC... Isn't it a combat role ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 25, 2010)

Maestro said:


> I thought girls were accepted in the USMC... Isn't it a combat role ?



No, the USMC has different career fields (known as MOS or Military Occupational Specialty) just like the Army does. You do not have to be a combat field to be in the USMC.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Feb 25, 2010)

Maestro said:


> I thought girls were accepted in the USMC... Isn't it a combat role ?



The girls can serve in combat support. 

That's anything other than Armor, Artillery, Infantry.

TO


----------



## Maestro (Feb 25, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No, the USMC has different career fields (known as MOS or Military Occupational Specialty) just like the Army does. You do not have to be a combat field to be in the USMC.



Oh... Thanks for the info.


----------

