Navy will soon let women serve on subs

Source: AP

The Pentagon has moved to lift a decades-old policy that prohibits women from serving aboard Navy submarines.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates notified Congress in a letter signed Friday that the Navy intends to repeal the ban on women sailors on subs.

At issue is the end of a policy that kept women from serving aboard the last type of ship off-limits to them. The thinking was that the close quarters aboard subs would make coed service difficult to manage.

Congress has 30 days to weigh in.

A defense official tells The Associated Press that numerous physical changes to submarines would have to be made, but that cadets who graduate from the Naval Academy this year could be among the first Navy women to take submarine posts.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WOMEN_SUBMARINES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

compared to the tin cans of the earlier models I don't think they'll have too hard of a time making the needed changes. This has been due a long time. Women can drive boats as well as men.

:evilgrin:

Unfortunately there is not exactly a whole lot of 'normal' to them.
We are about to find out why this is the LAST place the Navy has wanted women to serve.

So flame away if you want. I know it is terribly un-egalitarian of me, but I guarantee the Navy knows
EXACTLY why they have not done this before. But, if they have to spell it out for you, they just won't.

I do notice that the article refers to establishing separate quarters for female offices,
so is this just for officers?

The atmosphere among the enlisted is what has driven many a 'normal' enlisted to go awol from a sub
when he had the chance. I bet subs have the highest awol rates in the Navy, so we will see how this goes for the gals.

Welcome aboard !!

Dude, what?

Please tell you are baked right now because what you wrote makes no sense.

gays in subs has never been a concern for bubbleheads. Really. They don't care. You pee by yourself and shower by yourself. What's it matter?

They haven't needed women on subs but the eye correction surgery has shrunk the talent pool from which the sub force draws. That many more kids can choose aviation. For the FIRST time the USNA is forcing folks into subs that did not make it their first choice.

So, they haven't needed to widen the talent pool until recently. It's nothing about submariners, in particular.

We peed in groups and showered in groups. And woe unto the hapless soul who dropped his bar of soap in the shower. The gays would become aroused like werewolves in the moonlight, and spread "the gay" to the other troops. Or so the story goes.
:scared:

Yeah, I suppose the subs don't have big shower rooms. Dumb question: Are the showers salt water, or fresh?

:hi:

I saw something about this story on TV. It seemed like the first women on subs were going to be USNA grads. I don't know when or if this was going to be extended to the enlisted women.

In other words, you don't -know- anything, and are just talking out you non-qual, lighter than a popcorn fart, ass.

In 20 years, I never saw a sailor on any of my boats go "AWOL" (the correct term for the Navy, btw, is "UA", for "Unauthorized Absence"). We had one guy miss movement once, because his wife went nuts when he had to leave and was emptying his seabag onto the highway on the way to the base. In contrast, I know of many cases from carriers.

The only reason there might be problems is because too many officers and chiefs are gutless today, more concerned with not causing waves than doing their job. They often don't crack down on misbehaving female sailors because they are afraid of being accused of being sexist. Yes, I know and agree that many women are unfairly treated because of their gender; I was stationed Point Mugu for a while, the center of the Navy's misogyny and racism. Either extreme is bad for good morale and discipline.

Hopefully they'll be enough adults around to make this work... I wonder if they would take me back in... Hmmmm.

The only problem I see (because I RTFA), is that they plan on introducing officers first, then enlisted. While logistically this is easiest to do, it tends to cause problems. In the past, they have found on surface ships that if you move women onboard a little at a time, it creates problems and resentment. Then again, submarine crews being fairly small and full of specialized ratings that don't have equivalents on the surface (this is from a few years ago; maybe ratings consolidation and updating of equipment make this less of a problem. Too bad they didn't do this a few years ago; There used to be several female Missile Techs in the NAvy (though they all served on tenders or bases).

I hope they are going to add another head (bathroom) in the missile compartment. Tridents (and SSGNs, I suppose) have only two for the enlisted crew, one at either end of the compartment. Dedicating one for about 30% (or whatever the final number is)of the crew means all the enlisted guys (about 80 or so) will be sharing 2 showers, two toilets, two sinks..

Maybe they'll convert one of the bunkrooms... Interesting times ahead.

I am a wife of one and take offense to your post, you and all the other haters always have talked crap about them.

I'm really surprised that there hasn't been one...

Of course, this is merely my theory. "Standing" is more of an art than a science. I just anticipate a likely argument that would arise if a case were brought.

for women. It is the state coming into your life and telling you what to do with it. Just my 2 cents of course...

Though a colorable argument could be made that the very act of registration is harmful.

Again, more of a science than an art. I just suspect that a court would wriggle mightily to avoid dealing with this issue. A court might also argue that this is a so-called "political issue" or an issue that lies in the sound discretion of the Commander in Chief.

All that said, even if standing is granted, a court might find that the gender discrimination inherent in the SS system "serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest." ("intermediate scrutiny") It's a fairly low bar to hurdle...

it. It does seem a bit anachronistic especially since so many Western democratic governments have gone along with more equality in some form of universal conscription or voluntary registration.

It seems to me that if you can carry the gun, you can be conscripted. However, if conscription is a violation of the Constitution then it needs to be said loud and clear.

Sea story/scuttlebutt here, take it with a shaker of salt...

I was told once during some equal opportunity training (or something) that when the commission for integrating women into the Navy was in session, the subject of toilet facilities came up. One submariner proposed that a ship could not be integrated unless there were sufficient bathroom facilities for all. Everyone agreed that this was a good metric to use, and it was adopted (among others).

However, even on the largest (SSBN/SSGN) submarines, the amount of toilets,showers, etc don't even meet the minimum habitability standards for even male sailors. Basically, there are 5 or 6 toilets for about 100 men, and 4 showers. Navy requirements require more than that for even "male only" vessels.

So since then, every two years the commission meets to discuss which class of ships gets integrated next, and when the subject of submarines comes up, the representative from the sub community sadly shakes his head and goes "not yet".

True or BS? *shrug* Not sure, to be honest, but it sounds plausible.

(edited to add)As for myself, I have always been in favor of anything that helped my sea/shore rotation, so I'd be ok with this, as long as the officers and chiefs enforced good order and discipline for -all- the crew.

But most males are. Look it up. It is the basis of the draft.

Interestingly, a narrow interpretation of the 2nd Amendment could arguably exclude women. Most men are legally members of the militia, both per Common Law and the US Code.

Your comment doesn't appear to have been meant as a response to mine.

Just in case there remains any residual confusion:

http://www.sss.gov/

Or, perhaps more accurately, Selective Service is tangentially related to the issue of women's enrollment at medical school, to be charitable... :shrug:

Again, any remaining confusion can be cleared up with a quick glance at the FAQ at sss.gov:

http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm

The rich people that control everything in america,decided they no longer wanted their kids put in harms way,so they informed their congress to discontinue the draft.

At the very least, women should be conscripted to do office, supply, and mess jobs that would free up a man to do the actual fighting.

than many men that I have met. If you are of the more fem type that is fine, but that is not all women. We should be given the access to serve as our abilities allow. I want to be judged upon my abilities, not my gender.

Women are not eligible for special forces nor combat units. Until they end the discrimination, we should keep our "special" status and remain immune from selective service. Give me the full rights of a citizen and I will be happy to share the full responsibilities of a citizen.

Sometimes it's like that. Most developed nations have integrated women into their ranks. We should too.

and then we wouldn't have had to fake it. :evilgrin:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If they can't handle gay men on board, imagine what trouble they'll have with heterosexual women.

The Navy will survive this, as they have survived other changes. Navy was the last service to fully integrate it's crews to include Blacks in all specialties.

Loved seeing the pic of the Pink Sub...that was a great movie.

Biggest problem will be berthing and facilities(heads and showers). But, the kinks can be worked out.

As for the note in a post here, I doubt if the AWOL rate is a serious problem since sub duty is considered an elite service.

Shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's minds about women being able to handle any of the present jobs on a sub. Another crack in the window.

I was stationed on the USS TIRANTE SS-420 out of Key West at the time the movie was made.

Women and Seamen don't mix well.

It did not go well.

What difference does it make? :shrug:

Just the chaos on the subs. I'm trying to remember the story he told me. Something about how when the subs would dive, the girls would slide down on something like a dinner tray for fun. Then one girl was seriously injured when she collided with something(I think?). That and the hanky-panky high-school shenanigans that went on. After that, they pulled all the women off the sub.

Since these subs are primarily cold war relics, there is really no danger of them "protecting" us from anyone, so their level of orderliness isn't terribly material to anyone's safety (save perhaps the sailors...)

I'd rather them not swerve into Godzilla while they're down there either.

It would only leave us with ICBMs, MRBMs, air-launched cruise, surface-launched cruise, air-delivered nukes, nuke backpacks, nuke grenades, etc...

No mission for billions of bucks worth of subs.

We can't afford it!

Their deep-water locations are unknown to enemies and always changing, and that renders them largely safe from attack. They can deliver lots of warheads to any point on the globe rapidly. No rational state would initiate a nuclear attack knowing that subs are standing by, ready to respond in kind.

In the cold logic of M.A.D., they are a linchpin of nuclear war prevention, an insurance premium against what would kill untold millions of people and wreck Earth.

I'm not arguing for or against subs, but I am pointing out that your claim that there's no mission for subs is decidedly in the minority. One can hope that innovations in technology or international relations will obsolete them someday.

You got that many targets?

No mission.

A sub must be within 4500 miles of a potential target. Do the math about how many it takes to provide full target coverage.

Also, the world's oceans and continents are irregular, which means you can't simply grid the planet. Many targets can only be reached from a much closer vantage.

Boats have downtime due to crewing, resupply and maintenance issues. Operational mission percentages are classified but 2/3 is a reasonable estimate.

A redundancy factor is included in the fleet requirements for the same reason that structural engineers "overbuild" bridges or buildings to a multiple of expected maximum load...because you don't want to be caught out by "unknown unknowns."

BTW, the US has only 14 Ohio-class (Trident II) subs.

Although I agree with you that the world could get by just fine with many fewer nukes, I stand by my original assessment that the opinion there is no mission for nuclear subs is in the minority.

Subs are mobile and much harder to take out. I would suggest losing air-launched or artillery nuke before subs.

within range of one of our carriers because...we didn't have enough subs to protect it.

If this happened, I doubt if the women invented the practice. Sliding down a tilted sub deck on a cafeteria tray? That's a "guy thing", no doubt - I'd do it in a heartbeat I'm so dumb. And if it was a "tradition" that pre-dated women on subs, I'd bet there were guys that got seriously injured as well. Depending on how you define "seriously injured".

If there was much hanky-panky, there must have been some chiefs asleep on the job.

:hi:

I don't think anyone was seriously injured until the women were on board and things became more like romper room than a military operation. I think her injuries were pretty grave(neck or head) as I remember.

Submarines have been doing that for at least 50 years. Maybe they did it on diesels, too, though I doubt they had enough room to get a good amount of speed going. Trays aren't used; too rough (and would scratch my deck, dang nabbit!). Wool blankets on smooth finished tiles lets you get up to a fairly good speed.

This only goes on until someone with a bit more experience/common sense comes by and puts a stop to it. Too many people have gotten hurt while doing that (broken bones, sprains, torn skin from bouncing off obstructions on the sides of the passageway or sudden stops).

If that was the reason that was given then that was just a cover story for something. Sexual assault, sex in the outboards, discrimination charges, or just doing too good a job. All this shows is that poor judgment knows no gender boundaries.

LOL.

When did the mighty Iraqi army chase us out of Baghdad? Did Slobo's missiles wipe Serbia's skies clean of America's planes? Korea? Even Vietnam was lost politically, not by the military.

Crack a book or two.

Perhaps you think the present quagmire in Iraq is what "victory" looks like? :shrug:

The military didn't lose any of those conflicts.

Korea was draw. North Korea did not reunite the peninsula under communism and China/Russia learned they could not bully the UN with military action.

Vietnam wasn't lost on the battlefields. It was lost politically in the living rooms of America and on it's college campuses.

Iraq/Afghanistan: Still ongoing. We're once again losing the peace because politically idiocy. But the US armed forces have performed very well.

Not that it would have done anyone any good.

Don't we have an OK relationship with Vietnam now?

Seems we won politically and lost militarily.

Maybe get your nose outta a book once in a while.


As for being chased outta Bagdad.... you mean just being chased outta the Green Zone, right? :eyes: Iraq was lost years ago!

We got an "ok" relationship with Vietnam twenty years later.

The VC and NVA could never make any headway against US forces, that's why they didn't invade the South until after we left.

"As for being chased outta Bagdad.... you mean just being chased outta the Green Zone, right? Iraq was lost years ago!"

Politically, maybe but do seriously believe any insurgent group could actually force us from Iraq?

say it, if only to yourself.

I'll be clearer. Our outfit... Marines... got our asses handed to us on several occasions. Non-battles we referred to as "the battle of the next trail bend."

But let's count "real" battles. The US lost any battle in which the US left the field to the N. Vietnamese. We lost at Khe Sahn, at Hamburger Hill, and Tet was a victory even though the North didn't keep any of the territory it attacked. The North had 16 air aces, the US had 5. We lost nine planes for every one the N. Vietnamese lost. We lost the battle for hill 861, lost in the battle during Operation Kingfisher, lost the battle for Kam Duc, lost the Battle of the Slopes, lost the battle of Dai Do, lost the Battle of Ong Thanh, lost the Battle of Two July, lost the Seige of DakTo, lost Firebase Mary Ann, lost the Battle of Ngok Tavak, lost the Battle of Lang Vei, lost the Battle for FSB Ripcord, and finally lost the Battle of Koh Tang.

In Vietnam, we faced the collapse of the military.. not my words, but those of Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr., published in Armed Forces Journal, 7 June, 1971
http://libcom.org/history/vietnam-collapse-armed-forces

Three Presidents, 58,000 US lives and 350,000 casualties, two million Vietnamese dead, 6 million acres poisoned with Agent Orange, and around a $Trillion in total costs.

In 1975, Army Col. Harry Summers went to Hanoi as chief of the U.S. delegation's negotiation team for the four-party military talks that followed the collapse of the South Vietnamese government. While there, he spent some time chatting with his North Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Tu, an old soldier who had fought against the United States and lived to tell his tale. With a tinge of bitterness about the war's outcome, Summers told Tu, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." Tu replied, in a phrase that perfectly captured the American misunderstanding of the Vietnam War, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

We lost.

I believe it was von Clausewitz who wrote, "the purpose of waging war is to deny the opposition the ability to wage war..."

Clausewitz in his book "On War" points out that WHY a country goes to war, HOW that war is Fought AND HOW that war ends are ALL POLITICAL DECISIONS. You do NOT destroy a Country you want to rule, you do not Kill off the Citizens of that Country if you want those Citizens to produce something for you. Thus NOT only WHY we go to War is political, so is how that war is fought and how it ends. Yes, many right wingers like to point out we lost Vietnam in the Political arena, but that is where the war was being fought. To say the "Vietnam was lost politically, not by the military" was pointed out by Clausewitz as just plain stupid. The General in Charge of ANY Military operation MUST be tell his Political superiors what can be achieved by Military means. If the Political aim can NOT be achieved by military means the General so tell his superiors and if the superiors do NOT want to hear it, the Military leaders should resign.

One Military Commentator on Vietnam said that the biggest error on part of the US High Command in the 1960s was NONE of the Generals in Charge of the Pentagon were willing to resign over Vietnam. This was especially true after it became clear we would NEVER go into North Vietnam or Laos for fear of Red Chinese intervention and the only way to cut off the supply line to the Viet Cong was to occupy the Mekong River Valley in Laos. As the Mekong entered Cambodia the Ho Chin Minh Trail started to divert throughout all of Western South Vietnam and thus to far south to cut off those Supply lines. If the US could "extend" the DMZ to cross the Mekong river then the Ho Chin Minh trail would have been cut and the Viet Cong would have died out on the vine. The US NEVER cut off that supply line for any US ground force movement into North Vietnam of Laos would have meant Red Chinese intervention. The US could have defeated such Intervention but the cost would have been high (i.e, required mobilization of the National Guard AND transfer of ALL regular US Army and Marine units in Vietnam, most National Guard units would have replaced active US forces in Europe, but some would had ended up in Vietnam fighting the Chinese. The Chief beneficially of such a war would have been the Soviet Union, for the Soviet Union would have had a free hand in the rest of the world.

My Point is simple, the US should NEVER have gone into Vietnam. As soon as the US was in, the US was boxed in. No way to defeat the Viet Cong in the field for the Viet Cong had support of the peasants and could just melt back into the peasant population as needed AND no way to cut off supplies to those same Viet Cong do to an inability to cut off the supply lines. Any expansion to cut off those supply lines would have meant a massive expansion of the War into North Vietnam and Southern China. Given that most of North Vietnam had been in Communist hands since the 1940s (Doing the French war in Undo-China, the French held onto Hanoi, but lost almost all of the rest of what was later North Vietnam) the guerrillas activity would have increased ten fold over what the US was fighting in South Vietnam even as the US forces entered Southern China.

The US had a Political Choice when it came to South Vietnam, leave in fall or send in troops knowing that they was no way to cut off supplies to the Viet Cong and any effort to do so would just make a bad situation worse. The First Choice was the hard choice, for US Politicians did NOT want to re-hear "Who Lost China?" debate of the late 1940s (The GOP blamed the Democrats, the Military blamed the Nationalists Chinese, but no one wanted to hear that so the Democrats got the blame). Expansion was a nightmare, a similar nightmare first appeared in Korea after the Chinese Intervention. As General Bradley said about a suggestion to expand the Korean War to Northern China "The Wrong War, with the Wrong Enemy at the Wrong Time". The same could be said about expansion of any war in Vietnam, the only beneficiary would have been the Soviet Union.

In military operations you can have four types of Wars,
1. Strategic offensive, tactical offensive. This is how most people see wars, an attack whose thrust is to destroy the enemy. The tactics used is to achieved what is wanted. Tactics as the method used to obtain what is wanted. Tactics lead to Strategic Victory (You grab what you what).
2. Strategic Defensive, Tactical Defensive. The opposite of the above, where your effort is to DENY the enemy what he wants. Your defense is to prevent the attacking from achieving his goal for the war. Tactics are used to hold onto what one has. Tactics lead to Strategic Victory (You hold onto what the other side wants)
3. Strategic Offensive, tactical defensive. This occurs when the country with a goal, knows that goal can NOT be achieved at present, but grab a Strategic object and then tries to hold onto it. The tactics is to defend, but it is to defend what you have already gained. Tactics are used to hold onto what someone has grabbed. Tactics lead to Strategic Victory (you hold onto what you took).
4. Strategic Defensive, Tactical offensive. This is the hardest type of war to fight, often ignored but Vietnam was a classic case of it. The goals in Vietnam was to hold on to South Vietnam, thus it was on a Strategic defensive goal, but the US went looking for the Enemy, thus the US did offensive operations. Tactics are meaningless (The Tactics are more to show the flag and your determination to hold onto the area, but the actual tactical result has no bearing on how the war is won or lost).

I bring up the four types of war for you quickly see why type 4 is often ignored and sometime dismissed as impossible (But that is what happened in Vietnam and is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, Please note I am referring to what happened SINCE the US invasion, the initial invasion was a classic type 1 war, but after we took over both countries the war became a type 4). In such a war, Politics is WHERE the war is fought and why it is fought. Every officer above Captain should know this (And most Sergeants and Company grade officers know this). Politics is WAR, War is Politics. You can NOT separate them. To claim that a war was lost by the Politicians NOT the Military is to shift the duty of explaining military reality from the Generals to the Politicians, and THAT is NOT why we have Generals. If a war can NOT be won, the Generals have to inform the Politicians and if the Politicians do NOT respond, resign and take the message to the people. No General has resigned over Vietnam or these two debacles. Taking both of them was easy. As soon as both were taken the US should have set up a Government under UN (which the US did do) and as soon as that Government was in Office vacate the country (which the US did NOT do). If someone said such a Government could NOT survive, then leave it fall, sooner or later some sort of Government would have come into being. Such a war was within the capacity of the US Military forces. The War that started as we formed Governments for both Countries was a type of War the US was NOT prepared to fight and a war Bush and Company did not plan to fight (but any good General would have planed from day one and inform Bush and told Bush if no pull out the General would resign).

The main reason I am ranting is I am tied of people using politicians as excuses for Military failures. Military Generals are trained to fight and win wars and Clausewitz is always on their training list. Thus Generals know that they are experts in carrying out wars and must inform politicians of the limitation of Military operations including an inability to achieve a political goal. When a politician refused to listen then they should resign. Thus I can NOT blame the politicians for the lost of Vietnam, it must fall on the heads of the Military for it is the military leadership that FAILED to do what they where being paid to do, i.e. provide politicians information as to what can and can not be done by military means.

Lots of interesting analysis. I agree, the winner is the side that best has its political goals met.

Some might say that the U.S. lost Viet Nam but won the cold war, since a capitalist ethos has prevailed, at least at this moment. That's debatable, though. It depends on time frame, I guess, and the units of analysis (country vs system of production).

If we spend on the military like we are now - and can't afford it - we could be the second loser of the Cold War. A winner-less war, if you will.

We sure out-spent the Soviets, and that forced them to spend more than they could afford.

I always think back to Kruschev's statement about how the US would fall like "ripe fruit".... just from our own weight.

Turns out they were the ripe fruit. But we're getting riper all the time.

What was the precise and relevant difference between women serving on carriers, cruisers, destroyers, etc., and women serving on submarines that caused the problems? What precisely were the problems and how are they handled differently on surface ships?

Perish the thought...

:o

WTF is the matter with you people?

:-(

Hatred and fear of women is alive and well. :(

many appear to be rewriting history.

Nam was not lost on campuses or in homes...it was lost by civilian interference with what the military wanted to do.

The north did invade the south...thats why our bailout was so sudden and disastrous.

"cadets" but instead has "midshipmen" (even when they are women. While it's true that they would rather be cadets, they are not. Trivia question: How are US Military Academy cadets and US Naval Academy midshipmen alike? Answer: They all applied to the US Military Academy as their 1st choice.

Especially kicking for Happyslug's and Shipwrack's truly excellent replies in this thread. Well worth the read.

-app