The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Crazy Horse on October 11, 2009, 07:03:43 AM
-
Navy Secretary: Women 'soon' will serve on submarines
By Kerry Picket on Oct. 10, 2009 into Water Cooler
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said on Tuesday that women would soon serve on submarines reversing a long time ban by the Navy. The Department of Defense :
Appearing on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,†Mabus signaled that the Navy is moving closer to allowing coed personnel on submarines.
“It will take a little while because you’ve got to interview people and you’ve got to be nuclear trained,†he said, referring to prerequisite steps before a sailor is assigned to a submarine.
Officials previously have cited a lack of privacy and the cost of reconfiguring subs as obstacles to allowing female crewmembers to serve aboard the vessels.
But Mabus is one of several top Navy officials recently to call for an end to the policy. The Navy secretary’s comments yesterday amplify his previous endorsement of ending the ban.
“This is something the [chief of naval operations] and I have been working on since I came into office,†Mabus, who was confirmed as Navy secretary in May, said last week. “We are moving out aggressively on this.
The Clinton administration reviewed the ban on Navy women in submarines ten years ago, but senior Navy officers opposed the idea. Critics of reversing the ban are likely to cite tight living quarters within the submarine as well as health and security issues which may arise as a result of women becoming pregnant on board a submarine.
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness told One News Now:
"In the very early days and weeks of pregnancy, the recycled atmosphere [in a submarine] includes elements that are very unsafe for an unborn child," she notes.
So let's suppose three weeks out [to sea], a married sailor discovers she's pregnant. And the ship commander has two choices -- either [he] violate the stealthy status of the submarine by surfacing for a dangerous evacuation, or he tells her that she will have to remain as she is throughout the deployment. This is an impossible dilemma that can and should be avoided."
Mr. Mabus, a former governor of Mississippi, has given no specifics as to when steps would be taken to allow women to begin serving on Naval submarines.
:thatsright:
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/oct/10/navy-secretary-women-soon-will-serve-submarines/
Let's not just stop at DADT...............WTF
-
a result of women becoming pregnant on board a submarine.
When they are at sea for 9+ months at a time...can a preggers gal even fit thru the exit hatch?
-
When they are at sea for 9+ months at a time...can a preggers gal even fit thru the exit hatch?
It'll be obvious that somebody fit her hatch.
-
I remember that women couldn't be underway after their first trimester. We had a lot of em get out of deployments that way.
Though I will say it's nice to see how much our new SecNav kows about the submarine force, news to me that all the TM's, RM's, ET's (IC, QM,ET) ST's, MS's, YN's, FT's.....etc have t be Nuke trained first as a prereq to serve on a boat.............. :thatsright:
-
As a submariner, let me state for the record:
NOT ONLY NO, BUT **** NO!!!
This is a bad idea on so many levels I don't even know where to start. I'll pontificate on this later when I have time.
-
Be interesting to see how berthing will work. Going to take one hell of an overhaul to allow womens berthing and shower facilities. Don't know about Boomers, but don't Attack boats still hot bunk?
-
Be interesting to see how berthing will work. Going to take one hell of an overhaul to allow womens berthing and shower facilities. Don't know about Boomers, but don't Attack boats still hot bunk?
Even Tridents have some of the Deck Div non-quals on skids in MCLL. And yeah, fast boats still (and probably always will) hot bunk. Believe it or not, 637's were better for habitability than 688's, and 688's are better than Virginia-class boats (shudder).
All I know is, I so would not want to be the COB or XO on that first "tuna boat".
-
The military is the absolutely last place to be PC. This is dumb.
-
Easy solution, just let a sub have an all gay/female only crew.
(http://www.truesecretsof.com/Images/Pink%20Sub.JPG)
-
I made a prediction a few months ago that these idiots would start trying to implement what Clinton couldn't when it came to DADT and women on subs.
DACOWITS The Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services is behind all of it I guarantee you.
They pushed Clinton's social experiment in the military and they are behind it now. I'd bet my paycheck.
The CNO and SecNav need to go back and research exactly why putting females on subs didn't work last time.
And it mainly revolved around cost. You'd have to redesign every sub in the fleet and every sub in the design process to accommodate female berthing. The cost for that is staggering alone.
Can you imagine a male and female sailor hot bunking?
And the readiness issues due to pregnancy.
This is going to be a freaking mess...that will see Admirals and Sr NCO's who know this isn't a good thing being pushed aside and retired...and yes men who will try to make it happen put in their place.
-
Easy solution, just let a sub have an all gay/female only crew.
(http://www.truesecretsof.com/Images/Pink%20Sub.JPG)
My first thought too :-)
-
I made a prediction a few months ago that these idiots would start trying to implement what Clinton couldn't when it came to DADT and women on subs.
DACOWITS The Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services is behind all of it I guarantee you.
They pushed Clinton's social experiment in the military and they are behind it now. I'd bet my paycheck.
The CNO and SecNav need to go back and research exactly why putting females on subs didn't work last time.
And it mainly revolved around cost. You'd have to redesign every sub in the fleet and every sub in the design process to accommodate female berthing. The cost for that is staggering alone.
Can you imagine a male and female sailor hot bunking?
And the readiness issues due to pregnancy.
This is going to be a freaking mess...that will see Admirals and Sr NCO's who know this isn't a good thing being pushed aside and retired...and yes men who will try to make it happen put in their place.
It goes beyond that, TRG. Now I can't speak for today, but I would imagine it was pretty similar to what I had to deal with, so here goes:
Sea/shore rotation is SUPPOSED to be 5 years sea, 3 years shore for the nukes until you hit at least E-7, then you might get 3/3 if you get lucky. Me, I did 7 1/2 years before I saw my first (and only) shore duty. Some submarine rates (ET-NAV) are as bad as 5/2.
Now imagine, if you will, a command with about 130-135 people, split into divisions of anywhere between 4 and 14 people. Take a "small" division, like YN/SK. Typical fast boats will have a junior (E-3 or E-4) yeoman and a senior (E-6 or E-7), if you're lucky. Whoops! One of them just got preggo! Guess who just got screwed even worse? Now imagine this happening in several divisions. From a readiness standpoint, it's a disaster. Hell, aircraft carriers are hard hit with these issues before deployments, and ship's company on a CVN runs about 3200, PLUS the air-wing! Think it's gonna hurt that much more when you're trying to send 10-15 people to schools and take 115-120 out to sea on Westpac or Med run?
Next, let's address career development, both in the enlisted and officer ranks. More likely than not, females will migrate towards boomers first, given the habitability issues, but even those aren't solved given the fact even a T-hull only has two heads for the enlisted crew. More on that later. If women are restricted to boomers only, how is that going to help the males in their career development (particularly the officers) who tend to balance their careers between fast attacks and boomers? A similar situation exists for the enlisted. You guys better forget about going to King's Bay or Bangor. Pearl, Norfolk, or Groton, with a VERY slim outside chance of San Diego or Guam. That's IT.
Finally, habitability. Anyone who has ever been on a submarine for more than 15 minutes will tell you that this is gonna be a cluster**** of biblical proportions. Given the habitability/hotbunking/showering issues, it'll be a full-blown riot inside a week. And God help the poor bastard that gives Susie non-qual shit about her qual progress, fills her rack pan with TDU weights, or finds her poopy suit full of Mobil red grease one morning. Oh, and did I happen to mention the evaporator is busted and there's no showers for the next week? Stores load? This oughta be fun to watch, too! And as far as those conversations in Maneuvering on the midwatch, say goodbye to those, too.
Nope--this is killing morale and retention. But then again, maybe that's what they want.
-
Moronic idea! Take a bunch of 20-something Bubbleheads, mix them with females and all Hell is gonna break loose. Why in Hell are a bunch of civies in D.C. screwing with the military?!
NHSparky pretty much covered it all in a coherent and logical manner.
-
I think it is going to get a lot worse for the military with the Zero in charge before it gets better.
-
I think it is going to get a lot worse for the military with the Zero in charge before it gets better.
Memo to Zero: WE have the guns.
-
It seems to me that having semen receptacles aboard subs would allow the seamen to deploy for longer periods of time. I wonder what ratio they have in mind?
-
Nope--this is killing morale and retention. But then again, maybe that's what they want.
Someone finally understands the motivation of this democrat muslim administration.
They do not do things like this because they are stupid.
-
Memo to Zero: WE have the guns.
Also the knowledge of how to shoot them and hide the bodies LOL
-
I guess that this will further enhance the old adage about Sub Sailors........ 100 MEN go down, 50 couples come up..... :stirpot: :-)
On the serious side; I've never agreed with having women in combat roles. It decreases readiness on the whole, for every reason that Sparky stated plus some.
-
Easy solution, just let a sub have an all gay/female only crew.
(http://www.truesecretsof.com/Images/Pink%20Sub.JPG)
Heh heh, I've actually been on board a pink submarine. When I was in the Navy back in 1977, my ship was undergoing yard work in Long Beach. At that time there was a tv show based on the movie Operation Pettycoat. They docked the sub in the same area as my ship and I was able to go aboard after hours....and yes it was bright pink.
-
Someone finally understands the motivation of this democrat muslim administration.
They do not do things like this because they are stupid.
Drive down morale...the retention rates go down.
Retention rates go down...you don't have enough soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen to fill the ranks for the units deploying in the WoT.
Can't make readiness levels for deploying units...can't deploy them.
Can't deploy them...time to bring them home and forget about this whole silly war on terror.
-
It seems to me that having semen receptacles aboard subs would allow the seamen to deploy for longer periods of time. I wonder what ratio they have in mind?
Bitchslap for ya.
It's not that women can't do many of the jobs on a submarine which are not as physical in nature. HOWEVER, the ENVIRONMENT in which submariners operate with a mixed crew in that confined a space for that period of time would be devestating.
And ya wanna know who REALLY hates the idea? Ask a submariner's wife.
-
Bitchslap for ya.
It's not that women can't do many of the jobs on a submarine which are not as physical in nature. HOWEVER, the ENVIRONMENT in which submariners operate with a mixed crew in that confined a space for that period of time would be devestating.
And ya wanna know who REALLY hates the idea? Ask a submariner's wife.
As a 20 yr navy wife all I can say is you aint kidding...lol
-
Drive down morale...the retention rates go down.
Retention rates go down...you don't have enough soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen to fill the ranks for the units deploying in the WoT.
Can't make readiness levels for deploying units...can't deploy them.
Can't deploy them...time to bring them home and forget about this whole silly war on terror.
I dunno. Retention rates drop too much, and they restart the draft only it is aimed at drafting 0Bama supporter's and indoctrinating them even more to support a dictatorship. :tinfoil2:
-
I dunno. Retention rates drop too much, and they restart the draft only it is aimed at drafting 0Bama supporter's and indoctrinating them even more to support a dictatorship. :tinfoil2:
I don't see these people...many of whom probably were ready to duck the draft themselves in Vietnam...bringing back something like that.
-
I don't see these people...many of whom probably were ready to duck the draft themselves in Vietnam...bringing back something like that.
It wouldn't be for the defense of the country, merely to defend 0Bama. I could see them doing that. Remember 0Bama's desire for a civilian force as well armed and funded as the military.
-
Y'all are forgetting something.
The Navy won't even need the boomers if Zero get's his way. Ain't the moonbat wanting to get rid of all nuclear weapons?
Don't need any boomers if the sub launched nuke tipped missles are a thing of the past.
-
And another thing.....
Will sub medics now have to be GYN qualified? Will the dispensary now be required to stock midol or mono-stat?
-
And another thing.....
Will sub medics now have to be GYN qualified? Will the dispensary now be required to stock midol or mono-stat?
Or RU-486? :fuelfire:
-
Or RU-486? :fuelfire:
Won't need that one. We all know that saliors will follow orders not to have sex with their co-workers.
:fuelfire:
-
Won't need that one. We all know that saliors will follow orders not to have sex with their co-workers.
:fuelfire:
Well it's been a smashing success on the carriers. :fuelfire:
-
Well it's been a smashing success on the carriers. :fuelfire:
The Oilers, Tenders, Repair Ships, Destroyers, Ammo barns, Gators, Frigates.....etc
Though I know I didn't need to say it
-
Well, the main argument that I've heard against women working in combat roles such as infantry is for personal hygiene reasons.
From my understanding the submarine is a tough and unpleasant environment.
I think it's a recipe for disaster. Personally, you could never get me to stay on a ship for months at a time.
-
Well, the main argument that I've heard against women working in combat roles such as infantry is for personal hygiene reasons.
From my understanding the submarine is a tough and unpleasant environment.
I think it's a recipe for disaster. Personally, you could never get me to stay on a ship for months at a time.
It's as tough (tougher) mentally as it is physically. It definitely takes a certain temperment, and I don't see a whole lot of women having that sort of disposition to want to seal themselves up in a steel neutron-powered sewer pipe for 70-80 days with no contact with the outside world.
Oh, and the first girl that dropped a TDU weight, can of flour, wrench, whatever...you get the idea. Damage control? Yeah, I'm gonna let little Susie non-qual get into full FFE gear and try to pull my unconscious ass out of an Engine Room fire. Oh, and lugging shore power cables across the after brow and hooking those bad boys up in the trunk, to say nothing of having her try to reset the pressurizer startup heater breaker. Ah, good times.
Like I said before, women can do most of the actual JOBS that we perform on submarines, but not in a submarine ENVIRONMENT. That's the problem the CNO and SecNav don't quite get.
-
What happens if she well endowed...........that's a harassment waiting to happen in the passageways.
-
My biggest question is one of pure logistics.
In a vessel where food is stowed in the corridors due to limited storage space for consumables, where the hell are the CNO and SecNav going to come up with storage space for 3-4 months (or 6 months) of feminine hygeine products? Also, will SecNav be making house calls to clear the head when Susis non-qual flushes her tampon down and it jams in the pipe?
-
What happens if she well endowed...........that's a harassment waiting to happen in the passageways.
Shit, CH--you've been on them. Even non-well-endowed goes "nut to butt" in the middle level passageway waiting for meals. There's no shoulder-to-shoulder walkways anywhere on a boat.
-
My biggest question is one of pure logistics.
In a vessel where food is stowed in the corridors due to limited storage space for consumables, where the hell are the CNO and SecNav going to come up with storage space for 3-4 months (or 6 months) of feminine hygeine products? Also, will SecNav be making house calls to clear the head when Susis non-qual flushes her tampon down and it jams in the pipe?
Surface ship sanitary systems are similar in that flushing anything other than digested food and small amounts of TP are a big no-no. No, boys and girls, that stuff gets put in the regular trash and packed into TDU cans.
Oh, did I mention that when we were on station we didn't flush a whole lot of trash sometimes, and ended up having to store it in the freezer?
-
As a submariner, let me state for the record:
NOT ONLY NO, BUT **** NO!!!
This is a bad idea on so many levels I don't even know where to start. I'll pontificate on this later when I have time.
I have to agree with you. I really don't have a problem with them being combat pilots if they have the killer mindset for it (I'm not convinced that even all our male combat pilots have a killer mindset instead of a 'Death technician' or just 'Stud' persona for that matter) and as long as they have no illusions whatsoever about what they're getting into if captured. But unlike fly-by-wire airplanes, in some jobs upper body strength and muscle mass count for a hell of a lot in an emergency, and a lack of that in a crew member could be fatal for the whole boat in the wrong circumstances.
-
Won't need that one. We all know that saliors will follow orders not to have sex with their co-workers.
:fuelfire:
I am sure all the service members follow that rule right :evillaugh:
-
Poor dudes, no escape during a lady's "special time" of the month. Will they install tampon depensters on the subs? :fuelfire:
My husband, who was a corpsman, had this to say. :bird:
-
Poor dudes, no escape during a lady's "special time" of the month. Will they install tampon depensters on the subs? :fuelfire:
My husband, who was a corpsman, had this to say. :bird:
Like has been said earlier...as usual with Libs they are putting the cart before the horse...making these big bold proclamations before they have actually studied whether it will work.
-
Like has been said earlier...as usual with Libs they are putting the cart before the horse...making these big bold proclamations before they have actually studied whether it will work.
It is being shown that it is not going to work this administration is just becoming a clusterfu*k of mistakes
-
It is being shown that it is not going to work this administration is just becoming a clusterfu*k of mistakes
I hope they keep it upa ll the way until 2012. At that point you could run Mickey Mouse against him and Mickey would win.
-
On the serious side; I've never agreed with having women in combat roles. It decreases readiness on the whole, for every reason that Sparky stated plus some.
Do you have stats/sources for this info?
-
Do you have stats/sources for this info?
Why does the AFPT scores have a difference between the male and female soldiers if they are both able to do exactly the same things?
Female push-ups:
Age Group 17-21 Repetitions
42 push-ups is 100 points.
Male push-ups:
Age group 17-21 Repetitions
71 push-ups is 100 points.
Sit ups:
Female:78 100
Male: 78 100
2 mile run:
Female:15:36 minutes 100
Male:13:00 minutes 100
Height/Weight standards:
Age Group: 17–20
Male (% body fat): %20
Female (% body fat): %30
-
Why does the AFPT scores have a difference between the male and female soldiers if they are both able to do exactly the same things?
Female push-ups:
Age Group 17-21 Repetitions
42 push-ups is 100 points.
19 push-ups is the minimum
Male push-ups:
Age group 17-21 Repetitions
71 push-ups is 100 points.
42 push-ups is the minimum
Sit ups:
Female:78 100
Male: 78 100
2 mile run:
Female:15:36 minutes 100
18:54 is the minimum
Male:13:00 minutes 100
15:54 is the minimum
Height/Weight standards:
Age Group: 17–20
Male (allowed % body fat): %20
Female (allowed % body fat): %30
Added more info to complete the comparison. Now why does a man have to do a certain amount, but a woman has to do less? I know not all women are as strong as men, but if they are doing the same job, shouldn't they be graded on the same scale?
-
Guys, guys, this is all easily solved by just building a new fleet of larger, more spacious subs.
-
Guys, guys, this is all easily solved by just building a new fleet of larger, more spacious subs.
I think you forgot this: /sarc
-
I think you forgot this: /sarc
Nah, I figured I'd just buy stock in whichever company builds those enormous things.
-
Added more info to complete the comparison. Now why does a man have to do a certain amount, but a woman has to do less? I know not all women are as strong as men, but if they are doing the same job, shouldn't they be graded on the same scale?
Are the women still allowed to do the easier type of sit-ups?
-
Nah, I figured I'd just buy stock in whichever company builds those enormous things.
Never will happen and I guess you have never stepped foot on a modern sub or been stationed on one
-
Are the women still allowed to do the easier type of sit-ups?
no, all situps are equal
-
There are easier types of sit-ups? Damn.
The last time I visited a recruitment office, my daily routine was to roll out of bed, hit the floor and do thirty push-ups and sit ups and run half a mile to work, but that was a decade ago. I knew I'd never be eligible to serve, but I tried anyway. I didn't want to lie to the recruiter and get in trouble.