Should Women Serve on Submarines?

As a Navy veteran I'd say we should either open up any billet for females qualified to serve, or not allow females to either enlist or be commissioned in the Navy.

Service in the Navy involves transitions from sea duty to shore duty normally every two years (or at least it did when I served). As a sailor approaches this transition he or she contacts a detailer to see what options are available. Back in the 80's those options were often limited because there are only so many shore duty billets available and often times they were taken by females who had never actually been on sea duty.

Obviously that isn't as big an issue now with many opportunities available for females to serve aboard ship. But in the 21'st century we should do better than we are.

Most male sailors just aren't qualified to serve as SEAL's. The same is true for most female sailors. But for those that can meet the grueling qualification process, let them serve. The same goes for Bubbleheads and brown water navy billets.

Thanks, Davebo. Good to have a Navy oipinon. Makes sense to me.

Dorian

I just can't help but envision men and women doing the wild thing in those cramped, over crowded submarine sleeping areas. Ballistic missile submarines having to surface to transfer a woman off that is pregnant since they stay at sea six months, and, thus giving away their location, compromising their always critical mission entirely. Even once would be to much.

(old man lecture mode)
Suck it up folks, war is serious. Who really gives a darn if 500 or so women get to tell their grand kids they rode around in a submarine in the Navy? So we do this just for the sake of equality? Some things are just to impractical to be worth the effort.

Women should be able to serve in our military wherever they want as long as they have the needed skills. Males have no monopoly on patriotism.

Regarding subs, women actually have an advantage of a smaller size on average for the cramped quarters.

Now that's one way of looking at the issue.

Thanks, FT

if any race, gender,or sexual orientation can muster the discipline, training, and skills the door needs to be wide open. . . .

why after all these years of seeing equal competence in men and women we continue to get hung up on the sexual?. . . .With one hand we hold them as our finest and most honored, and with the other hand we point at the genitalia and scorn them with the inability to contain or have mature sexual relations. . . . we can trust them to put a hand on a button to wipe out a ship with hundred's on it but we do not trust that same hand to put on a condom or to hold abstinence?. . . . . who has the problem here?

In a perfect world, Sparrow, in a perfect world.

Of course, in a perfect world we would have no need of war machines and armies. In a perfect world.

We, alas, come as humans, hormones and cultural ideations included, at once responsible and a moment later sexual and unharnessed from all but the barest of reason. Is that a reason women should not serve? It is not; it is only a factor to be taken into account.

Tidbits i hear what you are saying on this. . . but it looks like there will always be breasted Americans along with those that are apt to chose alternative destinations or those that get fixated with introspective graphic movements when they are in proximity, both sexes. . . but friend it just makes life so much easier, inspite of an imperfect world. . . to have a yes with most breathes and deeper down a breath that can exhale and say, "and this too" . . .

A quick correction Father_Time. Ballistic missile subs deploy for three months at a time, not six. And unlike attack subs accommodations on on the boomers are very roomy!

If I could get my two-cents in, I (and hopefully you, too) have just witnessed an exchange of ideas, a debate, between two of our readers on a controversial and very subjective issue. Their comments, I believe transcend petty politics, prejudice, and are just pure logic and common sense (I know you can read it all above here, but it makes so much mores sense when conjuncted):

ordinarysparrow: "if any race, gender,or sexual orientation can muster the discipline, training, and skills the door needs to be wide open. . . .

why after all these years of seeing equal competence in men and women we continue to get hung up on the sexual?. . . .With one hand we hold them as our finest and most honored, and with the other hand we point at the genitalia and scorn them with the inability to contain or have mature sexual relations. . . . we can trust them to put a hand on a button to wipe out a ship with hundred's on it but we do not trust that same hand to put on a condom or to hold abstinence?. . . . . who has the problem here?

tidbits replies:

In a perfect world, Sparrow, in a perfect world.

Of course, in a perfect world we would have no need of war machines and armies. In a perfect world.

We, alas, come as humans, hormones and cultural ideations included, at once responsible and a moment later sexual and unharnessed from all but the barest of reason. Is that a reason women should not serve? It is not; it is only a factor to be taken into account.


and ordinarysparrow comes back:

Tidbits i hear what you are saying on this. . . but it looks like there will always be breasted Americans along with those that are apt to chose alternative destinations or those that get fixated with introspective graphic movements when they are in proximity, both sexes. . . but friend it just makes life so much easier, inspite of an imperfect world. . . to have a yes with most breathes and deeper down a breath that can exhale and say, "and this too" .

Now, I don't know what tidbits will come back with, but I don't see how this debate can get any better, deeper, or more civil...

Sorry to get so excited about it

Dorian .

Thanks, Davebo

From www.defpro.com:

An SSBN [nuclear-powered balistic missile submarine) deterrent patrol is an extended operational deployment during part of which the submarine covers its assigned target package in support of the strategic war plan. Each Ohio-class patrol typically lasts 60-90 days, but one submarine in late 2008 conducted an extended patrol of 98 day and patrols have occasionally exceeded 100 days. Occasionally a patrol is cut short by technical problems, in which case another SSBN can be deployed on short notice. As a result, patrols today in average last about 72 days.

Being on patrol does not mean the submarine is continuously submerged on-station and holding targets at risk. In fact, when the submarine is not on Hard Alert holding targets at risk in Russia, China, or regional states, much of the patrol time is spent on cruising between homeport, patrol areas, exercising with other naval forces, undergoing inspections and certifications, performing Weapon System Readiness Tests (WSRTs), conducting retargeting exercises, and Command and Control exercises.

Another activity involves so-called SCOOP exercises (SSBN Continuity of Operations Program) where the SSBN will practice replenishment or refit in forward ports in case the homeport is annihilated in wartime. In the Pacific, the SCOOP ports include Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (see Figure 5), Guam, Seaward, Alaska, Astoria, Oregon, and San Diego, California. In the Atlantic they include Port Canaveral and Mayport, Florida, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, and Halifax, Canada. The SSBN may even return to its homeport and redeploy a day or two later on the same patrol.


Although patrols normally end at the base where they started, this is not always the case. An SSBN that departs Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Washington, might go on-station for several weeks in alert operational areas, conduct various training and exercises, and then arrive at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. After a brief port visit and replenishment the submarine typically resumes its patrol and eventually returns to Bangor. But sometimes the patrol will end in Hawaii, a new crew be flown in to replace the old, and the submarine undergo refit at the forward location as part of a SCOOP exercise. The SSBN then departs Hawaii on a new patrol, goes on-station in alert operational areas, conducts more exercises and inspections, and eventually returns to Bangor where the new patrol ends.

This type of broken up patrol where the submarine is allowed to do more than on-station operations is sometimes described as “modified alert” and said to be different from the Cold War. But SSBNs have never been on-station all the time, with most deployed submarines being in transit between on-station alert areas and other non-alert operations. In fact, “modified alert” patrols date back to the early 1970s.

Sparrow -

You and I are different in many ways, you the etherial, I the linear, but at times our spirits touch. I so admire your idealism and belief in goodness. But, I have lived long and been run off the road many times. I have learnd how to change a tire, but perhaps not how to appreciate it.

You speak of an acceptance of competence and sexuality that I would identify as European gender equality, more advanced I believe than our concept of gender equality. We are the stock of the Puritans. It is in our blood and has not left us. We worry more about sex than we should, obsess about it, advertise it and then are afraid to get caught at it and whisper behind each other's backs when we know or think or want to gossip. We live for "that moment", "that encounter", rush to it when it presents itself, sometimes blythe to reality, emotional, often less than fully rational.

But in the end, our spirtis nearly agree. Like you, I know that those with breasts can operate the machines of war as well as those without, and that they should do so if they choose that path, without walls or ceilings or the obstacles of our Puritan genes. You and I separate only on the need to prepare for the impact that sexuality may have on young soldiers/sailors not far removed from puberty who still talk in whispers and long for those encounters. So serve and serve well, but with your eyes open.

" don't see how this debate can get any better, deeper, or more civil..."

I was wrong. It just did.

May I ask both (ordinarysparrow & tidbits), are you both ladies?

I have a very poor sense of discerning such things

Dorian

Dorian -

Thank you for the compliment. I trust you know that your previous comment, in the middle of our discussion, was as intimidating as it was flattering.

And, no, I am no lady, or at least I did not appear to be when last I used the Men's Room.

Tidbits:

"And, no, I am no lady, or at least I did not appear to be when last I used the Men's Room."

Well, I don't know whether to apologize , or what. So I better leave it at that. Thanks

Just came across a poll conducted by aboutmil.com almost exactly 10 years ago (09/27/99), on the same issue: Should women serve on submarines?"

The results were, according to aboutmil:



===Last Poll: Should Women Serve on Submarines? A wopping 74 percent of you said "Absolutely Not!"==

Would be curious as to what the current opinion is.

And, yes, before someone jumps all over me, I know, we don't use public opinion polls to run the military.

No need to apologize for asking if I am a lady. It was not the least bit offensive, and my response was meant to be humorous. I myself have been surprised from time to time at which commenter is of which gender.

Curious as to current polling about women serving on submarines? Sure, but like you, I do not believe it should drive policy.

As another Navy vet, I say go for it. If they get the same pay, they should have the same opportunities and responsibilities.

First of all, believe it or not, men and women can go to sea together and not immediately fall to having unprotected intercourse at every opportunity. It's something called "self control." Certainly, however, some individuals will not control their urges properly.

That's why the general public has a variety of birth control devices. In fact, there are implants that work for several months at a time.

Beyond that, ballistic missile subs - which sailors refer to as "boomers" - already surface from time to time when the medical needs of male sailors demands. Sure, pregnancy would force them to do so, but so does a busted leg or a heart attack. So I guess you're going to have to convince me that the incidence of pregnancy among women who have full access to free birth control is going to be higher than the incidence of other medical emergencies.

(patient lecture mode)
Suck it up, folks. We have women - and homosexuals - who serve with honor in our military. The ignorance of holding people back from reflexive objections needs to stop.

First let me say thanks to Dorian for your comments, most generous, you brought a smile to the day. . .Thanks. . .

Tidbits, once again highly agree with what you say about us Americans being the stock of the Puritans. One of my favorite conversational memories was with T.V. News woman from India that had come to the States to visit her sister for a few months. . . She had taken in the American culture and one day we started talking about the difference in the cultures concerning sexual expression. . . .Her observation was we have a tendency to splash it everywhere but come across as more repressed and suppressed than men and women in India or other cultures she had lived. . .She talked how young people in India are educated by the entire extended family and how her Grandmothers, Mothers, Aunts, educated the young females in her family in a way that elevated and empowered. She wanted to know how children are educated in the States concerning the sexual. I had been a psychotherapist for a number of years and hardly knew how to condense and express the of lack of healthy education that most people had received as children and how it so often left wounds and cluelessness. And Tidbits i fully agree with you "on the need to prepare for the impact that sexuality may have on young soldiers/sailors not far removed from puberty who still talk in whispers and long for those encounters". . .

Much like the schools the military is all too often left with raising and doing reparation in areas where many parents advocate their authority but never deliver it in because of their own puritanical repressive roots. . . hope it is changing. . .your points are received and most valid. . .

Sometimes i have thought the evolutionary pattern of mankind is as simple as expansion and contraction
and the only time we really get in danger zones is when we try to hold the pattern of contraction for too long,such as the modern expressions of radical fundamental-isms. . .every clenched hand and every no will eventually give way to expansion if it is to survive. . . As fast as our world is spinning these days, we can learn to live in unknowing but it is near impossible to move into the future with a clench based on the past. . .

And Tidbits i knew you where masculine because you like motorcycles and leather jackets better than horses. . .

And thanks Tidbits for the conversation today, i always enjoy both yours and Dorian's comments the thoughtfulness, balance, and decency . . .

just a very two cents worth here. Am not the 'stock of Pilgrims, or Quakers or Dem Englishers. Rather, my bloodlines massacred and put in the stocks by same, inc Calvinists. Maybe that's why my thinking function is as strong as my emotive function... not agreeing to be so one-sided from cultural pressure... because we died under cultural 'pressure' thinking all of us, men, women, children, elders, were not competent nor valuable. Ok. What worse can 'they' do to us that hasnt already been done... thereby why not just be. Not their way. Just be. Meaning not taking on so much of the cultural collective that says you must think this way; you must never develop sexual depth, you must be wary of those who are different including the other gender and other orientations.

It's ok with us if others from the over-culture never delve into the mysteries and mystique of sexual nature... which is so vast, and in many ways, so arrestingly beautiful in ways that 'gettin it on' can never ever touch... but we feel they could have so much more that satisfied, if they didnt remain at the superficial level of sexuality and emotion and thinking ability

With regard to women serving on subs (not serving subs, that is... hope that made you laugh) it appears this way if clarity is any boon... the women pilots, women navy officers I've known from working at the VA with vets, have honor and discipline beyond the beyond. Honor that doesnt come from being afraid of being caught and thereby towing the line, but honor that comes from higher power. And Discipline. Not to look good to commanding officer, and suck up... but to keep all subordinates safe, to shelter and protect so as many as possible come back alive.

My long experience with women vets, some of which can cuss the paint off every pencil in a hundred mile radius, and some of which have a propriety that never cracks, not for a moment, and many of good humor, and great heart and let's just say a set of balls when needed... I am pretty sure they would say two things, and I would agree unequivocally... a woman or man on a metal can who screws around, breaking the discipline and breaking the ethic of not 'fraternizing with subordinates' or communing with peers sexually, esp if married, et al, would be considered ill fit for duty, having not been trained adequately.

They also, I am pretty sure, would insist that not only a pregnant swabbie or officer be disembarked at med port, and investigation ensued, but that the male who is the putative father, be absolutely and without question disembarked and an investigation into ethics opened also and immediately.

My experience as a military wife while my husband served 21 years USAF is that the military culture in reality is quite different than the way many civies may imagine it.

If honor is lost in civie culture but apologised for... the person is considered more or less rehabilitated... But in the military, a soldier/ sailors/ pilot's honor is considered the pearl of priceless worth that can never be duplicated once lost.


While it's true there are some hoo-has in the military, ill trained and ill-minded, viz Lindy English and others who were somehow seduced into forgetting their souls.. and acting so dishonorably like jackinapes on spring break making themselves not worthy of the title soldier... the majority in my experiences with vets is that many are sometimes considered 'north star' ...not meaning 'groovy,' but meaning utterly committed to honorable thought, strategy and action. For the sake of others. In other words, altrusitic to the highest order. Comminted down to the cellular level. Without variances. Whether one is a woman or a man, disqualifies no one. Only lack of crisp and unambivalent commitment to honor.

And too, was liking the interchange here tonight on Dorian's post between people of diverse and also oppositional opinions who clearly like and regard each other. ¡Andele!

dr.e

Yes I considered all of that and I disagree.

Adding a reason to surface one of our few ballistic missile submarines is quite simply stupid. Furthermore placing the absolutely critical mission of a Ballistic missile submarine on a contraceptive device is worse than stupid.

Certainly we have women serving with honor in the military, but not on submarines. We have no Homosexuals in the military what-so-ever. If you know one, post his name here please. He has lied to the military upon joining and that is a crime and must be reported.

What a great post, dr e., to wrap up what has been one of the most civil, thoughtful threads I have seen on TMV for a while.

Thank you

Dorian

Ooops, I just see, there is one more.

Ok, Father Time, if you considered reality and found it too threatening, you can go ahead and stick your head back in your turtle shell and complain about the world going straight to hell and those kids playing their rock n roll records too loud.

Just don't expect anyone to take your opinion too seriously.

No homosexuals in the military? Thanks, I needed that laugh. Perhaps you need to catch up with the 1990s. "Don't ask, don't tell" means that homosexual men and women can serve without it being a crime to do so.

. "'Don't ask, don't tell' means that homosexual men and women can serve without it being a crime to do so."

...and even when they are "told," it just means discharge papers, and the loss of talent and people who just wanted to serve their country.

Threatning? Sorry no.

The world thinks more like me than you.

No gays in the military. Don't need them, don't want them.

No gays in the military. Don't need them, don't want them.

Again, if you refuse to deal with reality, then there's no need to take it further.

As for "the world," are you aware that 20 of 26 NATO countries allow homosexuals to serve openly? That includes both France and the UK. Russia allows homosexuals to serve openly during time of war.

Here's a list of countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military:
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Romania
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Compare this to a list of countries that ban homosexuals:
Brazil
Cuba
China
Egypt
Greece
Iran
Jamaica
North Korea
Peru
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Singapore
South Korea
Syria
Turkey
Venezuela
Yemen
Uruguay

If "the world" you want to live in is based on the model of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Cuba, then you're welcome to it. But, how does it feel to be so very wrong on the facts?

Sorry that’s a disingenuous offering. Many countries that supposedly allow gays in the military on your list have mandatory military service laws for it's populations. meaning all males must serve, but its only a short period or a reserve service. Generally gays are not allowed in their professional standing militaries. Belgium is one country that openly allow gays in the military and is inundated with gays, but as we have seen in Africa, the Belgium military is pretty ineffectual and considered such by most military professionals, both historical and analytical.

It isn't disingenuous at all, Father Time, it just proves you wrong and challenges all of your assumptions about "the world." Next time, perhaps you should fact check yourself before you open your mouth. Then you won't have to make ridiculous post facto explanations of how, for example, the Belgian military isn't really a military and therefore isn't part of "the world."

So all you're left with is an absence of facts on your side to hold up your personal bias.

If we want to delve deeper, we can also point out how "the world" used to believe that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites and therefore could not possibly serve in command positions. In the end, reality doesn't care about what "the world" thinks. Even in the days of segregation, blacks were capable members who could do anything that whites could do. Even now, as the last vestiges of official marginalization are being shook off, women and homosexuals continue to serve with honor and show that outdated beliefs, like yours, are simply not based on facts, and therefore have no place in determining policy for our military.

Now you've gone off the deep end with stupidity. Gay rights does not rise to the noble level of civil rights for the races. Gay is a choice, not a natural or even normal state of being. Special legal privilege is not deserved.

No gays in the military. If they are discovered, kick them out with bad discharges and no benefits because they have committed a crime by joining under false pretenses. The military does not want them and I for one understand why.

Just because the world has moved away from your biases doesn't mean someone who points that out is "off the deep end with stupidity." Even if being gay is a choice, it is still legally within someone's right to make that choice. No special legal privileges have been sought whatsoever - being free to serve in the military is not a special privilege.

And since we're speaking about stupidity, let's quit saying that it's a crime to join the military if a person is gay. That policy when out over a decade ago.

Just wondering - how much time did you spend in uniform?

As an ex-submarine sailor I find this discussion ridiculous. Aside from being able to carry shore power cables, load stores, carry cleats, or any number of other grudging tasks that require brute strength, what of the not so obvious? Under normal circumstance anyone with a modicum of skill and intelligence can do most all of the jobs onboard. However when the sh*t hit’s the fan I have seen grown men literally run from potential explosions, fire, and flooding, and I am sorry but the bulk of them were effeminate. It is split second decisions and the capacity to act on them that saves lives, not some feel good social engineering project. Humph.

I think putting women on submarines is a horrible idea for many reasons.

One: It is going to cost a lot to seperate men and women. I know the arguement is that the Navy seperates officers and enlisted so why can't be seperate men and women? That would either mean even less space for everybody or less space for the submarine to carry needed things to carry out their mission. It is not logical finacially.

Two: I know everyone says that if they are professional adults then there would not be a problem with sex but there would def be sexual tension that could not really be escaped by walking away. THERE IS NO WHERE TO WALK AWAY TO. That also goes for drama, which brings me to my next point...

Three: As a woman I know it is very hard for women to get along. Women are catty. Women get jealous. This would be ten times worse if they were on cramped close quarters unable to get away from each other. No work would get done.

Four: One of the main reasons men go submarines is to get away from women. How are they going to do that if we let women on them? That is just a random point that may not make a lot of sense to the arguement but it is valid for those who really make it a point is choosing where to go with their Navy Career.