Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what you are all saying is that military personel...the great fighting forces of these United States...these highly-trained, highly-touted paragons of discipline and integrity...can't work together because they can't keep it in their pants?
If our ship gets hit, I'll float away on the life raft. Sub gets hit, maybe some pieces will float away. They offered the chance for me to go on a submarine. Turned them down. Why would I go on a boat you plan on sinking?
Every vessel will sink at some point. Only boats are designed to come up again.
Historically when targets do sink, what percentage of the crews usually survive on those life rafts? Is it like 10%
So your saying that you have never served?
And that you have no factual experience upon which to base your arguments in this thread; is that correct?
Well then, I thank you for your un-informed opinions you have expressed on this thread.
So what you are all saying is that military personel...the great fighting forces of these United States...these highly-trained, highly-touted paragons of discipline and integrity...can't work together because they can't keep it in their pants?
That is patently pathetic.
Refresh my memory (if ever posted), what is your military background?
As a vet of WW11 and Korea (Army) I find the info shown here very educational re the Navy Subs or surface ships. To me makes NO difference whether the Boat is below water or the Ship above water...they both have their particular needs.
Understand from the news that the first women to serve on Subs will br JG officers in 2011 (yr from now). Have never been on a sub so have no idea of the confined quarters but do wonder considering the posts about the problems that have occurred in the past. Not too good.
... Understand from the news that the first women to serve on Subs will br JG officers in 2011 (yr from now). Have never been on a sub so have no idea of the confined quarters but do wonder considering the posts about the problems that have occurred in the past. Not too good.
Steve
On subs the CO and XO each have their own stateroom, and these two staterooms will share a head.
All other officers live two in each stateroom. Each has two bunks, two desks with two safes. The officer stateroom area shares one head with a shower. 8 or 9 officers [a combination of all pay grades of officers] share that one head.
Subs do routinely take on 'riders'. People who are not a part of the crew, but must be onboard for a few days.
While I have never seen female riders; it is my understanding that when subs do take on female riders they will be berthed in one of these officer staterooms, and they use that head. The officers being displaced will normally be the most junior officer, and he will berth in Chief's quarters for the duration.
I don't understand why women would want to be stationed on submarines. Is there some sort of feminist push for this? I don't know why anyone would want to be on a submarine, for that matter.
Issues include the fact that women require unique medical attention and sanitary supplies. And that's before they get pregnant. These things are not impossible to accomodate and are worth accomodating in many circumstances, but not all. It creates logistic and waste disposal challenges.
This is the military we're talking about. We don't need to make sure everyone gets a chance to participate in every facet of the operation. The only question should be: how do we accomplish our mission as effectively as possible? If accomodating the unique needs of having female crewmembers is worth the effort and helps meet personnel demands, then I say welcome aboard, ladies!
I don't understand why women would want to be stationed on submarines. Is there some sort of feminist push for this? I don't know why anyone would want to be on a submarine, for that matter.
Issues include the fact that women require unique medical attention and sanitary supplies. And that's before they get pregnant. These things are not impossible to accomodate and are worth accomodating in many circumstances, but not all. It creates logistic and waste disposal challenges.
This is the military we're talking about. We don't need to make sure everyone gets a chance to participate in every facet of the operation. The only question should be: how do we accomplish our mission as effectively as possible? If accomodating the unique needs of having female crewmembers is worth the effort and helps meet personnel demands, then I say welcome aboard, ladies!
I agree, an Army motto that we were taught was:
"Mission First, Men Second".
So if having women onboard subs doesn't enhance the mission but logistically degrades it then it's a no brainer for me...
I don't understand why women would want to be stationed on submarines. Is there some sort of feminist push for this? I don't know why anyone would want to be on a submarine, for that matter. ...
A totally stupid idea.
Today we see that yet another skipper got canned because of an "inappropriate" relationship with another member of the crew. (read sexual relationship)
Sex has NO PLACE in the military. When you put Men and Women together in highly stressful confined quarters they are going to get together...they are going to copulate, have "sex". That is NOT the job of the military...to provide a time and place for people to grandstand their sexuality or engage in sex. You are in the military to SERVE not get "serviced". Our job is totally stressful ENOUGH with out adding the immeasurably stressful aspect of modern human sexuality to the mix....it's NOT needed....it does NOT make the job easier...faster...better....more efficient....more enjoyable....more productive. It ONLY MAKES IT WORSE!
You are in the military to fight....to prepare for and fight wars...battles. In order to do that you need to THINK ABOUT THE SHIP....not when you're going to get your next "lay"....Sex is like a drug...and people, particularly many young people who's hormones are raging...CAN NOT control themselves when that drug is made available.....if it's there people will take it....and when they are taking it....they ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS!!!
Time after time we have seen that this patently STUPID social-engineering experiment white-washed as some sort of measure of "equality" has in reality become an EPIC FAILURE...seen that it has resulted in nothing but chaos and a disastrous lack of professionalism in the military workforce the Navy Team and elsewhere. Who knows how much all this garbage really costs the Navy and the U.S. Military? All the lost time to "touchy-feely" EO training....courts-martial...JAG's running around ruined careers and idiotic sexual tension on the ship on the base that was never before an issue but now is going far to seriously erode the morale and effectiveness of our forces. For many many centuries...for many HUNDREDS of years we have struggled to eliminate as many of the variables involved with going to sea...and fighting battles at sea as possible...because all of the unknowns all of those variables COST LIVES....Men died because our ships were not good enough...our systems and procedures were not as good as they should have been. We took our beatings at the hands of crazed determined enemies....we learned our lessons and survived....got stronger got better and got SMARTER....Now we (or rather some dizzy fuzzy-haired politicians and liberal mutant "activists") are pushing to have the greatest unknown DELIBERATELY and FORCEABLY INTRODUCED into the military....that of sexuality and the end result of all that prima facie absurd politically motivated liberal mindlessness will be a serious weakening of our strengths and capabilities. The strongest part of our military is our PEOPLE and if we weaken them the whole system is the worse for it....and America will NOT be as ready to meet the next military challenge...
This social-engineering nonsense is best left to the college classroom....let the warriors do their job with out weighing them down with NEEDLESS and ENDLESS garbage!
WOW...what a shotgun blast... Yes, men and women ARE sexual animals. But mature men & women can handle those tensions. Military members engaging in sexual relations certainly aren't limited to submarines. It's STILL a matter of doing the job and behaving like an adult. If you can't deal with working closely with members of the opposite sex maybe you should be in some other line of work.
Again, I feel the ONLY consideration is: Can the member do the job? The UCMJ makes sure we all behave and and there seems to be only a small number of personnel that can't. If the rest of the world's military forces don't have a problem with men & women serving together, why do we. If we want equal promotion opportunities for BOTH men & women, we must allow them to serve everywhere men do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
