US Navy to Allow Women Submariners

[Broomstick]

I'm a little surprised no one has picked this up yet:

Pentagon OKs Lifting Ban on Women In Submarines
By REUTERS
Published: February 23, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday it is moving ahead with plans to end the U.S. military's ban on allowing women to serve in submarines.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent a letter to lawmakers notifying them of the decision by the Navy, which could see the first women on nuclear submarines next year.

"This is fundamentally a Navy initiative, which they recently briefed to the secretary of defense. (Gates) supports it and he notified Congress of the Navy's plans," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

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 -- a practice known as "hot bunking."

A likely scenario would see female officers becoming the first to join crews on the Navy's fleet of 71 submarines, since officers have separate accommodations, a U.S. defense official said.

Congress has 30 days to provide its official comment on the Navy's decision.

Nancy Duff Campbell, an advocate for expanding the role of women in the U.S. armed forces, applauded the decision and said she did not expect any opposition from lawmakers.

"This is something that has a lot of support (within the military) and the Navy has a serious plan" to carefully integrate submarine personnel, she said.

Allowing women on submarines would be another step forward in expanding the role of women in the U.S. military. In 2008, a woman was promoted to the rank of four-star general for the first time.

Testifying in the Senate on Tuesday, Army General George Casey said he thought it was time to re-examine the policy that places restrictions on women in combat roles.

"We don't have an active effort going on, but I think it's time," Casey said.

Women are still barred from traditional frontline combat roles in the U.S. armed forces. But female soldiers often run the same risks as men in Iraq and Afghanistan, where bombings and other insurgent attacks can happen almost anywhere.

Any thoughts?

(Of course, I have a few of my own, but I thought I'd let other people go first)

[Dominus Atheos]

We have 71 submarines? I'm going to get flamed for asking this, but what possible responsibilities could the US Navy have that require 71 submarines to fulfill?

[Liberty]

We have 71 submarines? I'm going to get flamed for asking this, but what possible responsibilities could the US Navy have that require 71 submarines to fulfill?

I'm not sure, but my dad and uncle both served on submarines, and I'm trying to picture the expressions on their faces if I asked them that...

Also, with all the sexual abuse that takes place in the military on land, this makes me nervous. I mean, these men are sometimes in these close quarters for months on end without seeing anyone else...that could get bad fast. Now don't get me wrong, I'm for equal rights and for women in the military. If men could master their dicks and not act like animals, it wouldn't be a problem. But for the moment...it makes me nervous.

[Thanas]

Deployment times may also be set back if a lot of them get pregnant.

[hunter5]

Yeah they made an announcement here at the Nuke school a few months ago. Going to start them out on ballistic missile subs to see if they work out. The ballistic subs only go out for 90 days at a time so a good initial testing ground and are a lot bigger than the fast attacks.

[SapphireFox]

This should be hopefully a good thing. If some accommodations are made for modesty and the men can keep it in their pants and act professionally I don't see why this cant work.

[Big Phil]

Hopefully they send women out in groups rather than just ONE woman on a submarine. It would also be better if they started with female officers (preferably married ones) rather than 19 year old girls surrounded by hordes of pimple-faced male attention. In any case, no matter what happens it's going to be controversial.

[Aaron]

This should be hopefully a good thing. If some accommodations are made for modesty and the men can keep it in their pants and act professionally I don't see why this cant work.

Theres no reason other then immaturity and ingrained prejudice, Canada has had woman on subs for a number of years now, with no issues to my knowledge.

[Mr Bean]

The Navy has always been interested in having a females on subs but the hangup as far as I know is they wanted a 100% female crew and could never get the manning together to pull it off long term. Or at least so my teaches told me and I heard growing up by old Navy hands. It should be easy to do if we start with more senior female personnel. It's once thing if they put Petty Officer Third class Woman on by herself and putting Senior Chief Female in charge of her department on the sub.

[Liberty]

This should be hopefully a good thing. If some accommodations are made for modesty and the men can keep it in their pants and act professionally I don't see why this cant work.

Theres no reason other then immaturity and ingrained prejudice, Canada has had woman on subs for a number of years now, with no issues to my knowledge.

That's really good to hear. Do you know how they started it (like female officers, or how many, etc.)?

[Aaron]

I'm not sure exactly, I suspect they started with an officer or two and went from there.

Like the US we where interested in it for a while but the old O boats didn't have the room for separate accommodations and wash facilities. When they bought the Victoria class they got on it pretty quick.

[SapphireFox]

So this might mean a few minor refitting and us subs are good to go.

[Aaron]

So this might mean a few minor refitting and us subs are good to go.

Depends on the class. SSBN's I can see having an easier time because of the size, I have heard that the Los Angeles class SSN still has hot bunking. So it might not be an option, depends how concerned they are with fucking on board, rapes and privacy I suppose.

[SapphireFox]

Arent the Los Angeles class subs reaching there retirement age anyways?

[Siege]

Theres no reason other then immaturity and ingrained prejudice, Canada has had woman on subs for a number of years now, with no issues to my knowledge.

So do the Netherlands. Although all our subs are smaller diesel-electrics, so I'm not sure how their deployment schedules compare to bigger nuclear boats (or even if that would matter in the first place).

[Aaron]

So do the Netherlands. Although all our subs are smaller diesel-electrics, so I'm not sure how their deployment schedules compare to bigger nuclear boats (or even if that would matter in the first place).

Our subs are all DE as well (we only have 4), IIRC deployment is three months or so, depending what they are up to. The arctic ones are the longest. Though the longer they are out, the more likely I would expect an incident to occur. It's not like people in the surface Navy don't go off and fuck. The Halifax class has a potato storage room that is infamous for being used for that.

Arent the Los Angeles class subs reaching there retirement age anyways?

*shrug* No idea.

[Uraniun235]

I think some of the oldest Los Angeles boats might be retired (or nearing retirement), but what I'd heard was that the new SSNs still had a lot of hot bunking going on, so I'm not sure they're currently better in that regard.

[Broomstick]

I'm not sure, but my dad and uncle both served on submarines, and I'm trying to picture the expressions on their faces if I asked them that...

I hear craniums exploding.

Also, with all the sexual abuse that takes place in the military on land, this makes me nervous. I mean, these men are sometimes in these close quarters for months on end without seeing anyone else...that could get bad fast. Now don't get me wrong, I'm for equal rights and for women in the military. If men could master their dicks and not act like animals, it wouldn't be a problem. But for the moment...it makes me nervous.

Nothing against you, Liberty, but I’m getting tired of hearing this (and I’ve been hearing it for over 40 years at this point). The brutal fact is that sexual abuse takes place everywhere and I don’t see any convincing evidence that it is occurring at any higher rate in the military than in civilian life. That does not excuse it, of course. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the possibility or get stupid about risks and environment. However, until a civilian woman’s risk of rape or sexual assault drops to a level significantly below that of women in the military I can’t see this as a valid argument.

Deployment times may also be set back if a lot of them get pregnant.

Personally, I’m in favor of making reliable birth control a requirement for women submariners. Like, implanted birth control. If you can’t accept it or can’t medically tolerate it then too bad, you will not serve on a submarine.

Absent that (which, let’s face it might be too sensible for some of the nutjobs in power in the US) I’d say pregnancy test the women prior to deployment. If the initial women involved are only on patrol about 90 days I don’t see where that would really be an issue. At most they’d be 3 months along when the patrol ends. Pregnancy is not an emergency, and I’m not aware of any duty on board a sub that couldn’t be done by a woman 3 months along. Stock some morning-after pills, that might also help reduce this “problem” to miniscule levels.

Longer patrols might get problematic, but c’mon man, women do things like over-winter in Antarctica which also involves issues of isolation and lack of immediate access to medical care that also seem to be brought up in these matters.

Starting this on larger subs makes a lot of sense – more room, more ability to provide separate facilities where it does make sense (bathrooms, bunks), and, if done properly, more peer pressure to behave.

So this might mean a few minor refitting and us subs are good to go.

Depends on the class. SSBN's I can see having an easier time because of the size, I have heard that the Los Angeles class SSN still has hot bunking. So it might not be an option, depends how concerned they are with fucking on board, rapes and privacy I suppose.

I don’t give a damn about consensual fucking as long as it’s not done in a disruptive manner and surfaces aren’t left sticky. Military personnel are healthy and overwhelming young – young, healthy people fuck. It’s well known that many instances young , healthy heterosexual men will fuck each other if isolated without women long enough. If people are horny enough they’ll do without privacy, too. My only concern would be with NON-consensual sex and anything that would be disruptive to other personnel.

[Broomstick]

I think some of the oldest Los Angeles boats might be retired (or nearing retirement), but what I'd heard was that the new SSNs still had a lot of hot bunking going on, so I'm not sure they're currently better in that regard.

There's probably a way to work it out so women hot-bunk with women and men hot-bunk with men.

[Agent Fisher]

I'm picturing something like in Starship Troopers were there's Women's Country, with armed sentries at the door of Bulkhead 30.

[Aaron]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I covered that in a previous post.

I'm not sure exactly, I suspect they started with an officer or two and went from there.

Like the US we where interested in it for a while but the old O boats didn't have the room for separate accommodations and wash facilities. When they bought the Victoria class they got on it pretty quick.

Depends on the class. SSBN's I can see having an easier time because of the size, I have heard that the Los Angeles class SSN still has hot bunking. So it might not be an option, depends how concerned they are with fucking on board, rapes and privacy I suppose.

I don’t give a damn about consensual fucking as long as it’s not done in a disruptive manner and surfaces aren’t left sticky. Military personnel are healthy and overwhelming young – young, healthy people fuck. It’s well known that many instances young , healthy heterosexual men will fuck each other if isolated without women long enough. If people are horny enough they’ll do without privacy, too. My only concern would be with NON-consensual sex and anything that would be disruptive to other personnel.

I don't know about you but I'm not particularly fond of fucking over a six month patrol because someone got knocked up and had to be taken off.

[eion]

We have 71 submarines? I'm going to get flamed for asking this, but what possible responsibilities could the US Navy have that require 71 submarines to fulfill?

Composition of US Submarine Force
Ohio class (18 in commission) — ballistic missile submarines, 4 converted into guided missile submarines (SSGN's).

Virginia class (5 in commission, 1 under construction, 6 on order) — attack submarines
Seawolf class (3 in commission) — attack submarines
Los Angeles class (49 in commission) — attack submarines

14 boomers are on deterrence patrol, a fast attack may accompany each.
The 4 SSGN boomers are probably deployed with the fleets.

Seawolfs have engaged in espionage work. 2 Los Angeles class boats were modified to deploy special forces, and the Virginia class was designed with inherent special forces capability.

Nuclear Attack Submarines are very useful. They operate without underway fuel replenishment. They're stealthy, and if you deploy them well you have a very quick attack platform without having to bring in a missile destroyers or aircraft carriers.

Boomers operate continuously with 2 separate crews rotating. I don't know if attack submarines operate under similar circumstances.

On the article, this is a change long in coming, and hopefully continues to demonstrate how ridiculous the allegations of injury to morale and esprit-de-corps are in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" debate.

[ShadowDragon8685]

One of my old teachers once said that as long as there are two people alive and in proximity to one another, there shall be politics.

A good paraphrase would be that as long as there are two people alive and in proximity to one another, there shall be sex.



The question then becomes not so much 'how does one prevent sex' as 'how does one prevent the potential complications sex could cause.' I saw a documentary about how on the Nimitz class carriers, even though sex is absolutely verboten that doesn't prevent it, and they frequently - or perhaps "not-infrequently" - have to ship pregnant women back stateside.


The only practical idea that comes to my mind would be mandatory birth control. But of course, this idea takes a gigantic heaping diareaha all over civil rights. On second blush, though, is that really such an insurmountable thing - after all, in volunteering for the military, you already waive a great many - some might say most - of your civil rights, and the sub corps is and always has been all-volunteer in an already all-volunteer Navy.

But it would still, without question, represent a gigantic, titanic, incomprehensibly vile imposition on the female pioneers who might think of volunteering for submarine duty... Could this be mitigated, I wonder, by making birth control on submarines a nonoption for all crew, male and female? IIRC there are forms of male birth control pills that can be used... Actually, that might even make it a bit of an ironic cumuppance; if, say, the female crew opt to get IUDs and the male crew have to keep taking pills.

I'm certain the idea is one that will enrage fury. Believe me, even I know how bad it looks. But then, Army personel have to keep smooth-shaved so they can get a tight fit for gas masks, irregardless of religious objections requiring them to wear a beard, do they not?


It just seems to me that if you're going to have men and women in tight quarters, fucking is going to happen. It's simply a fact of life; blaming men for 'being monsters' is a bit unfair. Yes, there are testosterone-laden assholes, but there's also going to be those who simply fancy a fast and hard shag with a fast and hard consenting woman - and consenting women who fancy a fast and hard shag with a fast and hard consenting man. No matter how much that may violate The Book, it's going to happen - no Holy Book has ever kept horny human beings from pounding one another, the UCMJ and the Submarine Corps hasn't a hope in hell. Rather than simply promising atrocious punishments, it seems more reasonable to take measures to prevent the reasons you want to prevent them in the first place - namely the disruptions to a vessel's operations that a woman coming down suddenly gravid could cause. Unlike a big carrier which has planes flying in and out at literally all hours of the day and night, a submarine won't have such a luxury.

Of course, that doesn't do anything to address the problem of rape. I'm not sure what even could be done - equally as long as horny, consenting human beings have been leaping at one another, horny men have been clubbing nonconsenting women over the head and dragging them back to their caves. Even in civilian life, rape is one of the least reported - and least successfully-prosecuted - crimes. I think if any real DA had the same track record as the ones from Law & Order: SVU, the criminologists would be beating a path to his or her door to figure out what the hell they're doing right.

As far as on a ship that sails half-sunken... I have no idea. Even if you stationed an NCIS Agent Afloat on every single sub, even if that agent was invariably a woman, and even if you trained all the sub docs in rape kit proceedures and cross-trained the NCIS agent in crime scene investigations, I doubt it would help much. For one thing, there's simply the pressure not to report it - in a tight, crunched steel can holding itself together against the ocean's pressure, I imagine that many wouldn't simply report it, for fear of retaliation of the report. Some would, of course, be too shamed to admit it, too.

Then there's the paradoxical fact that, though you'll be hard-pressed to find a human alive who wouldn't call rape one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, in the leauges of torture, murder and treason, almost nobody ever wants to believe it. Paradoxically, this seems to affect women as well, if not moreso, than men - I've heard it said (purely conjecture, but worth throwing out,) that women come down hard on rape victims because if they're forced to admit that she was victimized, they could be too; hence they subscribe to the 'she was asking for it' mentality to assure themselves that as long as they don't 'ask for it' it cannot happen to them. Men, of course, are simply likely to take a much simpler stance of 'lying bitch is trying to get my bro in deep hot water'.

I don't know how you'd fight that. Even if you made rape aboard a submarine a crime punishable by summary exeuction, it wouldn't stop it. The steepness of the punishment has never, to my knowledge, stopped criminal activity, even back in the days when they lopped off hands for something as simple as thieving a few pennies or a loaf of bread, or even in the days when it was heads which were lopped off. If anything, it would make convictions less likely, as I imagine aboard a submarine the panel making the decision would be the senior officers. The alternative is to make the mere allegation an offense worthy of summary confinement, but the inevitable thought process that that brings to mind is 'what if some vengeful harpy accuses someone of raping her just to get him confined'. And of course, what if the accusee is someone important - the Captain or the XO, without whom nuclear deployment becomes impossible, for instance, or a diveo fficer or something... Not that any member of the crew is unimportant, but some are more vital than others - you can make do without the buttmonkey who pulled latrine duty most of the time, for instance. Not so much without the ship's surgeon.

Honestly, I can't imagine what kind of patriotic fervor could inspire a woman to volunteer for military duty having any inkling of the likelihood of sexual abuse at the hands of those who are ostensibly her comrades-in-arms. Yet, they exist and I would say that to deny them the opportunity to provide the other guy the opportunity to die gloriously for his country is wrong; and if they have a burning desire to sail under the sea and guard the waves against phantom commies and provide the mutually-assured part of MAD, I again that it would be wrong to deny them the opportunity to do so.

On the other hand, we have to face facts: sex will happen. Not even a probably there, a certainly - I would be very, very surprised if there were so much as one submarine tour which didn't already have at least one fucking occur aboard, and yes I'm aware that the crew of subs is currently all-male. Add the 'fairer' sex to the mix and now you've got the majority option of heterosexuality on the table. Consentual sex will happen, and eventually, so will nonconsentual sex. The only thing I can think of to deal with the first - or at least, the problems raised by the first - without the extreme measure of castrating the entire crew (which I have no doubt would cause volunteers for the sub corp to dry up faster than those volunteering to give Goldmann Sachs even more free money,) is to implement mandatory birth control. Draconically implementing such a measure only upon the women who already face such steep and personal obstacles to military service would be heinous; therefor the only way I can think of to salvage it would be to make it mandatory for all crew, regardless of gender.

And of course, that will slow everything down as studies are launched - what are the potential long-term ramifications of putting everyone aboard on hormonal birth control, should we allow those crew who have already been medically sterilized - IE, having had tubes tied - to forgoe the mandatory BC, and so forth and so on, not to mention potential individual reactions with the BC medication, and... Headache.

OTOH, I think every officer would agree that a member of the crew suddenly being reduced in effectiveness owing to the fact that she's now growing another human being would be unacceptable; and equally unacceptable would be the alternative of immediately making landfall or rendevouing with teh nearest surface vessel to transfer her off, especially if she was vital to the operation of the ship.

The all-female idea would handily solve the problem, too, but without enough qualified volunteers to fully staff a sub, it's obviously a no-go from the start.


Frankly, what we need to do is send bunch of navy pukes up north to consult with the maple-leaf navy to see how they managed to make it work without the world falling apart... Of course, the same could also be said for sending a bunch of army pukes to consult with Her Royal Majesty's Union-Jack Army to see how they managed to let homosexuals serve openly without the world falling apart. And of course, we won't, 'cause 'muricans are special, *stereotypical jingiostic and macho exhortation*

[Broomstick]

I don't know about you but I'm not particularly fond of fucking over a six month patrol because someone got knocked up and had to be taken off.

I think that would definitely fall under "disruptive", don't you? Hence my call for mandatory birth control. Yes, that will occasionally fail, but like I asked, are there really duties on board a sub that couldn't be done by a woman only a couple months pregnant? Yet another reason to start with subs that have 90 day submersions. There's a limit to how pregnant one can get in just 90 days.

[Aaron]

I think that would definitely fall under "disruptive", don't you? Hence my call for mandatory birth control. Yes, that will occasionally fail, but like I asked, are there really duties on board a sub that couldn't be done by a woman only a couple months pregnant? Yet another reason to start with subs that have 90 day submersions. There's a limit to how pregnant one can get in just 90 days.

I don't know, I'm not Navy nor have I worked on subs.

I'm with you on the mandatory birth control. As far as I'm concerned, you forfeited that right when you deployed.