US Navy to Allow Women Submariners

[Aaron]

So its exactly what I thought it would look like, it doesnt sound very effective at all but I guess its better than nothing.

Actually, it's pretty damn effective. We went from dozens or rapes a year in the late 80's to...I have no idea what it is now. I know there was less then 5 between 97-03, when I was in.

[Dominus Atheos]

You're both asking how many eggs you need to make a meal but not agreeing on how many people are coming over.

Given the size of the US and all of the areas of the world in which it operates, I think we can safely say: A goddamn lot.

I would say none, or at least very few. No nation with a modern military has any desire to start a war with us. As Teleros said, if that changes we can start an arms race, but we'll save billions in the meantime.

[eion]

Why do we need to send out 19 - 27 SSNs? CVBGs provide mobile airbases and guided missile launchers.

CVBGs also require 10 times the crew and under-way fuel replenishment and each one probably costs more than the entire sub fleet.

The only thing SSNs are good at is sinking ships. Since none of the countries we are likely to go to war with have very many ships, there doesn't seem to be any real purpose.

As myself and others have pointed out, the Los Angeles-class Fast Attack Submarines that make up the bulk of our sub fleet, in addition to their anti-submarine, espionage, special-forces support, and anti-ship capability carry Tomahawk cruise missiles which allow them to strike at any target within 3,100 km at a moment’s notice without putting any surface or air assets at risk. They can sit in the Arabian Sea for weeks at a time and strike anywhere in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen. Each boat carries up to 26 missiles and each missile only costs $500,000, which is 21 times less expensive than an MQ-9 Reaper without any weapons.

[Alyeska]

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?

Currently the USN is in the process of replacing the Los Angeles class with the Virginia class. There were 50 Los Angeles ships built. There are going to be 30 Virginia class. The USN is already downsizing its submarine force.

[Broomstick]

Explain to me how a submarine – particularly one of the larger ones – is somehow intrinsically a different case than over-wintering in Antarctica or serving several months in the ISS. C’mon, I want to hear it – because both of those places have had co-ed crews without a sudden outbreak of rape. We haven’t had a pregnant woman in space (yet). We have had a few in Antarctica, along with successful births but McMurdo Base is more of a small town than a space station or sub is.

This is what makes me nervous. Maybe part of it is because I'm claustrophobic, but imagining being in an enclosed space with no way out and having antagonistic rapist crew members that I can't exactly get away from scares me personally. Maybe this is just my emotional response, though. But again, like I said above, it's true that man on man rape can also occur, so really, it's just as scary for instance for a rather puny man to be in this enclosed space, surrounded by crew members who might make fun of him, isolate him, etc. In other words, maybe what I'm saying makes me nervous is a function of it being a submarine, not a function of the gender of the person involved.

I'm claustrophobic, too - I would be totally unsuitable for submarine duty for that reason which is unrelated to my gender.

That said, when I was in flight training we did cover what to do if you, as a private pilot in a small plane, had to deal with an unruly passenger up to and including disabling said person. I had a cooperative flight instructor who helped me rehearse some of the required moves while on the ground. It was of some concern to me as I am not a physically big woman and some of my passengers have been large men unquestionably stronger than myself.

I might note that the men also had to consider this issue. It's a little less likely for them, but I witnessed a friend of mine almost lose control of his airplane when a passenger grabbed the controls and overpowered him. (Fortunately, he was able to regain control of the situation)

That said, there are things a person can do to avoid higher risk situations, diffuse problems, avoid provoking people, defend against others. It won't prevent all assaults, at best it only lowers the odds of them occuring. When the shit hits the fan sometimes something like rape IS inevitable.... at which point you have to focus on surviving and then, afterward, getting on with the rest of your life. That's not to minimize the harm done but such things, but seriously, getting the shit beaten out of you by a mugger wanting your money rather than sex can be just are horrific with just as many long-lasting side effects as rape.

It also helps if, prior to the group being isolated, that ground rules are clearly laid out. This is not just a matter of the men being told "don't touch" but the women being told what they should not do to avoid irritating the men who, after all, can't go for a walk around the block to diffuse tension.

On top of that, sub crews already undergo psychological screening. One would hope that this would eliminate a subset of people of either gender with impulse control issues or anything else that would cause problems in an isolated group.

An interesting example of a woman working in the company of men was Sacagewea who was a translator and occasional guide for the Louis and Clarke expedition between 1804 and 1806. In addition to keeping up with the men on their journey, during the expedition she gave birth and then carried her son the rest of the trip. Pretty tough gal, huh? Not especially - women have been doing that sort of thing for all of history. Only wealthy women have had the luxury of being pampered and taking lengthy periods off work for pregnancy and childbirth. Oh, and she was the only woman on the expedition. Yes, her husband was with her as well, but let's get real - on that sort of expedition there's a limit to how shielded she could be. Actually, it seems the men of the expedition, and certainly the two in charge, seem to have had considerable respect for her abilities.

[eion]

In what ways can communications be surveyed that requires an SSN in the area?

Yes, it's the Soviet Union, but the principles are the same

Why can't our forces in Afghanistan do that? Why does that require an SSN?

A mobile base from which to deploy and recover special-forces teams provides both flexibility of deployment and protection from retaliation. They don't have to set up a defense position to bring in special-forces units, or risk a counter-attack on the base because it's a submarine

The Los Angeles class submarine only has capacity for 26 missiles, and some of that capacity is given over to torpedeos. There's a reason we make SSGN.

We didn't make any modern-day SSGNs, we modified 4 existing Ohio-class boats into SSGNs because of SALT-II. They’re nice, but slower and probably more expensive.

We have Iran surrounded on both sides, I don't think we need a sub in the Indian Ocean as well.

They could fuck up world oil supply real fast

If someone wants to nuke us they don't need to get in close to do it.

Russia doesn't, China probably doesn't, but every mile they get closer gives us less response time. That’s the beauty of SLBMs.

Do USN SSNs sink drug runners? I honestly don't know.

Probably not, but they may well provide Special-forces support as well as intelligance gathering and tomahawk strikes against known drug production targets in support of Columbia, etc. Interdiction probably falls under the Coast-guards duties.

[Aaron]

Wow. So, do women quit their jobs the moment they get pregnant? Because last I heard, the answer was no. In fact, most women work up until they go into labor. Did you know that? I got pregnant in August and had my baby in May. During that time I did the following:
* Took three graduate classes each semester, and got As in all six of them.
* Worked on campus 20 hours a week as a graduate assistant both semesters.
* Taught a university class for a month for a professor who went to France as a lecturer. This was when I was seven to eight months pregnant.
* Taught four classes for homeschooled students in my apartment each semester. This included doing the prep work beforehand, grading, etc.
* I delivered in the middle of finals week. How did I do that? I worked ahead and took my exams early.
So seriously, WTF? The idea that a woman suddenly becomes an invalid when she gets pregnant is ridiculous to the extreme.

But again, I agree with Broomy, birth control should be made mandatory for women serving in the military.

I'm going to address this and please remember that this is not my personal viewpoint.

It's less about what the woman is capable of, and more what the military will allow her to do after a certain point. I can't speak for the US Navy but once a woman reaches a certain point in her pregnancy, she is no longer deployable (in the CF). So typically that means shuffling her off to a desk or an administrative position in the unit.

For example, she might find herself as the new platoon Transport NCO, meaning she's still at work, contributing but won't go on exercise or overseas. The reasons for this are twofold:

1. The military has invested considerable time, money and effort to make you a soldier. It would be pretty irresponsible to expose her to potential risks. And there are risks a plenty even if your in the training area.

2. The military is responsible for you and by extension your children, there not going to put either at risk. It's really bad PR if you fall off a truck and have a miscarriage or suffer an injury that affects you and the kid. The military may potentially lose a soldier.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If people are expecting a very pregnant woman to go climb up ladders etc. in a cramped submarine, they are purely insane. There are a thousand and one things in a submarine that can lead to a miscarriage because of the relative lack of space. Would those who say it's absolutely fine say it's OK to allow them to work when pregnant?

Never mind that, imposing birth control is guaranteed to open a can of worms with regard to civil rights.

[Lonestar]

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

Ding ding ding!

Seriously, can you imagine the trouble it would cause if a female submariner on a boomer has to leave the boat because she got pregnant during a patrol?


(I am making a distinction between a fast attack and a boomer in this case).

On my middle deployment we had the ACHENG flown off because she got knocked up on deployment. While we didn't have any female enlisted until very late during my time on the ship, I recall having conversations with "DIRSUP" folks who actually said "I hope Chief doesn't try to make me go on this deployment, I would hate to have to have another kid."(!) So imagine if you will that you have a female in a billet who gets knocked up, is flown off, and then the workcenter is short a watchstander for the rest of deployment. Or until Big Navy flies someone out. Or beg a spare watchstander off the big deck. It inconviences everyone and costs a not insignifigant amount of money.

All the problems associated with females on ships are about an order of magnitude worse for bubbleheads. And even worse for Boomers on patrol.

[Lonestar]

Do USN SSNs sink drug runners? I honestly don't know.

The best way to hunt a submarine is to use another submarine. And drug runners use semi-submersible drug boats.

[eion]

I recall having conversations with "DIRSUP" folks who actually said "I hope Chief doesn't try to make me go on this deployment, I would hate to have to have another kid."(!) So imagine if you will that you have a female in a billet who gets knocked up, is flown off, and then the workcenter is short a watchstander for the rest of deployment. Or until Big Navy flies someone out. Or beg a spare watchstander off the big deck. It inconviences everyone and costs a not insignifigant amount of money.

All the problems associated with females on ships are about an order of magnitude worse for bubbleheads. And even worse for Boomers on patrol.

It is my understanding that submariners are an entirely volunteer force. No one is ever forced into that particular discipline, and in fact people actually fight tooth-and-nail to become submariners. If a woman wants to be on a submarine, why would she intentionally get herself pregnant to avoid a patrol, or intentionally become pregnant while on patrol to be taken off?

And even if it happened, how would such an obvious dereliction of duty be any different than a male service member shooting himself in the foot to avoid the same?

If we can't reliably count of professionals to do the job they have been trained and ordered to do for fear they might back out, we may as well start working hard on a fully robotic military.

[Lonestar]

It is my understanding that submariners are an entirely volunteer force.

Yeah, and SO IS THE NAVY. You think it isn't mentioned that "you might end up floating around the ocean for 6 months" during the recruitment process?

No one is ever forced into that particular discipline, and in fact people actually fight tooth-and-nail to become submariners. If a woman wants to be on a submarine, why would she intentionally get herself pregnant to avoid a patrol, or intentionally become pregnant while on patrol to be taken off?

Because for some people, deployment can be best defined as "realizing that god has abandoned you for 180 days." And then they want to get out of it.

And even if it happened, how would such an obvious dereliction of duty be any different than a male service member shooting himself in the foot to avoid the same?

(1)You would have to prove that it was intentional(good luck).
(2)A lot of times the person who did that will get NJP, or if an officer, a "signifigant problems" eval(kiss of death). My old DIVO once got a female sailor kicked out of the navy because she kept having to leave work early with kid-related problems.
(3)This is not as big as a deterrent as you might think.

If we can't reliably count of professionals to do the job they have been trained and ordered to do for fear they might back out, we may as well start working hard on a fully robotic military.

Are you expressing shock that the military is full of people, and has the full range of retards that the normal population does? Granted, by and large the military is "smarter"(if we go by percentage of High School grads, college degrees compared to the civilian population) but people are people.

If I had my way I would have mandatory birth control for female sailors, but that's something that would never happen.

[Broomstick]

If people are expecting a very pregnant woman to go climb up ladders etc. in a cramped submarine, they are purely insane.

Please point to where ANYONE here said "very pregnant women" in connection with "working on a submarine". As has been stated numerous times, on the subs they're planing on starting to crew with women the patrols are 90 days - that means, if we're at all sensible and doublecheck to make sure that no female crew are pregnant on the day the ship out, it is impossible for any of them to be more than 3 months pregnant at the end of the patrol, right? Do you define 3 months after conception as "very pregnant"? I sure as hell don't.

Now, if that article contains a factual error - such as patrols being, say, 180 or 365 or 720 or whatever number of days please let us know as that might well change the discussion.

Never mind that, imposing birth control is guaranteed to open a can of worms with regard to civil rights.

I find it very peculiar that it's the MEN in this thread who are crying that birth control is somehow a violation of civil rights. On what basis is birth control a rights violation? I really do want to hear the rationale behind that (to me) bizarre statement.

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

Ding ding ding!

Seriously, can you imagine the trouble it would cause if a female submariner on a boomer has to leave the boat because she got pregnant during a patrol?

Mandatory. Birth. Control.

Holy fuck, is it THAT hard a concept?

If a woman wants to serve on a sub she has to agree to birth control. Not condoms or diaphragms or some such, something that's more like an implant or IUD that you're not going to go "oops, I forgot". If she is unwilling to agree to that she doesn't get to serve on a sub.

(I am making a distinction between a fast attack and a boomer in this case).

That would be a lot more understandable if you define what a "boomer" is, as not everyone reading this thread will be conversant with navy jargon. I happen to know it's a ballistic missile equipped submarine, and a SSBN is nuclear powered but really, these things should be spelled out at least once so those not up on the acronyms and such aren't left befuddled. Or do you want to purposely exclude someone not in the Super Secret Boys Club from commenting on what is, after all, a public thread?

On my middle deployment we had the ACHENG flown off because she got knocked up on deployment.

Well, a sensible policy of strictly enforced mandatory birth control would prevent most of that, wouldn't it? And women unwilling to delay childbearing should find another profession than "soldier" (or sailor). If such a policy drops the number of women volunteering so be it - the ones that do sign up under those conditions will be those actually serious about military service.

So imagine if you will that you have a female in a billet who gets knocked up, is flown off, and then the workcenter is short a watchstander for the rest of deployment.

So... are these women flown off the instant their pregnancy is confirmed? Or are they required to work until the pregnancy gets to be a real obstacle? Maybe if they weren't whisked away so quickly getting knocked up wouldn't seem such an attractive option. Of course, there may be a valid reason a woman, say, two weeks pregnant needs to be treated as a medical emergency and if so I'd really like to hear it.

All the problems associated with females on ships are about an order of magnitude worse for bubbleheads. And even worse for Boomers on patrol.

Oh, aren't you so cute with the slang: "bubbleheads". Seriously, can you speak regular English, or, again do you mean to exclude those not are not insiders?

Eion said it very well, let me repeat it, because I thought it a well turned phrase:

It is my understanding that submariners are an entirely volunteer force. No one is ever forced into that particular discipline, and in fact people actually fight tooth-and-nail to become submariners. If a woman wants to be on a submarine, why would she intentionally get herself pregnant to avoid a patrol, or intentionally become pregnant while on patrol to be taken off?

And even if it happened, how would such an obvious dereliction of duty be any different than a male service member shooting himself in the foot to avoid the same?

Seriously - deliberately getting pregnant to avoid duty SHOULD be treated as a dereliction of duty, just as self-injury to avoid duty is. There is no legitimate reason to treat the two conditions differently. Of course, this might require that you actually look at the facts of a case and maybe do some thinking. Cry me a river.

[Lonestar]

(1)Broomstick, I agree with you. Birth Control should be mandatory. It will probably never happen though. It's ironic that it's easier to exclude females from certain jobs than mandate they have to be on birth control.

(2)The sub force is volunteer....as opposed to the rest of the navy, which are draftees? Like Eion, do you think that "you may end up floating around the ocean for 6 months" is never brought up at some point in the recruitment process?

When you hit "post" and it warns you that there has been another post since you started writing yours, and it's by the guy you are attacking, try READING IT first.

EDIT: I would add that if eion feels so qualifed to make a judgement on this, then he shouldn't mind me using jargon.

[Broomstick]

(1)Broomstick, I agree with you. Birth Control should be mandatory. It will probably never happen though. It's ironic that it's easier to exclude females from certain jobs than mandate they have to be on birth control.

And I agree it's fucked up that this isn't an accepted requirement.

(2)The sub force is volunteer....as opposed to the rest of the navy, which are draftees? Like Eion, do you think that "you may end up floating around the ocean for 6 months" is never brought up at some point in the recruitment process?

Oh, I know it is brought up. It's like signing up to the army and expressing shock you might be shot at, or joining the air force and acting surprised that you might wind up on an airplane. It's stupid. I suspect a lot of it is people sign up, ignore the warnings about hard work, being away for months (even years) at a time, and they start looking for a way out. I'm not sure how to screen the retards out. I'm not sure anyone knows. I suspect if the military did have a method they would use it.

When you hit "post" and it warns you that there has been another post since you started writing yours, and it's by the guy you are attacking, try READING IT first.

I'm sorry if my 15 year old computer is sometimes slow to post so that between the time I hit "submit" and I am actually returned to the thread someone else manages to get a post in. When the posting is fast and furious my machine has trouble keeping up. I get 4-5 minute lags sometimes, I agree, it's annoying as hell but I can't afford either a better computer or a faster connection.

EDIT: I would add that if eion feels so qualifed to make a judgement on this, then he shouldn't mind me using jargon.

That's nice for eion, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy for you two. What about everyone else? What about the people here for whom English isn't their first language? I am suggesting that explaining the jargon would give you a wider audience for your thoughts. Of course, if you don't care, well, then nevermind.

[Alyeska]

When you hit "post" and it warns you that there has been another post since you started writing yours, and it's by the guy you are attacking, try READING IT first.

You do not need to be playing Backseat Moderator.

[eion]

do you think that "you may end up floating around the ocean for 6 months" is never brought up at some point in the recruitment process?

-If you joined the Navy for the college tuition, you are compelled to complete your tour of duty to pay back your tuition.
-If a stop/loss order is in effect you cannot leave whenever you want.
-If you flunk out of your desired specialty school, you may end up somewhere you don't want to be.

This qualifies the "all volunteer" nature of the U.S. Military. However, completing and being assigned to a submarine is not a specialist you can be bumped to. you have to fight to get admited to submariner school, fight to graduate, and fight to be assigned to a sub. All this leds one to believe that barring sudden personal problems or stop/loss orders, that submariners choose to be there and are less likely to get deployment jitters than someone who flunked out of paralegal training and is assigned as a greese monkey against their will to a supply tender.

Birth Control should be mandatory.

It just seems disrespectful of the women who fought tooth and nail to get on board that boat to turn around and say, “Welcome aboard, now to make sure you don’t chicken out, I’m going to inject you with this to prevent you from fucking your way off before your time.”
If they said to male submariners, “Welcome aboard, now to make sure you don’t use your index finger to shoot yourself in the foot to get off the boat, I’m going to remove it and return it to you at the end of your patrol.” Would you find that okay?

If we had some specific occurrences of submariners rendering themselves unfit for duty through self-harm, especially statistics for the same as compared to other assignments I'm sure they would illustrate this difference.

snip

So basically, by letting women serve on submarines (even without mandatory birth control) the navy has changed the status quo exactly zero.

-a minority of sailors will still weasel out of deployments by rendering themselves unable to perform their duties
-the ability to prosecute people for doing so will remain little deterrent to them.

So, why do we need mandatory birth control? Every sailor already has the means to render themselves unfit for duty through self-harm, what they lack is the motivation to do so. Even if you put every female submariner on birth control and they were determined to be removed from deployment they could just as easily shoot themselves in the foot, or find a way to stop taking the birth control without detection and become pregnant anyway.

I would add that if eion feels so qualifed to make a judgement on this, then he shouldn't mind me using jargon.

I have no problem with jargon. If there was a word I do not understand, I would seek out its meaning. Not being a mod and also being a fairly new member, my opinion on proper board etiquette is of somewhat less value than Broomstick's though.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Please point to where ANYONE here said "very pregnant women" in connection with "working on a submarine". As has been stated numerous times, on the subs they're planing on starting to crew with women the patrols are 90 days - that means, if we're at all sensible and doublecheck to make sure that no female crew are pregnant on the day the ship out, it is impossible for any of them to be more than 3 months pregnant at the end of the patrol, right? Do you define 3 months after conception as "very pregnant"? I sure as hell don't.

Because Liberty Farrell thought it was stupid that females aren't allowed to work up till near their labor. And by very pregnant, I would imagine would be somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd trimester, where that large tummy is sure to get in the way of menial chores abaord any warship.

I find it very peculiar that it's the MEN in this thread who are crying that birth control is somehow a violation of civil rights. On what basis is birth control a rights violation? I really do want to hear the rationale behind that (to me) bizarre statement.

You do realise that the religious types are sure to grumble right? Forcing people to take birth control pills on a daily basis? It's funny that you are screaming sexism, when quite frankly, your lack of knowledge of how things work in a military is glaring. As the saying goes, if no one finds out or knows and you don't get caught, you are fine.

And there are fucking plenty of people who deliberately break the rules just to get out of service. From smashing their thumbs with a hammer, to what not, and seriously, disrupting the silent patrol of a submarine is more than just disruptive since it affects the mission itself.

[Lonestar]

You do not need to be playing Backseat Moderator.

I'm not, I'm being snarky to someone who attacked a person that was agreeing with her.

-If you joined the Navy for the college tuition, you are compelled to complete your tour of duty to pay back your tuition.
-If a stop/loss order is in effect you cannot leave whenever you want.
-If you flunk out of your desired specialty school, you may end up somewhere you don't want to be.

This qualifies the "all volunteer" nature of the U.S. Military. However, completing and being assigned to a submarine is not a specialist you can be bumped to. you have to fight to get admited to submariner school, fight to graduate, and fight to be assigned to a sub. All this leds one to believe that barring sudden personal problems or stop/loss orders, that submariners choose to be there and are less likely to get deployment jitters than someone who flunked out of paralegal training and is assigned as a greese monkey against their will to a supply tender.

Hey eion, guess what? In every single one of those instances it is articulated during the recruitment process. There are still many, many cases of people who do not internalize what "joining the military" means and are shocked when they are fully exposed to it. To put it bluntly, it is not the military's fault that you are a dumbshit who didn't understand what you've been told during the recruitment process.

Now, submariners tend to join during their first enlistment(pay is better, there's the whole "elite" thing) but what it really means is you have a bunch of people who join who still haven't internalized that being on a sub on deployment really, really, sucks. These guys are not the cream of the crop, they are people who happened to make it through sub school. Which is a far cry from being on deployment no matter how you look at it. People still try to get out of deployment while in the sub service, because they haven't internalized just how much deployment sucks. And if being on a surface ship where you can go out and get some fresh air, hit more ports, etc is bad, it's much worse on a sub.

These guys aren't rangers who spend some time in the army, then join up. Because you always need an junior enlisted person to do shitty jobs on subs, so you'll always have a large number of people who have just as much expierience with the navy as going on deployment on surface ships for the first time do.

It just seems disrespectful

Oh lord.

of the women who fought tooth and nail to get on board that boat to turn around and say, “Welcome aboard, now to make sure you don’t chicken out, I’m going to inject you with this to prevent you from fucking your way off before your time.”
If they said to male submariners, “Welcome aboard, now to make sure you don’t use your index finger to shoot yourself in the foot to get off the boat, I’m going to remove it and return it to you at the end of your patrol.” Would you find that okay?

If we had some specific occurrences of submariners rendering themselves unfit for duty through self-harm, especially statistics for the same as compared to other assignments I'm sure they would illustrate this difference.

Bummer. You have to jettison a lot when you join the military. Turns out the UCMJ applies to you more than the Constitution?

By the way, I've never heard of guys chopping off body parts to get out of deployment, doing drugs on leave so you can get nailed by the post-leave drugtest seems to be the preferred route.

So basically, by letting women serve on submarines (even without mandatory birth control) the navy has changed the status quo exactly zero.

-a minority of sailors will still weasel out of deployments by rendering themselves unable to perform their duties
-the ability to prosecute people for doing so will remain little deterrent to them.

So, why do we need mandatory birth control? Every sailor already has the means to render themselves unfit for duty through self-harm, what they lack is the motivation to do so. Even if you put every female submariner on birth control and they were determined to be removed from deployment they could just as easily shoot themselves in the foot, or find a way to stop taking the birth control without detection and become pregnant anyway.

(1)It doesn't change the status quo. If a woman gets knocked off and has to be flown off, it's much harder for that to happen on a sub than on a surface ship. A Boomer(sorry.....Ballistic missile submarine) shouldn't have to break a patrol to get a preggo off. It's expensive and potentially very dangerous to nuclear weapons security. Mind you, if a Boomer has a woman who is preggo and doesn't break patrol, then the argument could be made that the USN is knowingly putting children in harm's way.

(2)Usually it's easier and much more fun, for what I hope are obvious reasons, for a female to get out of deployment by means of getting knocked up. Kinda hard to get access to drugs or alcohol while on deployment. In addition, no CO is going to give a pregnant sailor a Bad Conduct Discharge(the kind where you'd have trouble getting a job at McDonalds after the service), while doing drugs is a surefire way of getting a BCD.

(3)Like I said earlier, you would have to prove that the female sailor intentionally knocked herself up to get out of deployment(as opposed to being a stupid 19 year old). Since this is a very, very, very hard thing to do it limits the punitive options to the command. Seriously, how would you prove it? At best you would only be able to give them an administrative discharge, stating that navy life is interferring with her ability to be a parent to a large degree or something. Which isn't a punishment, it's an out for someone who cannot or will not meet her end of the contract she signed. And she doesn't even have to return the enlistment bonus.

[dragon]

I know Germany has women on their subs and no one complains about them, but then the Germans are more grounded in reality than a lot of Americans. They know that sex will occur so they provide for protection and Germans also have no problems with the human body unlike so many prudish Americans.

[eion]

Now, submariners tend to join during their first enlistment(pay is better, there's the whole "elite" thing) but what it really means is you have a bunch of people who join who still haven't internalized that being on a sub on deployment really, really, sucks. These guys are not the cream of the crop, they are people who happened to make it through sub school. Which is a far cry from being on deployment no matter how you look at it. People still try to get out of deployment while in the sub service, because they haven't internalized just how much deployment sucks. And if being on a surface ship where you can go out and get some fresh air, hit more ports, etc is bad, it's much worse on a sub.

These guys aren't rangers who spend some time in the army, then join up. Because you always need an junior enlisted person to do shitty jobs on subs, so you'll always have a large number of people who have just as much expierience with the navy as going on deployment on surface ships for the first time do.

I'm glad you could clear that up. Sorry, former army brat so my knowledge of the Navy is somewhat limited. I thought the sub service was a bit more, selective.

Bummer. You have to jettison a lot when you join the military. Turns out the UCMJ applies to you more than the Constitution?

Wasn't a question of limiting of civil rights, it was a question of equality of application under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). When Gen. Cucolo issued that order directing service members becoming pregnant under his command in Iraq or those impregnating others to be court martialed I had no problem with it. It applied equally to both sexes.

There's also an element of DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell) about it. Expecting service members to adhere to an honor code, and then enacting policies that show you assume they lack professionalism and honor is counter-productive.

By the way, I've never heard of guys chopping off body parts to get out of deployment, doing drugs on leave so you can get nailed by the post-leave drugtest seems to be the preferred route.

Huh, I would have thought the punishments for drug possession under the UCMJ would be high enough to discourage that. You can conceivable make self-harm look like an accident, what's the defense for abuse of a controlled substance?

(1)It doesn't change the status quo. If a woman gets knocked (up) and has to be flown off, it's much harder for that to happen on a sub than on a surface ship. A Boomer(sorry.....Ballistic missile submarine) shouldn't have to break a patrol to get a preggo off. It's expensive and potentially very dangerous to nuclear weapons security. Mind you, if a Boomer has a woman who is preggo and doesn't break patrol, then the argument could be made that the USN is knowingly putting children in harm's way.

I agree but how would the charge be any different than if a male sailor rendered himself unable to perform his duty and in a state that required a medical evac? And if the only difference is the pregnancy is preventable via birth control, why not double your chances of preventing it by requiring ALL submariners to use birth control while deployed?

(2)Usually it's easier and much more fun, for what I hope are obvious reasons, for a female to get out of deployment by means of getting knocked up. Kinda hard to get access to drugs or alcohol while on deployment. In addition, no CO is going to give a pregnant sailor a Bad Conduct Discharge(the kind where you'd have trouble getting a job at McDonalds after the service), while doing drugs is a surefire way of getting a BCD.

So the CO is taking pity on a female sailor because she's a woman? If she got herself purposely pregnant the week before deployment, how can the CO justify punishing her any less than he would a male sailor for intentionally smoking pot the week before his deployment? She's a criminal and should face equal punishment under the law.

Like I said earlier, you would have to prove that the female sailor intentionally knocked herself up to get out of deployment(as opposed to being a stupid 19 year old). Since this is a very, very, very hard thing to do it limits the punitive options to the command. Seriously, how would you prove it? At best you would only be able to give them an administrative discharge, stating that navy life is interferring with her ability to be a parent to a large degree or something. Which isn't a punishment, it's an out for someone who cannot or will not meet her end of the contract she signed. And she doesn't even have to return the enlistment bonus.

The way Cucolo did. He didn't say, "Unless you didn't mean to". He said, "You get pregnant under my command, you've disrupted the ability of your unit to function as much as if you shot your foot off." (Paraphrased). Condoms are too cheap and too effective for ignorance to be an excuse, and as has been said above, many women use secondary birth control willingly. How would the general treat a male soldier who got VD and had to be flown home because he was too stupid to wear a condom?

[eion]

Okay, here's a devils advocate argument:

1. The health of service members on deployment is essential to the effectiveness of the unit
2. The loss of a service member affects the whole unit
3. Service members in malaria-probable areas must take quinine pills prophylactically for their health and their unit's health
4. Failure to take quinine as directed is punishable under UCMJ as dereliction of duty regardless of intent
5. contributing to a service member’s failure to take quinine or aiding them in contracting malaria is likewise punishable under UCMJ.

and here's the same argument using pregnancy

1. The health of service members on deployment is essential to the effectiveness of the unit
2. The loss of a service member affects the whole unit
3. Service members who may become pregnant must use birth control as directed
4. Service members who may impregnate other service members must use birth control as directed
5. Failure to use birth control as directed is punishable under UCMJ as dereliction of duty regardless of intent
6. contributing to a service member’s failure to use birth control or aiding a service member in becoming pregnant is likewise punishable under UCMJ.

Any holes I’m missing?

[Lonestar]

Wasn't a question of limiting of civil rights, it was a question of equality of application under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). When Gen. Cucolo issued that order directing service members becoming pregnant under his command in Iraq or those impregnating others to be court martialed I had no problem with it. It applied equally to both sexes.

There's also an element of DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell) about it. Expecting service members to adhere to an honor code, and then enacting policies that show you assume they lack professionalism and honor is counter-productive.

Oh, as a male junior enlisted person you can and will get in trouble if you knock up a female on your ship, even if you are the same paygrade and not in the same division. The problem is:

(1)Deny deny deny. The male sailor might deny it(what, males can't be douchbags too?).
(2)If the female is intentionally trying to get pregnant, she may have slept with more than one sailor. Then what?
(3)The female might not tell who the father is.
(4)If a guy is married(to a civilian, female on shore duty) and he's trying to have kids, he is not interferring with his work. A female sailor on deployment, or getting ready to go on one, who get's pregnant is causing interference with the mission. So birth control methods should be more heavily applied to females getting ready to deploy than males. Yeah it's unfair, bummer. Where is it written that life is fair?

Huh, I would have thought the punishments for drug possession under the UCMJ would be high enough to discourage that. You can conceivable make self-harm look like an accident, what's the defense for abuse of a controlled substance?

"Someone slipped it to me when I was at a bar." Is the most popular. That never works though.

When my ship came back from OIF the petty officer who pushed the button to send the first cruise missiles into baghdad popped on drugs. During the NJP he told the captain that he was having nightmares about killing Iraqis, which were apperently the magic words, so he ended up in the Balboa pysch ward instead of being kicked out.

I agree but how would the charge be any different than if a male sailor rendered himself unable to perform his duty and in a state that required a medical evac? And if the only difference is the pregnancy is preventable via birth control, why not double your chances of preventing it by requiring ALL submariners to use birth control while deployed?

Because the number of sailors who intentionally hurt themselves to get out of deployment is statistically insignifigant, especially when they are much easier and relatively painfree ways. Doing drugs. Acting crazy. Telling some sob story to the Chaplain. "Sudden chest pain". Suddenly deciding that you are gay(which is as good a reason to repeal DADT if there ever was one). Lots and lots of options before "chopping digits off." This isn't the British army during the Napoleonic Wars.

And the Navy does eveything but point a gun and scream "TAKE THE CONDOM!" to male sailors on deployment. If there was a pill form of birth control for men I'm sure that would be availible. But birthcontrol for women is much easier to enforce(sticking an implant in, having a chart for the pill). For men that means mass vasectomies or the master-at-arms chaperoning sex to make sure the guy is putting a condom on.

You seriously do not see how it's easier to mandate birth control on women, and make sure it happens?

(
So the CO is taking pity on a female sailor because she's a woman? If she got herself purposely pregnant the week before deployment, how can the CO justify punishing her any less than he would a male sailor for intentionally smoking pot the week before his deployment? She's a criminal and should face equal punishment under the law.

Not disagreeing with you, but...

(1)It isn't policy, but all three of the Captains I had never took money away from a sailor who was married with kids. So if some dumbass got a DUI or something, he might get max restriction to the ship but the captain wouldn't take his money away(in this way he would be discriminating against single people, but man, don't try to point that out if you're ever in a NJP). In this vein COs are less likely to screw over a preggo sailor, because then he(or she) is inflicting a hardship on the kid as well.

(2)refer to point 3 in my last post.

The wy Cucolo did. He didn't say, "Unless you didn't mean to". He said, "You get pregnant under my command, you've disrupted the ability of your unit to function as much as if you shot your foot off." (Paraphrased). Condoms are too cheap and too effective for ignorance to be an excuse, and as has been said above, many women use secondary birth control willingly. How would the general treat a male soldier who got VD and had to be flown home because he was too stupid to wear a condom?

If the VD is treatable, it's normally a quick turnaround. A lady who get's pregnant is out for most of the deployment. All stop.

Remember, Cucolo got in trouble because he was interfering the servicemember's love lives in an undue fashion(I don't think so, but that's the argument). Getting a NJP and restricted to quarters is one thing, getting a BCD and a criminal record is another.

Or so the logic goes.

<snip>

If you don't take anti-malarial drugs, you never leave the boat. I'm thinking of when we did relief for the '04 Asian Tsunami and were off the coast fo Sumatra. So yes. Just like how you have to take a smallpox vaccine if you are going to certain places.

<snip birth control>

That's how I would do it. Unfortunately for fairness, it's easier to track that women are using birth control methods(through implants, "pill musters" what have you) than men.

[eion]

Alright, I'm good. Add it to the list of vacines before submariners deploy.

"Hey, what's that one for, Doc?

"Oh, this one is to prevent sexual transmited parasites. But just in case make sure you use a condom everytime you have sex."

Of course, the Navy is doing this slowly over a year so hopefully they don't find any need to institute such blanket measures.

[Broomstick]

Because Liberty Farrell thought it was stupid that females aren't allowed to work up till near their labor.

Liberty was speaking from her perspective as a civilian. Perhaps that wasn't obvious to you but it was to me.

And by very pregnant, I would imagine would be somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd trimester, where that large tummy is sure to get in the way of menial chores abaord any warship.

Yes, so if the longest a woman could be pregnant while on patrol is 3 months that likely wouldn't be an issue, would it?

I find it very peculiar that it's the MEN in this thread who are crying that birth control is somehow a violation of civil rights. On what basis is birth control a rights violation? I really do want to hear the rationale behind that (to me) bizarre statement.

You do realise that the religious types are sure to grumble right?

I think the "religious types" are fucked in the head when it comes to sex and/or reproduction and if mandatory birth control discourages their enlistment in the military so much the better.

Forcing people to take birth control pills on a daily basis?

Yes, something the majority of civilian women "force" themselves to do on a daily basis. In any case, I'm not talking about the Pill, I've been saying "implant" and "IUD" which don't rely on consistent daily actions and which are also more than a little difficult for the individual to deactivate/remove herself.

It's funny that you are screaming sexism, when quite frankly, your lack of knowledge of how things work in a military is glaring.

Yes, I am a civilian. Remarkably enough, THE VAST MAJORITY of Americans are civilians and have no military service whatsoever. I don't know why this surprises you. Also, apparently remarkably, civilians have opinions and have the audacity to discuss them on a public forum. So rather than shit on people who have no military experience you could, I dunno, enlighten them with your knowledge. Or maybe you just enjoy a false sense of superiority.

And I am not "crying sexism", I'm genuinely puzzled at this sudden eruption of OMIGOD! BIRTH CONTROL IS COERCIVE! from the men.

And there are fucking plenty of people who deliberately break the rules just to get out of service. From smashing their thumbs with a hammer, to what not, and seriously, disrupting the silent patrol of a submarine is more than just disruptive since it affects the mission itself.

Yes, I am aware of all that. Self-injury, drug use, all of that. I've got a relative who engineered a spectacular wipe out from the Army. Truly epic. Surprised there wasn't jail time involved as well as a dishonorable discharge. There are other people who consider self-harm to get out of their term, but decide the penalties aren't worth it, suck it up for a few years, then opt to not re-enlist.