Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 167

Thread: NAVY: Women to make 20% of Submarine Crews by 2020

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    They don't carry extra personnel so a new mother can have a baby on board.
    Exactly my point. Without extra personnel, they have plenty of room for a baby or two!

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    The USS Acadia during Desert Storm lost over 10% of its female sailors because of pregnancy and went to a non-mission ready status for a while.
    They were LITERALLY reverse decimated! Adding one in ten to their fighting forces for each female. Here are more details on that:

    The remaining 22 women became pregnant while the ship was deployed, perhaps on liberty calls in Hawaii, the Philippines and other ports the Acadia visited on her way to the gulf, Commander Smallwood said.

    The ship, whose 1,250 crew members included 360 women, returned to her home port here on Friday. The Acadia is among a number of Navy support vessels that permit women to serve on board because she is not considered a combat ship.

    Naval policy is to transfer women immediately to shore duty if they become pregnant. [That's just stupid. -FH]

    The Navy has strict rules against sexual relationships between men and women while on duty or between commissioned officers and enlisted personnel, but Commander Smallwood said there was no evidence any such regulations were broken.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us...d-in-gulf.html
    I like how speculation that shore leave caused the pregnancy is accepted without evidence yet any allegation of on-ship hankypanky requires lots of evidence and proof and likely video with signed confessions.

    Anyway, I'd rather not have a dog in this fight. I just don't understand the expenditure of effort to keep people from doing what they want. Let's just defund (feel free to voluntarily fund... if you want) the armed forces and maintain a nuclear arsenal (including subs with sailor moms and admiral babies).

    DNA testing would have cracked this case so I'm left believing this is either

    a) not a problem
    b) not a problem they want to solve



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Last edited by Pauls' Revere; 11-09-2014 at 12:28 PM.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Or just scrap the subs.
    Ain't gonna happen.

    Even so, navies are kinda useful to mercantile republics. I would be perfectly happy if we could return to pre-Cold War status when the Navy was combined into the DoD. For one hundred and fifty years we were able to keep it as the Founders intended - separate from the War Department. While were at it let's get the Coast Guard back out of the damnable Department of Homeland Security.

    XNN
    "They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Uhhh.... failing to factor in human motivations is downright negligent and irresponsible
    This forum is like the 1950's some times.

    You see. There's this amazing recent invention called birth control.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by scottditzen View Post
    This forum is like the 1950's some times.
    ... and other times it's like 1775.
    XNN
    "They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    Anecdote: I was deployed with the Army Reserve to Iraq in 2003. I was a combat engineer but was involuntarily transferred to a bridge-building company. We had maybe 200 or so men in the unit and perhaps a dozen women. It caused massive problems. First, it causes bad feelings because some of the men will be getting laid, while the vast majority are stuck masturbating in a porta-potty. It wouldn't be as bad if there were no women and we were all in the same boat. In any case, I was on a mission for a few days and came back to a $#@!storm. Apparently an NCO had a birthday party, and one of the female NCO's who had already been slutting it up with different guys, had banged herself with a chem-light in front of 15 other NCO's and supposedly gave out some handjobs. She then claimed that our platoon sergeant tried to rape her in a shower. There was a total breakdown of discipline among the leadership. We lost our company commander, our platoon sergeant, 15 NCO's lost rank, and a couple served a few months in jail.
    Stepping back from the conversation of whether the military should exist to begin with, it is a result-oriented organization. Human nature is what it is, and expecting that everyone will act appropriately is unrealistic. Removing women would eliminate these issues outright, which is what a serious, result-oriented organization would be primarily concerned of.
    You guys were living fat .Birthday parties and chem lights , I was happy in the old days if I had a pack of Lucky Strikes .



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Wasn't the USS Yorktown, when used as a training ship, used to be called by sailors, "The Lesbian Love Boat"?

    AnyHoo... there's lot's of 'Screw Canoes' in the US Navy.
    The American Dream, Wake Up People, This is our country! <===click

    "All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man, let the annual return of this day(July 4th), forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
    Thomas Jefferson
    June 1826



    Rock The World!
    USAF Veteran

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by scottditzen View Post
    This forum is like the 1950's some times.
    Yes, because you say so. Check.

    You see. There's this amazing recent invention called birth control.
    And it fails at rates unacceptable for combat-ready vessels.

    Here's an amazing ancient invention: brain. Here's an amazing hint: brain <> hat rack.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by XNavyNuke View Post
    ... and other times it's like 1775.
    XNN
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to XNavyNuke again.
    Can someone cover me on this one?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  12. #100
    Dude the fact that you type in multiple paragraphs doesn't cover up how idiotic you sound.

    I think you're living in fear of those "vicious" women you live with.

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Yes, because you say so. Check.




    And it fails at rates unacceptable for combat-ready vessels.

    Here's an amazing ancient invention: brain. Here's an amazing hint: brain <> hat rack.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Can someone cover me on this one?
    Yes , I can .

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by scottditzen View Post
    This forum is like the 1950's some times.

    You see. There's this amazing recent invention called birth control.
    Earlier:

    What was the percentage of women that come back pregnant after a six month carrier cruise?

    I recall something like 35%...
    The next few years will be a proof of concept as to which will win out---human nature, or human invention.

    As someone who served on Poseidon and Trident class submarines, I side with the view that human nature will win. Ballistic boats (at least the ones I was on) were built for men, inside and out, the sub cans were 'made to pack sausage' so to speak. One of the things that made this bearable was the absence of women, which permitted men to focus on something else. The lay out of both the heads and the berthing area on subs do not permit separation by gender. Occasionally a few female officers were onboard temporarily and used the officer racks/heads, which are a bit more private, but only by a matter of degree. Fast attack subs are even smaller, with less space to keep the sexes, and sex, at bay.

    At least on coed campuses, the sexes can be separated by dorm (but look how successful that turned out, hah). With mixed berthing, temptation is literally two feet away. As a regular practice, this shapes up to be a recipe for the oldest law of human relations: if you cram enough fit young men and women together in one place for any extended length of time, somebody is going to be making out with somebody. The human race is very sexy, there's a reason why there are 7 billion people on the planet. God designed the human sex drive very well, which makes regularly staffing a small boat with men and women a logistical disaster in waiting, as frankly, the populating will lead to copulating.

    Finally, this whole issue is majoring in the minors as far as liberty is concerned, because we shouldn't even be having a standing Army or Navy in a free country, to be debating two-gender crew arrangements in the first place. We should simply have a well regulated (well-managed) militia in all states for keeping the citizenry armed and ready to handle a crisis, with Armed Forces personnel added only as special situations require it. In other words, we need to be pulling troops, bases and facilities from around the world, not figuring out how to add more women to them.
    Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 11-09-2014 at 01:52 PM.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    Earlier:



    The next few years will be a proof of concept as to which will win out---human nature, or human invention.

    As someone who served on Poseidon and Trident class submarines, I side with the view that human nature will win. Ballistic boats (at least the ones I was on) were built for men, inside and out, the sub cans were 'made to pack sausage' so to speak. One of the things that made this bearable was the absence of women, which permits men to focus on something else. The lay out of both the heads and the berthing area on subs do not permit separation by gender. Occasionally a few female officers were onboard temporarily and used the officer racks/heads, which are a bit more private, but only by a matter of degree. Fast attack subs are even smaller, with less space to keep the sexes, and sex, at bay.

    At least on coed campuses, the sexes can be separated by dorm (but look how successful that turned out). With mixed berthing, temptation is literally two feet away. As a regular practice, this shapes up to be a recipe for the oldest law of human relations: if you cram enough fit young men and women together in one place for any length of time, somebody is going to be making out with somebody. The human race is very sexy, there's a reason why there are 7 billion people on the planet. God designed the human sex drive very well, which makes regularly staffing a small boat with men and women a logistical disaster in waiting, as frankly, the populating will lead to copulating.

    Finally, this whole issue is majoring in the minors as far as liberty is concerned, because we shouldn't even be having a standing Army or Navy in a free country, to be debating two-gender crew arrangements in the first place. We should simply have a well regulated (well-managed) militia keeping the citizenry armed and ready to handle a crisis, with Armed Forces personnel added a special situations. In other words, we need to pull troops, bases and facilities from around the world, not figuring out how to add more women to them.
    Thanks for your service. Shouldn't birth control on a sub be mandatory? I mean, yes human nature is what it is and people are fallible...but the issue of pregnancy is not an insurmountable problem.

    http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2010/04/...on-submarines/

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by scottditzen View Post
    Thanks for your service. Shouldn't birth control on a sub be mandatory? I mean, yes human nature is what it is and people are fallible...but the issue of pregnancy is not an insurmountable problem.
    Or we could go with the obvious solution, have a simple old fashioned force.
    The military should not be able to force people to not have children.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe






  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Or we could go with the obvious solution, have a simple old fashioned force.
    .
    John McCain would not be pleased.

  19. #106
    I believe Ron Paul said that submarines and aircraft carriers is fine because we have a smaller foot print.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard13mm View Post
    I believe Ron Paul said that submarines and aircraft carriers is fine because we have a smaller foot print.
    Ya, we definitely need aircraft carriers. You never know when you might need to airstrike something 3000 miles off the shore of our coasts, to protect our national security.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Ya, we definitely need aircraft carriers. You never know when you might need to airstrike something 3000 miles off the shore of our coasts, to protect our national security.
    Blue water ASW is best done from bird farms. It would be nice if the enemy would try and sink your merchant fleet in your own backyard but that's not the way it works. The enemy always gets a vote.

    The escort carriers in the Atlantic during WW2 was the final nail in the coffin for U boat wolf packs. They could no longer coordinate their operations in the Atlantic gap outside the range of land based aircraft.

    XNN
    "They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    Your entire argument is bull$#@! and childish. Nobody who has opposed your position believes that soldiers should not be held accountable because of biology or that boys will be boys. The argument is based upon the perspective of the military organization. The military, which is presumably a life-and-death organization, should only be concerned about results. That means mission success and ultimately "winning the war." This also means that soldier readiness is crucial. The military does not want to have soldiers out of commission because of pregnancy, rape, or any other issues. Demanding discipline is much different from reasonably expecting that every soldier will comply. Every organization has members that do not act appropriately, but most organizations aren't dealing with such high stakes. From the organization's perspective, removing women would outright eliminate most of the associated problems that would otherwise occur, regardless of the organization's policy or people's feelings.
    I agree that the military should be results-oriented, but I can't help but think that you are significantly overblowing the actual impact of this. Compared to the intensive training and discipline that goes into serving in the military, the issues you are concerned about are miniscule in terms of their likely impact on results. If we actually do find that this is somehow significantly affecting life or death situations, then the military can make protocol adjustments, but banning women from serving is not the answer.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    I agree that the military should be results-oriented, but I can't help but think that you are significantly overblowing the actual impact of this.

    Meanwhile...

    California to Provide CONDOMS for PRISONERS


    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by scottditzen View Post
    This forum is like the 1950's some times.

    You see. There's this amazing recent invention called birth control.
    Quit being obtuse....
    And birth control doesn't always work, and people don't always use it. The only assured birth control is abstinence, which is only assured if there are no females on a sub.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Ya, we definitely need aircraft carriers. You never know when you might need to airstrike something 3000 miles off the shore of our coasts, to protect our national security.
    It doesn't have to be 3000 miles. I would imagine that securing the North American perimeter could involve cruising about in international waters, for a variety of reasons. Plus if a state is attacking us we might need to encroach upon their territory to destroy weapons factories, transportation infrastructure, etc.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    The only assured birth control is abstinence, which is only assured if there are no females on a sub.
    Or no males on the sub.
    Last edited by anaconda; 11-10-2014 at 01:40 AM.

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by scottditzen View Post
    Shouldn't birth control on a sub be mandatory?
    Sure, because there is so much space that they can fit cases of extraneous materials therein. Dunno if it is still done, but subs used to literally pave their passages with food packages. Feeding 200 people for 6 months requires a lot of chow and there is no place to put it, so they put it on the floors.

    I mean, yes human nature is what it is and people are fallible
    Well, it is good you see this and admit it. Fallibility must be minimized as close to its vanishing point as possible when crewing a submarine.

    but the issue of pregnancy is not an insurmountable problem.
    But morale and discipline stand to become precisely that. Political correctness stands to endanger many people in this case.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Quit being obtuse....
    And birth control doesn't always work, and people don't always use it. The only assured birth control is abstinence, which is only assured if there are no females on a sub.
    But there are already female officers on submarines. As far as we can tell there have been no issues.

    The Navy has obviously considered the pregnancy risk stats, yet TPTB it's an issue that can be overcome.

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Sure, because there is so much space that they can fit cases of extraneous materials therein. Dunno if it is still done, but subs used to literally pave their passages with food packages. Feeding 200 people for 6 months requires a lot of chow and there is no place to put it, so they put it on the floors.



    Well, it is good you see this and admit it. Fallibility must be minimized as close to its vanishing point as possible when crewing a submarine.



    But morale and discipline stand to become precisely that. Political correctness stands to endanger many people in this case.
    Good points.

    I'll readily admit I've never been in a military environment, that was my dad's path. I don't know that way of life. But in my field there are so many bright and excellent people who happen to be women. In my company, it's hard for me to imagine us being nearly as effective if it was male-only. So it's difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that a woman can physically and mentally qualify for a job, and still be excluded.

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by scottditzen View Post
    ...military environment...

    ...my field...
    Same planet, different worlds.



    there are so many bright and excellent people who happen to be women.
    The issue at hand has nothing to do with "bright and excellent", but of the unavoidable proclivities of the human being which cannot be surmounted with any longer-term reliability. The tyrant's analog is terror and violence. These work well in the short term, but once you have beaten the dog beyond a threshold, further beating not only fails to be effective, it actually places you in imminent danger, for there is nothing more frightful than an adversary with nothing to lose.

    In my company, it's hard for me to imagine us being nearly as effective if it was male-only.
    Well, not knowing the industry, it is impossible for me to assess the value of your opinion. However, my 30+ years as an engineering consultant and business owner has revealed to me no industry, other than prostitution, where the presence of women necessarily constitutes an improvement in conditions. The whole "diversity" argument, as most commonly posited, fails with pomp and fireworks. It is pure bull$#@!. The inference to draw there is that the injection of the female element does not improve a circumstance in sé. That is, it is not the female element that alters the timbre of a situation in such cases, but the qualities of the individual.

    Therefore, there is neither practical nor philosophical argument in valid justification of crewing women on submarines. The philosophical argument fails to establish the necessity and the practical argument irrefutably establishes the justifications for prohibition.

    One of my close friends has lived on subs, though not a submariner. Just this morning at breakfast we discussed this and he was unequivocal that a partial female crew is a disaster in the making. Every time a boat floods to depth, it is a BIG DEAL. There is no such thing as a routine submersion. Everyone needs to be on their toes at all times. There is no space for distraction of any form, much less the sorts that include personal anxieties and possible animosities. It will prove bad enough when some of the guys are getting it when the rest are dating the Palm Sisters. Resentment IS. It will prove an order or two of magnitude worse when a "couple" ends up on the outs with each other, especially when sharing station. One does not go to the XO and ask to be reassigned because they are not getting along with a crewmate. A skipper does not surface the boat on the whim and caprice of poor interpersonal relations. This is a really big deal and I would bet dollars I don't have that any candid skipper will tell you that he is not in favor of this.

    I speak no nonsense when I assert that crewing women on submarines is a monumentally ill-considered idea. Leaving them out has NOTHING to do with inequality as commonly argued. It has EVERYTHING to do with the practicalities of survival in an environment that is endlessly hostile to human life.

    So it's difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that a woman can physically and mentally qualify for a job, and still be excluded.
    Difficult as it may be to conceive and accept, the truth remains what it is.
    Last edited by osan; 11-10-2014 at 11:28 AM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulIsGreat View Post
    Orgies under the sea.
    What's long, hard and full of seaman?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by XNavyNuke View Post
    Blue water ASW is best done from bird farms. It would be nice if the enemy would try and sink your merchant fleet in your own backyard but that's not the way it works. The enemy always gets a vote.

    The escort carriers in the Atlantic during WW2 was the final nail in the coffin for U boat wolf packs. They could no longer coordinate their operations in the Atlantic gap outside the range of land based aircraft.

    XNN
    So, basically we need aircraft carriers to do ASW to protect merchant vessels 3000 miles away.

    Looks like you've bought into the idea that America needs to be safe wherever in the world it is that America decides to go.

    That's neither a realistic nor a practical goal, against a sufficiently advanced adversary.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    It doesn't have to be 3000 miles. I would imagine that securing the North American perimeter could involve cruising about in international waters, for a variety of reasons. Plus if a state is attacking us we might need to encroach upon their territory to destroy weapons factories, transportation infrastructure, etc.
    When you put it that way, its a wonder how the other 257 countries without aircraft carriers have even managed to survive.

    Probably cus America has been keeping them safe.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. No, Women Don't Make Less Money Than Men
    By Feeding the Abscess in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2014, 01:57 PM
  2. Energy Boom Could Make U.S. Largest Oil Producer by 2020
    By FrankRep in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-16-2012, 11:51 PM
  3. Abortion Does Not Make Women Free
    By Working Poor in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-10-2012, 03:00 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 10:55 AM
  5. US Navy to allow women on submarines?
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 09:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •