Women on Submarines

[Mongo]

Anyone who has planned a military operation (which clearly you have not) knows that simplicity is one of the keys to ensuring that execution goes according to plan. Every element of added complexity adds risk. Likewise adding unnecessary burdens wastes valuable resources, hinders execution, and jeopardizes mission success.

I agree with you 100%. About operational success, that is. Here, though, we are discussing military manpower management. A completely different entitiy. Everything, by nature, is complex. Nothing is simple.

Playing that 'been there, done that' card pretty heavily, aren't you? Can we wait as with scout for a resume of your SSBN/SSGN deployments?

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Let me preface this by saying a few things:

1) I am a father of three girls. They should have the right to be whatever they want in life.

2) I am a former Army officer and military aviator. Some of the best soldiers and best pilots with whom I served/flew were women.

3) I am a combat veteran. Most of the challenges I thought I would face in a mixed-gender field/combat environment were easily overcome.

That being said, the unique demands of military service necessitate that it discriminate in ways that would be wholly unacceptable, if not illegal, elsewhere in the public or private sector. For instance, the military routinely and necessarily discriminates based upon age and physical/medical limitations. However, because of its unique mission, federal laws prohibiting age discrimination in hiring and the Armericns with Disabilities Act do not apply.

There are certain places of military duty and entire military occupational fields, which require additional degrees of discrimination. Pilots, for instance, cannot have color blindness, which is acceptable in other military jobs. Could some technology be developed to overcome that physical limitation and allow otherwise-capable individuals to become pilots? Sure. However, that would be a huge and unnecessary waste of resources. [Note: I am NOT equating gender with "limitation;" I am merely pointing out that the military has unique needs to discriminate, often based upon physicality, and that making special accommodations, simply in the name of fairness is contrary to the military's mission. By the way, I intentionally chose the least contentious illustration I could think of to avoid going off on a tangent...PLEASE no arguments from color-blind would-be-pilots!]

Bottom line: the military is NOT a federal jobs program that exists to provide equal career opportunities to all citizens; it is a combat force that exists to provide security for our nation and its allies and be an instrument of our foreign policy! As a taxpayer, I expect the government to manage its military in such a way as to accomplish those objectives as efficiently as possible. As a father of four children, any or all of whom might one day wish to join the military, I expect the government to manage its military in such a way as to accomplish those objectives with as little risk to America's brave sons and daughters as possible. That means that if it is simpler, safer, and more operationaly effective to maintain a submarine force, which is not gender-integrated, I will accept that minor inconvenience to some individuals who might otherwise have pursued that career path...including my daughters, who are every bit the equal of their male counterparts. If one of them wants to be on a submarine and the Navy decides that it wishes to continue to restrict that duty from women, I guess she will just have suck it up and become President and Commander-in-Chief instead.

Okay, I re-read your post.
This post was in response to the article about the Submarine service now being opened to female Naval Officers.
The TONE of your post is non-supportive. Since it appears to not be supportive of these young women in any way, I deduced that you are opposed of to their opportunity.
My apologies if I mis-understood your position.

Your comment about the US military not being a "federal jobs program" is not very original. I have heard similar comments for many years (decades). It has been used ad nauseum when a change is made regarding personnel change. However, there have been times when it certainly was a federal jobs program. Seems it's okay when applicable to men though.
When females were first admitted to the academies there was similar outcry with similar excuses. You are too young to remember.

Finally - the females I know who serve today would be insulted at your postion. This may surprise you but young women today are a patriotic group. They know this country is at war and they are willing and eager to do their part.

Here is a quote inscribed on the National WWII Memorial in Washington DC:

WOMEN WHO STEPPED UP WERE MEASURED AS CITIZENS OF THE NATION,
NOT AS WOMEN…THIS WAS A PEOPLE’S WAR, AND EVERYONE WAS IN IT.
Col. Oveta Culp Hobby

Young women today are stepping up as citizens of this nation, not as women.

 

[Gray Hog]

Finally - the females I know who serve today would be insulted at your postion. This may surprise you but young women today are a patriotic group. They know this country is at war and they are willing and eager to do their part.

Young women today are stepping up as citizens of this nation, not as women.

You somehow mistakenly have the impression that I am disconnected from the young women serving today. I am not. I may no longer wear a uniform, but I work directly with today's warfighters (young and old, men and women) on a daily basis. Nothing you could tell me would "surprise" me. I am more than aware of their professionalism and selfless dedication; again, I require no lecture from you on the subject.

This might surprise you, but the men who serve today would be insulted by your position. The men in ground combat units who resist gender integration are not the bigots and sexists you seem to portray them as. They are modern professionals, who treat everyone rightfully as equals. They do not wish to deny anyone anything based upon gender (or race or religion). They merely see operational and leadership challenges associated with gender integration, which they would prefer to avoid. Can these challenges be overcome? Certainly, but at what price...and is it truly necessary?

The issue is one of cost/risk and operational necessity. There is, at present, no operational need for gender integration of ground combat units; there is merely a desire to open these roles to women in the name of fairness. While that is a reasonable motivation for considering whether to integrate more combat roles, it is of far lesser cocern than mission accomplishment and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our soldiers to the greatest extent possible, while accomplishing that mission.

If today's modern professionals ask that they not be saddled with this additional, unnecessary burden, I think it a huge mistake for those of us who sit in the comfort of our homes under the protection they provide to demand that they take that on. I, for one, wish to make the roles of those serving as unburdened as possible. I want to bring as many of our nations sons and daughters home safely as possible. If the experts in some fields within the profession of arms say the best way to do that comes at the expense of limiting [albeit unfairly] the career opportunities open to some, I say so be it.

 

[Gray Hog]

Please do not forget that JAM was a member of the West Point class of 1980, the first class with females. Not only is she not "too young to remember" but she was "right in the thick of it" and knows first hand.

Perhaps that personal history is why she seems to see "coded" messages in what I am saying, which are simply not there. I am the product of a later generation. I went to a fully-gender-integrated West Point and was commissioned into a nearly-fully-gender-integrated branch (the remainder of which was integrated while I was on active duty). I have nothing but the highest praise for my female classmates and fellow Aviators. I am not one of the 70's-era sexists she unfortunately had to battle during her days. Moreover, those people (like the racists in the military in the 60's) simply no longer exist, at least not in our military, thank God.

So, maybe she, and anyone else prone to see this issue through that prism, should take a step back and try to see the issue as it exists today. No one, myself included, wants anything but the greatest and most open opportunities for our sons and daughters (I have one and three respectively). We may have different opinions regarding the gender integration of ground combat units and what is the "right" thing to do with respect to that issue. However, NONE of us harbors any ulterior motive, hidden agenda, or latent sexism (or any "ism").

Frankly, to imply that anyone who is not fully in favor of complete and immediate gender integration is automatically a sexist, is not merely an insult to them, which is unwarranted, but it weakens your own position. It is not dissimilar to those who want to immediately label those who are in favor of Arizona's recent crackdown on illegal immigration as "racists." It shows a lack of objectivity and an unwillingness to recognize that those with whom you differ on an important issue may simply be good people looking to solve a difficult problem in a way with which you disagree.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Gray Hog - ignore LITS - he gets his giggles from making up stuff.

I am really confused as to how this thread moved from female sailors serving on subs to females in combat.
If you want to equate the two, fine; but clairfy please.

There IS an operational need to increase Sub service to females according to the US Navy. I suppose you can dispute this but then you would be calling a whole lotta high ranking Naval officers liars. If you haven't already you should read the articles again.

Moving forward, there is a class of females that will serve on Subs regardless of what any of us think. Are you saying that if in 10 years Subs became popular again and more male sailors made that request then they should receive priority over the women serving and women should be phased out?

GrayHog - All I ask for is a coherent argument. I have seen and heard all sorts of arguments over the year - why women can't/won't/shouldn't and most of them have proved to be false.

I don't think that todays male soldier's and sailor's are bigots and chauvanistic. Quite the contrary. Along the way, every single officer and soldier that I have had contact with along my own daughter's journey has been nothing but fully supportive of her desire and willingness to serve.

 

[Gray Hog]

I am really confused as to how this thread moved from female sailors serving on subs to females in combat.
If you want to equate the two, fine; but clairfy please.

The two are related in that the respective services believed in each case that there were/are legitimate, practical reasons for restricting certain roles/duties/assignments from women. Sadly, in both cases, anyone here who suggested that those policies might have been or still be for legitimate reasons was dismissed as being simply misinformed or misled or they were maligned and accused of being a sexist.

 

[Maximus]

Gray Hog - ignore LITS - he gets his giggles from making up stuff.

I am really confused as to how this thread moved from female sailors serving on subs to females in combat.
If you want to equate the two, fine; but clairfy please.

There IS an operational need to increase Sub service to females according to the US Navy. I suppose you can dispute this but then you would be calling a whole lotta high ranking Naval officers liars. If you haven't already you should read the articles again.

Moving forward, there is a class of females that will serve on Subs regardless of what any of us think. Are you saying that if in 10 years Subs became popular again and more male sailors made that request then they should receive priority over the women serving and women should be phased out?

GrayHog - All I ask for is a coherent argument. I have seen and heard all sorts of arguments over the year - why women can't/won't/shouldn't and most of them have proved to be false.

I don't think that todays male soldier's and sailor's are bigots and chauvanistic. Quite the contrary. Along the way, every single officer and soldier that I have had contact with along my own daughter's journey has been nothing but fully supportive of her desire and willingness to serve.

Jam, could you tell us again, who are the only people complaining/arguing about this issue again? It might help those here that are new, to understand your position in this "coherent argument" you want to discuss. TYIA

 

[Gray Hog]

Are you saying that if in 10 years Subs became popular again and more male sailors made that request then they should receive priority over the women serving and women should be phased out?

Hardly. If you can ask me such a question, you have failed to grasp what I have been saying. There will be a non-recurring cost [NOT simlpy a fiscal cost; I am talking about 'costs' associated with logistical changes, training, leadership, etc.] to integrate women into the submarine force. Once that investment is made, the force is integrated forever. For a long time, the Navy felt this cost was prohibitive and unnecessary, now changing operational needs make it reasonable and necessary in their professional opinions. End of story. The only reason to revisit that decision in the future would be if some of the accommodations made for women proved to create a recurring cost, which was unsustainable or if there were unforseen costs/risks encountered.

GrayHog - All I ask for is a coherent argument. I have seen and heard all sorts of arguments over the year - why women can't/won't/shouldn't and most of them have proved to be false.

Why must you insist upon insulting and personally attacking those with an opinion different from your own? You may not agree with any position I have taken or with any argument posed by others here, but I am quite certain that they were not all "incoherent."

I don't think that todays male soldier's and sailor's are bigots and chauvanistic. Quite the contrary. Along the way, every single officer and soldier that I have had contact with along my own daughter's journey has been nothing but fully supportive of her desire and willingness to serve.

Yet MANY of those same soldiers/leaders still believe there are real, practical, and legitimate reasons to continue to exculde women from certain roles. If you can accept that they may be of a different opinion than you and that it is not based upon some secret hatred for or negative bias against women, why do you make such accusations against those here who may have the same opinions?

 

[Pima]

Gray,

First I want to reiterate that I am for women serving in combat, and if I am correct you have 3 daughters, thus I would assume you would want them to obtain their goal. If that is combat or subs you would defend their right to serve in that capacity. Correct?

Next, I agree with you to a point. If a woman can pass the men's PT test they should be given a go ahead to serve in combat. Now, I am going to place a big caveat that is the elephant in the room...believe it or not it isn't sex or berthing. Women have different physical issues and they cannot be ignored.

For example, a woman gets pregnant on the sub, that means she must be replaced. The submarine community is small and I highly doubt they can just pick another member quickly to replace her, especially since for berthing issues that probably means they need to find another female to fill the job. (Limited berthing).

People have discussed the Rangers and the exclusion of women. Again, IMHO if they can pass the PT test GO FOR IT....however, let's address the female "issue"...not talking pregnancy here, but we must admit that supplies are hard to come by in the mts of Afghanistan. I do not mean to be offensive, but that is life and human aspects due to our bodies.

I do agree with Gray, but from a different standpoint. Come to me and say that human nature will not harm the mission in any bit and I am all for women serving. If a woman passed the PT and got a Depro shot, I say YOU GO GIRL! If she cannot, than I believe she is putting herself before service and risking other lives for her self-fulfillment.

 

[Mongo]

For example, a woman gets pregnant on the sub, that means she must be replaced.

Probably not. But if so, medevac the pregnant sailor off, bring out a new one, and continue with the mission. Every unit in the Navy has an authorized manning strength and a mission critical strength. Mission critical strength is normally around 70% of authorized strength. Unless things have changed drastically, a ship will never have the assigned personnel to be able to deploy at 100% authorized. Usually, it will be in the 85%-90% or so range.

Women are in the military for good. We aren't going to reverse the clock. Most are of child bearing age. Some will get pregnant. Every person in the Navy performs a critical job and when someone has medical issues, whether a clerk at a NAS getting pregnant or a boiler tech on a sub having back surgery, others must step up and cover for them. It's a fact of life. No big deal.

 

[SamAca10]

Probably not. But if so, medevac the pregnant sailor off, bring out a new one, and continue with the mission. Every unit in the Navy has an authorized manning strength and a mission critical strength. Mission critical strength is normally around 70% of authorized strength. Unless things have changed drastically, a ship will never have the assigned personnel to be able to deploy at 100% authorized. Usually, it will be in the 85%-90% or so range.

Women are in the military for good. We aren't going to reverse the clock. Most are of child bearing age. Some will get pregnant. Every person in the Navy performs a critical job and when someone has medical issues, whether a clerk at a NAS getting pregnant or a boiler tech on a sub having back surgery, others must step up and cover for them. It's a fact of life. No big deal.

Actually, it's a pretty big deal. You must recognize that there is a HUGE difference in a clerk at a NAS getting pregnant and a submariner getting pregnant on deployment. The submariner will have to be replaced, and that really isn't easy because of the unique nature of the submarine community. You have to find someone who is able to do her job and be qualified in that community. Probably not very many people. And like PIMA said, that replacement will probably have to be female due to berthing issues.

We know that women are going to be in the military. People are not trying to reverse that. What everyone is saying here that women may have to make a bit more of a sacrafice (not getting pregnant on, or during, a deployment) that men won't have to worry about. Not saying that they cannot have children, but it is a liability if it happens in a warzone....the military needs every service member it can get in that situation.

 

[Mongo]

Sam, read my post. Since subs are normally not manned at 100% anyway, the individual probably would not be replaced. Sailors are medivaced off submarines routinely. Not a big deal.

One of Admiral Rickover's famous requirements is that, to earn Dolphins, one must be able to perform every function on the boat. Stepping up to replace a medivaced shipmate is not a huge deal.

 

[Pima]

If I am correct, the first women on subs will be officers. I would assume that there would only be a handful of officers compared to enlisted, thus, the loss of an officer would be felt more than the loss of an enlisted member. For example, it there are 100 enlisted members, losing 1 is much different than if there are only 7 and you lose 1.

I believe women should have the right to serve if they elect to, I couldn't care left, right or center if they are on subs or aren't on subs. However, I like others here see logistic problems which we feel could create mission issues.

It is not about the gender of the military member it is about logistics.

 

[Mongo]

First off, there are probably 15 or so officers on a SSBN, not seven.

Yes, a department head might require replacing, especially early in the cruise. It would be absolutely no different than replacing someone on a surface ship or aviation squadron. The group commander would pull someone off the staff or go to a sister unit not scheduled for deployment and ask for volunteers, exactly as would be done for any other type command. Not a big deal.

And I am not sure, but wouldn't a career-minded officer have some control over pregnancy?

 

[Pima]

Mongo, I am taking a big assumption, but my guess is you are not a woman. I say that for 2 reasons.

1. Every woman knows a woman who got pregnant even when they used a form of BC. Remember the rule is abstinence is the only 100% proven BC

2. A woman who is single typically will not go on the pill. It has medical issues for her in the long run, thus, only those in a committed relationship will feel the need to go down this path. Are you assuming that she should go on the pill because she is going to be on the sub with all of these men and might have sex?

Even a career minded woman is the same as a career minded man and loses sight in this matter when they find "the one".

I hope in your thought process you would now also suggest that all male submariners make sure they guarantee that they don't get her pregnant.

Now onto the next

It would be absolutely no different than replacing someone on a surface ship or aviation squadron. The group commander would pull someone off the staff or go to a sister unit not scheduled for deployment and ask for volunteers, exactly as would be done for any other type command. Not a big deal.

Really? Since when can you pull someone off a staff position and say "go fly the jet". There are regs that every branch follows, and to pull someone into an aviation squadron they must be MQ. They may have flown in a previous assignment, but that doesn't mean they can just hop in a jet and fly now. If you are who you are, you know for a fact that you can't do that. You know you must fly in certain time parameters to maintain MQ status, and you know that many officers when they get to that admin staff position are not MQ for the airframes that are flown, they are there for their "desk" assignment, and not a flying assignment.

Call me silly, but I would think submariners have specialty schools like every other branch has within their service. I would think that you can't take the Intel officer on the sub and now say your job is Intel and Weapons or Maintenance. Afterall, you said there are 15 officers, that means, the majority of that group has a specialty. Granted the hierarchy maybe officers with different backgrounds, but on a whole, the younger officers have job specific backgrounds.

I kind of find it a big deal to me as a citizen that because they could not replace the Maintenance officer since she got pregnant that they now have the Admin officer without any training in charge of the maintenance of the sub. Worse yet, take that same officer and say now your job is Weapons officer.

As far as the asking for volunteers from a sister squadron...I didn't realize that submariners had sister squadrons like surface ships. Again remind me how many are on a sub and how many are on a surface ship? The other point is the key word VOLUNTEER. In other words they can decline. Granted in 2-3 yrs there maybe enough women submariners, but for the first few years that ability of volunteers will not exist due to BERTHING. They can't bring in the male volunteer because the member they were replacing was a female. They can't bring in a female because she is either in a school to get on the subs or she is on a sub.

Finally, tell me the last time a surface ship was under Antarctica?

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Gray Hog - I am not quite sure why you are so hostile toward me.
I apologized a few posts back for mis-interpreting your post and it's tone.

you have failed to grasp what I have been saying.

Yes, I think I have.

There will be a non-recurring cost [NOT simlpy a fiscal cost; I am talking about 'costs' associated with logistical changes, training, leadership, etc.] to integrate women into the submarine force. Once that investment is made, the force is integrated forever. For a long time, the Navy felt this cost was prohibitive and unnecessary, now changing operational needs make it reasonable and necessary in their professional opinions. End of story.

I would agree with this. What makes you think I don't?
So, I don't know, I guess I am still a little confused - do you support these young Naval officers? You still haven't made that clear.

 

[Mongo]

Are you assuming that she should go on the pill because she is going to be on the sub with all of these men and might have sex?

We are talking about officers here, aren’t we? I think your portrayal is unrealistic.

Even a career minded woman is the same as a career minded man and loses sight in this matter when they find "the one".

And if they are assigned to the same submarine, surface ship, or aviation squadron, they are no longer career minded. Their careers are over. A career minded officer is not going to have sex on a boat, pure and simple. Not an issue.

Really? Since when can you pull someone off a staff position and say "go fly the jet". There are regs that every branch follows, and to pull someone into an aviation squadron they must be MQ. They may have flown in a previous assignment, but that doesn't mean they can just hop in a jet and fly now. If you are who you are, you know for a fact that you can't do that. You know you must fly in certain time parameters to maintain MQ status, and you know that many officers when they get to that admin staff position are not MQ for the airframes that are flown, they are there for their "desk" assignment, and not a flying assignment.

If you noticed, I said ‘sister’ unit. In the Navy with 12 carriers, there will always be several squadrons standing up for deployment and several squadrons just returning from deployment. The Navy is about ships. Ships belong at sea. People who want to succeed need to be at sea. There will always be MQ volunteers standing in line for an opportunity for extra sea time. The airwing staff flies with the squadrons attached to them and maintain full MQs. They are available also. Not an issue at all.

Call me silly, but I would think submariners have specialty schools like every other branch has within their service.

They are called sub school and nuclear power school and are completed prior to the first assignment. Of course there are supply officers and such, but all 1100s are pretty much interchangeable. Actually, in the Navy, junior officer assignments are simply to the unit, not to a specific billet. The CO will assign upon arrival. And most do not require special schooling. Remember, all officers on a submarine are trained in all watch stations before they earn their Dolphins. Yes, a Weapons Officer can move next door to become the Chief Engineer, and does, with no schooling whatsoever.

Finally, tell me the last time a surface ship was under Antarctica?

Tell me the last time a submarine was under Antartica and tell me what that has to do with anything? Personnel are hoisted on and off underway ships and submarines by helicopter routinely.

Except for berthing, which the Navy has solved, there is virtually no difference between women deploying on submarines than deploying on surface ships which they have successfully accomplished for over 25 years.

 

[SteveHolt243]

Finally, tell me the last time a surface ship was under Antarctica?

I'd be interested to know the last time a submarine managed to go under Antarctica.

 

[Gray Hog]

There will be logistical issues, there will be biological/medical issues, there will be leadership/training/discipline issues, and there will be other issues related to integrating women into the submarine force. Those who raised legitimate concerns about any of these practical issues are merely being pragmatic, not intentionally discriminatory to serve some ulterior purpose. Sadly, there are some here who immediately accuse anyone who considers the question from a practical standpoint of using it merely as a smokescreen to hide their personal bias or as an excuse to further a deeper, more sinister agenda. I am sorry to disappoint them, but that is a phantom bogie. People can disagree with each other with regard to which are greater or lesser issues related to gender integration of a particular field/role and what the cost of overcoming them will be, but to brand anyone who merely voices such a concern as sexist is greatly misguided.

As I have already stated, in my experience (limited to Army Aviation), there were special challenges related to deploying to a tactical environment with a mixed-gender force and there were issues in all of the categories I listed above related to integrating the remaining Aviation career fields, which were still excluded from women when I was commissioned, but which were integrated while I served. Most proved to be more trivial than I had expected, some were a greater challenge than I had expected, and others I had not anticipated at all. All could be and were overcome. The benefit of gaining these valuable soldiers in the Aviation force far outweighed the costs associated with overcoming those challenges, so it was certainly worth the price. I doubt you would find many serving today who would disagree with that. However, I do not believe that, because it was the right thing to do for Army Aviation, it is automatically the right thing to do in every role/unit/branch in every service. I believe the modern professionals in these fields should be allowed to carefully evaluate the challenges and risks and weigh the benefits against the costs (yes, as measured in blood and treasure).

My point is that these are matters practicality and cost versus benefit, not issues of fairness. What is “right” may not be what is “fair.” I was at the short end of certain policies, while I was on active duty, which discriminated against me and limited my career advancement. I believed they were unfair. They were, however, “right” in the eyes of the military for very practical reasons. I accept that…and I do not believe that those who made the policy decisions which discriminated against me were doing anything but their absolute best to do what they believed in the best interest of the service for the good of the nation.

 

[Gray Hog]

...I guess I am still a little confused - do you support these young Naval officers? You still haven't made that clear.

Sorry, I missed this post, while I was typing my last novel. I will try to keep this short.

In answer to your question, Yes. Of course. I support the young Naval officers who want to (and now will) be able to serve their service and nation aboard subs.

I also support the young women who wish to be Army Infantry (or Rangers, or SF, or whatever hooah job interests them). My point is that I can suport them and not wish for there to be any barriers in their lives any more than I wish for there to be any barriers in my own daughters lives and still accept that there may be legitimate, practical reasons for those barriers to remain in place (at least at present). I trust in the unbiased professionalism of the modern Army leaders making those decisions who are trying to do what is "right," even if it is unfair to some...even f it is unfair to my daughters. I hope that makes sense to you.

By the way, I have no problem with the shorthand GH, Gray, Hog, whatever, but feel free to use my name, as well if you prefer, which is Brad.