It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Navy to allow women to serve on submarines!

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by antonia

I think the women will find comfort, safety, and some camaraderie from the Gay sailors, at least. They might even provide a source of protection...unless they're deep in the closet.

Another idea (but I'm sure there would be howls) is to spike the grub with salt peter --- maybe they do already, and just don't tell us?

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by yellowcard

Very true. A coworker's son who is one of those nerdy booky types was turned away from the navy and asked to join the Army.

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:49 PM
I have always wondered how much much the US Navy has changed over the years since WWII.

IMHO it seems that during WWII and afterwards, the US Navy was much more professional, hardier, tougher, and was less like a high school. Once they started to allow women on board aircraft carriers, it seems like the atmosphere turned into a high school. Please dont jump on me and say I am a sexist or whatnot. I do believe that women are just as good as men, be it in combat or other duties.

I watched the documentary on PBS called "Aircraft Carrier". It was a documentary which followed the life on board a carrier on deployment to the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. It went into the personal lives of a few of the crew members of all walks of life. Before I watched this show, I was considering joining the Navy and going onto a carrier. Now, after watching it, I did a reverse 180. To me it looked like going back to my old high school, with all the teen drama, childish behavior, immaturity, everything. It gave me an impression of total lack of professionalism. It looked like a floating high school. The only professionals on board were the fighter pilots and senior officers. It looked nothing like the documentaries or memoirs or recollections of sailors who served aboard carriers during WWII and afterwards.

Dont get me wrong, I am sure and do not deny that there were problems on carriers before with childish behavior, young men causing trouble, etc etc etc. But the atmosphere I always felt reading through pages of the life on board a carrier was of professionalism, maturity, and toughness. Now its like trying to keep a bunch of kids in line to not screw up.

I would like to hear from any of our fellow ATS members who have served on board carriers before the integration of men and women and now and if there or was any difference, for better or worse, or is it all in my head, or does it seem like The Navy has gone a little downhill in the past two decades? I would really like to know! Am I wrong in this view, is there a difference between then and now, or not?

[edit to add]:
I am also aware that sailors then, were also 18, 19, 20 years old. But comparing the sailors then and now, its like comparing 16 year olds now, to 25 year olds then.

[edit on 4/29/2010 by GenRadek]

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by yellowcard

You are correct. My friends son was almost in the Navy, for a good tech job and a month or so before he was to finalize the paperwork etc, they called and told them they were no longer interest-at this time and suggested he go to another service.

He leaves for the Army next week-he got an interesting MOS (job). If I am correct, I will be posting a thread about the thing he is doing. You'll see.

Anyway, if I had to do it all over again, I would joing the Coast Guard.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by anon72

There's a lot of reasons he could get that call. They might have found something in his background they don't like. The MOS he choose may be full. It doesn't say anything about the Navy's recruitment numbers. They actually lowered their goals in 08' because the headlines for most branches were pretty friggin bad. You also have to remember it takes time to train a new recruit and simply because one signs up doesn't mean they pan out. The recruitment numbers normally don't display the people they lose in basic and AIT (can't remember what they call it in the Navy).

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by mikelee

the problem with the insinuation is that the surface navy doent have the problem you claim will arise

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by anon72

just my opinion - but i think the accusation that they will get raped / sexually harrassed is utterly without foundation

based only on my annecdotal experience of m 1 my service in the british army - and a vast number of aquanitances in the RAF and RN

then the silent service [ RN submarine section ] has the lowest incidences of complaints agains senior officers , lowest rate of bulling / harrasment * , lowest rates of violent arguments / puch ups ** , lowest suicide rate

* these are ALL based on male only units

** based on ` on patrol ` / exercise / training - not including on leave activity and shore based drunkeness

i would expect the submarniers of the USN to display similar trends

so why will the most professional branch of the service will allegedly sudenly degenerate into rapists when they find a female in thier mess

all male crews dont display abberant behaviour towards each other when on patrol - so i contend they will retain thier profesionalism in female company

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:20 AM
Wow, just think of the new club that they just created. The mile deep club. Are you a member of the mile high club? No, but I am a member of the mile deep club and my ongoing endeavor is to join the mile high club. Oh the lengths we'll go to create these clubs. Or could it be that they were tired of seeing Seaman on the poop deck all the time and needed a change of venue? The matter eludes me.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:36 AM
This is the purest form of politically incorrect insanity, and will lead to countless problems.

In surface vessels you are able to define separate washroom and berthing facilities without too much trouble, but on a submarine it's almost impossible without re-designing the living spaces.

Not to mention the problems associated with putting 100 healthy young men in a steel tube with 20 healthy young women for 90 days at a stretch.

This is going to get very ugly in the worst way, the Navy brass must be face palming as I type this........

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Retseh]

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:33 PM
Having served on a fast attack submarine with the U.S. Navy, the individuals posting on here about how unprofessional submariners are is dispicable to say the least. Submariners take the utmost pride in what they do. The qualification process for Submarine Warfare is one of the toughest undertakings a sailor can take. They don't take just any sailor for submarine duty. You need a minimum ASVAB score to qualify for subs, and it is much higher than the Surface side of the Navy. Getting your fish is required for EVERY member of a submarine, and you have approximately a year to qualify or they kick you off the submarine. Surface side, I've seen enlisted sailors at the E-6 level who still haven't gotten their Surface Warfare pins.

The first women on submarines are going to be officers. They also are going to implement this on the trident submarines (missile boats). They don't go out for more than three months. And quite honestly there is no room on a submarine for rape to occur. You can't go anywhere on a submarine without bumping into another sailor. Surface side is quite different. There are many compartments that offer privacy, there is no such thing as privacy on a submarine.

While at first I didn't think something like this was possible, after digging deep into my memories and recollections on what life was like on a submarine, I see this a fantastic challenge for the opposite sex. Sure they're are going to be problems, but there's been problems in all of history, because the human element was involved.

And finally, while at sea on a submarine, nothing revolved around sex. We were professional and took our jobs seriously. After all, it wasn't like you can deploy a life-raft if something went wrong. Every drill was conducted as if it was a real-time event. Fire drills involved putting mesh over our respirators to simulate the lack of visibility in a real fire sitiuation. It just astonishes me that individuals would thank that a professional occupation involves nothing but "grab-ass" and debauchery. Educate yourselves and quit being so ignorant of some of our countries finest individuals. Life on a submarine doesn't give you the luxury of being complacent.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:43 PM
Our submarines have been full of homosexual men for many years. The only difference now would be some genetalia less likely to get caught in the machinery.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by earthdude

any evidence for that claim ? or you just passing bovine excrement ?

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by earthdude

Yes I would also like links to your claims of not only homosexuality on submarines, but also of genetalia being caught in machinery. Comments like this are not necessary and do nothing to contribute to the discussion of this thread. Please provide "anything" that would bring credit on your part. What you said would have easily 100+ men of any submarine crew having you wish that you would have shown a little more class at making that off-hand remark.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:16 PM
Well, being a woman, i wouldnt risk it. Simple as.
I dont mean to generalise but when it comes to a guy and his dick, he cant be trusted.

Yes yes i sound like a man hating femminist but i know there are many men out there who wouldnt think about raping a woman in any circumstance and for that, i salute you!

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:44 PM
What people don't understand is that on a submarine, your life depends on everyone on board. You trust every individual with your life. Someone raping another crewmember would result in serious non-judicial type punishment. That individual committing the atrocious act would likely end up leaving the submarine in a body bag. I've seen people get beat up for cheating on a card game. Yes a card game! It's that serious on the level of trust between all members of the submarine. Part of the qualification process is proving to every crewmember that you are competent in that role that you are trying to qualify for. You are putting your life in another mans hands. These men form a lifelong bond with their shipmates because the form a stronger bond than brothers. There's no talking behind others onboard a submarine. You bad-mouth another, you're bad-mouthing the entire crew. If you have problems with an individual you talk to that individual about it.

I guess this is a concept that can't be conveyed without having lived in that situation in the first place. I'm sorry that some individuals can't understand the concept of camaraderie and kinship that exists in a close-knit society that is found on a submarine.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by saabster5

Sorry for trying to make you laugh. The only submariner I ever met was flaming gay. He said he had many sexual escapades going down in the navy. He married a lesbian to get more pay. My point is that there have been sexual differences in the navy for a long time.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by earthdude

Yes, my friends younger brother was gay and on Subs for years until he got out recently. He went total flamer the day he got out. Amazing. I didn't put that in before but what the heck. He is the only submariner I know.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:58 PM
I have an idea. Why don't we do a trial cruise with an all female crew and see how it works out?

I am aware that females can serve on submarines in the Royal Canadian and Royal Norwegian Navies ... how have things fared for them?

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:30 PM
I'm beginning to wonder about our leadership in the military. In the real world, women are a distraction to heterosexual men. It's purely biological and women know they are. This is the reason women wear makeup and wear such revealing clothes, i.e. figure hugging dresses, pants and low-cut blouses, not because it's fashionable but to gain the attention from the opposite sex.

The very last thing anyone needs during combat is a distraction.

Heterosexual men rever the female as a being that needs to be protected at all costs. The female presence in a combat situation will divert priorities from the mission objective to "we can't allow this woman to get hurt" priorities in a heterosexual male's mind. I don't care what anyone says. The Navy is putting the Navy at risk by allowing such practices.

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by Intelearthling

You are aware that there were SEVERAL female snipers in the Red Army (aka the Russian Army) during WWII who had several hundred confirmed kills right? I believe the top scoring female had 300+.

Over 100 of them were awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union (their version of our Medal of Honor). Of the 2,000,000 females that served in the Red Army between 1941 and 1945 over 200,000 were decorated for heroism in combat.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in