military related news

[Totenkopf]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100430/ap_on_re_us/us_women_on_submarines

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_gays

[Samnmax221]

**** those DADT excuses. The sooner we allow uncloseted gays in the sooner we can start kicking out the white trash who can't handle it.

[JediAthos]

I can say that having been in the military (while no longer active) that neither one of these issues would be a big deal for me if I was active.

 

Women on submarines is long overdue in my opinion. They serve just about everywhere else in the Navy so submarines should be no different. It will take awhile to integrate them into the current sub force due to the extensive training required for submariners, and the mods that will have to be made to many subs but beyond that no big deal.

 

As for the gay thing..I really don't care. What you do in your bedroom or private life should have no effect on how you perform your duties. I served with at least one sailor who I knew for certain was gay and he still did his job just like anyone else. Unfortunately the military will have to come up with a way to deal with the bigoted amongst the ranks that would see gay service members persecuted for the way they live their lives. I actually commend the military for holding off on lifting the ban to develop said plan.

[Litofsky]

It will take awhile to integrate them into the current sub force due to the extensive training required for submariners, and the mods that will have to be made to many subs but beyond that no big deal.

 

The only modification I can think of belongs to the bathrooms. I've never been on a submarine, but is it that hard to have toilets instead of urinals?

 

As for don't ask don't tell, it needs to end, but the manner in which it does needs to be chosen carefully. Revealing one's sexual orientation to potentially-prejudiced soldiers could have disastrous effects (I'm referring to harassment, ostracism, etc).

[Liverandbacon]

I was never in the Navy, let alone submarines, but as far as I can see, beyond the monetary cost of modifying the submarines, there isn't really a problem.

 

Having been in the Army until quite recently, I have a more knowledgeable opinion on DADT than I do on the whole submarine thing.

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with repealing it, since all that would happen is a bunch of guys I've served with would mysteriously become gay overnight. Same guys they've always been. As for the whole "but they'll watch me shower" argument, no matter whether a guy is actually gay or not, he's going to get mocked for weeks if he gets a boner in the showers (happened to one guy... claimed he was thinking of his wife. We were laughing at him for a week). Of course there are many who aren't as tolerant of homosexuals, so the repeal would have to be handled carefully.

 

I think that it would also be good for the military. Less ***holes who are afraid of deploying would suddenly "stop living a lie" and admit that they're gay (of course, most of them aren't) in order to get discharged. We wouldn't have to deal with absurdly flamboyant types, because honestly those aren't the sort of gay people who enlist. The ones who enlist are the gay people who are ordinary in every way except for who they're attracted to.

 

However, even beyond bigotry, there are a ton of potential issues that we need to plan for before we can repeal the policy. One example out of many: We wouldn't be able to allow gay people to marry in the military. Why? You'd get a ton of straight single E3s and E4s, as well as some E5s, getting temporarily gay-marriaged to each other in order to live off base. This is not a good thing. Some people would likely cry out "but it's their right to marry!", however, in the military, under the UCMJ, a soldier's rights are very different from those of an ordinary US citizen, so it wouldn't be any worse than many of the rules already in the UCMJ.

 

That's just one of the issues they'll need to deal with, among many. I am definitely a fan of them taking their time instead of rushing into ill-advised legislation.

[JediAthos]

The only modification I can think of belongs to the bathrooms. I've never been on a submarine, but is it that hard to have toilets instead of urinals?

 

Ah but there also has to be an establishment of female sleeping quarters which have to be separated from the male crew members. There will also likely be extra discrimination and sexual harassment training for the current crews of those submarines.

 

@liverandbacon: good points...I hadn't thought of the UCMJ issues and the would be scammers.

[Litofsky]

Ah but there also has to be an establishment of female sleeping quarters which have to be separated from the male crew members. There will also likely be extra discrimination and sexual harassment training for the current crews of those submarines.

 

Discrimination? Hell, I'd think that the crews would be excited to have female additions to the crew. The new quarters could be a problem, but easily solved by designating certain bunks (areas?) for sexes.

[JediAthos]

The biggest problem with the bunking is that, for example, on the Los Angeles Class attack submarines there is only one sleeping area for enlisted and one for officers. So, temporary bulkheads or some other modification needs to be made to separate a certain number of bunks in both the enlisted and officer sleeping areas.

[Liverandbacon]

The biggest problem with the bunking is that, for example, on the Los Angeles Class attack submarines there is only one sleeping area for enlisted and one for officers. So, temporary bulkheads or some other modification needs to be made to separate a certain number of bunks in both the enlisted and officer sleeping areas.

 

Which would also mean that they would need to decide an exact number of women to be on board a submarine and stick to it. Which could be difficult to do considering varying enlistment rates, etc.

[JediAthos]

Well, each ship has a specific crew compliment which varies only slightly based on personnel availability. So, yes, they will eventually decide which billets (crew positions) will be filled by women and make the required changes to each ship's configuration.

 

I would imagine that the decision on which billets will be filled has already been made.

[Samnmax221]

There aren't that many women in the Navy, and fewer who will be qualified to work on subs. There won't be that big of a deal sectioning off some bunks for them.

[JediMaster12]

I haven't served in the military but I do have family that have served. While I can see the point to some degree regarding women being on subs, I don't think that women should be restricted from serving if they are willing to put in the time and the training to serve on a sub. True there are going to be issues regarding the close quarters and bunking, etc. but if memory serves, they are adults right? They are supposed to make mature decisions about conduct. I am not denying that there will be blatant sexism. Frankly some of these excuses are the same that the big guys at top are making about women taking command positions.

 

As for the DADT repeal, I'm all for it but I do agree that it has to be done in a manner that is palpable for those that are not gay. Again there will be issues of harassment but that has been the case since the issue of homosexuality became major in the 60s. I don't care if a personis gay or straight but just as long as they do the job that they signed up for well, then I am pleased.

[JediAthos]

There aren't that many women in the Navy, and fewer who will be qualified to work on subs. There won't be that big of a deal sectioning off some bunks for them.

 

According to Navy.mil there are currently 54,000 women serving in the United States Navy. Being "qualified" to work on submarines simply requires completing the requisite training which is just about a two year process comprising of nuclear power school as well as nuclear prototype training. So, really any woman in any job category that is available on a submarine can be "qualified to work on them."

 

Congress could have blocked this move by the Navy but chose not to intervene which to me is indicative that they feel the Navy can accomplish this successfully just as they did integrating women into the surface fleet 20 years ago.

[Samnmax221]

According to Navy.mil there are currently 54,000 women serving in the United States Navy. Being "qualified" to work on submarines simply requires completing the requisite training which is just about a two year process comprising of nuclear power school as well as nuclear prototype training. So, really any woman in any job category that is available on a submarine can be "qualified to work on them."

The percentage is incredibly meager though. Not everyone who works on submarines is in nuclear power, people fail out of it like crazy, and there aren't all that many walking around compared to other fields. Women also tend to end up in admin and medical jobs more often than anything else.

[JediAthos]

I'm not sure what your background is Samnmax but I was on active duty with the Navy from 1997-2007. During that time there were women both on my ship and on shore duty in just about every conceivable field. Engineering, electronics, security, air, navigation, administration, medical...there were women doing jobs in all of those departments. The days of the majority of women serving primarily in admin or medical roles are long over.

 

At any rate, the Navy will make the modifications to the submarines they plan on staffing with female sailors intially and 10 years or so from now no one will know the difference.