Posted on 10/13/2009 1:32:44 PM PDT by JoeProBono
Submariners sleep nine to a bunk room. There are four showers and seven toilets for the roughly 140 enlisted men. The passageways on board the vessel are so narrow that crew members can barely squeeze by each other without touching.
And that's on the roomiest submarines.
The Navy is considering allowing women to serve aboard submarines for the first time, 16 years after bringing female sailors onto surface combat ships.
Some sailors and wives warn that putting men and women together in extremely close quarters underwater for weeks at a time is just asking for sexual harassment cases and wrecked marriages. But supporters of the idea say it is a matter of fairness and equal opportunity, and what worked on ships can work in subs.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
US Navy Woman Petty Officer with Gonads
Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Emily K. Klinefelter may be a woman and a sailor, but she wants people to know that she has seen combat firsthand and gone through a lot of the same experiences as her brethren in the ground forces.
operation petticoat!
Submarines aren’t like surface ships.
The headline, “Navy moves to”... implies it has been decided, not that it is under consideration.
BAD IDEA
The passageways on board the vessel are so narrow that crew members can barely squeeze by each other without touching.
Right there I can see a lot of sexual harassment cases.
You are quite right. A great understatement also. An attack or missle boat in combat is no place to test social theory. The reason a carrier can have women is because there is enough space to provide social privacy. There is NO privacy on a submarine as a design function of the extreme conditions under which it must operate. This is not the Air Force where everyone gets to go home after action. In wartime, the boats are committed to 3-4 months submerged- their purpose is to remain undetected and a deterrent force against enemy vessels. Here is an example of the kind of operational quiet that is observed: a submariner had an infection/need for surgery that could not be handled on board. Encoded messages set up a precise, timed rendevous off Iceland with a chopper. The chopper was on time, the sub was late, and took too long on the surface transferring the sailor, revealing it’s position. The sub’s captain was relieved of command for exposing a major part of our defense to attack. So, if you add in the particular screening of these submariners and mix in the two sexes in this kind of world—who, in fact, would serve— not the tough stable family men who make up the backbone of this elite service. What husband would want his wife serving with other men in such confined circumstances and what wife would want their husband to do so? The most important navies of the world have already tested this— and they do not do it.
The TV Show Carrier on PBS highlighted how some officers have to perform in the role of couples counselors when onboard affairs run amok.
As if the burden of officership wasn’t complex enough.
You cannot throw young men and women together in close quarters and not expect some fireworks.
This is a stupid idea.
.jpg)
Bad idea.
How often will the tubes be checked in the torpedo room?
This wasn’t even considered as an option under Bush Adminstration.
Gives new meaning to "Torpedo away!"
So What, I see you never went to sea on a submarine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.