Skip to comments.Michelle Obama sponsors Navy’s first submarine with all-female crew
Posted on 05/28/2012 4:32:46 PM PDT by beebuster2000
The USS Illinois, the first Navy submarine to be staffed by an all-female crew, received the support of the White House on Memorial Day.
On Monday, First Lady Michelle Obama officially sponsored the Virginia-class submarine, which will be one of the newest nuclear-powered boats scheduled to enter the fleet by 2015, according to a White House statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Here we go again.
Actually, wouldn’t that solve the fraternization issues? Women are intellectually capable of handling a nuclear sub. (Well, not me, math was never my strong point! But SOME women can handle it. ;o)
I think this may be an experiment worth trying.
If a female crew member spills their coffee does it still leave a seaman stain?
New twist on going down....
New subs don’t have to raise the periscope either...
How can 24 women run a fast attack sub?
Also none of them hold rank over LT.
“Coming up on tonight’s 10 O’clock News, military leaders in Moscow are on high alert due to intelligence reports indicating it’s ‘that time of the month’ aboard the American Navy submarine Illinois. ...”
The USS Estrogen
Obviously, an all-female submarine crew is a deliberate political act, the purpose of which is absolutely superfluous serving no military purpose except as a function of nefarious political correctness.
vagina class sub.....
Women’s menstrual cycles tend to synchronize in much less enclosed environments than a submarine. I wonder if PMS will be a problem.
From the reader comments:
“Am I the only one who sees the irony of the first black,
First Lady launching the first segregated military unit in this century?”
an all woman submarine is a better idea than a coed submarine. the under water pressure and close quarters turn coed navy subs instantly into love boats. ... to the considerable consternation and unhappiness of spouses onshore.
Oh yea right, rig for Silent Running? I don’t think you can keep that crew quiet.
Submarine decks don’t stain.
That’s what she said...
“Michelle Obama officially sponsored”
I didn’t know yetis could sponsor a ship.
While the issue of can they or can they not safely and
effectively crew and operate a submarine is a reasonable
issue to discuss their is one more issue that is far more
critical. Can they be trusted to launch if such an order
was given or if other circumstances required that they do
so. The psychological differences between women would make
such one wonder if women have what it takes to perform an
action that they know could kill millions.
Naval version of Rush’s “All Amazon Battalion”.
Fights would abound.
“I hope you brought enough for everyone”
Them’s the simple facts.
USS PMS or
USS PMSNBC (NBC=Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical).
Martha Stewart has had some excellent experience doing interior decorating in very small spaces. Think they’ll hire her to do the decorating on their sub?
Different on a sub—if you ain't got efficiency and harmony on the boats you got dead sailors.
So all male or all female crews make sense and I wish the ladies well.
They’ll have a vagitarian menu....
This just figures they name a submarine after a state that is under water.
No one yet mentioned the Gay thing. That sort of makes the sub target rich for the L-gals. I guess they did not see A Few Good Men.
And since when did the Wookie become CIC of Navy?
> wonder if women have what it takes to perform an
action that they know could kill millions
VA Class is a nuclear-POWERED ATTACK sub. not a boomer.
OMG what is next with these liberals...The Gay Sub christened by ODumbo. sheesh
This will put John Semmens out of business.
The USS Tampon?
No, seriously, could an all female crew give a sinking battle-damaged sub the same chance of survival as an all male crew? Are they physically strong enough?
There’s enough tension on board already without a direct injection of estrogen/testosterone into the operating environment.
Another thing that will suck is that when you have 5 heads and 2 showers for 100 men and you take one away for 24 women, there will be resentment.
They propose to fix this by making all the women officers who will share the officers quarters.
No problems there /s
Good luck getting a red blooded NCO to take a male ensign or LTJG seriously on a boat.
This coed boats would be pure trouble.
They’re gonna love meeting the COB.
The crew will be all beings, but you can bet there will be plenty who are of different sexual persuasion and the same problems that may have been a concern regarding fraternization and harassment will not likely go away.
This is incredibly stupid, sexist, and ridiculous to do this crap to the military. There is no equal anything in the military, it’s the damn military.
Utterly stupid. It will appear like Obama has his equivalent of Kadafi’s female guards.
Here’s what I don’t get. Hopefully someone can explain.
We’re supposed to see this as a step forward for “civil rights” for women. Okay, perhaps it is a step since up till now, women have not been on submarines.
But, how is this a step forward in an area of “civil rights” if females are going to be segregated?
When the armed forces became fully integrated, blacks and whites were serving together in the same units. Ditto, with the end of “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell”, openly gay service members are in the same units. They are not being segregated into a homosexual unit.
My question, and a serious question it is, is why is it okay to have gender segregation such as this all girl submarine?????
What, in your opinion, would disqualify an all female crew from “manning” a submarine?
Please be serious in your response.
The USS PMS. Don’t mess with it. Really.
This is total BS....there is NO possible way the Navy can fully man (no pun intended) a submarine with a 100% female crew. You would have to have fully qualified women from all ratings from E-1 all the way up to Commander. It would take a decade or more of a fully integrated submarine service training pipeline to produce such women. They don’t exist now, and will not by the specified 2015 date.
And, this will ultimately end in disaster. EVERY US Navy seagoing platform that has allowed women to serve has had a 30%-50% pregnancy rate—pregnancies occurring both on and off ship. Pregnant women can NOT serve on submarine, or any other combatant vessel for that matter. The instant a medical determination of pregnancy exists, that woman has to be transferred to a shore billet. What you will have is a boat that is insufficiently manned to deploy. Ain’t gonna happen.
And, BTW, have served on a submarine, I will state as fact that MOST women simply don’t have the physical stamina to do the job.
In all submarines you have people who have been to sea for 10 years. There is not the experience amoung women. A submarine is not like driving a car around.
So all male or all female crews make sense and I wish the ladies well.
Are there currently any co-ed subs to provide officers and crew already trained on a Virginia-class boat? If not, is the Navy really going to trust a new sub to a rookie crew?
And are you forgetting the higher than normal percentage of lesbians in the armed forces? You don’t think that won’t be going on on this sub?
I can’t imagine some greenhorn female officer barking orders at a 20 year sub sailor.
What part of “all female crew” did you not understand?
First thing I thought too.