• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

Doesn't make it right or smart even if political pressure has forced women to serve in Ranger type roles.

If a woman can pass the training, the same training as any man passes, why should she be exempted?
 
This is why Wiki is unreliable. This is absolutely false and I know that with 100% certainty.

No woman has ever gone to U.S. Army Ranger school. No woman has ever served in the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Can you say with equal certainty that women aren't allowed to take Ranger training?
 
Can you say with equal certainty that women aren't allowed to take Ranger training?

Yes, I can say with absolute 100% certainty that women are not, nor have ever been allowed to go to Ranger School or be assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Where apdst? He can validate.
 
This is why Wiki is unreliable. This is absolutely false and I know that with 100% certainty.

No woman has ever gone to U.S. Army Ranger school. No woman has ever served in the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Part of the relevant paragraph from the Wiki in question:
Women enlisted soldiers are barred from serving in Infantry, Special Forces, however female enlisted members and officers can hold staff positions in every branch of the Army except infantry and armor. Women can however serve on the staffs of infantry and armor units at Division level and above, and be members of Special Operations Forces. Women can fly military aircraft and make up 2% of all pilots in the U.S. Military. Although Army regulations bar women from infantry assignments, some females are detailed to accompany male infantry units to handle searches of Iraqi women. Recently Rangers, the elite infantry force in the US Army, has been open to women.
The last sentence, which I changed the color of, seems to have simply been tacked on to the end, and causes the whole paragraph to contradict itself.

Not to mention, the grammar and word usage could use some work.

I would bet that this is changed soon, by someone.
 
Part of the relevant paragraph from the Wiki in question:
The last sentence, which I changed the color of, seems to have simply been tacked on to the end, and causes the whole paragraph to contradict itself.

Not to mention, the grammar and word usage could use some work.

I would bet that this is changed soon, by someone.

Yeah, because it's wrong. Rangers are not and have not and will not ever be open to females.
 
If a woman can pass the training, the same training as any man passes, why should she be exempted?

It's just the training it's the interationships, the effects upon men and their families and biology. I also just do not philosophically believe that women should be serving in combat. I realize that the Soviet Union had women ( mostly Russian women) serving during WW II but do we want to be like those Russians ? We are a cilvized people let's behave like it.
 
Can you say with equal certainty that women aren't allowed to take Ranger training?

I think there is some kind of law in pretty much every branch of the military that says that women can not be in units which would be first in. I remember reading something to that effect on AFL.
 
Last edited:
Females serving on a sub would not work. Same goes for infantry, armor and artillery. You have to be able to preform every job as a member of the team. Very few women would be able to fill this requirement. Not to mention the "relaxed" physical requirements for female troops.

Not realistic at all.
 
Yeah, because it's wrong. Rangers are not and have not and will not ever be open to females.
It's never a good idea to make absolute statements.

Interestingly enough, from the same Wiki:
US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus stated October 8, 2009 that allowing women to serve on submarines is "an idea whose time has come" - and he said he sees no big hurdles to making it happen. Mabus has given no timeline for when women could begin serving, saying several steps must first be taken. They include devising an implementation process, notifying Congress of the plan and having the prospective female submariners complete the required nuclear training.
 
Last edited:
Females serving on a sub would not work. Same goes for infantry, armor and artillery. You have to be able to preform every job as a member of the team. Very few women would be able to fill this requirement. Not to mention the "relaxed" physical requirements for female troops.

Not realistic at all.

What IF a female was physically qualified and passed strength tests that men passed?
 
It's never a good idea to make absolute statements.

Interestingly enough, from the same Wiki:

Rangers are Army, not Navy. His statement is absolutely correct.
 
I think there is some kind of law in pretty much every branch of the military that says that women can not be in units which would be first in. Something akin to that.

There is no law it is policy and it is restricted by role/function nothing about "first in". Furthermore when we are dealing with terrorists and "insurgents" and guerilla warfare the concept of "first in" has no meaning. You can be the last, first, middle truck or humvee in line and the IED meets you.
 
Yes, I can say with absolute 100% certainty that women are not, nor have ever been allowed to go to Ranger School or be assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Where apdst? He can validate.

I take your word for it. Thanks.
 
What IF a female was physically qualified and passed strength tests that men passed?

Still would not go because the percentage of females that could pass would still be prone to higher chances of injury's in training alone.

Femakes are not built for combat, they are built for having children.

Nothing sexist in that last comment, just a physical fact.
 
What IF a female was physically qualified and passed strength tests that men passed?

I don't think it is about that. It is about the extra accommodations which would have to be made for them on what is already a cramped space like a submarine. It is not like a ship where you can simply get somebody to find a space to put women in. Submarine design is entirely about ergonomics at the end of the day. And I think a submarine really isn't a place where we should be messing with such things. I can't believe I agree with Navy. This just isn't a good idea.
 
Rangers are Army, not Navy. His statement is absolutely correct.
Wasn't attempting to prove him wrong.

In fact, the opposite, if you read back a few posts.
 
I don't think it is about that. It is about the extra accommodations which would have to be made for them on what is already a cramped space like a submarine. It is not like a ship where you can simply get somebody to find a space to put women in. Submarine design is entirely about ergonomics at the end of the day. And I think a submarine really isn't a place where we should be messing with such things. I can't believe I agree with Navy. This just isn't a good idea.
What, they can't hotbunk with the other guys?
 
Females serving on a sub would not work. Same goes for infantry, armor and artillery. You have to be able to preform every job as a member of the team. Very few women would be able to fill this requirement. Not to mention the "relaxed" physical requirements for female troops.

Not realistic at all.

No one said anything about relaxing the requirements. If fewer women or no women can pass the tests, fine, don't have them board, but it should be open to those who can pass.
 
Still would not go because the percentage of females that could pass would still be prone to higher chances of injury's in training alone.

Femakes are not built for combat, they are built for having children.

Nothing sexist in that last comment, just a physical fact.

Xena.jpg


Xena disagrees with you bitch.
 
No one said anything about relaxing the requirements. If fewer women or no women can pass the tests, fine, don't have them board, but it should be open to those who can pass.

Exactly my point.
 
On a truly off-topic subject, I've been wondering if the thread title indicated that that esteemed member of this debate forum, Navy Pride, will soon personally be allowing women to serve on subs.


..........

...............

....................

..........................:mrgreen:

If you had taken the time to read the thread you would have seen that I said I could care less one way or the other but I can tell you there will be a lot of people against it including the most important of all the wives of the submariners.........
 
Back
Top Bottom