• 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

I said integrated.

They were "integrated" for the most part. not to many places to hide "Negro's" on a ship is there?

You also avoid the point of both requests.

Put up a relevant argument.
 
Simply put, what are the benefits to bringing women on board? And no, "it's the right thing to do" won't cut it.
Personally, I'd feel that any discipline is harming itself by preventing people from joining based on a trait which will not affect their performance. By cutting people off in this way, all you are doing is effectivly reducing your talent pool.

More people applying = more variance in applicants = more chance of finding the ideal one.

Potentially, allowing women on subs could increace the average skillset of the career, not reduce it - mathematically it's sound, but in practice it remains to be seen,
 
The same benefits as integrating blacks into the navy.

As the arguments thus far have centered on (a) physical capability and (b) sexual distractions, your example of blacks is highly irrelevant.

Again, "it's the right thing to do" doesn't cut it as an argument in this case.
 
Personally, I'd feel that any discipline is harming itself by preventing people from joining based on a trait which will not affect their performance. By cutting people off in this way, all you are doing is effectivly reducing your talent pool.

More people applying = more variance in applicants = more chance of finding the ideal one.

Potentially, allowing women on subs could increace the average skillset of the career, not reduce it - mathematically it's sound, but in practice it remains to be seen,

The question you have to answer is whether or not the small % of women who could perform on a submarine would/could increase the average skillset to the degree that it offsets the "costs" of introducing women on the submarine.
 
Back that up with some facts.

I have posted facts, what have you posted? Nothing really.

I have backed up every claim I have made with relivent facts no less...

Fact: Russia no longer uses females in combat units due to problems.
Fact: Israel no longer uses females in combat units due to problems.
Fact: Study in England, shows females in combat TRAINING much more prone to injury resulting in lower standards. Females in English military not allowed in combat units.
Fact: West Point Testimony which I know you saw.

And what have you posted? Or anyone else saying it will work?
 
Potentially, allowing women on subs could increace the average skillset of the career, not reduce it - mathematically it's sound, but in practice it remains to be seen,
The question you have to answer is whether or not the small % of women who could perform on a submarine would/could increase the average skillset to the degree that it offsets the "costs" of introducing women on the submarine.
On all-women subs? Certainly. On co-ed subs; I would imagine (and certainly would hope!) that people are professional enough not to be affected. If astronauts can do it, I don't see why submariners can't.

EDIT: Like I said many pages back, I'd be interested to see the effect of removing DADT in such situations. I'd imagine that would be a good acid test.
 
Last edited:
Back that up with some facts.

Here ya go.

African Americans were present in the crews of U.S. Navy ships throughout the 19th Century. This presence was greatly enhanced during the Civil War as newly freed slaves and a greatly expanded Navy worked together in a common purpose. In addition, African American civilians provided support services that were essential to keeping the wartime navy functioning effectively.

While we have no relevant pictures that predate the Civil War,this page presents and provides links to a broad selection of images related to African-Americans' service in the U.S. Navy during the 1860s.

African Americans and the U.S. Navy



The following pages feature African-American individuals who served in the 1860s Navy, or who performed notable services in areas related to the Navy of that time:



•William Tilghman (or Tillman), who recaptured the schooner S.J. Waring from a Confederate prize crew on 16 July 1861.

•Robert Smalls (1839-1915), who piloted the Confederate steamer Planter to freedom on 13 May 1862.

•Robert Blake, who won the Medal of Honor while serving on USS Marblehead during an action off Legareville, South Carolina, on 25 December 1863.

•Joachim Pease (1842-????), who won the Medal of Honor while serving on USS Kearsarge during the battle with CSS Alabama, 19 June 1864.

•John Lawson (1837-1919), who won the Medal of Honor while serving on USS Hartford during the Battle of Mobile Bay, 5 August 1864.

•James Mifflin (1839-????), who won the Medal of Honor while serving on USS Brooklyn during the Battle of Mobile Bay, 5 August 1864.

•Aaron Anderson, who won the Medal of Honor while serving on USS Wyandank during an action in Mattox Creek, Virginia, 17 March 1865.

•Frank Allen, who served on USS Franklin in European waters in 1868.


African-Americans and the U.S. Navy - 1860s</

History is cool, ain't it?
 
As the arguments thus far have centered on (a) physical capability and (b) sexual distractions, your example of blacks is highly irrelevant.

Again, "it's the right thing to do" doesn't cut it as an argument in this case.

Physical ability is irrelevant when there's one standard.

Sexual distractions are a sign of lack of discipline. If individuals can't control themselves, then they should be discharged. There's no room in the military for someone who refuses to obey regulations and puts the integrity of the unit in jeopardy.
 
No it does not. It has our government and people to blame. Those who wanted the requirements adjusted down for females. The military is nothing more than a reflection of our society and political body's wishes, period.

Military standards are set by the Department of Defense, not by politicians nor citizen voters. If the DoD has a problem with the standards it sets, it has only itself to blame.

Beyond this, the whole faux outrage/distress about lowering military standards to allow women to serve is complete bullcrap.

Lower standards help Army meet recruiting goal

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year...

According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8% of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2% of its recruits to have low aptitude scores. That limit was increased last year to 4%, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department.

...

accepting too many recruits with low test scores could increase training costs and leave technical jobs unfilled.

...

About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.

Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.

:roll:
 
Physical ability is irrelevant when there's one standard.

Sexual distractions are a sign of lack of discipline. If individuals can't control themselves, then they should be discharged. There's no room in the military for someone who refuses to obey regulations and puts the integrity of the unit in jeopardy.

You're exactly right. By the same token there's no room in the service for creating a situation that will put unit integrity in jeapordy.
 
Military standards are set by the Department of Defense, not by politicians nor citizen voters. If the DoD has a problem with the standards it sets, it has only itself to blame.

Beyond this, the whole faux outrage/distress about lowering military standards to allow women to serve is complete bullcrap.



:roll:

You have got to be ****ing kidding me. That is a recent issue. Since the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Everything I mentioned was happening in the ****ing 80's. :roll:
 
Here ya go.

History is cool, ain't it?

It sure is.

Throughout American history until the end of World War I, the Navy had enlisted Negroes for general service, and Negro sailors had served and fought with credit throughout the fleet. After the First World War, however, the Navy halted Negro enlistments; and when they were opened again in 1932, Negroes were recruited only for service in the messman's branch.

This was the situation at the beginning of World War II and it continued until six months after Pearl Harbor. The Selective Service Act of 1940 provided that "in the selection and training of men under this Act, and in the interpretation and execution of the provisions of this Act, there shall be no discrimination against any person on account of race or color." This provision had no immediate effect in opening up general service ratings to Negroes, however, because the Navy continued to rely on voluntary recruiting until February 1943.

Consequently the Navy continued its peacetime policy of restricting Negroes to the messman's branch on the ground that "the enlistment of Negroes (other than as mess attendants) leads to disruptive and undermining conditions." In response to public inquiries, the Navy issued a statement explaining that "the policy of not enlisting men of the colored race for any branch of the naval service but the messman's branch was adopted to meet the best interests of general ship efficiency . . . . This policy not only serves the best interests of the Navy and the country, but serves as well the best interests of [Negroes] themselves."

After Pearl Harbor, however, the Navy was subjected to considerable pressure from Negro organizations to expand its utilization of Negroes. The Navy at first continued to insist on the exclusion of Negroes from general service, arguing that Negroes were not as adaptable or efficient as whites, and that segregation on shipboard was not feasible. After several exchanges of memoranda, the President finally wrote to the Secretary of the Navy that the matter "should be determined by you and me." Consequently on April 7, 1942, the Navy announced that effective June 1 Negroes would be enlisted for general service as well as mess attendants. But these volunteers, the Navy made clear, would receive basic and advanced training in segregated camps and schools, would be utilized in segregated units, and would be limited in assignment to shore installations and harbor craft. Negroes in general service ratings would not be billeted in seagoing vessels, but would be used principally in construction battalions under the Bureau of Yards and Docks, in supply depots, ordnance stations, and yard (harbor) craft.
 
Blacks are men, not women.
...apart from black women, that is.

Do you claim, then, that no woman in the USA would be capable of competantly serving on a submarine?
 
The same benefits as integrating blacks into the navy.

Be specific.

Black men are men, and there's no sigificant biological differences between black men and white men.

Women aren't men and integrating them into the force requires adjustments to logistics and shipboard engineering. Especially on submarines.

What advantage is gained with the added expenditure and higher risk?
 
...apart from black women, that is.

hehehe!

Do you deny that any woman in the USA would be capable of competantly serving on a submarine?

Of course not. I don't really care if they serve on subs or not. I am talking about the small percentage that could actually do it. Then to boost the number the degradation in training standards to accomplish this.
 
Last edited:
No it does not. It has our government and people to blame. Those who wanted the requirements adjusted down for females. The military is nothing more than a reflection of our society and political body's wishes, period.

It never fails. Libertarians and the unrealistic wants. No wonder the party is seen as a joke.

Hello? Compromising unit readiness and increasing costs to integrate women into the military is not a libertarian position. Libertarians are smart enough to know that men and women are different.

Nope, this rush to impose social engineering experiments on the US military is a Leftist fad, not a libertarian mandate.
 
Hello? Compromising unit readiness and increasing costs to integrate women into the military is not a libertarian position. Libertarians are smart enough to know that men and women are different.

Nope, this rush to impose social engineering experiments on the US military is a Leftist fad, not a libertarian mandate.

According to the posters I see here, the majority are self proclaimed libertarians advocating females be integrated.

I have not seen one libertarian say otherwise in this thread?
 
Military standards are set by the Department of Defense, not by politicians nor citizen voters. If the DoD has a problem with the standards it sets, it has only itself to blame.

It's what happens when PC nazi civilians get to make decisions about military standards.


“We are in the process of weeding out the white male as norm. We’re about changing the culture.” --Barbara Pope, Asst. Secretary to the Navy under Clinton.
 
Hence the whole issue with why females should not be in combat.
That's odd. I served twice in hot combat zones. Gaza/Lebanon.

M-4, Glock sidearm, comm links, and a laptop. Hoofing it with the grunts.

None of the grunts perished due to my presence.

On the contrary, I saved their collective grunt asses numerous times.

I never had a bar-tab. The grunts always took care of that.

You see Blackdog, when you're in the suck and getting your grunt ass kicked, a CAS officer (of either gender) is your very best friend.
 
That's odd. I served twice in hot combat zones. Gaza/Lebanon.

M-4, Glock sidearm, comm links, and a laptop. Hoofing it with the grunts.

None of the grunts perished due to my presence.

On the contrary, I saved their collective grunt asses numerous times.

I never had a bar-tab. The grunts always took care of that.

You see Blackdog, when you're in the suck and getting your grunt ass kicked, a CAS officer (of either gender) is your very best friend.

No one is saying a few could not do it. You are completely missing my point.

Please explain why the Israeli military removed females from combat units since 1950?
 
Last edited:
No one is saying a few could not do it. You are completely missing my point.

Please explain why the Israeli military removed females from combat units?
I'm not about to go through this military gender crap with you again.

You have your viewpoint, I have my reality.

That your viewpoint doesn't mesh with my reality is your problem. Not mine.

I said what needed saying.

Now... back to the regularly scheduled program.
 
That's odd. I served twice in hot combat zones. Gaza/Lebanon.

M-4, Glock sidearm, comm links, and a laptop. Hoofing it with the grunts.

None of the grunts perished due to my presence.

On the contrary, I saved their collective grunt asses numerous times.

I never had a bar-tab. The grunts always took care of that.

You see Blackdog, when you're in the suck and getting your grunt ass kicked, a CAS officer (of either gender) is your very best friend.

You allowed enlisted soldiers to buy you drinks?

Wow! That wouldn't fly in the United States military.
 
No one is saying a few could not do it. You are completely missing my point.

Please explain why the Israeli military removed females from combat units since 1950?

Because they discovered that males soldiers would linger over a wounded female soldier who was beyond help, more than they would another male soldier, thereby causing them to fall out of the attack and weaken the assault force's mission.

The Israelis discovered that it's a fact that men will take un-necessary risks to protect female soldiers, thereby causing even more casualties.

There's some reality for ya's.
 
Back
Top Bottom