• 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

rivrrat said:
So you think, because you have an antiquated sexist worldview. I disagree. I don't think a penis is required to shoot a gun well.
Click to expand...

If it required just shooting a gun, no one would have a problem with it.
 
Blackdog said:
It is only open to soldiers holding the rank of SGT nonpromotable and below. The 68V course is for in-service personnel only and is not open for Initial Entry Training. Soldiers holding the MOS 68A, 68P, 68K, or 68WM6 may not apply.

Things have changed, like I said.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it would require re-training.
 
Redress said:
Why do you have such a low opinion of our military personnel? Do you really think that they would endanger their lives and missions needlessly? Screwing through GQ is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

Why do you have such a high opinion of our military personnel? They're only human.
 
rivrrat said:
So you think, because you have an antiquated sexist worldview. I disagree. I don't think a penis is required to shoot a gun well.
Click to expand...

The example was your fox hole is getting over run by the enemy where hand to hand combat is required, would you rather have a 100 lb woman or a 200 lb man backing you up all other things being equal.......
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Like I said, it would require re-training.
Click to expand...

No it would not. It is not open to entry recruits. It is only available to SGT nonpromotable and below. It is also not open to existing 68WM6, or did you ignore that?

Also since it is not a combat MOS anyway, it really does not matter.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
The example was your fox hole is getting over run by the enemy where hand to hand combat is required, would you rather have a 100 lb woman or a 200 lb man backing you up all other things being equal.......
Click to expand...

All things being equal, then it doesn't matter.
 
SE102 said:
About as constructive as to whether face death with a man or a woman :shrug:.
Click to expand...

I would rather not face death at all. With or without anybody! :mrgreen:
 
SE102 said:
About as constructive as to whether face death with a man or a woman :shrug:.
Click to expand...



Well you might think its funny but if women can serve in total combat like men it could very well happen.......Now if you want to address the topic then do so but if you want to make jokes don't respond to my posts.......Its more then I can bear and it could be considered trolling and that is against DP rules........thanks.........
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I am going to ask you the same question I asked a couple of lefties awhile back who ignored my question...

Your in a foxhole and being over run by the enemy......who would you rather have in the hole with you a 100 lb woman or a 200 lb man?
Click to expand...

Tashah. Safer for me, less safe for the enemy.

Plus, being close to Tashah is always a plus.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Tashah. Safer for me, less safe for the enemy.

Plus, being close to Sashah is always a plus.
Click to expand...

All due respect to Tashah if you pick her then I will Pick Arnold S.

Seriously though all things equal give em the guy with the strength......
 
Navy Pride said:
All due respect to Tashah if you pick her then I will Pick Arnold S.

Seriously though all things equal give em the guy with the strength......
Click to expand...

Strength is only really useful up to a point. Given the time and training(you know, boot camp and stuff), most motivated people can reach the point of enough strength to my mind. Past that, I could care less about strength, and care about things like skill.

When women first got allowed onto carriers and the flight deck, it was simply not going to work. A high stress environment with physically demanding jobs. It actually turned out to be a boon, as there are some jobs that women tend to actually be better at than men. Pulling parts out of tight compartments is a job which a woman with small hands and longer, slender fingers excels at. For some reason, women make great plane directors(those people who use hand gestures or wands to tell a plane where to taxi).
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't know if you guys have ever been on nuclear powered sub but there is no room on them......I got a tour of the USS OHIO a trident sub by the Chief of the Boat in 1981.....I can honestly tell you the only way women can serve on a subs if they have their own......The boats are so small the guys hot bunk on them (guys share racks). a surface ship is like a luxery llner when compared to a submarine......

A problem with having their own subs is and all women crew could not handle the physical requirements involved...........Another huge problem will be wth the wives of the guys serving on the subs........They will never put up with it....trust me...........
Click to expand...

There's no hot racking on SSBNs (boomers) like the Ohio (which is actually now an SSGN), and I don't think it'll be too huge of a deal to see a few women officers on these boats.

Now, when it comes to fast attack boats which alrady have 3 or less heads (restrooms) and racks are set up literally anywhere there is room (not uncommon for them to be in rooms holding torpedo's, for example) I don't see it happening for a long time. Or until the Navy retires the current classes and actually takes the fact that a cew is going to be aboard when designing the sub, not as an afterthought.
 
Odd coincidence sorta, but some one linked to the PBS series Carrier on Hulu down in Arts and Entertainment forum. Since I do have a strong sense of nostalgia about my time in the Navy and aboard a carrier, I have been watching them(each episode is an hour, and there are 10 of them). I just finished watching the third episode a few minutes ago, and it deals alot with relationships, both with those at home, and aboard ship. It catches alot of the things that some have talked about as problems, and shows both the problems, and how they can be handled. It also talks about DADT some, with some gay people in the episode, both openly and not(those not open are blurred out). Great episode, if you can spare the hour, I strongly recommend it.

Oh, and the guy who introduces himself as a squadron troubleshooter, in white flight deck jersey with checkerboard pattern...that is what I did while at sea.

Hulu - Carrier: Super Secrets - Watch the full episode now.
 
Redress said:
Strength is only really useful up to a point. Given the time and training(you know, boot camp and stuff), most motivated people can reach the point of enough strength to my mind. Past that, I could care less about strength, and care about things like skill.

When women first got allowed onto carriers and the flight deck, it was simply not going to work. A high stress environment with physically demanding jobs. It actually turned out to be a boon, as there are some jobs that women tend to actually be better at than men. Pulling parts out of tight compartments is a job which a woman with small hands and longer, slender fingers excels at. For some reason, women make great plane directors(those people who use hand gestures or wands to tell a plane where to taxi).
Click to expand...

When your fighting in hand to hand combat for your life strength is the most important thing....You need someone that will get your back and most women can not do that, in fact a lot of them would sit down and start crying....

Working on a flight deck is dangerous but to compare it to hand to hand combat with someone who is trying to kill you is ludicrous.........
 
Joby said:
There's no hot racking on SSBNs (boomers) like the Ohio (which is actually now an SSGN), and I don't think it'll be too huge of a deal to see a few women officers on these boats.

Now, when it comes to fast attack boats which alrady have 3 or less heads (restrooms) and racks are set up literally anywhere there is room (not uncommon for them to be in rooms holding torpedo's, for example) I don't see it happening for a long time. Or until the Navy retires the current classes and actually takes the fact that a cew is going to be aboard when designing the sub, not as an afterthought.
Click to expand...

The problem is tthey want to start with officers and then bring enlisted on board as part of the crew.....I still say when of the biggest obstacles will be the wives of the guys......They will not take this lying down.......
 
Navy Pride said:
The problem is tthey want to start with officers and then bring enlisted on board as part of the crew.....I still say when of the biggest obstacles will be the wives of the guys......They will not take this lying down.......
Click to expand...

Like they did with all the other ships?
 
Redress said:
Like they did with all the other ships?
Click to expand...

You ever been on a sub? There is a world of difference.......Like night and day.......Oh and you don't want to get me started on women serving aboard combatents.........
 
Navy Pride said:
You ever been on a sub? There is a world of difference.......Like night and day.......Oh and you don't want to get me started on women serving aboard combatents.........
Click to expand...

There is a world of difference, almost all of it invisible to navy spouses.

And what is wrong with women aboard combatant ships? Woman have proven to be very effective aboard those ships. I point out the hulu link I posted earlier. Watch and enjoy(it's a great piece of work that shows the highs and lows of shipboard life).
 
Redress said:
There is a world of difference, almost all of it invisible to navy spouses.

And what is wrong with women aboard combatant ships? Woman have proven to be very effective aboard those ships. I point out the hulu link I posted earlier. Watch and enjoy(it's a great piece of work that shows the highs and lows of shipboard life).
Click to expand...

Huh???:confused:



Officially on the record women aboard combatents has been a success.....Off the record it is a whole new ball game.........There is a zero tolerance for any hanky pankey and all you have to do is look at a woman and if she complains your put on report and unlike in a court of law in this case your guilty until proven innocent........

I went to pass and ID the other day to get new tabs for my truck and there were 3 E-3s processing the paperwork..they were off the STINSON and they all had big bellys and it was not from eating a watermelon.........We never use to have those problems aboard ship when women were barred from combatents.......
 
Navy Pride said:
there were 3 E-3s processing the paperwork..they were off the STINSON and they all had big bellys and it was not from eating a watermelon.........We never use to have those problems aboard ship when women were barred from combatents.......
Click to expand...

Wait. Are you saying that female military personnel are making male military personnel fat?
 
Navy Pride said:
I did not know I had to draw you a picture..........
Click to expand...

Well, you say a lot of really out there stuff. Just wanted to be sure I understood you before asking how exactly that could be possible.

Care to explain? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom