• 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

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.......

Do you mean the USS Stennis? There is no real US Navy ship called the Stinson. And do you know if these girls were married or not? How bout if they were in port when they got pregnant? Do you have any other details except that they were pregnant and from a fictitious ship?
 
Do you mean the USS Stennis? There is no real US Navy ship called the Stinson. And do you know if these girls were married or not? How bout if they were in port when they got pregnant? Do you have any other details except that they were pregnant and from a fictitious ship?

I found the Stinson. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_ships]List of fictional ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

USS Stinson - Spruance class destroyer - The Krone Experiment by J. Craig Wheeler 1986
 
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.......

So let's see, you assume that these women somehow got pregnant due hanky panky on the ship, and not at home with their husbands. Do you have such a low opinion of all women?
 
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 don't believe you.

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.......

Was this a problem?
 
Do you mean the USS Stennis? There is no real US Navy ship called the Stinson.

:doh:doh:doh:doh

But NavyDude knows more about all this than the rest of us.
 
Yeah, I seen that too. I was pretty sure that he meant Stennis, but figured I see if there was one named the Stinson.

Did it go Lincoln, Washington, Stennis do you know? The Lincoln and Washington went on duty while I was in. I think Stennis was the one after.
 
Did it go Lincoln, Washington, Stennis do you know? The Lincoln and Washington went on duty while I was in. I think Stennis was the one after.

Yeah. The Stennis is the CVN-74 and is stationed in WA. In fact, looking at their website, it seems that they've been in-port for a good portion of the last 8 or 9 months. At the very least they haven't been out on a WestPac or other long cruise. So it's a good bet that those girls mentioned could easily have gotten pregnant while they were in port and not on the ship.
 
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.........

The joke wasn't at your expense so i don't know what you're being all touchy about. In making the joke I addressed the topic just fine, which was the absurdity of the concept of preferring dying next a man or woman in combat when your death or capture is nearly guaranteed. Im careful as to what I write so things like that don't happen. :shrug:
 
Yeah. The Stennis is the CVN-74 and is stationed in WA. In fact, looking at their website, it seems that they've been in-port for a good portion of the last 8 or 9 months. At the very least they haven't been out on a WestPac or other long cruise. So it's a good bet that those girls mentioned could easily have gotten pregnant while they were in port and not on the ship.

Those darn slutty women and their husbands....
 
Yeah. The Stennis is the CVN-74 and is stationed in WA. In fact, looking at their website, it seems that they've been in-port for a good portion of the last 8 or 9 months. At the very least they haven't been out on a WestPac or other long cruise. So it's a good bet that those girls mentioned could easily have gotten pregnant while they were in port and not on the ship.

that was my bad on the Stennis.....I should never make a mistake like that because after I retired from Navy I got a job working for The Naval Seas System Command and my main task was working with the planning and estimating funding for Air Craft Carrier Overhauls here at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard........
 
that was my bad on the Stennis.....I should never make a mistake like that because after I retired from Navy I got a job working for The Naval Seas System Command and my main task was working with the planning and estimating funding for Air Craft Carrier Overhauls here at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard........

Just as a side note, my favorite Aircraft Carrier is the CVN-76.
 
All In all I really don't see why a woman can't serve on a sub. I mean I can see why it would create problems on the much smaller attack subs, but the large missile subs? I just can't see any reason.

I mean I know I am against females serving in a ground combat MOS, but ships and aircraft? I just don't see any reason why not. You don't have to have high strength or even above average endurance in many positions on a sub or ship. As long as the woman is physically fit, I just don't see an issue.

The sex thing is going to happen no matter where you are be it land based or on a ship. It is part of life in the military, get over it.

I would also like to point out the video's Reddress pointed out. Good stuff.
 
All In all I really don't see why a woman can't serve on a sub. I mean I can see why it would create problems on the much smaller attack subs, but the large missile subs? I just can't see any reason.

I mean I know I am against females serving in a ground combat MOS, but ships and aircraft? I just don't see any reason why not. You don't have to have high strength or even above average endurance in many positions on a sub or ship. As long as the woman is physically fit, I just don't see an issue.

The sex thing is going to happen no matter where you are be it land based or on a ship. It is part of life in the military, get over it.

I would also like to point out the video's Reddress pointed out. Good stuff.

The one issue I can see, and the only one, is space for berthings. I suspect(and hope) that the decision was made with that detail in mind. I just cannot see the Navy brass not thinking of that detail, especially after the last 30 years of more and more women on ships.
 
The one issue I can see, and the only one, is space for berthings. I suspect(and hope) that the decision was made with that detail in mind. I just cannot see the Navy brass not thinking of that detail, especially after the last 30 years of more and more women on ships.

True, that's why I mentioned the smaller attack subs. It could really be an issue on those. Considering the way the Navy has worked through the other issues as far as women on ships, I am certain they will work this out as well.

Now if the Army and Marines would follow suit and up the physical requirements to a male level in combat arms MOS for females. I would no longer have anything to bitch about. Ain't going to happen though.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOJ_aSIEHek"]YouTube- USS Saratoga CV-60 1984-87 Cruise USS Iowa Big Guns at sea.[/ame]


Good times.............
 
Unlike DADT I don't really have a huge problem with women serving on subs......I just think in this day and age there are to many obstacles in the way for that to happen........I think the male crew of the subs would love it.......Before there were women on surface ships it could get kind of lonely sometimes.....It would have been nice to see some females sashayingg up and down the passageways, maybe catching a sniff of their perfume.....I just hope if they do it that they put some pretty ones on board....;)
 
Last edited:
I like that one to.....;)

Let me guess...USS Reagan?

Sorry, but Eisenhower > *

First nuclear carrier through the Suez Canal, first on station Operation: Desert Shield/Storm.
 
There was a Navy Times article a couple of months back that gave a much better picture on how this was to be implemented. In the next couple of years, the Navy plans on allowing some female officers to be put on board some subs, depending on how many actually want to and what the Navy feels like they should do. I'm pretty sure it's only going to be Tridents, attack subs don't have enough room. In the next 4 or 5 years they will be assessing how to integrate and configure subs to put female chiefs and first classes onboard. Then, once they have some female mentors and upper management in place, they will think about putting more junior females aboard. Only certain ratings are actually going to be considered, but they weren't specific on which ones.
 
There was a Navy Times article a couple of months back that gave a much better picture on how this was to be implemented. In the next couple of years, the Navy plans on allowing some female officers to be put on board some subs, depending on how many actually want to and what the Navy feels like they should do. I'm pretty sure it's only going to be Tridents, attack subs don't have enough room. In the next 4 or 5 years they will be assessing how to integrate and configure subs to put female chiefs and first classes onboard. Then, once they have some female mentors and upper management in place, they will think about putting more junior females aboard. Only certain ratings are actually going to be considered, but they weren't specific on which ones.

That's a good approach.
 
Unlike DADT I don't really have a huge problem with women serving on subs......I just think in this day and age there are to many obstacles in the way for that to happen........I think the male crew of the subs would love it.......Before there were women on surface ships it could get kind of lonely sometimes.....It would have been nice to see some females sashayingg up and down the passageways, maybe catching a sniff of their perfume.....I just hope if they do it that they put some pretty ones on board....;)

I agree. The only thing that I worry about when it comes to women serving on subs is all that drama that I witnessed on land bases, that involved the sexes. On a sub, there isn't a place to go to get away from it. It's too dangerous of a job for that type of distraction.

The perfume and the wiggle in their walk is one distraction that I would welcome. But that other drama could cost lives.
 
I agree. The only thing that I worry about when it comes to women serving on subs is all that drama that I witnessed on land bases, that involved the sexes. On a sub, there isn't a place to go to get away from it. It's too dangerous of a job for that type of distraction.

The perfume and the wiggle in their walk is one distraction that I would welcome. But that other drama could cost lives.

That is true of all ships though. Even on a carrier, you really can't get away.
 
I agree. The only thing that I worry about when it comes to women serving on subs is all that drama that I witnessed on land bases, that involved the sexes. On a sub, there isn't a place to go to get away from it. It's too dangerous of a job for that type of distraction.

The perfume and the wiggle in their walk is one distraction that I would welcome. But that other drama could cost lives.

Good points, there is no question women on subs would be a huge distraction.....
 
To all of you above... apparently none of what you say actually means anything in this thread. Well, to Hatuey, anyway.....

It doesn't. Because to anybody who thinks above a 12 grade level, this isn't about personal experience on a submarine. It is a simple matter of ergonomics and what is reasonable and what isn't. Now how many more posts are you going to make because you feel insulted by your own lack of knowledge being exposed?

So you should probably stop before he starts calling you names. It's like... scary and stuff and you might cry. :lol:

Considering you made 3 posts on me calling out your ignorance, I'm pretty sure I could make him cry.
 
Back
Top Bottom