Wow, this thread is really filled with prejudice and just ridiculous claims overall...
I think men are more flexible and can endure a lot more harsh conditions than women.For this reason,I don't think women should be allowed to work on subs
I suggest you look into what was found during the "Space race" on this issue.
Women were found to handle anything from cramped cabin space via psychological stability to radiation, better.
Not a huge difference, but just about none in male favour.
1: privacy issues
2: social impact/complications on the crew
3: hygiëne issues (period and such)
Swedish subs can and have done missions beyond 6 weeks, sure not same as a SSN might, but its certainly an "extended period".
1, irrelevant, just like for women in the army or airforce, no special accommodations have been made or required. To my knowledge, hasnt been any problems at all because of this.
2, you´re joking? Or do USN male crewmembers somehow operate on a different social level that they cant handle the presence of females without going "nuts"? Experience sofar with adding females to sub/ship crews is that the effect is usually(if any effect could be seen)
positive.
3, oh yeah, men dont need to keep up their hygiene like those fragile women...
'Ever seen the pregnancy rate of women on board Aircraft Carriers?
Women in military is still a major problem. Young people are the most sexually active, and often times, this has not been fully accounted for in the military service.
Odd that we dont have that problem here then...
However, what about this for a thought....
A submarine full of women, with not a man in sight.
No disrespect to female service personnel, but i find even the idea raising the hairs on the back of my neck !
No disrespect? You just placed yourself back in pre 19th century territory of prejudices. -Cant let women vote, since they obviuosly cant understand political complexities...
On the other hand nuclear submarines are larger so providing privacy should be easier (though still difficult) than in a conventional submarine.
Swedish subs today have a crew size of 24, you can probably figure how muc crew space there is then...
And IIRC the crew sofar with most women had 6, but anything between 0 and 6 have happened. Privacy doesnt exist at all. But it hasnt been a problem.
The main issue on UK/US Nuclear Boats is not one of privacy, it's one of national security. The statistical likelihood of a female crew-member becoming ill is three times greater than that of a male, which could result in an SSN or worse, SSBN being compromised because it is forced to abort a patrol or surface to CASAVAC a critically ill member of the crew.
Say WHAT??? That is simply incorrect.
Also the US DoD estimates it will cost 300K per-female crew space to change it's current batch of Sub's to coed!
Why change them at all? That would mean you have to designate bunks as male or female, there´s just no room in a sub for that and it would be totally stupid.
And as i already said, its also not needed.
Something else to consider is how female US personnel interact with male counterparts... One might try getting a copy of "Love my Rifle more than you," sorry, don't remember the author. It was written by a female in the US Army serviving in Iraq. I didn't read all of it, but the general sense I got from it was that the troops in the service need to do some growing up...
That would be Kayla Williams. I stumbled onto the interview with her on BBC once.
From all the noises made, the males seem more likely to be the problem however. Or maybe both.
With the long patrols undertaken by USN subs and the responsibility for the nuclear deterrent on board the SSBNs I am certain that you are totally correct. You need 100% discipline without unnecessary distractions. IMO, there is no room for political correctness to compromise this requirement.
And yet another assumption based on prejudice... Unfounded and actually even proven as wrong already again and again...
As for all female sub crews? No way in hell.
And that is worse than all male crews because of what exactly?
I argue that both the military personnel who accept the dangers, and the civil population who pay the bills are entitled to the best "package" possible, and the compromises required to accommodate political correctness need to be recognised.
Stuff PC up your behind. Experience with female sub crewers sofar in Sweden is that they tend to be overall clearly better than males as sonar and radar operators. The opposite but to a much lesser degree is true for navigation.
So it seems, you want to make sure you´re NOT getting the "best package"...
On Land bases none of this is a big deal. On a little tube in the ocean, 200' down, with 24 Trident D-5s loaded? Thanks, but we dont need to be European on this one. Yank boats have tremendous firepower, long patrol times, and huge responsibilities. We need perfect discipline on them and that means 100% discipline, not 99%.
And yet, Gotland, with and without females in its crew are continually kicking USN behinds... So i guess by being European you mean superior then?
If I were to state my impression - which may be faulty - of European society generally, it is that it is somewhat more PC than some.
nfloorl:
Not MORE PC, different.
A little OT for this thread, but I'd suggest that few of us would be foolish enough to assume that the number of distinct military services within Europe all have precisely the same standard, whether high or not.
Different standards sure, but at least here, we´re almost making it the norm to kick US military behinds whenever there´s joint exercises.
"pro" US soldiers getting so by Swedish conscripts... The most extreme example is from some years ago when SEALS came over here to exercise against our coast rangers, after getting run over a couple of times, the SEALs went home early on the pretense that the remaining exercise was too dangerous.
