Navy moves to allow women on submarines

[tdager]

wow .

I am not condoning it Aunt Peggy...and this forum is not a great place to have such discussions because it is difficult to truly have the appropriate level of interaction.

Again...I AM NOT CONDONING RAPE. I cannot say that loud enough.

What I can do is tell you how young men feel in combat and the things they may be capable of.....again not right but a reality. Just trying to interject some information.

 

[timwinters]

Actually, from what I've read and what's being reported it's more of an institutional problem. Reports go uninvestigated, the victims are told to STFU and are demonized...just like they tend to be in the rest of society.

So the solution is to keep women out? Should we keep women out of colleges too since rape occurs there?

How did you make that leap in (il)logic from what I stated?

The point was NOT to keep women out. The point was that we need to investigate, without bias, all reports of rape regardless of how/where they happen. Maybe I didn't express it clearly but I was attempting to convey exactly what Ted said:

That statement assumes that such things only happen in the military. It's a society wide problem, not limited to the military.

I have several friends who I know have been raped. Not a single one has reported the crime to the authorities, and I'm pretty well convinced that had they done so, there wouldn't have been any sort of investigation in any case. It's not just a military thing.

I have listened to the stories as told by more than a dozen women who were raped in Iraq and the common denominator was that, upon making their initial report, their superiors reacted by convincing them that they really didn't want to pursue this. They would refuse to investigate, invoke "semper fi", threaten court marshal for something she was doing wrong at the time (like setting down her rifle to have a smoke while she was on guard duty) etc. etc. Anything to cover it up...not our boys...they would never do such a thing.

 

[Everskyward]

How did you make that leap in (il)logic from what I stated?

You wrote this.

Nearly 1 of 3 women in uniform are already being raped by their male counterparts. This is not a good direction to go.

By "not a good direction to go" I thought you meant that you wanted to keep women out.

The point was NOT to keep women out. The point was that we need to investigate, without bias, all reports of rape regardless of how/where they happen.

I agree with that.

I have listened to the stories as told by more than a dozen women who were raped in Iraq and the common denominator was that, upon making their initial report, their superiors reacted by convincing them that they really didn't want to pursue this. They would refuse to investigate, invoke "semper fi", threaten court marshal for something she was doing wrong at the time (like setting down her rifle to have a smoke while she was on guard duty) etc. etc. Anything to cover it up...not our boys...they would never do such a thing.

I see this as a big problem, but we should be addressing it not by keeping women out but by changing the culture which allows this to happen.

 

[timwinters]

...we should be addressing it...by changing the culture which allows this to happen.

Exactly!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Colleges are not places where you forge people in a crucible to be warriors/killing machines. We do try to "professionalize" ourselves as much as possible...but in the end you amped up, hyped up, and looking to do damage after a firefight.....sexual aggression is not right, but a natural outcome.

Yikes. If that's truly the case, and if that's truly the perspective of people in uniform, I'd submit that there's a serious problem.

 

[timwinters]

most teenagers have hormones that don't make them especially well suited for anything involving intervention of their brains.

1975. I'm turning 16 in a week and dad comes home and throws me a set of keys to my first car and declares "I just bought you a car and you owe me $250". (I'd been saving for my first car since I was 13).

"What do you mean YOU bought ME a car?" I replied and walked out in the driveway to see what these keys went to.

There it was, in all it's glory. A 1967 BelAir, 4 door, 250CI straight six with a three speed on the tree.

My jaw hit the driveway.

Dad came up behind me, put his arm around me and said "son, you will drive this car for one year and then you can buy whatever you want. The three "H's" kill more kids than anything else...hooch...hormones...and horsepower........

...and I just took one of them out of the equation!"

I drove that car for EXACTLY one year.

 

[Doggtyred]

1975. I'm turning 16 in a week and dad comes home and throws me a set of keys to my first car and declares "I just bought you a car and you owe me $250". (I'd been saving for my first car since I was 13).

"What do you mean YOU bought ME a car?" I replied and walked out in the driveway to see what these keys went to.

There it was, in all it's glory. A 1967 BelAir, 4 door, 250CI straight six with a three speed on the tree.

My jaw hit the driveway.

Dad came up behind me, put his arm around me and said "son, you will drive this car for one year and then you can buy whatever you want. The three "H's" kill more kids than anything else...hooch...hormones...and horsepower........

...and I just took one of them out of the equation!"

I drove that car for EXACTLY one year.

My dad did about the same thing to me.. I got the family blue bomber handed to me.. 1980 ford T-bird.. in 1987.. 100k miles, we'd rebuilt it.. baby v8.. it was a slug compared to sports cars..

 

[steingar]

Unfortunately, rape is also a huge problem on University campuses, and will be wherever you mix young men and women with personal freedom. Most of these are not the sort of crimes where a stranger corners a frightened woman in a dark alley, but are of a far different nature where the victim knows her attacker. They can become very difficult to prove legally, since there are often no witnesses and one gets into the situation of "he says she says" and who comes off more believable.

 

[Matthew]

hmm - just trying to look at this from a different angle... We are talking about sub crews here, these guys (and they are currently all guys) are considered by the Navy, and themselves, to be above average. I'm not quite ready to jump in and expect that they will be unable to control themselves. Likewise, the female crew members, whether officers or enlisted, will also be expected to perform at a higher level and be chosen and selected because of their ability to do so. Will there be problems? Probably. Will the problems be serious or widespread? Don't know. As for me, I'm still trying to figure out if it's a good idea or not.

 

[Ted]

I see this as a big problem, but we should be addressing it not by keeping women out but by changing the culture which allows this to happen.

I agree 100%, but we're looking at two different angles. You're looking at the long-term angle that solves the problem down the road. I'm looking at the short term angle, which prevents problems now. Both are important. The long term is the ideal future state, but won't happen overnight. The short term is what you do as an imperfect solution until you get the long term working.

Goes for almost any problem.

 

[weilke]

Unfortunately, rape is also a huge problem on University campuses, and will be wherever you mix young men and women with personal freedom. Most of these are not the sort of crimes where a stranger corners a frightened woman in a dark alley, but are of a far different nature where the victim knows her attacker. They can become very difficult to prove legally, since there are often no witnesses and one gets into the situation of "he says she says" and who comes off more believable.

I don't think there is free access to alcohol on submarines, that should make it less of an issue than on college campuses.

Rape is more of an issue of violence and control than sex. The problem in the military is not so much the fact that it happens, but rather the demonstrated unwillingness of the higher-ups to address it.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I agree with Tim.

Rape is NOT a sex issue. Rape happens in all-male units, and all-female units, and is an issue of violence.

Although accurate numbers are difficult to determine, it is usually agreed that at least 15% of women are raped at some time in their lives. Many are children, many are elderly. Rape is about dominance and violence. Not sex. Rape is an act of hate, of war, of intimidation.

If our military cannot contain this issue, then I, for one, am not proud of or respectful of their "manliness". If the solution to the problem is to punish all women by taking away opportunity for advancement or achievement because some other people choose to victimize them as a class, I do not condone that response. Perhaps the Navy is getting ready to face the issue and tell men and women their actions have consequences to themselves. They cannot blame the victim forever.

BTW, I have never been raped or assaulted or victimized by a member of US armed forces. When I was young and it appeared that the possibility of inappropriate behavior could occur, the military closed ranks around me and protected me in no uncertain terms. It can, should, and does happen.

The advancement of military maturity in my lifetime is both astonishing and rewarding. I still remember the day I walked into the recruiting office to be told that there were two jobs open to women in the Air Force. I could be a clerk or, if I had a college education, I could be a nurse. Period. End of list. Today, the list has more than doubled.

 

[steingar]

I don't think there is free access to alcohol on submarines, that should make it less of an issue than on college campuses.

Rape is more of an issue of violence and control than sex. The problem in the military is not so much the fact that it happens, but rather the demonstrated unwillingness of the higher-ups to address it.

I don't know how many of these incidents occur while on duty station and how many occur while on leave. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the first access to ethanol by many of these young people might be while they are in the military. Again, one is dealing with an incident where there are often no witnesses.

How many of these incidents are thought to happen on board ship at sea? Access to ethanol is limited, duty hours are long, and there is little privacy. It is hard to believe someone would not be heard on a ship while screaming at the top of their lungs. I suppose there are places where they wouldn't be heard, like the engine room or beneath the catapult on a carrier, but lots more where someone would hear.

 

[weilke]

I don't know how many of these incidents occur while on duty station and how many occur while on leave.

Don't know.

For the question whether sexual violence should be a reason not to have women on subs surface ships, only incidents on board are really relevant. Outside, the soldiers are just another set of kids growing up.

 

[Geico266]

The advancement of military maturity in my lifetime is both astonishing and rewarding. I still remember the day I walked into the recruiting office to be told that there were two jobs open to women in the Air Force. I could be a clerk or, if I had a college education, I could be a nurse. Period. End of list. Today, the list has more than doubled.

....and the list is growing. The Army is now reconsidering its "No Combat" position for female soldiers.

I think the best way to solve the problem is have woman serve on their own ships and men serve on theirs. As a father of 3 successful & indepentdant daughters rest assured I know women can do every job a man can do and some better. Serving togeather is problematic as the pregnacy statistics have proven. The problem with the PG thing is the offending parties are automatically discharged. It is very expensive to train sailors to be sailors and loosing senior enlisted personal is becoming a problem.

 

[gprellwitz]

The problem with the PG thing is the offending parties are automatically discharged. It is very expensive to train sailors to be sailors and loosing senior enlisted personal is becoming a problem.

Do you know if they are automatically discharged for pregnancy even when they're implementing the "stop loss" policy?

 

[Everskyward]

I agree 100%, but we're looking at two different angles. You're looking at the long-term angle that solves the problem down the road. I'm looking at the short term angle, which prevents problems now. Both are important. The long term is the ideal future state, but won't happen overnight. The short term is what you do as an imperfect solution until you get the long term working.

If the short term solution is to only have men on submarines how is there ever going to be a long term solution? People need to get used to the idea and they can't get used to it by avoiding it. Sure there will be problems at first because culture doesn't change immediately, but it will never change if we keep the status quo.

 

[Everskyward]

I think the best way to solve the problem is have woman serve on their own ships and men serve on theirs.

That sounds a whole lot like "separate but equal" as in school segregation...

As a father of 3 successful & indepentdant daughters rest assured I know women can do every job a man can do and some better. Serving togeather is problematic as the pregnacy statistics have proven.

Do you think your daughters would have a pregnancy problem if they had to work in close quarters with men?

 

[Graueradler]

I may be confused or remembering wrong but hasn't this already been done some time in the past. A former co-worker was an ex-skipper of a boomer. He had a story about a clandestine birth on board under weigh by a heavy enlisted crew member (pregnancy not obvious). That would have been some time in the 80's

 

[Doggtyred]

Do you know if they are automatically discharged for pregnancy even when they're implementing the "stop loss" policy?

No, but they are rotated stateside. They fill a domestic billet somewhere until cleared to return.

 

[TMetzinger]

You should have enough self-control not to "do damage" to the folks on the other side, let alone your own associates.

The whole point of being a warrior is to do damage to the folks on the other side. That correction made, I agree with what I think was your sentiment.

Warfare isn't violence for the sake of violence. It's controlled, directed, with the specific goal of getting your enemy to do what you want.

But we have humans to work with, not perfect beings, so looting and sacking and such happen (and sometimes that serves the goals of the conquering force).

 

[Everskyward]

The whole point of being a warrior is to do damage to the folks on the other side.

What I meant by "doing damage" to the folks on the other side is that soldiers are not allowed to rape captive enemy women any more than they are the women on their own side.

 

[weilke]

But we have humans to work with, not perfect beings, so looting and sacking and such happen (and sometimes that serves the goals of the conquering force).

Looking at it from a historical perspective yes, I don't think looting and sacking are part of US military policy these days.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

But we have humans to work with, not perfect beings, so looting and sacking and such happen (and sometimes that serves the goals of the conquering force).

It happens, but it's like any other type of human misconduct - you don't tolerate it. We all know that police misconduct happens; do we ignore it when it does, simply because no matter what we do, it will never be eliminated?

Not to get too confrontational, but I'm racking my brain and can't think of any instance where looting/sacking/pillaging (which I define as general mayhem; I don't include things like Sherman's March) have served the conquerors well. History being what it is, I'm sure there are some - but I'm highly doubtful of any instance of "I'm sure glad we raped all of those people and burnt their houses down just because fire is fun to watch, and doing that was the major reason that we won."

Even the major bombing campaigns of WWII - which I don't think any reasonable person puts in the category of "pillaging" - weren't effective. German producion actually increased until the last few months of the war, when the Allies were knocking on Germany's door from both directions. We can argue morale and will to fight and opportunity cost and all of that; but those numbers, along with organized operations right to the end, don't lie.

There are plenty of notable incidents where pillaging hasn't been in the interests of the "conquerors" (note the quotations, as the pillaging conquerors ultimately lost), though. There's a strong argument to be made that the 732 Battle of Poitiers was won by Martel because the invaders focused their attention on looting and the like; as a derivative, there's a strong argument that the victory at the Battle of Poitiers stopped any potential Islamic dominance in Europe (save S. Spain).

Another excellent example is eastern Russia in 1942. Although the paid a terrible price for it, the Russian partizans had a big impact.

So, my thought is that encouraging - or even tolerating - shenanigans, which is also indicative of a lack of discipline, isn't a good way of doing things. Without regard to the broader issues regarding lack of discipline (look at the Praetorian Guard ca. 250); assuming that pillaging, even if it has created some gains, creates unacceptable risks. That is, the potential benefits don't outweigh the potential costs. And, if you're in a fight where you're trying to maintain or create a positive image, those potential costs increase exponentially.

 

[steingar]

Even the major bombing campaigns of WWII - which I don't think any reasonable person puts in the category of "pillaging" - weren't effective. German producion actually increased until the last few months of the war, when the Allies were knocking on Germany's door from both directions. We can argue morale and will to fight and opportunity cost and all of that; but those numbers, along with organized operations right to the end, don't lie.

Facts are facts, but interpretations can be way off. What would German production have been like without the bombing campaign? Do you know? Have you visited the alternate universe where we didn't bomb? I haven't either, but I am willing to bet that with lots of extra buildings and non-refugee citizens, the Germans might have been able to increase war output even more, thus killing that many more of our people and prolonging the war in Europe. It is only my own conclusion, but I think it based on fairly simple common sense. Thus claiming that the bombing campaign made no difference is simplistic at best, and could be wildly inaccurate.

 

[Ted]

Facts are facts, but interpretations can be way off. What would German production have been like without the bombing campaign? Do you know? Have you visited the alternate universe where we didn't bomb? I haven't either, but I am willing to bet that with lots of extra buildings and non-refugee citizens, the Germans might have been able to increase war output even more, thus killing that many more of our people and prolonging the war in Europe. It is only my own conclusion, but I think it based on fairly simple common sense. Thus claiming that the bombing campaign made no difference is simplistic at best, and could be wildly inaccurate.

Well said, and I agree.

 

[flyersfan31]

Smithers: "I think women and seamen don't mix."

Burns: "I knoooow what you think, Smithers."

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Facts are facts, but interpretations can be way off. What would German production have been like without the bombing campaign? Do you know? Have you visited the alternate universe where we didn't bomb? I haven't either, but I am willing to bet that with lots of extra buildings and non-refugee citizens, the Germans might have been able to increase war output even more, thus killing that many more of our people and prolonging the war in Europe. It is only my own conclusion, but I think it based on fairly simple common sense. Thus claiming that the bombing campaign made no difference is simplistic at best, and could be wildly inaccurate.

I never said that air raids didn't make a difference. I said that the major air raids weren't effective vis-a-vis Germany industry, which is what the goal of the massive raids on the cities was. Subtle, yet important.

It's beyond denial that the bombing of cities made something of a difference, if for no other reason than the resources allocated to move production underground (which actually involved a considerable amount of slave labor, so the redirected resources weren't as large as they would otherwise have been).

What's also undeniable, and what actually isn't denied, is that the bigger difference was made by the systematic targeting of natural resources - primarily, oil. If you bomb a tank factory, you can't make tanks for a little while. But, if you bomb oil production facilities, nothing running on oil can run - and you also can't really hide oil fields. Same's true for other natural resources - even though German production increased, the *quality* of the production didn't, and that was attributable to issues re: natural resources.

Also, given the technology of the time - close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and putting explosives close to oil. You've got to be a little more precise with factories - and precision isn't something that bombing in WWII was noted for.

When you consider the costs and returns of bombing cities, compared to the costs and returns of bombing oil fields (and the occasional BB factory - same story as with oil, machines of war don't work without ball bearings), there's a clear winner there. Over 100,000 airmen ultimately became casualties in WWII. Was the damage caused to German infrastructure through bombing cities worth the price paid, when the majority of the same effect could have been caused without bombing the cities (as in, bombing oil)?

So, you can consider the unknown possibilities - they're always both worthwhile and fun to discuss - but the consensus these days (and at the time, from guys like Speer) is that bombing oil-related facilities made the difference.

We've left aside the issue of whether pillaging works, which is what my original post was directed to. My point in raising strategic bombing was that even when pillaging has a legitimate military purpose - and there's simply no doubt that our aerial campaigns in WWII did, regardless of where directed - it doesn't accomplish much.

 

[steingar]

I never said that air raids didn't make a difference. I said that the major air raids weren't effective vis-a-vis Germany industry, which is what the goal of the massive raids on the cities was. Subtle, yet important.

Not at all. You claim to know that the air raids didn't make a difference. You can't know that, since you don't know the outcome sans the bombing raids. Without that information such a conclusion is unsupportable.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Not at all. You claim to know that the air raids didn't make a difference. You can't know that, since you don't know the outcome sans the bombing raids. Without that information such a conclusion is unsupportable.

Show me where I said any of that?

 

[steingar]

I never said that air raids didn't make a difference. I said that the major air raids weren't effective vis-a-vis Germany industry, which is what the goal of the massive raids on the cities was. Subtle, yet important.

You claim the raids weren't effective. They could have been very effective, for all we know the Germans would have won the war without them.

 

[Clark1961]

You claim the raids weren't effective. They could have been very effective, for all we know the Germans would have won the war without them.

In fact we know the raids on Japan were very effective...

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

In fact we know the raids on Japan were very effective...

When you drop nuclear bombs, that changes the equation.

Regardless, there's not much use in comparing the experiences of Japan and Germany. For instance, by the time we started regularly bombing Japan it had already been cut off from its various sources of materials by an incredibly successful submarine force - it was a foregone conclusion at that point. On top of that, the wars themselves were different - things like heavy tanks weren't used in the Pacific; while ships were, the last aircraft carrier was completed in Oct. '44, and bombing didn't get started in earnest until early 1945.

 

[TMetzinger]

What I meant by "doing damage" to the folks on the other side is that soldiers are not allowed to rape captive enemy women any more than they are the women on their own side.

Ah, on that we're in complete agreement.

 

[Clark1961]

When you drop nuclear bombs, that changes the equation.

Hey, all I did was point out that bombing raids were effective. Your invalid argument was that they weren't. No need to get all defensive because you were wrong.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Hey, all I did was point out that bombing raids were effective. Your invalid argument was that they weren't. No need to get all defensive because you were wrong.

I pointed out that you can't really compare them; I also pointed out that there was far more at work in Japan than mere bombings?

 

[dmccormack]

Not to get too confrontational, but I'm racking my brain and can't think of any instance where looting/sacking/pillaging (which I define as general mayhem; I don't include things like Sherman's March) have served the conquerors well. History being what it is, I'm sure there are some - but I'm highly doubtful of any instance of "I'm sure glad we raped all of those people and burnt their houses down just because fire is fun to watch, and doing that was the major reason that we won."

Review the Sullivan campaign of 1779 into Seneca territory (it worked) or Wolfe's Campaign against Quebec in 1759.

In both cases devastation contributed to ultimate success.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Review the Sullivan campaign of 1779 into Seneca territory (it worked) or Wolfe's Campaign against Quebec in 1759.

In both cases devastation contributed to ultimate success.

True, but neither of those involved raping/pillaging/etc. simply for the sake of doing it. Burning crops, houses, etc. - that's a part of war. Unfortunate, but a part of it nonetheless. Same as the air campaigns above. The question still remains, however - how *much* did it contribute? The end result in both instances was assured - neither the Indians nor the French were going to win.

What I'm talking about is the type of stuff the Germans did in Belgium in the First World War - say, shooting every third person just to scare some people.

 

[flyersfan31]

David and Steingar, I recommend you both read Armageddon: The Battle for Germany by Max Hastings if you haven't already. Good reading. Actually, supports the good Dr's point that the allied bombing campaign, while not ineffective, wasn't nearly as effective as it could/would have been had it targeted oil production instead of going along with Bomber Harris' mad obsession with bombing the crap out of the civilian populace.

 

[dmccormack]

David and Steingar, I recommend you both read Armageddon: The Battle for Germany by Max Hastings if you haven't already. Good reading. Actually, supports the good Dr's point that the allied bombing campaign, while not ineffective, wasn't nearly as effective as it could/would have been had it targeted oil production instead of going along with Bomber Harris' mad obsession with bombing the crap out of the civilian populace.

Another good read that argues the bombing campaign was more show than go is There's a War to be Won, the US Army in WW2. Geoffrey Perret reveals that the vaunted accuracy of the Norden Bomb Sight was basically a hoax, that less than 10% of all bombs dropped actually caused any damage, and that most bombs dropped landed miles form intended targets.