women in submarines

[Anonymous]

Congress has done it again. Stuck their anti-women noses in the military's business. Here is a press release from the Alliance for National Defense:

Congress Acts on Assignment of Women to Submarines

Congress has acted to ensure that it will review the assignment of women to submarines and any expenditures the Navy might want to make to prepare submarines for having women aboard.

The provisions are contained in the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act which the Senate passed and sent to the President October 12. The act adds Section 6035 to Title 10 of the federal code governing the armed forces. It requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress written notice if the Navy wants to assign women to submarines. It also specifies that the Navy cannot spend any funds "to reconfigure any existing submarine, or to design any new submarine, to accommodate female crew members" without first having the Defense Secretary give written notification to Congress. The Congress then has "30 days of continuous session" (excludes any day on which either House of Congress is not in session) to review any proposal the Navy would make. The complete text of the provision is at the end of this item.

The new legal requirement is a result of the efforts of Rep Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD). He strongly objected to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) making recommendations concerning assigning women officers to Trident submarines and designing future submarines for mixed gender crews. He was also concerned after Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig gave a speech in June 1999 to a group of submarine officers calling the submarine force a "white male bastion." Although Danzig did not explicitly support the assignment of women to subs, he said the Navy "really ought to come to grips with it from the standpoint of how can we make this work, can we make this work?"

Originally Bartlett wanted to legislate an outright ban on the assignment of women submarines, but lacking sufficient support for that idea, instead introduced a proposal to require a 120 day notification for the assignment of women aboard subs. Similar to the measure that did pass, this was to be 120 continuous days which, given the congressional calendar, would have been tantamount to banning women from subs. This provision was included in the House version on the authorization bill. The Senate version was silent on the issue. In the Conference Committee, the notification requirement was reduced to 30 continuous days, but the provision for not expending funds was added.

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001 (HR 4205), Section 573 provides that Title 10 be amended to include the following:

"Sec. 6035. Female members: congressional review period for assignment to duty on submarines or for reconfiguration of submarines

(a) No change in the Department of the Navy policy limiting service on submarines to males, as in effect on May 10, 2000, may take effect until--

(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of the proposed change; and

(2) a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress (excluding any day on which either House of Congress is not in session) expires following the date on which the notice is received.

(b) No funds available to the Department of the Navy may be expended to reconfigure any existing submarine, or to design any new submarine, to accommodate female crew members until--

(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of the proposed reconfiguration or design; and

(2) a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress (excluding any day on which either House of Congress is not in session) expires following the date on which the notice is received.

(c) For purposes of this section, the continuity of a session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment of the Congress sine die."

I personally would not have liked to be on a submarine, but my fellow women naval officers have informed me that there are quite a few younger women in the Navy that would like that opportunity. What Congress has failed to realize is that people have to volunteer for submarine duty. While I understand the DACOWITS position on the issue, I don't necessarily agree with it myself, because just putting women on the TRIDENT class will cause more problems than it is worth. (For example:

1) Most submarine officers rotate between the attack class submarines and the ballistic submarines. If women are only on the ballistic submarines, their career paths are basically stagnant. What is the point in that? They tried this in the surface Navy, and in the mid-80's women got out of the surface community in droves, because there was no career path. Why reinvent the wheel, especially if it was broken to begin with!

2) If women are solely on the larger ballistic submarines, once again one of the complaints is that women would be treated unequally...in other words, they would not have to endure the lower quality of life on an attack submarine. Another reason why men would feel resentful.

3) If the Navy is going to spend some big bucks in redesigning the attack submarines, it seems to me that they should have some idea of the numbers of women who would be interested in volunteering for this duty. Is it reasonable to expect the nation to fund changes for a handful of women?

4) The Navy, on the other hand, is in this predicament because a year ago, DACOWITS asked them to give a detailed account of how much it would cost to reconfigure the submarines, plus what, if any, impacts it would have on its mission. The Navy responded with the same old song: it would cost too much and it would impact on the mission. But with no facts to back it up...I mean "cold hard this is what it would take" FACTS.

5. I think a cost-benefit analysis is in order, but NO ONE, not even DACOWITS has called for one.

6. Oh, one other issue that always comes up anytime new opportunities for women are being considered: what about the wives? OK, I understand that military families have a HUGE influence on whether or not people stay in the military. However, this same concern was voiced when women were first assigned to surface ships over 20 years ago. The Navy has not fallen apart at the seams. And both men and their wives have learned to work with and respect the women that are on those ships. Unlike the surface navy, though, women on submarines would be VOLUNTEERS. I think this makes a world of difference in one's motivation for success. I don't think the women who sign up for submarine duty are going to be thinking "Oh, I think I will go on a submarine so I can get pregnant by someone else's husband". How rediculous is that? Its time some of these people get their heads out of their hind ends.

Darlene, (Commander, retired, USN)

iskradarmar@aol.com

[Anonymous]

Here`s the total irony, almost all of the conservative Republicans (are there actually any others now?) who push those things are Vietnam draft dodgers themselves.

Some military experts!

-Mcken

[Anonymous]

: Here`s the total irony, almost all of the conservative Republicans (are there
: actually any others now?) who push those things are Vietnam draft dodgers
: themselves.
:
: Some military experts!
:
: -Mcken

Actually Darlene, I've noticed that there are actually just as many Democratic draft dodgers who agree with these Republican conservatist. Don't lay the blame on party lines. I know quite a few Republicans who are in support of women being allowed to serve in combat positions provided they pass the same rigid standards. What they are opposed to, are the special provisions necessary to have a mixed unit. Any can argue that, that isn't a factor, but it is. So these same individuals are pushing for same sex units instead. Either way we go, women will serve in combat positions, its just a matter of time. Until then, no one will know if it is good or bad for the United States to do this. To use other countries success and failures in this area is ok for an idea, but Americans have always been a determined bunch, no matter what. Its apples to oranges. No comparision, We've done things other countries have said couldn't be done and did them well. Its our determination to succeed.

[Anonymous]

: Actually Darlene, I've noticed that there are actually just as many
: Democratic draft dodgers who agree with these Republican conservatist.
: Don't lay the blame on party lines. I know quite a few Republicans who are
: in support of women being allowed to serve in combat positions provided
: they pass the same rigid standards. What they are opposed to, are the
: special provisions necessary to have a mixed unit. Any can argue that,
: that isn't a factor, but it is. So these same individuals are pushing for
: same sex units instead. Either way we go, women will serve in combat
: positions, its just a matter of time. Until then, no one will know if it
: is good or bad for the United States to do this. To use other countries
: success and failures in this area is ok for an idea, but Americans have
: always been a determined bunch, no matter what. Its apples to oranges. No
: comparision, We've done things other countries have said couldn't be done
: and did them well. Its our determination to succeed.

Well, first off, I didn't post the political message you are referring to. Second, the idea of same sex submarines is ludicrous...can't just put people who don't know a thing about running a sub on a sub! There are certain qualifications required. It would be like putting a person in charge of a big company who has never been in business before, never worked up the chain of command and has no idea what to do with it.

My only contention is that REAL studies should be made on the issues that are raised. Even though they won't give all the answers, studying how the Australians integrated their subs would be a good start. Darlene

[Anonymous]

: Well, first off, I didn't post the political message you are referring to.
: Second, the idea of same sex submarines is ludicrous...can't just put
: people who don't know a thing about running a sub on a sub! There are
: certain qualifications required. It would be like putting a person in
: charge of a big company who has never been in business before, never
: worked up the chain of command and has no idea what to do with it.
:
: My only contention is that REAL studies should be made on the issues that are
: raised. Even though they won't give all the answers, studying how the
: Australians integrated their subs would be a good start. Darlene

My apology, the thread appeared to be you as the author it must have been Mc... I agree studies must be made, we must see how it is done elsewhere, however, those opposed to women in ground or sub combat use the failure of these programs as proof that it won't work. We study to see where to make correction and improve. I'm not sure I fully agree with most about separate units, as in your stated point on subs, however, there are problems that must be attended to befor intergration will be acceptable. One of these days we just might see our own version of Starship Troopers unity. ( I use this movie because of the intergration of men and women, and each still identified as man and women) however, hollywood can make magic happen, the real world will say otherwise. Somewhere in the middle we will find balance naturally or forced.

I do not believe at this time it is a good idea to intergrate. There are still too few women capable of passing the test to justify the changes necessary to make it successful. It is not impossible or improbable, just not the right time. I am all for it, but I'm realistic. I look around me and there a quite a few women in the Air Force capable, be its less than 25%, that is not enough. I don't know about the Army or Marines, or the Navy, but from what I read, the percentages look to be very close, in relation to MOS and numbers available from men and women. Less than 25% is not enough to justify the cost to accomodate drastic change.