# Women to be allowed to serve on USN submarines. Good idea? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193 "2010-02-23T23:46:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/21 "2010-02-24T05:21:25Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > BTW, I really appreciate the attitude of most of the men who have responded to this question. Damn. We all have come such a long way in the last forty years. We haven’t come that far, we just want to see more T&A should we ever be stranded 300 meters underwater with a phallus shaped object filled with seamen. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/22 "2010-02-24T05:28:35Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Would there be any advantages to having all female crews? Women are smaller; there would be a moderate reduction in the usage of food, water and oxygen. The disadvantage would be that you are drastically cutting the size of the talent pool you can draw on. Which is somewhat true with all male crews as well of course, if not as bad due to the larger numbers of men interested in a military career. Either way, a single gender crew policy strikes me as likely to hurt more than help regardless of the gender. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/23 "2010-02-24T06:50:38Z")
> [@code\_grey](#): > > will they evacuate the preggers ladies out of submarines in wartime by helicopter, like they do from ships now? Or will they have an onboard abortion clinic? > > If some of them suddenly get pregnant just before deployment, will they be replaced with extra men who will be trained and kept in reserve just for this purpose? Unless it is a really long mission, why not let the preggers serve? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/24 "2010-02-24T07:10:39Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Unless it is a really long mission, why not let the preggers serve? Because they might get one of those weird food cravings and eat the reactor? One day everything is fine; the next day you’re dead in the water and a giant green pregnant woman is smashing up the submarine. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/25 "2010-02-24T09:24:27Z")
> [@code\_grey](#): > > will they evacuate the preggers ladies out of submarines in wartime by helicopter, like they do from ships now? Or will they have an onboard abortion clinic? > > If some of them suddenly get pregnant just before deployment, will they be replaced with extra men who will be trained and kept in reserve just for this purpose? mandatory birth control. Implant cant be ‘forgotten’ and honestly, mrAru’s sub [a fast attack, not boomer] hit port several times on any cruise, and was in general lurking near the rest of the fleet much of the time so popping up and shoving the pregnant one out a hatch onto another ship was not impossible. Heck, on the average northern run it used to be a few weeks at sea, stop in Holy Loch, at see a few weeks, stop at Tromso, at sea a few weeks, pop up at an ice station and hijack some fresh food, back at sea a few weeks, back to Tromso, back at sea a few weeks, hit Holy Loch again, back at sea, run around under the ice pack for a while, then hit holy loch again on the way home. Do I have to shoot anybody now or is the time lag of years ok to spill the beans about his last northern run?😃 Although, as a coner, there isn’t much that would be inimical to a pregnant woman - they sit there and plot dots or listen to pings, and do other nonphysical stuff for the most part. I know that as an MM/nuke there might be a concern, but I had a woman working in my machine shop up until 30 days before delivery and she did just fine doing the same work that any guy did though she did ask for help when it came to schlepping around a 250 lb valve body - but nonpregnant me would have asked just the same. Pregnant women are generally pretty tough, us girls aren’t made of glass. We have to worry about certain chemical exposures and getting whapped in the gut, but guys have to worry about chemical exposure and getting whapped in the nads - some poor guy off robs ship had to get evacced because of testicular torsion. Guys need to be evacced from subs all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/26 "2010-02-24T14:18:52Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > …and if the Missus back at port gets jealous she must remember that transferring to a shore billet or leaving for civvy street would just put her man in contact with vastly greater numbers of other women… … that don’t have a career to lose for bedding them. > [@Todderbob](#): > > What if a man gets appendicitis, or cancer?! > > Oh my god, we should just not put men _or_ women on submarines! Silly, just keep all your submarines in the hospital. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because they might get one of those weird food cravings and eat the reactor? One day everything is fine; the next day you’re dead in the water and a giant green pregnant woman is smashing up the submarine. I think I saw that documentary. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/27 "2010-02-24T14:24:44Z")
it’s implant today, but tomorrow a panel of 5-star feminists is going to discover that this interferes with wymmyns’ reproductive rights and have the rule thrown out. Just like they first let women into the integrated basic training “as fully equal” and then started reducing intensity of physical training and introducing anti-sexual harassment classes to accommodate them. The way you keep the camel out of the tent and the feminists out of positions where they can bring about destructive social engineering is - you start fighting on the beaches first. You don’t wait until the invaders show up in the center of your city under flag of truce to then treacherously turn on you. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/28 "2010-02-24T14:28:08Z")
What… the… hell… are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/29 "2010-02-24T14:52:47Z")
A somewhat analogous situation is aboard the Space Shuttle. I know there have been missions with one woman with six guys for up to two weeks. Although subs spend way more time than that on patrol the shuttle is even more confined than a sub by far. Aboard the ISS you have more space with one woman and two guys for about six months. I have not heard of any problems but they could be kept quiet. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/30 "2010-02-24T15:08:37Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > …This is not a permanent bar to the idea of an all-female crew, but I think it is a real one to the idea of an all-female crew _at this time_. And the idea of making an all-female crew seems like it would be a step back, if it were something to use as a goal for the future. I’d rather see the Navy learn to deal with mixed crews without the sort of frictions people are concerned about… Agreed. Marine One, the President’s helicopter, didn’t have an all-female crew until last July, and that was with just three or four Marine personnel after more than fifty years of flights. By the time the Navy has a talent pool big enough to send out an all-female submarine crew, I highly doubt it will be necessary or even desirable. Thanks, everybody, for your feedback. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/31 "2010-02-24T15:33:34Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Women serve aboard RAN (Royal Australian Navy) submarines and have done for some time- one of my female friends is a submariner and they perform the same duties as men. > > I’m surprised the same isn’t true in the US, so I’m definitely in favour of the suggestion. Well, you guys don’t have nuclear subs do you? Women’s eggs being subjected to radiation for months at a time increases the likelyhood of infertility or birth defects while sperm on the other hand is continually sloughed off and replenished. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/32 "2010-02-24T15:44:56Z")
Actually, I’ve seen studies that those who serve aboard submarines get less radiation than folks who work on the surface of the earth (I call them “above-grounders”). [Link.](http://www.mayporthomeportingeis.com/Documents/Final/30_Appendix_G_Information_on_Radiation.pdf) > [@](#): > > Fleet personnel operating nuclear-powered submarines receive less total annual exposure than they would if they were stationed on shore performing work not involving occupational radiation exposure. This exposure is less because of the effectiveness of the shielding aboard ship and because the low natural background radiation in a steel hull submerged in the ocean is less than the natural background radiation from cosmic, terrestrial, and radon sources on shore. In contrast, I understand that airline pilots on long-haul flights get about two or three times the radiation of “above-grounders.” That doesn’t seem to stop women from being airline pilots. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/33 "2010-02-24T15:52:19Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because they might get one of those weird food cravings and eat the reactor? One day everything is fine; the next day you’re dead in the water and a giant green pregnant woman is smashing up the submarine. You made me giggle. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/34 "2010-02-24T16:01:05Z")
Well, how has the “women on ships” thing worked out? I was under the impression that several years ago it was not unusual for a number of the female crew to come back into port pregnant or be released from duty while underway because they became pregnant. Is this no longer an issue for the surface navy? Here’s an interesting study. [http://www.nmcphc.med.navy.mil/downloads/sexual\_health/choices\_milmed\_168\_1\_11.pdf](http://www.nmcphc.med.navy.mil/downloads/sexual_health/choices_milmed_168_1_11.pdf) The fecundity of active duty military females is astounding. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/35 "2010-02-24T16:03:58Z")
Mr Burns: Smithers, what do you think about having a woman on this ship? Smithers: Well sir, women and seamen don’t mix in my opinion. Mr Burns: Yes Smithers, we know YOUUURRR feelings on the topic. Paraphrased from the Simpsons King Kong episode. And can they make “hovering” a court martialable offense? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/36 "2010-02-24T16:39:27Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Here’s an interesting study. This strikes me as one of those “did you read your own cite?” issues, since (a) the study doesn’t address women becoming pregnant on ships and (b) it concludes that the military’s Choices training program reduces pregnancy rates by 35% from the national average. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/37 "2010-02-24T17:01:24Z")
I am all and righteously for the abolition of any institutional barrier that keeps women from going down. You may now resume mature discussion of a serious issue of national-defense policy. ---
**Author:** ![Perciful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Perciful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perciful)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/38 "2010-02-24T17:24:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I am all and righteously for the abolition of any institutional barrier that keeps women from going down. > > You may now resume mature discussion of a serious issue of national-defense policy. 😃 I personally would not want to go down in a submarine with a bunch of horny men for months. Nope, not good.. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/39 "2010-02-24T17:27:20Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > … that don’t have a career to lose for bedding them. > > Silly, just keep all your submarines in the hospital. > > I think I saw that documentary. _Species_? ---
**Author:** ![Perciful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Perciful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perciful)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/40 "2010-02-24T17:28:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > This strikes me as one of those “did you read your own cite?” issues, since (a) the study doesn’t address women becoming pregnant on ships and (b) it concludes that the military’s Choices training program reduces pregnancy rates by 35% from the national average. Yes, Like some military training program is going to keep a woman from being raped. Haha "Please officer Sir, under the military choices training program you are not allowed to take off my blouse, hey stop that, help!!!:dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193.md?page=3)