From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 15:19:08 GMT

In article <101869@bu.edu>, eschwepp@butyng.bu.edu (Edmund Schweppe) writes:
> 
> 
> >3.  For women to serve on warships, major changes are required in
> >delineating the normal day-to-day procedures, for making proper berthing
> >arrangements, etc.
> 
> It's being done now on "non-combatants" (although I'd think that tankers
> can get just as many torpedoes shot at them as ang else afloat).
>

This is very true.  The lessons and continuing effort to make them work
must be passed on to the other ships since the combatants have a long habit
of doing things in a different way.  To change by allowing women on combatants
will not be the easiest thing but it will not be as hard as some detractors
want to make it.

It is because  warships never see their enemy face-to-face and *all* ships
are targets (auxiliaries w/ women and warships w/o women) that makes
the US Navy a prime candidate for breaking the women in combat exclusion.

I do find it interesting that the proponents want women on all ships except
subs.  Well, Ed, do you know why this is so?  I always thought that subs and
surface ships had the same amount of privacy (at least from what I have seen
on each).  Maybe it has to do with the type of people serving on subs? ;-)
;-)
    
> >All in all, I fear Clinton will cave to the special interest groups on
> >this issue and not implement a sound and smooth transition policy to a new
> >military manpower structure.  I hope that I am wrong on this one.
> 
> So do I.  But if the services are not forced by *someone* to deal with
> these issues, they are going to ignore them and concentrate on what they
> feel to be most important - i.e., winning peacetime budgets.
>

The best way for change is from pressure on the outside and on the inside of
the military.  In this case, it is only from the outside.  However, there are
enough honest and hardworking people in the military so that if it is forced
onto the military, I hope they are given the opportunity to make the changes
rather than Congress and the President micro-(or pico-)managing it.
 
> In four years on the Omaha, I knew of three shipmates who were gay.  
>  - One was a very competent operator and was highly respected by the crew.
>  - One was an OK operator and was treated more-or-less OK as a result.
>  - One was a twit and was derided by all.
> Please note the one-to-one correspondence between the *professional* ability
> of each person and how they were perceived.
>

As you state, for a majority of people then and even now the professional 
ability was also important as for how they were preceived.  However, the 
attitude fostered on one ship may not be the same on the next.  Dealing with
this Navy-wide must be handled carefully.  Professionalism must be the 
deciding factor for anybody serving in the military.


>Don Palmrose
>"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."
>
> Why not?  All ships sink.  Subs are the only ones that can deal with
> sinking without getting permanently in the deep darks :-)
> 

The old "bubble-head" attitude still exists, I see ;-) ;-)  I would like to
point out that, while a sub maybe able to perform a "controlled sinking",
the number of dives must equal the number of surfaces in order for the crew
to survive.  If a sub pernamently sinks, how many of the crew is expected to
live to tell vs the number who can survive a surface ship sinking.  I'll take
my odds on a surface ship any day, thank you.

My only question left for you Ed is were you a nuc or one of the forward 
pukes? ;-) ;-)

> Ed Schweppe - eschweppe%drcoa1.decnet@drcvax.af.mil (work)
>               eschwepp@butyng.bu.edu               (not-work)
> Ex-ET1/SS, USS Omaha, SSN 692
> 
> 

Don Palmrose
"Nuclear Surfaceline is mighty fine....."

P.S. It is still fun to trade barbs with the sub guys.



========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.war