Works well in times of peace.

Does anyone have any doubts
about it if an all out war occurs again?

I didn't pass the physical to enter. But most of my family has served.

There was a concern that was raised by a former submariner about women serving in submarines during a war.

I was just wondering what the opinions were of current
and former Navy servicemen on the subject.

What was his concern. I have never been on a sub, so can't comment. But I've been in other environments with women sailors.

The biggest concern with women is their physical strength. I suppose some might be concerned about their time of the month and all that, or maybe some other issues, but really physical strength is usually the biggest concern.

For the most part, women are not in roles where that is an issue. Now in war time, if a ship takes a hit, every sailor is a fireman and damage controllman (not really, but we all get some training in it). There will certainly could be instances where a female will be unable to help with damage control due to their strength. Chances are she'll be around men that can take the burden. Otherwise, not sure what the other concern could be.

Not sure what being a woman on a sub during war changes vs peace time, other than above.

Now something to consider. 20% of the Navy is female. And it is growing, both in the Navy and in other services. Men just aren't signing up for the military like they used to. Across society, traditional masculine jobs are being abandoned by men, and women are stepping up. Could our military keep up the operational tempo it currently has with fewer females? And fewer females taking on dangerous missions, even if not front line combat roles?

In the late 1970's the Army started training female pilots. They were just like male pilots, some good, some really good, some bad, some really bad. In today's military one really needs to judge others by their performance but really be exact and careful when evaluating a person of a different race or sex than oneself. BTW one female instructor pilot in my flight at Ft Rucker became an astronaut and is now a prof at A&M. I knew she was smart but...
https://dbpedia.org/page/Nancy_J._Currie-Gregg

If a woman wants to serve on a sub, more power to them. You couldn't pay me enough to be on one. The open ocean terrifies me, added with being in a metal tube under the ocean…….yeah. Not happening. I'll take pounding the sand in Iraq and Afghanistan any day over that

Thanks for the insight. That's what I was thinking. Just love the people who actually served or are serving and their thoughts.

48 Women killed in Afghanistan. 73 in Iraq. IEDs and suicide bombers are indiscriminate killers.

Grim Toll

"Men (1,075,753) represent 82.5 percent of the DOD active-duty force, while women (228,966) represent 17.5 percent of the DOD active-duty force."


DEMOGRAPHICS

I'd like anyone to keep adding to the original thread post if this continues.

But I would like to know what you heroes of mine think about the conscription of women and our daughters?

The only reason women haven't been required to sign up for selective service is because the Combat Exclusion Policy barred women from assignment to ground combat units below the brigade level, and there was the understanding that a draft would mostly be about generating a ton of infantry if push came to shove.

Now that that policy is no longer applicable, it's only fair that women also be required to step up should we ever find ourselves in a situation where the draft needs to be reinstated. Of course I doubt Congress will be willing to change the law anytime soon.

74OA said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I'd like anyone to keep adding to the original thread post if this continues.

But I would like to know what you heroes of mine think about the conscription of women and our daughters?

---

Exactly as I would about men and our sons. If we ever started conscription again, it would mean the country is facing a peril that exceeded the capability of our all-volunteer military and it's time for everyone to step up--men and women as the emergency dictates.

---

Kinda like Nam…..

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Works well in times of peace.

Does anyone have any doubts
about it if an all out war occurs again?

---

#doubt.

Just because something CAN be made to work, doesn't mean it's preferable.

OldArmyCT said:

---

In the late 1970's the Army started training female pilots. They were just like male pilots, some good, some really good, some bad, some really bad. In today's military one really needs to judge others by their performance but really be exact and careful when evaluating a person of a different race or sex than oneself. BTW one female instructor pilot in my flight at Ft Rucker became an astronaut and is now a prof at A&M. I knew she was smart but...
https://dbpedia.org/page/Nancy_J._Currie-Gregg

---

I watched Dr Currie-Gregg give a Veterans Day speech a few years ago and she was amazing.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I prefer our daughters to not be drafted. But you all
are the boss.

---

Nah **** that. If this country is going to push that men/women are equal then women should be draft eligible.

There's plenty of non combat roles they can fill if needed. Not having a dick shouldn't magically make you unable to serve the country in a WW3 type of scenario.

---

I disagree. I think my reasons are beyond the scope of the military forum, and probably belong in the philosophy forum, but I'll just briefly summarize to say that decisions like this have consequences. Men are natural protectors of women, and we've seen men abdicate that responsibility more and more as women have taken on traditionally masculine jobs. I think the consequences of continuing policies that blur that divide and allow for normalization of switching gender roles will only lead to harms to this country long term that will be difficult, or impossible to come back from.

---

The sentiment is that with feminism women often get their cake and to eat it too. Nobody's really advocating for a draft military w/ 51% females. But the military (and country) has in many ways carved out preferential treatment for women.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I prefer our daughters to not be drafted. But you all
are the boss.

---

Nah **** that. If this country is going to push that men/women are equal then women should be draft eligible.

There's plenty of non combat roles they can fill if needed. Not having a dick shouldn't magically make you unable to serve the country in a WW3 type of scenario.

---

I disagree. I think my reasons are beyond the scope of the military forum, and probably belong in the philosophy forum, but I'll just briefly summarize to say that decisions like this have consequences. Men are natural protectors of women, and we've seen men abdicate that responsibility more and more as women have taken on traditionally masculine jobs. I think the consequences of continuing policies that blur that divide and allow for normalization of switching gender roles will only lead to harms to this country long term that will be difficult, or impossible to come back from.

---

The sentiment is that with feminism women often get their cake and to eat it too. Nobody's really advocating for a draft military w/ 51% females. But the military (and country) has in many ways carved out preferential treatment for women.

---

I don't disagree with you. But in order to spite the feminists, we risk teaching a generation of young men that it's ok to let women fight for them. You just can't come back from that, unfortunately.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I prefer our daughters to not be drafted. But you all
are the boss.

---

Nah **** that. If this country is going to push that men/women are equal then women should be draft eligible.

There's plenty of non combat roles they can fill if needed. Not having a dick shouldn't magically make you unable to serve the country in a WW3 type of scenario.

---

I disagree. I think my reasons are beyond the scope of the military forum, and probably belong in the philosophy forum, but I'll just briefly summarize to say that decisions like this have consequences. Men are natural protectors of women, and we've seen men abdicate that responsibility more and more as women have taken on traditionally masculine jobs. I think the consequences of continuing policies that blur that divide and allow for normalization of switching gender roles will only lead to harms to this country long term that will be difficult, or impossible to come back from.

---

The sentiment is that with feminism women often get their cake and to eat it too. Nobody's really advocating for a draft military w/ 51% females. But the military (and country) has in many ways carved out preferential treatment for women.

---

I don't disagree with you. But in order to spite the feminists, we risk teaching a generation of young men that it's ok to let women fight for them. You just can't come back from that, unfortunately.

---

Unfortunately I think you're looking at a single manifestation of a much larger cultural cancer.

There are plenty of "men" letting women do military jobs for them as is - and most of them never think twice about it.


This isn't the wrong turn which leads to our cultural ruin: it's a road sign as we careen full throttle in that direction.

Exodus 23:19 (ESV)

"You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk."

It's a case law system.

The general equity application of this law, which is also stated in two other places, is that the milk is something that is life giving and you don't add what is life giving into what is made for combat or death.

For that which is made for life should not be purposed for death.

Women are life givers. It is the role of men to deliver death when it is deemed necessary by just war theory.