Social Engineering, Navy Style
Despite the overwhelming majority of posters and comments here being from an Army or Marine perspective, all services have been subject to one form of social engineering or another during our careers.
Some have been good changes, such as eliminating segregation within the ranks, although elimination of some forms of discrimination didn’t occur until the 1960’s and 70’s, and racial tensions were present. Yet now, African-Americans in the military occupy a greater percentage of senior leadership positions than do their civilian counterparts. Drug testing, at first regarded as a waste of time and resources, has become de rigueur, even in most civilian companies as a condition of employment. The policies of sexual harassment common to civilian HR departments in many cases were first developed in the military, some in response to such episodes as Tailhook, and others.
But as a nuclear-trained submariner, the ghost of Admiral Rickover raises his crusty skinny head from the grave to remind us that change, simply for change’s sake, isn’t always good. People are surprised when they learn that most of the nuclear instrumentation and machinery isn’t the latest “whiz-bang” stuff, but rather decades-old tried-and-true technology.
Two major changes have come about in the submarine community, that while on the surface may seem like great steps forward, but in reality are simply knee-jerk reactions to other pressures for social change. First is the CNO’s decision to allow women on submarines, the second is the ban on smoking effective the end of the year.
Oh, boo-frickin-hoo, Sparky, you might say. Fair enough. But there is reasoning behind the rationale which fuels my feelings on both decisions. Both come down to a question of morale.
A typical fast attack submarine (I’ve served on two) has a crew of about 130, of which 120-125 go on deployment, with the others in an “augment” status, attending schools or other training they might not fit in otherwise. If a division is short-handed, however, augments get canceled. I’ve been the beneficiary of such a screw-job when one of my fellow RO’s broke his collarbone a week before a Westpac deployment. Now consider what happens when women are thrown in the mix. Lose a woman due to pregnancy or other issue, someone has to take their place. Training is lost. The others in the division have to take up the slack. That’s one thing in an Army company of 120. It’s quite another in a submarine division of 8 or less. Then there are habitability issues. Anyone who has ever set foot on a submarine knows first-hand how crowded it is. But few outside those who have lived on one for any significant length of time know just how little privacy exists, which could lead to a whole host of other issues, both sexual and non-sexual. Bottom line, it’s not that women can’t do most, if not all, of the jobs on a submarine–it’s a question of can they perform them IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.
Next, smoking. As an ex-smoker, I’m as down on smoking as anyone, but the argument of the contained atmosphere of a submarine being contaminated by second-hand smoke is just so much bullshit. Cigarette smoke is somehow killing us all, but it’s okay for us to suck up diesel fumes, graphite dust, amine, and paint fumes, despite there being a specific ban on things like painting underway? Pick a side, guys! And the last time I checked, tobacco is still 1–legal, 2–doesn’t impair one’s ability to perform a job; i.e., it’s not an intoxicant. But more importantly, most of the military’s current smoking-cessation courses can involve taking prescriptions such as Zyban and Chantix, which have side effects that prevent submariners from taking them. Pretty soon, smoking a pole will be okay, but not a Marlboro? Sorry, but I’ve no desire to ever smoke the former to relieve stress.
Pressure in situations such as submarines (and other combat units) is a delicate balance where good order and discipline runs headlong into good morale. The need to complete the mission is paramount, and distractions which endanger that completion have no place in any branch of the military. It’s hard enough getting good, qualified people into difficult-to-fill positions without putting more bullshit minutiae on them. It sends our people a mixed message that the senior leadership can pick and choose which rules they want to enforce, and which they can blow off at their need or convenience. But again, as Rickover said, “If you have to choose whether to sin against God or the bureaucracy, choose the latter. God will forgive you, but the bureaucracy won’t.”
Category: Politics
My wife even says that women shouldn’t be on Submarines. Like you said it isn’t due to ability but order. Most of the time the woman’s performance probably wouldn’t be the issue. Most of the men probably wouldn’t be a problem, but there are those few asshats that screw up everything. One guy would do something stupid and everyone will pay. The female may be percieved to show interest in one guy over another then a fight will happen. I couldn’t imagine what it would be like on a sub and not getting sick of those around you by the end of the cruise let alone dealing with someone who thinks with their small head more than the big one.
Maybe they should try a total female crew…
They are starting this grand experiment off with the officers first, i.e., only female officers will be serving on submarines to begin with so they can see how that’s working out before bringing in the enlisted women. I have already seen an article about the pregnancy concern, which was specifically with regard to birth defects. Of course, they wouldn’t allow a pregnant sailor onto a submarine, but I can’t imagine that anyone has any illusions that there won’t be women getting pregnant while on the submarines, since that’s what always happens in every other environment. I can’t remember now exactly what the concern was with regard to it being dangerous to the fetus…actually, it seems like it had to do with the quality of the air on submarines – something with the air that adults are able to filter out but that might potentially be dangerous to a fetus. Can’t remember the details; will have to look for the article in my Navy email at the office on Monday. (Tried Googling the question, but couldn’t find anything.) About the smoking, I see your point, Sparky, but I can’t say as that I’m all that sympathetic. Considering that they banned smoking on airplanes many years ago, it’s amazing to me that the Navy has continue to allow smoking on submarines all this time. Considering the limited space, as you described, I don’t know how it would be fair to designate a closed room that is for smoking only, and I don’t see how you can justify putting cigarette smoke into air that has to be breathed by non-smokers. It’s not just the fact that the air is already polluted, but that it still poses all kinds of health risks, which, for all we know, may pose a synergistic effect when combines with the unavoidable pollutants that are already there. I don’t buy the argument that cigarette smoke in the air should be okay for the non-smokers to breathe because the air in a submarine is already more polluted than cigarette smoke to begin with. Maybe they should have medical profiles for… Read more »
NHSparky said: Pretty soon, smoking a pole will be okay, but not a Marlboro?
I don’t disagree with the content of your post, but that line troubles me some. Is ‘smoking a pole’ some bit of bubble-head jargon?
From just another bit of pond-scum… the bar just closed on the last night of the Milblog conference. Jonn was wandering around when I left him??? I had to say something.
Have to tell you, I am down on women in any combat unit. When I was in the Army our Airborne unit got 6 women and within 6 months 5 of them were prenant. Had to take them off duty and it degraded our unit readiness as we had to cover for them.
oops spell check time. Pregnant.
I’m not too sure where I come down on these issues yet, but I suppose I’ll comment anyway, just because I can.
1) I was a nuke, and 2) I’m a female. I went through the pipeline shortly after they re-allowed females in. When I got through and finally reported to my ship, I found out after I got there that it had been integrated for about a week. I was the first enlisted female to show up in Reactor Department, which was really disorienting. All the guys had weeks of sensitivity training shoved down their throats, but they didn’t give the same training to the females. I won’t go into all the details, but I’d say it took about a year for things to approach a kind of normality.
I agree with you, it isn’t about ability. There will always be check valves, male and female alike. There will always be that guy (or girl) who will use whatever tools are at their disposal to get out of working hard. It’s about the environment.
Personally, if I could go back and do it all again right now, I wouldn’t volunteer for sub duty. But I still can’t get over the classic Navy logic–I went to prototype at S8G at the West Milton site in Ballston Spa–a sub prototype. So of course I was assigned to a carrier and knew zilch when I got there. Wha?
The thing is, I can buy that they will assign female officers to sub duty because they will have staterooms, but I really don’t see how enlisted females will be able to be assigned right away–unless they go all coed in berthings, or assign a mixed-department berthing like they did for us on the ship: reactor females, medical females, etc. all in the same berthing. Which made for chaos because of all the different watch schedules.
As far as the smoking ban goes, I guess I really will always be a nuke at heart, because when I heard about that my first thought was: BOHICA.
Re: women, I want to see how they intend to resolve occupational exposure. The limits from 10CFR20 allow for pregnant women to receive dose. But, we all know how NR works. As risk averse as they are to pregnancy and exposure are we going to allow women to serve underway once they’ve declared themselves pregnant? How about once they’ve declared their intent to become pregnant? Whoa be the first Trident Skipper to come off Alert to Medivac a junior sailor because she’s knocked up and hid it from the command. Skimmers ship their pregnant sailors off to SIMA or otherwise hide them in training, the scullery or deck div to protect them from exposure. You can’t do that on a sub. The radiacs in a Tridents MC are there for a reason.
Besides, I’m still waiting for an answer on improving readiness. How will this better our ability to put warheads on foreheads? How will our nubs ever un-Dinq themselves without the Cigs for Sigs program?
-3363
Sorry, Debra–they’re proposing with enlisted as well. And even if they did do this “only” on Tridents, and “only” with officers, guess what? It screws the male submarine officers who are supposed to get a “balanced” career. And when the enlisted DOES come down the pike, what then? It took me almost 8 years to see my first (and only) shore duty–guess what’s going to happen to Petty Officer Schmuckatelli’s sea/shore rotation when he’s got to have his tour extended because of Suzy Non-Qual, who was an unplanned loss?
And as far as airplanes versus submarines, you are kidding, right? Apples and oranges. You **are** aware we’ve got CAMS to monitor the atmosphere, scrubbers, burners, the “bomb”, and if those fail, candles and other goodies to help purify the atmosphere? I do seem to remember that stuff on my qual card somewhere. And it’s pretty apparent you haven’t been on a boat, because cigarette smoke is the least of your worries as far as atmospheric contaminants. Last time I checked, the Electricians never had to restone the TG or MG slip rings because someone smoked. Paint, yes–smoke, no. The study they used was dubious, at best.
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=52488 (H/T: The Stupid Shall Be Punished)
And ponsdorf–the smoking pole was in reference to the pending review/overhaul of DADT.
And “cigs for sigs”? If only. I avoided a few lookups with cigs, but never got a graped sig on any of my cards. Then again, I always made sure to bring an extra couple of cartons along because the A-gang chief ALWAYS ran out, no matter how long or short the underway. Paid for many a night out, and in Yokosuka, that could get SERIOUS. I don’t know if they’ll allow women to serve once pregnant–the only people who might be able to answer that are the carrier types, but I haven’t heard of one yet. Hail, hail, fellow 3363…
Sparky, if I’ve misunderstood, I apologize, and I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of this other than what comes through my email, and I’m pretty sure I read that they ARE starting only with the female officers; that the plan is to include enlisted as well, but that will not be implemented until later (presumably after the kinks are worked out after having the female officers?). Again I apologize if I’m mistaken, but that’s really what I thought.
As for your other comments, no, I have never been on a ship or submarine and don’t know anything about it. Mea culpa. I was in the Army, not the Navy, and I am in the Navy now only as a civilian. I sit in front of a computer all day and sorting orders, not on a boat, and make sure the students get to where they’re supposed to go. 🙂 I do have some slight secondhand knowledge of naval aviation, but that is only by virtue of being the mother-in-law of a Navy pilot.
🙂 I confess I haven’t picked up very much as I don’t understand the majority of what my son-in-law talks about in the first place, LOL.
However, again, on the cigarette issue, I can’t stand the smell of cigarettes even when I’m outside 20 feet from a smoker; I can’t imagine having to breathe it on a submarine.
About the female issue again, are you arguing with me about why women shouldn’t be on submarines? Do you not realize that if things were up to me, women wouldn’t even be in the military? LOL…So why do you expend any energy arguing about why women shouldn’t be on submarines with someone who holds a view like that?
“However, again, on the cigarette issue, I can’t stand the smell of cigarettes even when I’m outside 20 feet from a smoker; I can’t imagine having to breathe it on a submarine”
Ohhhh Deb, thanks for that. I haven’t laughed like that in years. You have obviously never been onboard a submarine if you think the smell of cigarettes is the worst smell you can imagine in a Boat. I have an old foul weather jacket that I can still smell the faint odor os “eau du Ustafish” on if I hold it up to my nose and I got out in 84.
Sparky you are right on in your assessments. Crew morale, which is always in a more delecate state of balance on a Sub due to the pressures of forced total isolation is going to go right into the shitter. Retention in the Sub force, always a concern due to the many civilian job opportunities available to a Qualified Submariner and the pressures of the Submariner’s life will follow the morale curve. I don’t see where either of these new policies will have any positive effect on the mission.
Having never been in the Navy but my father, brother, and best friend did, their major complaint is the smell of “feet and ass”. Never heard a complaint about cigs. Also, I cannot stand the smell of most womens perfume. It disturbs me even 20 feet away. I can’t imagine having to smell it all day and night on a sub. 🙂
“2–doesn’t impair one’s ability to perform a job; i.e., it’s not an intoxicant.”
Gotta argue that point; not form a military angle, though. The actual smoking may not cause immediate impairment, but I’ve seen people jonesing hard enough to cause problems. A few years ago, I was working at a mall food shop during the Christmas season. Busy as things were, the boss cut breaks (smoking and non) for a week to keep up. One heavy smoker got to where he was watching the clock more than his work, and the rest of us ended up having to pick up the slack. I just can’t imagine a sub being an easier environment in that regard, but I admit to a dearth of knowledge there.
As for both policies, I’d think leaving the decision up to each captain would be the best way to deal with it. They’re far better equipped and positioned to judge on matters of morale and readiness than their desk-bound superiors. I suppose the issue there is service cohesion or something along those lines, but it seems like it would beat the heck out of blanket orders from the top.
Cort–back when I first hit the boats, the motto was, “Smoke-free by ’93!” We see how well that worked. Granted, the allowable areas were cut WAYYYYYY back from when I first showed up until I left for shore duty in 1996 (two areas on a 637, no more than three lit at a time.) But you’re right–CO’s should be allowed to dictate policy. We’re not supposed to wear beards, either, but that didn’t stop us from “donating” $10 to the boat Rec Fund and looking like Grizzly Adams after 65 days out.
If the brass is so concerned about “positive change”, ask yourself this question, folks–why is it confinement with bread and water for up to 3 days is still allowed (and practiced?)
@Ray, #10 – No, that’s not what I said (though it’s true I’ve never been onboard a submarine). I was comparing the smell of cigarettes on a submarine to the smell of cigarettes outside in fresh air, and can’t imagine how bad it would be on a submarine if I can’t even stand it outside. (Not the same as saying that cigarette smoking is the worse.)
@2549 – You were asking about women once they’ve declared themselves pregnant, or their intent to become pregnant [while serving on a submarine]. I think the Navy should do on submarines what the Army does now in combat zones, which is to prohibit sexual relations and use non-judicial punishment for violations. No, I don’t think that’s realistically going to solve the problem, but I think it’s well within the rights of the military to do so as this is obviously a matter that critically affects unit readiness…actually, not only with regard to the consequence of pregnancies in a combat zone (or on a submarine), but also with potential problems with regard to homosexuality. Again, I don’t think it’s realistically going to solve the problem, but it does address what it is a very realistic problem, and it may at least reduce it.
You also said you’re “still waiting for an answer on improving readiness.” Aren’t we all? I think it should be clear it’s not about improving readiness; it’s about implementing a specific agenda regardless of the consequences.
(The nice thing about being a veteran and not active duty is that you can say what you really think, not just what you’re “supposed” to say.)
I’m not going to comment on the Naval issues. I have no idea about being on a ship for months at a time (not a big fan of being in the middle of the ocean on a puke generator) or in one of those underwater coffins (not just no, but hell no), so my opinion wouldn’t be from veiwpoint of someone with experience in such matters, so I will abstain.
Actually, I think it would be kind of fun to be on a ship for months at a time, Old Trooper. You haven’t ever wanted to see what it’s like? I don’t know about a submarine, though…
Off topic, but:
http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378
I’m not sure this is a navy issue anymore. I spend a lot of time in the VFW’s, Fleet Reserves and Subvets here around Groton CT. And have been chatting with the guys put in charge of working out the women on subs issue and they were recently issued a gag order by command. A few of the retired captains in the group are saying it’s no longer navys issue now.
I can tell you there are very few if any local women who seem happy about the idea
Whose issue is it then?
Debra, thats what cruise ships are for. My Father spent a lot of quality time in my youth on Float with the FMF in the Med awaiting a never realized (thank God!) Soviet Fleet action accompanying a move into the Fulda Gap. My Mother has been trying to get him to go on a cruise for their anniversary for near a decade. He won’t go on another big boat if he HAS to pay for it, flat out refuses. I am sure you do the same when it comes to throwing on a hiking pack and boots and walking up and down hills and valleys all day and through the night. Hell, I get paid to do it, and I don’t like doing that unless I get paid to. As for the women in Combat issue, if they can hack it, I have no problem with it. But, if they want to, they should be held to the same UCMJ standards as Males in the case of Pregnancy. Usually the Female SM gets sent home and the Male SM gets an Article 15.
No, actually, I like to go hiking. A cruise…that’s a good idea. But I always like to spend my free time with my children and grandchildren, so I never do that kind of stuff.
Debra, I think Missiletech may have been hinting that the orders are coming from higher up than the Navy, or DoD. Which fits in with the philosophy of social engineering that some in this administration embrace.
LOL, Lucky! My husband won’t even entertain the idea of a cruise. We now live in the middle of the prairie and the only water he sees is the Missouri River and stock dams. And he likes it that way.
Sparky, the only time we put the smoking lamp out was during Drills, diesel fuel moves and weapons evolutions. LOL
Oh… and in my picture of me receiving my Dolphins from the Skipper, I’m wearing a full beard :-). (We didn’t have to shave them until 82 I think) I didn’t know our Chief even had a chin until then
Justplainjason @#1 says “Maybe they should try a total female crew…”
Oh, sure. And when they all sync up after a couple of months out? Would you want to be anywhere near weapons range?
arby must have girls in the house. lol This is an excellent post Sparky- I’m still thinking about it. The female part is one of those things that are hard to answer.
The pregnancy is such a problem. We women don’t know what a baby in the womb will do to us when we choose to join. How it changes EVERYTHING. Of course we want to be just like men- but IMHO — gulp– we just AREN’T. I could be strong as most- I’m smart as most– but I was created to be able to have children– and that makes me different- (forgive my rambling dashes. lol)
Should women be expected to NOT have babies while in- not become pregnant? What about woment in specific jobs?
Unfortunately we spend the entire time a girl is growing up telling her she can be a man. She can’t be a man. She’s wonderful and equal and in God’s image, but not the SAME. IT’s a bitter pill.
Debra; in regards to #16
I went deep sea fishing once in my life as a young teenager. 38 miles out and went through 2 storm squalls on a 40ft. fishing boat. I was sick as a fricken dog and it didn’t stop once we hit shore, either. The ground was still moving all evening. No thanks, you can keep that blue water sh*t!
Ray–January 1st, 1985 is when beards went away (I joined in ’84.) Up to that point, PO3 and above could have them, but not in training commands (RTC/NTC, etc.)
Here’s the article I mentioned the other day which raises concerns about fetal health risks in submarines:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/05/navy-faces-health-issues-for-women-in-submarines/
Arby that will be the “nuclear” option…
I read your link, Debra–no real concrete evidence, just a bunch of maybe, possibly, could be, who knows. What the story DID state is that women were not allowed to be in a forward-deployed status after the 20th week. One would certainly hope that the command were aware of a pregnancy by that point, but even then the unplanned loss is not something that can easily be remedied. When you have a division of 6-8 people (some, like M-Div have up to 14, others as few as 4) where one or more members is an unplanned loss, it doesn’t affect readiness for a few weeks or months–it can take YEARS to recover, especially if the loss is a fully-qualified person.