"Senior naval figures have opposed allowing women on subs due
to the cramped conditions on board and the dangers posed by
fumes inside the vessels to a foetus if a woman is pregnant."

so those fumes and cramped conditions must be safe for men then? Women are generally smaller than men so perhaps they are more suited. If it is all female then no risk of pregnancy either. sorted.

I was told that this might happen sometime soon during an interview with the Royal navy back in June. Apparently though they've been talking about it for almost as long as anyone can remember and not actually done it.

The idea of females serving on nuclear submarines is, in my view, ridiculous seeing as they can stay down for close to a year at a time. What happens if they get pregnant? You can't surface just to offload pregnant women, that would destroy the whole purpose of the nuclear deterrant.

Perhaps they could sign a contract stating if they do get pregnant, they lose all benefits and accept xyz punishment due. The father of the baby should also face consequences, of course.

Signing a contract might make most women think twice but won't stop pregnancy from happening completely. I can just see it now: women suing the military because of premature births, birth defects, or because of stillborn babies due to the fumes, etc...Or new female-friendly subs to be built with new policies, etc..Sounds complicated to me. I wonder what the scoop is in the countries that already have women on board? I wonder how it's all working out?

They probably just put tampax machines in the toilets ..... on a serious note though, you would think it a job that might suit women or smaller people in general for obvious reasons ..... mind you do submarines ever have to reverse park .... the RN could also contact Shiela's wheels for an insurance quote, maybe its all part of the planed cuts in the defence budget, cheaper insurance for lady submariners

I agree with TERA for once.

It makes no difference that what you make women sign or how you punish them, If it happens even once you have to surface to let the mother get off which completely disrupts the functioning of your nuclear deterrant.

I'm sorry, but then it comes to things this important it really is irrelavent how people feel about this or if they think it is unfair. It is simply essential that a nuclear submarine operate for long periods of time without surfacing so it can remain undetected and function properly as a deterrant. Anything which might interefere with this cannot be allowed.

Quote from TheOldOligarch

I agree with TERA for once.

It makes no difference that what you make women sign or how you punish them, If it happens even once you have to surface to let the mother get off which completely disrupts the functioning of your nuclear deterrant.

I'm sorry, but then it comes to things this important it really is irrelavent how people feel about this or if they think it is unfair. It is simply essential that a nuclear submarine operate for long periods of time without surfacing so it can remain undetected and function properly as a deterrant. Anything which might interefere with this cannot be allowed.

Agreed. It makes no sense. The same women who will push for "equality" will be the same ones who will end up suing for damages when things don't go their way...and it ends up being because of the biological differences that feminists want to minimize the existence of in the first place.

Insane.

My usual diagreeable self says why should they not have to do as the men do, while constantly carping on about equality. It is women, not men, who constantly claim that women can do anything a man can.

I can see the obvious problems with a mixed crew.

So don't have a mixed crew.

I can see the problem with fumes. So what?

Get rid of the fumes or let the women experience what the men have to.

Upper body strength is a poor excuse. The weights that a man has to carry or lift is determined by his physical capability, not by any magical military necessity. Men don't lift torpedos. They have pulleys and machinery for that.

The 'traditional' objections are misplaced chivalry.

The Royal Navy has a history of 'traditions' overturned. It used to be a traditional recruitment practice to whack a chap on the head in the pub and he'd wake up at sea with the King's shilling in his pocket. No thought of fumes or upper body strength then.

In a nuclear submarine, a woman can light the blue touch paper on a missile as well as a man can. And she can apply herself to map reading too and learn how to find her way around when there is no one about to ask directions.

Good grief what men go through and the initiations! My ex-boyfriend, a firefighter, described an initiation that included being lifted a couple of stories off the ground by crane, and left hanging there for awhile for good measure. The guys who who were really disturbed by such heights could have a covering over them but most got full view of the ground below. He described another initiation, a painful one, when he became a Marine.

I've always kind of wondered what's up with that stuff? It seems initiations are mostly a male-phenomena.

Quote from Incognito

Good grief what men go through and the initiations! My ex-boyfriend, a firefighter, described an initiation that included being lifted a couple of stories off the ground by crane, and left hanging there for awhile for good measure. The guys who who were really disturbed by such heights could have a covering over them but most got full view of the ground below. He described another initiation, a painful one, when he became a Marine.

I've always kind of wondered what's up with that stuff? It seems initiations are mostly a male-phenomena.

Actually TERA I believe Percy was referring to the practise of impressment, which was not officially sanctioned but was nonetheless a common method of ''recruitment'' for the Royal Navy in the 18th and 19th centuries. Basicaly it involved ambushing some random, relatively able bodied man, and dragging him off to serve on board a naval vessel. The Royal Navy was so desperate for men to fight its various battles, especially against Napoleon, that this practise, while illegal, was overlooked by the authorities.

the day will soon come whenthe HMS Harman would be launched a nuclear submarine with an all misandrist wimyn crew (swods) aka sailors without dicks with a mission to seek out n destroy all enemy sexist and misogynit war ships

Quote from shaazam

the day will soon come whenthe HMS Harman would be launched a nuclear submarine with an all misandrist wimyn crew (swods) aka sailors without dicks with a mission to seek out n destroy all enemy sexist and misogynit war ships

I actually just visualized that....*SHIVER!*

Ahhh yes, women are just as good, if not better than men mantra!

to whit;

"The Royal Navy's new Astute attack submarines could easily be adapted to accommodate women and the Ministry of Defence has said that in the design of the new Trident nuclear subs 'consideration will be given to the possibility of women serving in the future'."

In other words, preference... Better yet, forcing a square peg into a round hole....

"If the Royal Navy allows the move, only mine-clearance diving units and the Royal Marines would be closed to women in the Armed Forces."

Nope... no preference here... as we all know, only the "safe" jobs are for women...

TMOTS

only mine-clearance diving units and the Royal Marines would be closed to women in the Armed Forces."

I don't see why women can't be dragged behind a ship to clear mines.