Catholic Soldier: Mass Murder Is My Job, But Serving With A Woman Is Too Much For My Conscience

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

I completely disagree. If you don't have the self control not to attempt
sexual
relations with someone other than your spouse than a.) you should not be
married and b.) should not be certified under PRP which is required to control
nuclear weapons.

That would be ideal. I have wondered how the integrated crews would affect who
shoots who first and why.

-- Charlie Springer

The numbers show a statistically- and practically- significant increases in
fraternization, infidelity, and divorce.

Hogwash. The rate of divorce among Minuteman crewmembers has not changed *at
all* since gender integration. Additionally, the rate of fraternization, always
high in Northern Tier bases, has not changed either. The bottom line is; gender
integration has had zero impact on the missile community, save a few religious
"wackos", who somehow feel living in close proximity to a female is
unacceptable, but killing a million of them 10,000 miles away is OK.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Great. With an attitude like that, you'll be the next Chief of Staff.

O.K., where did you get *your* numbers (showing no changes in
fraternization, infidelity, or divorce)?

I didn't even bring up the changes in data from the Quality of Life surveys
yet . . .

Steve Swartz



"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
The numbers show a statistically- and practically- significant increases
in
fraternization, infidelity, and divorce.

Hogwash. The rate of divorce among Minuteman crewmembers has not changed
*at
all* since gender integration. Additionally, the rate of fraternization,
always
high in Northern Tier bases, has not changed either. The bottom line is;
gender
integration has had zero impact on the missile community, save a few
religious
"wackos", who somehow feel living in close proximity to a female is
unacceptable, but killing a million of them 10,000 miles away is OK.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Great. With an attitude like that, you'll be the next Chief of Staff.

I don't have an attitude, I just provide facts.

O.K., where did you get *your* numbers (showing no changes in
fraternization, infidelity, or divorce)?

During the first few days of Undergraduate Space & Missile Training you go
through an orientation course where you discuss (in the presence of a panel
which includes a few chaplains and senior Space & Missile leaders,typically O-6
Group or Wing Commanders) various topics, including gender integration. The
statistics were presented and in fact, the discussion on gender integration is
open to any spouses as well. When I went through, a few guys brought their
wives, none of whom seemed concerned by the prospect of their husband being
buried 150' below ground with another woman.

Where did you get your "facts"?

I didn't even bring up the changes in data from the Quality of Life surveys
yet . . .

I'm eagerly awaiting your data. I spent three years as a Minuteman III Combat
Crewmember. In those three years I knew of one person who had issues with
gender integration. Interestingly enough, he was in the same squadron as this
last yahoo. Unlike the last yahoo, this guy never made captain and ended his
career four years after it began. Of course, he didn't get the publicity of
this latest guy, but the story is nearly identical. But the bottom line, out of
the hundreds of crewmembers I knew, and the hundreds of wives (and a few
husbands), there was a problem with *one*. If you try to provide some "data"
that says the quality of life surveys mention gender integration in a negative
way, I'll know you're full of it.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Well, I got exactly what I expected.

Please note that any objective person would definitely NOT consider an 0-6
briefing during formal training to be the same thing as a presentation of
any facts. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in setting the bar a little
higher than that. A bunch of O-6s mouthing the party line during a briefing
is somewhat underwhelming; and certainly would not constitute "facts" by any
stretch of the imagination.

Your first-person anecdotal experience (three years worth at one unit)
carries more weight (marginally so) than the first "evidence." I can
certainly accept that a single individual (and his circle of associates)
would provide the socially desirable responses required of the position,
however. This bias is certainly problematic of all anecdotal reports, and
is particularly troublesome when combined with socially desirable responding
as is the case here.

Here are some additional confounds (the most serious) to actually addressing
this issue in an objective sense:

1) We are talking about relatively rare events in the first place (making
individual experiences unique)
2) The wall came down in 1988, having a great impact on missile duty
(limiting the time available for study)
3) Gender integration was not a singular event; it was rolled in over time
(making "before & after" comparisons difficult)
4) The data themselves are time series data

Add to that the most serious confound of socially desirable responding and
you have quite a problem here. Oh, did I mention that studying the topic is
in itself taboo? Apparently, the USAF does not allow any studies to be
performed in this area.

Interesting, is it not?

Steve Swartz


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Great. With an attitude like that, you'll be the next Chief of Staff.

I don't have an attitude, I just provide facts.

O.K., where did you get *your* numbers (showing no changes in
fraternization, infidelity, or divorce)?

During the first few days of Undergraduate Space & Missile Training you go
through an orientation course where you discuss (in the presence of a
panel
which includes a few chaplains and senior Space & Missile
leaders,typically O-6
Group or Wing Commanders) various topics, including gender integration.
The
statistics were presented and in fact, the discussion on gender
integration is
open to any spouses as well. When I went through, a few guys brought their
wives, none of whom seemed concerned by the prospect of their husband
being
buried 150' below ground with another woman.

Where did you get your "facts"?

I didn't even bring up the changes in data from the Quality of Life
surveys
yet . . .

I'm eagerly awaiting your data. I spent three years as a Minuteman III
Combat
Crewmember. In those three years I knew of one person who had issues with
gender integration. Interestingly enough, he was in the same squadron as
this
last yahoo. Unlike the last yahoo, this guy never made captain and ended
his
career four years after it began. Of course, he didn't get the publicity
of
this latest guy, but the story is nearly identical. But the bottom line,
out of
the hundreds of crewmembers I knew, and the hundreds of wives (and a few
husbands), there was a problem with *one*. If you try to provide some
"data"
that says the quality of life surveys mention gender integration in a
negative
way, I'll know you're full of it.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Please note that any objective person would definitely NOT consider an 0-6
briefing during formal training to be the same thing as a presentation of
any facts.

The O-6s came with facts. They presented a briefing that compared divorce and
UCMJ adultery prosecution rates before and after gender integration in
Minuteman. No difference.

2) The wall came down in 1988, having a great impact on missile duty
(limiting the time available for study)

I fail to see why 1988 is a magic year. In 1991 there were 6 missile wings
(Minot, Grand Forks, Malmstrom, Ellsworth, FE Warren and Whiteman) all fully
gender integrated. By 1994 Ellsworth and Whiteman had closed (Minuteman II
Wings). In 1997 Grand Forks closed its missile wing, leaving us with Minot,
Malmstrom and FE Warren, all gender integrated for the last 15 years. Seems a
substantial amount of data is available for those inclined.

3) Gender integration was not a singular event; it was rolled in over time
(making "before & after" comparisons difficult)

Wrong again. Overnight in the early 1980's, Titan crews were gender integrated.
The delay on Minuteman was due to the much closer quarters and the more
"intimate" crew of two, however in the mid-80's, instantly women were permitted
on Minuteman crews. Many former Titan female crewmembers, who had been out of
a job for 3 or more years, were retrained in Minuteman and showed up "in mass",
to Minuteman Wings throughout SAC. No one complained because the Minuteman
Wings were terribly under manned and the presence of a dozen new crewmembers
instantly relieved a burden that was forcing most Minuteman crewmembers to do
over 9 alerts a month.

Oh, did I mention that studying the topic is
in itself taboo?

Hardly, the Air Force itself keeps (or at least they did up until 1991) the
comparison figures and presents them to each new space & missile class.

Apparently, the USAF does not allow any studies to be
performed in this area.

Interesting, is it not?

See above.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Please note that any objective person would definitely NOT consider an
0-6
briefing during formal training to be the same thing as a presentation of
any facts.

The O-6s came with facts. They presented a briefing that compared divorce
and
UCMJ adultery prosecution rates before and after gender integration in
Minuteman. No difference.

See confounds; particularly with respect to time series data and rare
events. Also, anyone who has taken a good series of stats classes ansd a
research methodologies class would still be *very* skeptical of this type of
advocacy briefing.

That's why I find it necessary to continue to ask for these "facts," and am
not satisfied with your "impressions" of the "briefing."

The claim that people under these circumstances would not fall prey to
well-documented human nature is a rather big claim, and needs at least some
proof.

Note that I am not asking you to "prove a negative." Not at all. If there
was no difference, there was no difference. Should be very easy to
demonstrate one way or another. Within the bounds of the confounds listed
below, of cours.


2) The wall came down in 1988, having a great impact on missile duty
(limiting the time available for study)

I fail to see why 1988 is a magic year. In 1991 there were 6 missile wings
(Minot, Grand Forks, Malmstrom, Ellsworth, FE Warren and Whiteman) all
fully
gender integrated. By 1994 Ellsworth and Whiteman had closed (Minuteman II
Wings). In 1997 Grand Forks closed its missile wing, leaving us with
Minot,
Malmstrom and FE Warren, all gender integrated for the last 15 years.
Seems a
substantial amount of data is available for those inclined.


The situation in the silos was affected by the collaps of the FUSSR. That's
what makes it an historical confound. Any comparison of crew behavior
before, during, and after 1988 becomes problematic. Campbell and Stanley
(as well as others) give a good description fo historical confounds in time
series data. Life in the hole in 1985 was somewhat different from life in
the hole in 1995.

Also, your definition of "fully gender integrated" is somewhat misleading.
If you look at the percentage of crew population that were serving in
mixed-gender crews from 1985-1995 ytou do not find a magic point in time
where the ration poofed from "None" to "Full" overnight. This is also a
confound. This is particularly a confound for time series data. You would
see a gradual effect over time, as the percentage of crewmembers serving in
mixed gender crews increased.

The simplest way for this confound to present itself would by the masking of
the effect. If the percentage of crewmembers serving in gender integrated
crews were to slowly increase fromnone" to "some" over a period of time, any
simple "before" vs. "after" comparison would be invalid. Just looking at
(for instance) some arbitrary year as the "integration" year along that
contimuum would include many events as bveing "pre" integration when they
may have been in fact the result of integration.

Something tells me the "facts" shown by the 0-6s during the "training
briefings" were not that sophisticated. It's pretty easy to demonstrate
falshoods using inappropriate analysis.

3) Gender integration was not a singular event; it was rolled in over
time
(making "before & after" comparisons difficult)

Wrong again. Overnight in the early 1980's, Titan crews were gender
integrated.
The delay on Minuteman was due to the much closer quarters and the more
"intimate" crew of two, however in the mid-80's, instantly women were
permitted
on Minuteman crews. Many former Titan female crewmembers, who had been
out of
a job for 3 or more years, were retrained in Minuteman and showed up "in
mass",
to Minuteman Wings throughout SAC. No one complained because the Minuteman
Wings were terribly under manned and the presence of a dozen new
crewmembers
instantly relieved a burden that was forcing most Minuteman crewmembers to
do
over 9 alerts a month.


Re my previous comment about your "Chief of Staff" attitude. Claiming het
percentage of crewmembers serving in mixed gender crews went from 0 to 50%
(or are we choosing to define "full gender integration" at some other, much
lower, level?) "overnight" is an absolute howler.

You can't expect *any* rational person to believe that.

Or are you just selectively misrepresenting what you choose to define as
"full gender integration (letting one woman on one crew)?


Oh, did I mention that studying the topic is
in itself taboo?

Hardly, the Air Force itself keeps (or at least they did up until 1991)
the
comparison figures and presents them to each new space & missile class.


YGBSM! Read what you wrote- do you honestly believe that what the Air Force
has done is "study" in any objective sense of the word of this issue?!

There's no way you can actually believe that.

How long have you been in the war?

You can't be that naive. No way.

(Not to change the subject, but have you ever independently crunched the
Class A mishap data? Wanna take any bets that ORM can be causally linked to
*increased* Class A's? What's the official version on ORM? How can
something so obviously wrong still be the "school solution?")

Apparently, the USAF does not allow any studies to be
performed in this area.

Interesting, is it not?

See above.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

From: (typhoon)

Lt. Berry is being punished merely for asking for the continuation of
a religious exemption that was easily accommodated for eighteen
months. It's a shame the military can't find a way to be as
accommodating of traditional faiths like Catholicism.

If an officer or enlisted is not available to perform all his duties at all
times when not on medical waiver,in hospital, on leave or pass his performance
is substandard. He is to be rated as such on his performance reports.

During the above stated eighteen months there may have been no scheduling
problems. If his new commander feels that he would have difficulty working
schedules around the person in question without being unfair to the others then
the person in question is causing a conflict and should seek retraining in a
field where such a conflict would not exist. Until then it would be perfectly
fair to rate him as substandard.

It sure would be nice to accomodate each serviceman, but it can't always be
done and the mission must come first.

To Lt. Berry I would say "you should have thought of that before selecting the
job."

What would he have done if his partnered officer took ill just prior to going
underground and the only person available was female? Would he have refused to
go? What about the crew underground? How long would they have to wait for
relief because of him?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Also, anyone who has taken a good series of stats classes ansd a
research methodologies class would still be *very* skeptical of this type of
advocacy briefing.

I fail to see why this data is so "skewed" in your view. Divorce rates among
missile crews was X before gender integration and X after, seems clear cut to
me that gender integration did not effect divorce rates among married
missileers.

That's why I find it necessary to continue to ask for these "facts," and am
not satisfied with your "impressions" of the "briefing."

No impression was required, it was statistical data.

The claim that people under these circumstances would not fall prey to
well-documented human nature is a rather big claim, and needs at least some
proof.

OK, I'll be your proof. Over 150 alerts over a three year period, at least a
dozen with a woman who was not my wife and I kept my hands (and other
appendages) to myself for the entire 24-hour period. I was good friends with at
least a dozen other married guys, none of who even hinted they had comitted
adultery with a female missileer.

Campbell and Stanley
(as well as others) give a good description fo historical confounds in time
series data. Life in the hole in 1985 was somewhat different from life in
the hole in 1995.

Really? How so? I'm willing to bet life in the hole was identical from 1962 to
the present day. It was(and still is) a very scripted and monotonous 24-hour
period and with a few minor exceptions unchanged over time or by the actions of
other nations.

Also, your definition of "fully gender integrated" is somewhat misleading.
If you look at the percentage of crew population that were serving in
mixed-gender crews from 1985-1995 ytou do not find a magic point in time
where the ration poofed from "None" to "Full" overnight.

Only because your definition of gender integration is an equal population of
female crewmembers. Using this definition, we are not now, nor will the missile
community ever be, gender integrated.

Something tells me the "facts" shown by the 0-6s during the "training
briefings" were not that sophisticated. It's pretty easy to demonstrate
falshoods using inappropriate analysis.

Inappropriate analysis? Its simple analysis. Divorce rates before and after
gender integration and UCMJ prosecution rates for adultery before and after
integration. How can that data be misleading?

Claiming that
percentage of crewmembers serving in mixed gender crews went from 0 to 50%
"overnight" is an absolute howler.

Who in God's name said that? You're the one using that criteria as the basis
for gender integration, not me. My definition of gender integration was the
lifting of the restriction prohibiting woman from serving on Minuteman crews.
If you use 50% as the magic number, like I said above, we'll never have a
gender integrated missile career. By my best guess, based on the makeup of the
91st Missile Wing circa 1993, approximately 8-10% of the crewmembers were
female.


or are we choosing to define "full gender integration" at some other, much
lower, level?

There can be no "level" associated with it. If you use some random level, I can
argue the USAF as a whole is not gender integrated, but if you look around you
won't see any WASPs.

Or are you just selectively misrepresenting what you choose to define as
"full gender integration (letting one woman on one crew)?

You're the one trying to somehow associate a percentage with full gender
integration (and a ridiculous level I might add, 50% are you serious?), I'm not
misrepresenting anything, I'm just supplying you with facts about a life I
lived, everyday, for 3+ years. You seem to be someone who can't handle facts
counter your personal beliefs.

YGBSM! Read what you wrote- do you honestly believe that what the Air Force
has done is "study" in any objective sense of the word of this issue?!

Yes.

How long have you been in the war?

You can't be that naive. No way.

You're a "black helicopter" guy aren't you?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:

snip discussion I find tedious ( from one side only ).



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Dear Mr. DRVR,

Freely admitting my own ignorance on the subject and asking actual questions to
which I have no answer or opinion:

1. Was missileer duty considered "good" from a quality of life standpoint?

2. Was it "career enhancing" due to the selection process/sanity check, or more
"your night in the barrel"?

3. Did opening up PCS orders to a hole in the ground on the Great Plains evince a
"Yes!" or an "Oh ****!"?

4. Although your sanity was certified to start the tour, did the conditions
diminish said mental condition?

I ask these questions because the whole thing sounds like a colossally boring tour
to me, despite its undeniable importance. I wondered what was done to make it
sound good.

5 (unrelated) I am under the impression that you are now flying a desk. Is that
the case, or am I hallucinating again?

Bob McKellar, who thought sitting in a hole in the ocean was pretty boring pretty
often as well