[LarryW]

Afchic, we have a difference of opinion. That's fine because it's just the way God made Americans. It's my own belief that opinions are based upon a person's life experience and convictions are based on the conclusions one makes from those experiences. That having been said, what follows is my opinion:

The sub issue is one of living conditions, not job related so to speak.

The issue to be addressed is not just "living conditions". It is a matter of existing within a parameter of combat arms. The worn out argument that women can't fight as good as men is (IMO) bogus. I have worked with women, served along side women in the military, and have worked for military women up through the grade of Captain (0-6). Some I have found to be professional in every sense with courage, good leadership skills, and a clear vision of the mission/task at hand. Some have proven to be absorbed with themselves and their own sexuality, and not worth the powder it would take to blow them up. I consider those two extremes to be not unlike male leaders appointed to similar positions.

As far as living conditions in submarines are concerned, please indulge me with this story about submarine life: The day JFK was assassinated the submarine I was embarked in as a TM3 (E-4) was forced to get underway (emergency sortie) from Yokosuka, Japan. We were ordered to proceed to an area in the Northern Pacific and conduct "independent operations", snooping around basically. Our deployment was to last 45 days. Because food stores were not going to be readily available, we stuffed every imaginable cranny on that boat with cases of canned goods. Now, in diesel submarines the first priority for water consumption was for the batteries, second priority was for drinking, and the third was for bathing. For 45 days the only men, of the 85 men assigned in that boat, who had the luxury of a shower were the cooks (2) and the Messcooks (2). The showers they took were "Navy Showers", whereby one would quickly get wet, secure the water, soap up, turn on the water to rinse, then get out. Showering daily was not an option, however. Variations or delays were not tolerated. The rest of us enjoyed sponge baths when we could, but certainly not daily. There were no laundry facilities in the boat. The injection temperature (the temperature of the sea water outside) was barely enough to keep it a liquid. Inside the boat it was colder than all get out. We wore most of the clothes we had most of the time. This was our life for those 45 days. As sometimes happens (but thankfully not often) our relief slicked a main bearing enroute to relieve us, and as a result we were obliged to turn around and spend another 45 days on station. Oh, we managed to rendevous with a tin can (once) for some additional chow, but they had no mail on board for us, no one left the boat, and we didn't get any clean clothes.

I have lived with men in very close quarters. We all acted in a professional manner. Did I shower with them, of course not, but none of the guys on my team had a problem with me having the very limited shower facilities for a few minutes every day. Can't imagine that some kind of "out of the box" thinking will be used to integrate women onto subs.

I very respectfully suggest that you have no idea what it's like to live with 85 men the majority of whom have only had a sponge bath in the last 90-days. Yes, that was a diesel submarine, and today's boats are Cadillacs in comparison. But, todays submarines still have the required and trained for ability to remain at sea for periods extending well past the 90 days of a current deterrent patrol.

If neither sex can act in a professional manner, than both sexes should be drawn and quartered. You act professionally, then there shouldn't be a problem.

We are in violent agreement.

I don't think anyone with a brain will say that because women serve on subs, therefore they should be allowed to be a QP/SEAL/PJ….Somehow I don't think that applies to subs, in many cases.

The "goose/gander" argument is not one joined by those "with a brain". It is a purely PC convention the lazy bastards who make policy use to justify what they hope will gain them a favorable impression from the MSM. That having been said, if women are allowed in submarines then you can bet someday we will see "G.I. Janes" in a team of Quiet Professionals.

Finally, the nuclear deterrent triad was comprised of missiles in silos, bombs dropped from long range aircraft, and by nuclear submarines deployed at sea. Women served in the first two with pride and accomplishment. Unlike the submarine element, those in silos and aboard long range bombers were not confined for 90+ days at a time. It is my opinion that the current training and readiness posture of the submarine element of that triad should not be subjected to risk just to satisfy the PC attitudes of people who sit on cows but imagine they are bull riders.

I appreciate and greatly respect your opinion. We just have had different life experiences that have brought us to differing conclusions.

v/r,