[Mooseman684]

Lol ^

[Yogi]

In my opinion, that close confines of a sub (or any other combat situation) would result in many males, "thinking" that the girl is mine, while the "girls" are playing the field. As the ratio between Male to Female would be around 35 men to 5 women (just guessing here) the guys will be fighting for the "Babes" while the "girls" would be trying to either 1, Do the job, or 2, Trying to get the guy they want! I've seen how friends become enemies over the same girl. In a "tight" unit that will not work. The job must come first. I would not like to have to worry more about the "Girl" than about the mission. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH WOMEN DOING THE JOB! It's the guys that want to do the women more than doing the job. Nobodies fault. Just doesn't work.

[SightNSqueeze]

There is indeed a lot to be said about infidelity among married men and women and with single men and women figured into the intrigue. On Military.com, there are already two raging arguments about women on submarines and the above reason seems to be said most by the wives of submariners, a community with a pretty high divorce rate as it is. I chimed in with other reasons. This was my recent response within the last few minutes. I will share it here. Pardon me if it mimics some of what I already said earlier.

Quote:      

Is this what we as a nation have finally come to? The Army, Air Force, and the surface component of the Navy already cowed to the demands of leftist politicians, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and non-veteran activist organizations. Next will be the Submarine Service, combat elements of the Marines, Navy SEALS, and Army special forces and combat arms MOSs. I have great respect for our female warriors. We can’t win wars without them, but they have there place. Like men, women are all too willing to be placed in harm’s way and risk maiming, permanent disfigurement, and death. I know, because in addition to serving in submarines, I served in the Iraq War, and I saw women endure death and disfigurement there and it was a national disgrace. As a result, history will be justly harsh to our country and history will judge us as a society by the way we view our women in war. The submarine community and level headed members of the military community, and their friends and families need to notify the Navy and the Congress and let their voices be heard now before further precedence is set and this insanity continues.

[billy]

no no
you dont understand.
super hot prostitutes!
no muss
no fuss!
they could wear those cute lil sailor outfits.......

[Lobo0311]

Quote:       Originally Posted by SightNSqueeze

The truth is that in addition to submarines, women cannot serve in Navy and Army Special Forces, Marine 0311 infantry, Army 11B infantry and other Army combat arms MOSs. However, through "point of contact" such as serving as MPs, motor transport, and as other combat support and support troops, and in combination with the unintended circumstances of both proximity and timing, our brave women warriors have found themselves on the cutting edge with their male counterparts. That was not the initial plan when women's roles were expanded. Marines have a philosophy that their women Marine warriors are to be trained as warriors and able to fight on the cutting edge, but not purposely placed in any position where they are in an immediate combat scenario. The Marines are the only branch of service that have that model and actively implement it. White Rook - I commend your daughter for her service and her fine parents for bringing her up right. I question though whether military service should demand "all things from all people." Case in point; my wife was a medical technician in the Air Force and served in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. She was equipped and trained to perform her job in the medical field and armed and trained to defend herself. I would expect nothing less from the Air Force. However, I would not want our country to expect her to close with and engage the enemy when there are men who should take on that chore. Again, the "Marine Model" that I mentioned comes to mind.

Not to split hairs but lets not limit the infantry MOSs to 0311 or 11B, those are only two specific infantry MOSs, on second thought I guess it was to split hairs you dont want to leave the designated marksmen, and the machinegunners out do ya? Had to toss my 2cents in since I was an 0311 rifleman in the Marines as well as an 0331 Machinegunner. just sayin.....

[SightNSqueeze]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Lobo0311

Not to split hairs but lets not limit the infantry MOSs to 0311 or 11B, those are only two specific infantry MOSs, on second thought I guess it was to split hairs you dont want to leave the designated marksmen, and the machinegunners out do ya? Had to toss my 2cents in since I was an 0311 rifleman in the Marines as well as an 0331 Machinegunner. just sayin.....

Unfortunately, this next move by the liberals will be using the Submarine Service as the next springboard to ultimately include the Navy Seals, Army Special Forces, and all elements of the Marines. It will be inevitable if this is allowed to go forward. This seemingly dormant movement was kept in check for fifteen years but they were not inactive. They were cultivating admirals and naval medical and legal officers for years until the time appeared right with an accommodating president and congress to make it happen. Any American, regardless of past or present branch of service, who does not want to see more women specifically assigned to combat duty, regardless of whether they are veterans or non-vets, had better get on board and stop this nonsense by notifying the Congress and the Departments of Navy and Defense. This was stopped once before in 1994 and it can be stopped again. I would use the link NRA-ILA :: Action Center to get through to as many congressmen and woman as possible and send courtesy copies to the president and the Secretary of the Navy. Then I would respond to the two discussion forums going on now at Military.com and any other news forum as it comes about.

[SightNSqueeze]

Just an update on the "women in submarines" controversy. The military community and supporters are turning out enmass online in military forums and to the Congress in overwhelming opposition of this ill-advised political move by Admiral Roughead, Admiral Mullen, and the SecNav; none of whom have ever been assigned to submarines and all of whom are totally clueless. Representatives from other elite components in the Navy and other services are speaking out too since this will ultimately affect them and their fighting abilities.

[ssbn642blue]

I did five years on the USS Kamehameha SSBN 642. This is/was a nuc sub that carried ICBM nuc missiles. ( Ten years active Navy).

MT1(SS)= E-6 Qualified in Submarines


I respectfully submit that IF you haven't been there, your opinion on this matter don't mean squat. I don't mean to offend anyone here, you all have my respect as G&G members.

That said, the Submarine force is a tight knit group, we have to be. Our lives depended on each other 24/7. We don't trust non-qual dinks and we sure in the hell didn't want women on the boat. We didn't have enough room to store S%@t paper much less that what women need.

And it's also a manpower issue and always has been. Let me explain. Say a woman crew member gets pregnant, and she is due to deliver during a patrol cycle, where do we get her replacement? It's not like a union hall you can call to get another Qualified replacement.

Enough for now.

[blueice]

Only if daycare is produced for....Or if the tour of duty is less than nine months...

[Dan22]

Surely Obama has a Csar who can address this problem.

[ssbn642blue]

Besides, how would we tack on their Dolphins?

[rondog]

I've never been in the military, and certainly never served on a sub, but women serving on a sub sounds like a stupid idea to me. Not even big, hairy-legged dykes. I understand the "equality" whining and all that, but some ideas are just bad ones.

[SightNSqueeze]

In all the military forums that I've visited in the past several days, there is very little support for women in submarines. The Military.com poll now stands at 75% against women in submarines. That comes from past and present submariners, surface sailors who have already had to endure mixed crews, men and women who have had to serve in harm's way together aboard surface ships and in other services, military wives who are already trying to hold their marriages together in the face of long separations, and even behavioral scientists who say that this is a bad, bad idea.

Like I said earlier, the Silent Service is not a career that men enter into lightly. Unlike other elite services, there is no glory, recognition, and promotional reasons for joining. The end result is hardship, likely divorce, and the knowledge that most of the country doesn't even know you're out there, and probably couldn't understand or care less if they did know. Men generally volunteer because somebody has to do it and the submarine service will be the determining factor in our victory over a technologically advanced enemy in any naval warfare. Now, I'm afraid that women, who will be held to a "second tier" standard as they are in other areas will join for all the wrong reasons and end up pulling themselves down, pulling down the already intensely high standards of the submarine service, and jeopardizing the combat effectiveness of the submarine service.

Ultimately, this bad decision, if it is rammed down the submarine community’s throat, will soon affect the Navy SEALS and their naval support components, the Army combat arms MOSs and their special forces, and the fighting components of the Marines who will be forced to comply with new rules of substandard combat readiness and operational performance. I’ve already written my congressional delegation. If you agree with me, then I would urge all veterans and non-vets to do the same.

Your “Zip Code” and the below link is all that is needed to contact your congressional delegation about any issue:

NRA-ILA :: Action Center

[Yogi]

Watch "down periscope" with Kelsey gramer and Rip Torn. That movies shows the kind of issues involved.

[SightNSqueeze]

Quote:       Originally Posted by ssbn642blue

I did five years on the USS Kamehameha SSBN 642. This is/was a nuc sub that carried ICBM nuc missiles. ( Ten years active Navy). MT1(SS)= E-6 Qualified in Submarines I respectfully submit that IF you haven't been there, your opinion on this matter don't mean squat. I don't mean to offend anyone here, you all have my respect as G&G members. That said, the Submarine force is a tight knit group, we have to be. Our lives depended on each other 24/7. We don't trust non-qual dinks and we sure in the hell didn't want women on the boat. We didn't have enough room to store S%@t paper much less that what women need. And it's also a manpower issue and always has been. Let me explain. Say a woman crew member gets pregnant, and she is due to deliver during a patrol cycle, where do we get her replacement? It's not like a union hall you can call to get another Qualified replacement. Enough for now.

Well said 642. Ironically, this issue was already extensively researched during the prior Clinton Administration; an administration that was certainly accommodating to the idea of women on submarines. The Department of the Navy commissioned an outside agency to perform the research. The findings are not good for advocates of women on submarines and they pretty much mirrored the same findings by the Navy when they desperately tried but failed to make this scheme work. The total report is about 70 pages in length. Below is typical of what is found in the report. Note this was a non-bias report submitted by an outside agency that had nothing to gain or lose with any specific finding.


Submarine Assignment Policy Assessment performed for the Department of the Navy

1FEB95:




3.4 Readiness
This section presents quantitative results from a top level personnel readiness model developed to support this assessment. The development and use of the model also provided valuable insight to the statistical categorizations of male-female differences and the complexities of the mixed-gender personnel management process. The model looked only at submarines themselves.

3.4.1 Background. The ultimate point of evaluation is the ability of the submarine to perform its assigned mission(s) under all conditions. Combat effectiveness is dependent on 1) Readiness - the state of preparation to execute the assigned mission (includes manning, training, material condition and logistics) and 2) unit cohesion. The presidential commission defined cohesion as “…the relationship that develops in a unit or group where: (1) members share common values and experiences; (2) individuals in the group conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival and goals; (3) members lose their personal identity in favor of a group identity; (4) members focus on group activities and goals; (5) members become totally dependent on eachother for the completion of their mission or survival; and (6) members must meet all standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival.” The Commission went on to say “The evidence clearly shows that unit cohesion can be negatively affected by the introduction of any element that detracts from the need for such key ingredients as mutual confidence, commonality of experience, and equitable treatment.

[ssbn642blue]

I've never put this on the net before, but I feel so strongly about this topic.

This was written by one of my shipmates( I think), while on the Kam in 1979.



" WE ARE MEN MARCHED OUT OF TIME

TRAVELING AQUANAUTS OF A SUBMERSIBLE SATELLITE

MECHANICAL GILLS WE BREATHE THROUGH

OUR SUN IS ELECTRIC, OUR NIGHT AN ENCLOSURE

THE WIND IS FAN VENTILATION

THE RAIN IS CONDENSATION

THE SOUNDS OF NATURE ARE ALL SHAFT DRIVEN

PUMPS, VALVES AND PIPING

STEAM. OIL AND SALT WATER

SOMEHOW, UNMARKED HOURS PASS

OUR MINDS DULL AND SWELLING

WE ARE THE TRUE ARTIFICIALS

IN THIS BLIND DEATH PROBE

THIS IRON WOMB

THIS METALLIC TOMB."

Want to live like that for 75-85 days underwater. And don't give me that patriotic BS. Nobody gave a rats as& while I was doing my duty. In fact, we did not expect as they do now. I did my job for the US Constitution and my Country as a whole.


This is not a damn game we play underwater. We did/do this for duty and honor, not to feed a politicians ego. THERE IS a place for tradition, and the Silent Service should be the last stand.


Hell, where's Moose when I need him. They don't understand...

[ssbn642blue]

Quote:       Originally Posted by lvlt

cyrano, thats a test of strength not gender. do u believe that there are not women stronger han the average submariner? forget about adjusted physical standards, there are plenty of women who could pass. sexual activity???? gay guys aren't smart enough to find a way? pat

We had one guy on the boat "suspected" of being gay and he was kicked off the boat. We have no room for that sh*t. They are rooted out fairly quickly and on their way. If you haven't been on a submarine, please don't post a comment to this post. It would do your not serving, a dis-service to mine.

Sorry Mods.

[ssbn642blue]

Quote:       Originally Posted by billy

no no you dont understand. super hot prostitutes! no muss no fuss! they could wear those cute lil sailor outfits.......

Billy,

Theres an old saying on Boomers. "150 guys go down and 75 couples come back up." I'm thinking if you were #151, we would just pass you along...

By the way, how's the Jeep coming along?

[privateer]

Ok my turn to chime in. I was an attack boat sailor (SSKN - SSN 597) we served a different duty then my friend ssbn642blue on his SSBN but are in agreeent that women have no business at all on the boats. I would spend an average of 9 months out of the year at sea and this may sound silly to some of you folks but its like a self induced prison sentence and a mans world. It's either to hot or to cold , it's long ass watches and hot racking in the torpedo nests, the air sucks and the smell is something only a sub sailor knows, and when the shit hits the fan you gotta be at your best even if it means jumping out of the shower and manning your battlestation stark ass naked. we dont have all the room and accommodations that the big surface ships have and you really have no privacy at all. For sure It's not the version you see in hollywood .
John

[SightNSqueeze]

Well John, I was wondering when you’d arrive on station. You are absolutely right about the tough conditions. Too many people think submarine patrols are like what one sees in Hollywood. It isn’t a crisp blue p-suit, clean fingernails, a close shave and smart witty one-liners. The conditions are tough. I know what it is like sleeping above an overloaded sanitation tank with a stuck valve and slate gray sewage bubbling out of the deck drains near my rack. It kind of made a sloshing sound as the boat rocked gently from side to side. I remember on my first patrol on the USS Ulysses Grant SSBN 631. While I was still qualifying, I was pulling back to back steering and diving watch on the helm when we lost main hydraulics. The rudder ram back in the engine room near shaft ally crushed a ¼” deck plate that hadn’t been secured properly. The ram sprung a fast hydraulic leak under pressure that sprayed down the hot TGs and the shaft housing. The generators were smoking from the hydra oil that got hot on contact. With no hydraulics to stop the turn of the two-story high rudder, it continued on and bounced against the stops from side to side sending our 425 foot long hull on a wild ride at ¾ speed which is pretty fast for a 616-class. Everybody standing was picking themselves off the deck. Meanwhile in the control room, I miraculously remembered the 14-step process that I could never get right three times consecutively in submarine school to secure main hydraulics and initiate vital hydraulics. After that was done, we had to muscle the big joy stick to turn the rudder for the rest of the patrol. That was the hardest upper-body workout I ever had. Who needs a gym to work out in when you’re working with secondary hydraulics while steering and diving? I cannot imagine even a big woman leaning into the joy stick the way we had to. I just know that if they go through this scheme to assign women on the boats, there will be a two-tiered system of requirements and responsibilities to contend with. The surface sailors are already putting out that warning.


USS Ulysses S. Grant SSBN 631 at Holy Loch, Scotland