© 2009-2022 John A. Mason

Active Duty personnel signing the below petition are signing in their individual capacities as private citizens as is authorized under DOD Directive 1344.10 and are not acting or signing as representatives of the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or the Coast Guard.  Any mention of military rank is used to help identify the person’s military experience and background.

1          ET3 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

2          Spouse of Active Duty E-5

I do not think that it would be a good idea to have women serve onboard submarines due to the fact that the living situation and harsh environment that is onboard. Women are suited for surface fleet just fine. I have worked at a submarine support facility and seen the everyday life of a submariner in port and seen how things work and what goes on. It is NOT meant for female sailors at all. I am also married to a submariner and I truly see how it takes a toll on him and us. I worked with submariners and have seen the high level of stress that these men go through every day and have seen the living situation that goes along with the high stress job and I myself do not think that women should be submitted to this. If I was still in the Navy I would not volunteer for this duty assignment. I am also married to a submariner and I think that with what he does through by leaving home and his family and not having the contact with his family like surface ships do makes the sub life a worse situation for him. Women would have a harder emotional time being away from children and not having contact with the outside world for months at a time.

3          MT2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Women do NOT belong on submarines PERIOD. I spent 10 years riding submarines (MT2/SS). It would be a major distraction to everybody on board. It would be a major threat to discipline and order. It defies the ‘holy’ tradition of ‘men only’. There is NO reason to put women on subs… there are enough able body men to go around. Look at all the problems it causes having women on other ships in the fleet… it’s Not Smart.

4          MM2 (SS)        Former Active Duty

I was a submariner aboard the USS Miami. As all of us who have been stationed aboard them know, submarines are not a good environment for co-ed crews. The mission sensitivity does not allow for sexual harassment or pregnancy issues. The privacy and space limitation make sexual harassment suits, real or imagined, more likely. Imagine stepping out of lower level shower as a woman and in walks a man needing to use the head. Or perhaps the opposite, a man getting out of the shower and in walks a woman. The position that this will put both sexes in is not beneficial to our mission as submariners. Please listen to reason and do not lift the ban. This has no effect on a woman’s ability to advance and as such would be not only a waste of money but a poor environment for all involved. How about when they have to change tampons? I hate to be crude but doc’s space is simply not big enough to handle all the “biohazard” wastes.

5          FTB2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

I am against this policy. I served 4 years as an FTB2/SS on a boomer in the 70’s.

6          LCDR   Retired

Having served as an officer on submarines I must very strongly disagree with the idea of placing women on submarines. My primary concerns are:

• It will destroy the readiness and operational capabilities of submarines if, by some circumstance, a woman sailor gets pregnant and has to be medevacd off a submarine operating in some remote area doing very sophisticated intelligence work.
• I strongly believe that our male sailors will have additional problems within their own families when they go to sea and their wives know that they will be in very close quarters with other females over an extended period of time – human nature being what it is. Families problems already exist within the submarine force – just ask any Chaplain.
• Submariners work and live in amazingly close quarters including toilet facilities and sleeping arrangements that are not convenient for mixing the genders.
• The additional cost of retrofitting submarines to allow separation of the genders will be a large burden on an already strained military budget. These are but a few of many reasons this is a bad idea.

7          Spouse and Navy Contractor

I am a submariner wife and a navy contractor that works on surface and submarines. I am so totally against women on subs. And no it’s not because I am afraid my husband will cheat. Financially in these hard times where are we going to get the money to allow them on? If we come up with the billions then why not use it to fix them economy? AND subs are made for men not women. It has been men for years. The brotherhood of men on subs will just be ruined if a woman is on board.

8          Spouse

I am against women on subs. I think there is no reason to waste the money and time to change the boats to accommodate them. Not enough of them stay in until retirement and out of the number of women who do stay in not everyone is going to be a sub volunteer or even qualified to be on subs. The morale of the crews will go down and it will be likely that more men will leave the Navy. As the wife of a submariner, I cannot express enough what a terrible idea this is. The crews cannot support the loss of their members because of pregnancies and other female problems. Please consider our men who are serving proudly in the US Navy in the Silent Service. Take into account their needs and comforts before you make this decision.

9          Spouse of O-3

My husband is an O-3. I whole-heartedly believe in the premise behind this petition and completely agree with opposing women on submarines. There are a ton of issues on aircraft carriers and I cannot imagine what it would be like on an enclosed Submarine. I am a female and I will tell you that it is not an environment that any female should be subjected to. Our bodies are different and should anything happen, that would put the mission in jeopardy. Please do not allow this!

10        Family Member

Let’s keep tradition a top priority. Also, I took a tiger cruise with my son in law last year and stayed overnight on the submarine out to sea and the living conditions are not suitable for women aboard a submarine especially with men onboard.

11        Spouse of E-7

I am a submariner wife, but more importantly I am a registered voter. I adamantly oppose the Navy’s request to change policy and lift the ban on women serving in the submarine force. This policy change will not employ any additional people who would otherwise be unemployed, but will cost the American taxpayers billions to implement. In such economic times, the money is better spent creating jobs for hard working Americans who are desperately seeking employment. After the huge legislation just recently signed into law regarding health care with an enormous price tag, the United States of America cannot afford to finance an unnecessary policy change. The US Navy along with all branches of the military has a responsibility for national defense and security, not equal opportunity. The cost they are asking us to pay is far greater than the rewards of the change.

12        CWO3 (SS)       Retired

Women should not be allowed to serve on submarines.

 13       LCDR                           Retired

Fifteen patrols experience in SSBNs. The submarine force does not need the distractions that women serving in submarines will provide. Initially it seems that the plan is for female officers to serve in TRIDENT Submarines. It just will not work. The close proximity will create conditions that are not conducive to good order and discipline. The first woman coming off patrol three months pregnant will make us a laughing stock. We are professionals among professionals and this sort of thinking could endanger the lives of those serving in submarines.

14        STS1 (SS)                      Former Active Duty

I was on Submarines from 1975 – 1986. There is not enough room on a sub for the all male crew, least of all without adding women. The gender issue will also come into play. We were “all in the same boat” (nobody had access to women). You are asking for BIG problems if women end up on subs.

15        MMCM (SS)/COB/CMC          Retired

Opposed to women in submarines.

16        FTCM (SS)(Ret)            Retired

Two years diesel boat experience, 26 deterrent patrols.

17        MS1 (SS)                      Former Active Duty

I consider Sub service completely different than ALL other branches of military because of the time spent with hatches closed requiring young men, then young women to disregard their hormones and relationship potentials. You can start off with women officers if you want to, but I truly believe that it doesn’t matter. In-port and off-crews will breed a togetherness that could prove fatal in certain circumstances at sea, such as in Control Room where 100% attention is needed by even (especially) the planesmen. There is enough for our sailor’s to handle w/out an additional opposite sex on board. Thx.

18        MMCS (SS)      Retired

21 years of naval service; all my sea time was on submarines, woman would not be an asset to the submarine service; they would be a liability to the safety of all on board.

19        RMC (SS)                     Retired

Putting women on submarines is about the dumbest thing that anyone can come up with. It may be politically correct but it is still stupid. You haven’t seen trouble until this happens. You can put the biggest, ugliest, fattest, slobbyist on submarines and in less than a heartbeat, someone is going to fall in love with her and then the fight starts.

20        QMCM (SS)     Retired

Having been a Chief of the Boat on two submarines I feel very strongly against the idea of placing women on submarines for the following reasons:

• There is not enough space to allow cohabitation in the common areas, i.e. passageways.
• Should the female sailor become pregnant it would be necessary to have her removed from the boat immediately and a replacement would not be available for the loss of possibly a key person until she returns, if she does at all.
• There are currently not enough segregated berthing areas to afford a respectful degree of privacy.

 21        CS2 (SS)           Retired

Really a bad idea. I imagine they will start with officers first. Even there, do they not learn anything from stuff like the female astronauts problem they had? Too confined space for this. I read where they figure on having to reconfigure fast attack, not so much on boomers. Now they are going to spend a bunch of money and redesign a warship for social engineering. USS Trout SS-566, USS Von Steuben SSBN-632, USS Trumpetfish SS-425, Retired police officer. Women on the street does not really work that great either. There is a place in law enforcement for women, but on the street with all these ‘citizens’ that have to be dealt with, is not the place. No women on the boats. Too much political interference with the military operations.

 22        E-9       Retired

Having served in the Submarine Force, I cannot see any benefit to having women on boats.

 23        E-6       Retired

God Created Adam, then He created Eve. One will notice that they are different. What happens when she is going thru her cycle, or the poor dumb kid rubs a boner against her getting by? If she is married, for how long after contact that is closer than she would experience at home. Where is she going to shower, dress, berth, react to being seen in her skivvies or seeing a male in his? If they want to be on boats, GIVE them one with an “all female crew”. Oh! you need men around to do the heavy stuff. B.S. If it’s going to be equal, then a male sailor should stay on shore duty when his wife is pregnant, that’s where she will be. Maybe they will be all officers, after all, they never do anything wrong, just pity the poor male when she goes hormonal.

 24        MMCS (SS)      Retired

Civilian, retired Navy, Sub Force, member of sub vets. I help train future nuclear sailors for subs. The ones I have talked to do not women in submarines either; one was a female sailor, she said we would be too close together, over long periods, and it would cause problems. I have been in the Sub Force for twenty years and have been working around and training Navy Nuclear trained sailors for twenty one more years.

 25        FTB2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

The mix of male vs. female will create more problems that need to be addressed thus taking away the safe operation of our submarine fleet. All sailors need to be dedicated to the job of sub operation and not who is dating who.

 26        Spouse

As a wife of a retired submariner I am totally against women on subs. This is not a job for a woman and besides that a bunch of women on a sub would kill each other after being submerged for any length of time; talk about cat fights.

 27        SOG2 (SS)        Former Active Duty

Do NOT lift ban that prevents women from serving as crew members on board US Navy submarines.

 28        E-6                   Retired

Opposed to women in submarines.

 29        FTG1 (SS)         Former Active Duty

I personally think a mixture of men and women on a submarine is totally absurd! It seems that everyone has forgotten how dangerous life aboard a submarine can be; throw in a distraction of men and women and no telling what could happen. In my mind for this to even be considered there would have to be a built in separation of men and women.

 30        FTCS (SS)         Retired

Do not lift ban preventing women from serving on US Navy Submarines. Having served on 4 SSBN submarines from 1967-1983 and making 20 deterrent patrols, I have come to appreciate the value of this male only service. The crucial nature of our mission demands focused attention to duty without unnecessary distraction. Submarine service should not be viewed as another social experiment which can only detract from our already exemplary record.

 31        QMCS (SS)       Retired

As a retired QMCS(SS) riding subs for 25 years I would not want to be any part of this effort. Remember “Men should be on ships, and ships belong at sea”.

 32        QMC (SS)         Retired

Political Incorrectness, that is all this proposal is. I served in both diesels and nukes and say through experience, this is no place to put women.  INPUT #2: I’ll get right to the crux of this. I have two daughters… would I permit or encourage them to volunteer for sub duty? No. Why? A career in subs tells me it is not an environment conducive for a mixed-sex crew. This is a misguided political correctness project that makes no sense at any level.

 33        HMC (SS)         Retired

I served with the submarine force from 1957 until 1974. I feel that as long as a submarine is operating hot, straight and normal there would not be a problem with female crew members. But on the numerous occasions when it is not operating hot, straight and normal then female crew members would be a danger to the submarine and fellow crew members

 34        TMCM (SS)      Retired

I have served aboard ships and shore duty stations with women. They are just as good most times in their jobs as men. However, I have seen firsthand the loss of unit cohesion and readiness to fight because of the ramifications of serving in mixed units. Men and women will always relate to each other as men and women have all throughout the ages. When a man is too busy thinking about the safety and well being of the females he serves with, then mission readiness takes the backseat. In my career, I have seen too many sailors romantically involved with the sailors in his or her unit. This includes Seaman to Admirals. Far too many careers are ruined so we can be politically correct, and this leads to the loss of many otherwise, good men, who are for whatever reason, unable to fight thousands of years of nature. For someone to say otherwise is not being true to himself/herself, and pandering to the demands of some politician with an agenda that hasn’t anything to do with common sense.

 35        E-5       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 36        OS1 (SS/SW)                Retired

It is not a good plan, period!

 37        E-9       Retired

I do not think we should placate the politically correct crowd. The only reason that many senior officers think this is a good idea is that they are only interested in getting a star and not the best interest in the Navy. The real problem is that the Senate must approved officer promotions. We all know they are pushing this folly.

 38        Spouse

Opposed to women in submarines.

 39        E-6       Former Active Duty

Having women on submarines would greatly complicate the mission. The submarine community is a tight knit, due to common experience and bonding. This would complicate all of this.

 40        Spouse of E-6

I personally think that women should not be on subs. There are too many reasons for my opinion. One being- Where are we getting the money for this? As a country we are broke. Why don’t we just wait until we are more stable to do this? Another being- Has anyone done any testing to see if the recycled air or anything else can harm a developing fetus? Thirdly- This is just going to make the divorce rate in the navy higher. I could definitely go on and on.

 41        Former spouse

As a former military wife, I have seen firsthand destruction to families that women and men in the military can do. My ex-husband spent about 4 years on submarines before being transferred to a surface ship. I would hear stories of how the girls would throw themselves at the men, regardless if they were married or not. There was so much infidelity, on the part of both sexes, on surface ships. Submarines are much closer quarters and all it takes is one false allegation against a man, and his career can be over. Women do not belong on submarines, period!!!

 42        E-3       Active Duty

It’s not a sexist thing…it’s just not a good idea… at all.

 43        CTM1              Retired

Opposed. Former USN CTM1 DirSup Submarines.

 44        Spouse of SS

My husband was on naval subs for 10 years I am a former Navy wife. I am all for women getting every chance as men have but there are just some places women do not belong.

 45        CWO3 Retired

Twenty-one years active service. I think that submarines are not an area for social experimentation. Safety standards would be compromised.

 46        Spouse

There is no need for them to be there. It’s always been a man thing, keep it a man thing.

 47        MT2     Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 48        E-5       Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 49        E-6       Active Duty

This is absolutely a bad idea. I will, unquestionably, leave the submarine service. The stress of this added problem is not fair to our family members, as they already are forced to worry enough. Leave them on the surface where rack filling billeting is adequate. What will happen when we lose a submarine due to tired personnel due to under manning. Don’t have the blood on your hands. This WILL NOT up our manning in the long run (unless we have fully integrated berthing). Please look long and hard at this situation before you agree.

 50        E-6       Former Active Duty

I made 4 Spec Op deployments and for someone that rode submarines but was never stationed aboard one, I feel that having to divide the facilities would put too much of a strain on the crew.

51        MM1 (SS)        Retired

Having served 20 years in the submarine community, in tight quarters it is my opinion that submarines are not designed to accommodate women. The logistics of carrying female crew members will put a strain on the already cramped quarters. There is no logical way to segregate living quarters or accommodations for the head! Then there is the issue of nuclear power and possible pregnancy; all members of the crew are required to go all over the submarine, for qualifications and drills, not to mention an honest to god emergency. This idea has been broached numerous times; the last time I was still on active duty. It appears to me that this is more an issue of political correctness. There is no politically correct way for me to state my stand; women do not belong on submarines! A-gang

 52        Spouse

Opposed to women in submarines.

 53        MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

I served onboard U.S.S. Tecumseh (SSBN 628) for over 5 years from 1982-1987. Based upon my experience onboard this closed and close-knit environment, I am WHOLEHEARTEDLY OPPOSED TO WOMEN SERVING ONBOARD SUBMARINES!

 54        E-6       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women on board submarines. Served on USS Barb (SSN596) and USS Michigan (SSBN727B)

 55        E-6       Former Active Duty

For more reasons than I can list, this is just a bad idea. The consequences far outweigh the benefits.

 56        E-7       Retired

Opposed to women in submarines.

 57        CS3 (SS)           Former Active Duty

This policy shift has once and for all put to rest any of the regrets I had about leaving the Submarine Service.

 58        ETN2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

I have written my congressman twice on this issue. I served on USS Guardfish (SSN-612) and USS Dace (SSN-607)

 59        E-4       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 60        RMCM (SS)      Retired

Opposed to women in submarines.

61        E-4       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

62        E-5       Former Active Duty

ET/ Submarine duty 1999-2004. Unless there is an all woman crew, individual women will only cost the Navy billions of dollars of wasted tax funding. This money will strike us all hard from integrating separate (bathrooms) heads, sexual harassment/hazing complaints, and injuries due to inability to carrying heavy equipment (such as portable submersible pumps) in a time of emergency, drills, or high-stress flooding/collision emergencies. Other concerns should be assessed prior to jumping into feminist ideologies and put into law. Such situations should be made aware of: hot-racking and forcing woman to sleep in underwear and bras, a requirement for all sailors onboard submarines to prevent bacterial infections and strong odors in close quarters. Atmosphere monitoring equipment is not efficient enough to detect the trace elements of recycled air that can affect unborn babies; calling for costly helo-evacuations (helicopter) for pregnancies or minimizing crews prior to a mission or underway due to pregnancies… too many issues… have an all woman crew

 63        E-6       Active Duty

Opposed. Comment not published at request of author.

 64        Mother and ex-spouse

There is not enough room on a sub for the men that are on there. To add women would take critical space and cause more problems and expense than is necessary. I am the mother of a retired submariner (23) yrs and x-wife of a retired sailor. Believe me I have heard over and over again, the problems of refitting to make room. Surface ships OK maybe, more room; but a sub doesn’t have precious space to spare. Thank you for listening.

 65        Spouse of E-6

I don’t think having women in subs is a great idea; they are sufficient the way they are.

 66        Concerned Citizen

Opposed to women in submarines.

 67        ET1      Former            Active Duty

Opposed to women on board submarines. Served on USS Whale (SSN 638) 1982-1986 USS La Jolla (SSN 701) 1992-1995

 68        E-5       Active Duty

The numbers and manning alone make this obvious to me. There are not enough berthing areas – the women are going to need their own berthing. If there are less than 9 women in a 9 person berthing area then the amount of extra bunks is how many more people that have to hot rack. For every 1 rack that is left empty 3 men will have to “hot rack”. You can’t man a submarine to ever fit the numbers for berthing. Heads – women would also need their own head. The enlisted part of the crew only have 2 heads for about 120 people. If you take one of those heads away from the rest of the crew then that leaves 3 stalls, 1 urinal and 2 showers for the men which due to berthing… I would assume 90-100 men. Manning – I assume that females are going to start off on SSBN’s which are undermanned in about every division (in Bangor, WA at least). If a woman got pregnant she would have to miss at least 1 underway which for most divisions would put everyone on port & starboard watches or the division would not be able to support the underway without pulling someone off of the other crew or off of another ship which is unacceptable that men would have to suffer at going out to sea 3 deployments in a row to support a pregnancy. I’m sure this one wouldn’t happen all the time but it will happen, and again, that is unacceptable. Medically – I’m not strong on this one but it’s important to be discussed between people who would know. If a woman was unaware of being pregnant before she went underway or on deployment are submarines capable of carrying the medical equipment in case of complications? If not I assume that the submarine would have to pull in or pull off station to get her medevacd. If we are not capable of carrying the proper medical equipment then that alone should void women from being on submarines. I think that women should have to chance to pursue any career path that they want or can accomplish as long as it doesn’t and will never compromise national security. If a submarine has to ever pull off station then the problem needs to be eradicated. I believe that if women were to be required to be on birth control that alone would eliminate a lot of the problems with women but not all of them. It is plain and simple; submarines do not have the space for women.

 69        MM2   Former Active Duty

The Navy should be concentrating on current repair, maintenance, and modification budgets for the submarine force before taking on new ones for the sake of social engineering.

 70        IC1 (SS)            Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 71        E-5       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 72        Dependent

I have been a dependent of a member of the submarine community my whole life… I whole-heartedly believe that women have NO business on submarines!!!!

 73        Spouse

Thanks for taking the time to get this petition underway. I am a spouse – my husband is aboard the USS [redacted for privacy] SSBN [redacted for privacy]. (That also makes me a “dependent.”)

 74        E-4       Active Duty

Women DO NOT belong in subs PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Machinist mates do not have time to unclog toilets every time one of them decides to throw a tampon or pad down the toilet. Nor is the air they breathe made for Victoria secret and her perfumes. Watches don’t have potty breaks every 30 minutes. Subs don’t have the room to waste because they want to put 4 females in a 12 man bunk room. There is so much more I just don’t feel like listing them. It is a waste of time, money, and I hope they are ready to deal with all the captain’s masts they are going to have. My main concern is the morale of the crew. Boys are going to be boys, and that’s what keeps them sane underwater for months at a time. Now they have to watch what they say, what they do, long traditions have to be put to a stop because harassment charges might arise due to females being so sensitive. Now what about female special needs? During that time of the month are they going to have hazardous waste cans? Or are they going to have A-gang working twice as hard, pumping feminine products out of the tanks every time it gets clogged up. Doctors/OBG? What about the jobs they can’t perform because of exposure to radiation… are going to play favoritism because they are a female? Let’s not mention the fact that the navy already has a high rate of divorce and you are going to stick females in a tin can with over 70 males, and you expect one of them not to become pregnant. And then you come across the ones that they want to get all pretty and spray perfume not caring that the air they breathe is made and recycled. I believe it is a waste of time and money. Instead of making it a better navy they are risking having a less sailors wanting to become a submariner. I AM TOTALLY AGAINST IT!!

 75        STS2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Women on submarines will vacuum up fun faster than a chief. I’m so glad I am not in the navy now. Please don’t call me or email me.

 76        MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

I foresee this going completely wrong. Logistically there is no way this will work on a fast attack, due to a few reasons:

• The san system cannot handle any woman’s monthly stuff. Unless she is willing to fix the sh*t pump every watch.
• When on station you can’t shoot trash and putting it in the engine room where lower level watches have to crawl over it hourly and that is unsanitary.
• Most divisions are already undermanned; what happens if she gets pregnant? By naval regulations she cannot be around the reactor, so does that mean she get an automatic out every deployment or are you going to pull off station to get her off the boat?
• She will act like she has something to prove and ANY man wearing fish knows that will get you NOWHERE in the sub community.
• Women are NOT held to the same physical standards and men (see the PRT/PFA rules).
• 4 stalls and 3 showers to 90 men, there is NO room for special needs and privacy.
• Hot rack anyone? My last cruise all E-5 and some E6’s and below hot racked. Out of the three berthing areas there is no place they can have privacy.
• If she is an officer she will cry foul once her on-board training begins. However in reality she will be treated nicer than any other NUB in history. I once trained a J.O. at a training command who made the comment that “enlisted have no idea what they are doing,” I and 20 others of my crew had to explain myself to the captain, the XO, and CMC why we treated her so harshly. In reality we treated her no different than the rest of the students. After our OO tried to set her straight she cried foul that it was because she was a woman. Our stance was that it was because she failed to listen to us and did not actually put forth the effort to pass the requirements demanded by NR.

Former MLPO of M-Div aboard USS Key West SSN 722

77        ET2 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Having served on a submarine while a woman was on board, and for 9 days only during sea trials, I can say that the impact to typical behavior is pretty large. The lack of political correctness and a skewed sense of humor in our daily routing is the only thing to break the monotony of submarine life. With woman around that all goes away. It’s these little breaks that make the duty bearable. With women around, gone are the fun halfway nights, tube girls and I can only imagine how bland my shellback would have been had women been on the boat.

 78        Family Member

I’m a concerned citizen for one, and for another, I am the daughter, sister, granddaughter, and sister-in-law of Navy men, and my brother-in-law works on a nuclear submarine. He’s stationed out of Florida right now, and we’ve been talking about this issue for a while.

 79        Concerned Citizen

Opposed to women in submarines.

 80        Proud mother of a submariner

Although women would do well at some submarine tasks, I believe they cannot do well at all submarine tasks. In such a small community, it is imperative that each submariner be able to do all tasks at any time. The cost to the American taxpayer would be huge, and in these very difficult times our country does not need the added financial burden simply to be politically correct. For instance, overhauling the subs’ plumbing is one issue that immediately comes to mind. Common sense says “no”.

 81        ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Opposed to women on board submarines. Six year enlisted, Navigation ET, USS Tecumseh SSBN 628.

 82        Spouse of E-7

My husband has served 20 years on submarines. He is always saying how every person is important and a lot of times the command cannot afford to let personnel stay behind. This is so they can man the required watch bill. If a woman is stationed onboard a submarine and gets pregnant prior to a deployment, they have to be left behind, with the low crew manning and the nature of the job, this would put an undue strain of the watch bills. There is no replacement being brought in for that woman. In addition rack spacing onboard the current in service fast attack submarines is at a premium. (I do not know about a Virginia, but on a LA I do know). If 2 enlisted women are assigned to the ship, the smallest berthing is a 9 man berthing for enlisted; there are now 7 racks that cannot be used for the male crew members, forcing the COB to hot rack more people than he normally would have to. Hot racking is a fact of life onboard a submarine, but as you grow in rank, you earn the right to have your own rack. That would be removing a quality of life perk for the crew. There is a lot of talk about how this works for other navies around the world. The navies that do integrate women and men on submarines operate small coastal diesel electric submarines that only operate for a couple of weeks and not months like our boats do. They are also from more sexual liberated cultures and do not segregate the berthings. All and all, I believe it is a very bad idea and bound to cause more problems than it is worth.

 83        E-5 and grandfather of submariner

I have a grandson in the sub force and he is also opposed to women serving on boats. Will be bad for everyone including the women

 84        E-6       Active Duty

I have been in the submarine service for my entire navy career, and I have worked with many women throughout my time at the shipyard. I have had several conversations with other female shipyard workers and they cannot understand how us men survive in such tight quarters, let alone how a woman could survive it. The living areas are extremely cramped, hygiene is poor at best (with only 5 showers to be used by the entire enlisted and commissioned crew on most submarines), and it is an environment full of emotional hurdles. We submariners must maintain a tight knit personal relationship with one another to survive. We survive by maintaining a close brotherhood relationship with one another. We have enough problems without bringing sexual tension into the mix. It can easily segregate the crew which could have catastrophic consequences while working in such tight quarters. In regards to hygiene, we must be able to survive for sometimes weeks at a time without showers or laundry facilities. I have had to do it on multiple occasions due to losing the ability to purify water. This type of a situation can cause many health issues in the anatomy of a woman. If health issues did arise, we have limited medical care while out to sea. There is also the worry of pregnancy, which is going to be difficult to avoid when considering the crew is 140 men with only a few women in such tight quarters. When considering that we work in the deepest, most dangerous environments in the world, the ability to transport someone off of the boat in the event of a medical emergency is extremely difficult at best. In closing, I do not agree with having women serve on submarines. It is not due to me feeling men are better at anything then women, but rather because this job is not a healthy, thriving atmosphere for women to work. I fully support women in our navy, but just not in these circumstances. Thank you very much for taking the time to read my thoughts. I fully support this petition and hope this helps you.”

 85        Spouse of E-2

Women should not be allowed on a submarine. They have mood swings and then there is there monthly problem that will make them complain and there is no telling that they would sneak around with the guys and mess around. I just don’t approve at all and it’s just not right at all. As a woman I know how they think and everything and I don’t want that.

 86        ENCS (SS)         Retired

Opposed to women on board submarines.

 87        Spouse

Having been a Navy brat for 17 years and now a Navy wife for 14 years, I do not see the integration of women in the Navy having gone at all well. My mother and father both retired from the Navy and both will tell you it is not easy on women in general. Women on subs is going to complicate the men’s morale while away from their spouses due to the nature of their activities while away! It will prohibit them from having the “open air” while underway to conduct themselves as men do without women around. People who are oblivious to what happens during underways and patrols need to know how it will affect the morale of our men!!

88        Proud Navy mom

Closing men and women up in a small space for an extended period of time can only lead to problems.

 89        E-3       Former Active Duty

I am prior service, not retired and I was a submariner. I am completely against females on subs; there’s just not enough room for them on board.

 90        STS2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

I got out after 5 years of Sub service, I loved being on the boat. I think it is a logistical and probably a tactical/strategic nightmare to think about females on subs.

 91        Superseded by comment # 523

 92        E-4       Active Duty

The only thing I see in letting women on the same submarines as men is a series of sexual harassment suits and charges waiting to be filed

 93        Spouse of E-4

Opposed to women in submarines.

 94        Superseded by comment # 317

 95        Spouse

I honestly think that having females on subs would cause issues among the crew. They’ll be a distraction in general which our boys do not need. Why add problems to the underway/deployment if we don’t need to?

 96        E-7       Retired

Opposed to women in submarines.

 97        MMCS (SS)      Retired

Living conditions aboard submarine are too crazy as it is with an all male crew. With VIP/Squadron riders aboard, we have had to hot-rack all E6 and junior personnel. How does female berthing help that situation? Heads? Sanitation? I am willing to work with anyone, regardless of race creed gender, etc, as long as they can do their job, and carry their weight. I am positive that there are many women that can do better than the guys, and I respect that. I just truly believe that the living conditions and logistics make for a poor situation to become intolerable. V/R CMM

98        FT3 (SS)           Retired

Putting a woman on a sub will lead to the same problems that surface boats have. There is no room for error on a sub.

 99        E-5       Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 100      ENS (LDO)                   Retired

Please of all things that are political do not put women on subs. It is not a matter of them not being able to do it but does it really make sense. Plus the DOD failed to look at how many submariners will leave the Navy if women are allowed onboard. Please stop this madness.

 101      MM1   Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 103      ICC (SS)            Retired

I do not mean to be rude or offend anyone, however, comma, they put females on submarines and they will be heterosexual SEX on submarines. There all ready is homosexual SEX on the boats. This will be proven just like it was on the surface ships. I base this on 24 years of naval experience, both at sea and ashore. I believe in my darkest heart of hearts, that the mistake that has now been made by putting females on submarines will not be corrected until blood has been shed. I have talked with Special Forces Operators who did not want to be on subs, would druther have FEMALES in their teams than be on subs, would druther they put females ON the SF teams than put them on subs. The number one, biggest, reason is SEX. Somebody is going to get some, somebody else is not going to like it, because he ain’t getting any, and there is going to be a physical fight about the SEX that the person is not getting and the OTHER person is. As long as it was homosexual relationships on the boats nobody cared (much). But now, you can smell them, eat with them, watch them work out, I am GLAD as hell that I don’t have a gang anymore and I don’t have to try this “new” leadership style out. I would “literally” have to bust one of my “boys” in the “head” to calm him down. Been there, done that. Good Luck. I was on a boat, and we were somewhere we were not supposed to be and if we were found, it would have been DENIED that it was us that was there. One of our sailors “lost” it for lack of a better term. The command’s solution to the problem was to “lash” (tie) him in his rack on a morphine drip, with a round the clock “watch” to make sure he “didn’t hurt himself” i.e. get away, and the POLITICIANS want to put females in that kind of environment? I still think the dependents don’t know about this or they would be raising Holy Hell.

 104      ET2 (SS)           Retired

Opposed to women in submarines. Qualified aboard USS Norfolk (SSN-714).

 105      E-6       Former Active Duty

Sub Vet in total opposition!!!

 106      Spouse of E-6

I am all for equality; however, I do not see how this would work and think it is a terrible idea.

107      E-5       Former Active Duty

Submarine life is hard enough without putting females on board that may just do it to prove that they can. I was on submarines from 1991 to 1999.

108      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Separated from active duty honorably in November 2008 but I miss every minute that I am not at sea. Men have done an excellent job protecting the deep and that does not need to change so that an admiral who is more of a politician than a sailor can make a statement and advance his career. If women cannot serve at the front lines of battle than why would we put them in an environment that is just as dangerous even when we are not at war? Let the men do what they have always done and keep tradition intact.

 109      MM3 (SS)        Former Active Duty

Nuclear trained personnel. Disabled vet, honorable discharge Sept 97.

 110      O-3      Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 111      E-5       Former Active Duty

I spent 5 years active duty as a Navigation ET on a submarine.

 112      E-5       Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 113      E-6       Former Active Duty

Veteran, the space is too tight, and I don’t think it will enhance crew ability or morale.

 114      E-5       Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 115      E-6       Retired

Opposed to women in submarines.

 116      CDR     Retired

Expensive experiment in political correctness.

 117      Concerned Citizen

Common sense tells us that a sub full of male sailors with a few females just isn’t a good idea. I am all for equal opportunity of women serving our country but the safety and welfare of all involved needs to be considered.

 118      E-5       Retired

No women! We signed up for subs to get away from them in the first place!

119      MM2 (SS)        Former Active Duty

I served onboard USS Andrew Jackson SSBN 619 from 86-89 and the USS Nevada SSBN 733 from 89-91.This is a very bad idea that opens the Navy and its different sea going commands to a host of problems from berthing to showering to recreational issues not to mention stores loads, lack of sleep, medical problems, male / female relational issues, just to name a few… who ever thought this one up needs to be locked up and the key thrown away!

 120      Spouse

Opposed to women in submarines.

 121      LS1 (SS)            Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 122      ET2 (SS)           Former Active Duty

I served from 1999-2004. I was attached to the USS Seawolf (SSN-21). I am opposed to women serving on submarines. Mission readiness and attention to the mission would suffer from this.

 123      LT         Retired

To me, women on submarines makes absolutely no sense. With the physical space available on boats, there is barely enough room for a bunch of men to live in close quarters. Putting women in that environment, in my opinion, is a time bomb waiting to go off.

 124      MMCM (SS)    Retired

I was COB on 2 subs – can’t imagine the nightmare this will cause.

 125      CDR     Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 126      E-4       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 127      Concerned Citizen

I do not think women should have to deal with pressures like that. Hormones and personal hygiene becomes an issue.

 128      E-5       Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 129      MM2 (SS)        Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Decommissioning crewmember USS Queenfish (SSN-651).

 130      Other Family Member

It is a very bad idea, how are the men suppose to pass the women without touching their chest and being charged with sexual harassment?!

 131      Spouse

STOP TRYING TO FIX SOMETHING THAT’S NOT BROKEN!

 132      ETC (SS)           Retired

Twenty year career, 13 years sea time on three 688 fast attacks.

 133      E-6       Retired

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 134      FT2 (SS)           Former Active Duty

I was on the USS Virginia and I’m no longer in the Navy so this won’t affect me but I still think it is a bad idea. There is not enough space on a submarine to separate men and women fairly according to rank like it is now. After months at sea how could you expect sex not to eventually happen? Then you have the risks of pregnancies on a submarine at sea. They could be 4 or 5 months pregnant or possibly more by the time they returned.

 135      Spouse

Opposed to women in submarines.

 136      FT2 (SS/AW)     Former Active Duty

I served in this GREAT nation’s Navy from 95-06′. My experiences on board both classes of submarine (USS Maine SSBN 741 / USS Memphis SSN 691) were challenging none the less. Neither class is suitable to bring women into; with that kind of environment. Coed living would do more harm than good during underways and/or deployments.

 137      ETCS (SS/SW)  Retired

My main concerns are:

• Pregnancy, whether planned, unplanned, known, or unknown
• Mixed-gender social-psychological aspect
• Difference in body structures between men and women and implications for duty on board submarine.

More information at my website.

 138      RMCS (SS)                   Retired

I consider myself a person of equality however I think there are certain things that are just wrong. Women on submarines is one of those things. It has nothing to do with their capabilities; I just believe it will make for trouble. I am now a Licensed Professional Counselor and believe I am somewhat enlightened but this is just wrong. IF IT SHOULD HAPPEN, then please, by all means do not have women aboard fast attack submarines. I can see where a case can be made for placing women on boomers where it would be able to be more controlled. However, as a retired Chief of the Boat (COB) of a fast attack submarine it would just cause too many problems and ultimately I believe it’s a safety issue. There is little room for error onboard fast attack submarines and just the possibility of adding another dimension of problems, for me, that’s enough to SAY NO TO WOMEN ON SUBMARINES.

139      QM3 (SS)         Former Active Duty

While I know the new boats are much larger than the old pigboat I served on (USS Bream SS 243) there are still tight spaces and close living/working conditions to contend with. Submarines are no place to mix the sexes especially on long patrols. There goes the esprit de corps if it happens. I’m just glad I was in the Navy when I was – mid 1960’s.

 140      QM2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

All I can say is whoever it was that came up with this idea, was smoking crack. Surface ships are a completely different story. I have no issue with the intellect required or physical requirements. Women will have not issues there. Who was it that did not understand human nature?

 141      Spouse

I am very against this but do not want to put my husband’s career in jeopardy so if you need my name that is fine but I do not want to get him in trouble. So maybe my first name only? I have been a submariner wife for 12 years and I think this idea is a very bad one and for so many reasons. I won’t go into all the details for my reasons as it would be very lengthy and I know my views are the same as so many others… the cost, space, privacy, pregnancy and leaving a crew shorthanded, physically capability, being locked in a tube for months on end with no outside communication, submariners being forced to change the way they cope with deployment to prevent sexual harassment… I could go on and on! As a wife, the patrols are already very difficult and this is just going to make it that much harder…divorces are already high in the military but I am sure this will add many more. Just more stress added to an even more stressful situation for the sailor and the spouse. We are now rethinking staying in if this happens. He is committed to 16 yrs and was planning on doing 20 but maybe not if this goes through… just wondering how many others they will lose.

 142      E-5       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 143      EM1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Only release name, state, and comments. Females in close quarters working environment with young male servicemen is a distraction and an accident waiting to happen. Accidents on submerged submarines must be avoided at all cost. Submarine staffing and politics should be treated the same as church and state.

 144      MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

I think that any well trained person is capable of conducting submarine operations. The fact is that young men and women in the service will find ways to become intimate and a wide variety of issues can and have resulted from that. Pregnancy, jealousy and distraction; there is no place for that on a submarine where constant vigilance and attention to detail is required. Perhaps a better trial would be to have an all woman crew on a sub and evaluate their performance. I would hope they do very well. Submarines are not a platform for social or political experiments.

145      LCDR   Retired

I spent 22 years in the submarine service while serving on diesel boats, submarine tenders, shipyards, and nuclear powered boats. I do not believe that women should serve on submarines, due to close quarters, long duration, new medical issues, and additional problems with family life.

146      ETCS (SS)         Retired

Opposed to women in submarines. 26 deterrent patrols.

 147      FTG3 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Served onboard USS. G.W. Carver (Blue) 1984-1987. In addition to your opinion, 90% of the behavior exhibited by the crew would be considered sexual harassment by the opposite sex and the rest of the P.C. world.

148      Family Member

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 149      STS2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

You may release my name and highest rate. The military has done enough social experimentation with the various services. In case none of the higher ups have noticed, there is a physical, mental, and attitudinal difference between men and women. Life on a boat is stressful enough without the added strain from the opposite sex being in such close proximity. Back in the 60’s and 70’s the divorce rate was high enough. Can you imagine what it would be like returning after deployment with women on board?

 150      Concerned Citizen

Opposed to women in submarines.

 151      STS3 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 152      Spouse

I would love to know how they’re going to accommodate for the much needed sanitary items. What about when the woman gets pregnant?

 153      E-4       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 154      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

There is no way women on subs will work in the current configuration. Also with the small crews you cannot afford people not shipping out due to pregnancy.

 155      E-5       Former Active Duty

I don’t believe that women on submarines is a feasible operation. After several months at sea in close quarters there is a growing attraction for the opposite sex and things will happen. I don’t believe the wives of male crew members will stand for this. The other big issue with this proposal is what happens with a pregnant woman who cannot make a patrol or cannot complete a patrol. On surface ships, they can be airlifted or taken into port, but by the nature of the submarine force’s operation they cannot or should not break silence or give away their position during their deployment.

 156      E-5       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 157      HMC (SS)         Retired

This decision has to be politically motivated; it can’t be based on facts. Or is the decision maker just self serving? He certainly can’t be basing this on GOOD OF THE SERVICE. Average age (on the boats) hasn’t changed since the 70s. Hormones will rule the 20 year old male/female. Having lived it for ten years I understand it better that any skimmer. Be wise enough to listen to those that have lived in a tube for months on end.

 158      STS2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

I spent 9 years in the submarine force and in that time during 1 cruise we had 2 females onboard. The inconvenience due to lack of space and facilities is not worth it. I understand that what I went thru was an inconvenience for a few days, not permanent. To permanently put women on submarines would make crew morale drop in my opinion. Also I think there is a certain amount of stress in being underway on a submarine that not all women can handle, some women could but I know for fact that the schools don’t test stress limits, and finding out who can and can’t handle after the boat has left port is the wrong time. Thanks for letting me vote.

 159      ETCM (SS)                   Retired

24 years as a submariner serving on several boats. I served on submarine tender with women aboard. Seems the most obvious issue is berthing and bathroom concerns. This, in my opinion, is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. The greater issues are the fact that women do not have the physical strength that men do. Can a woman open a main steam valve or other large valves? I cannot see a woman wearing an OBA and carrying a fire hose to lower level engine room, let alone being the nozzle man. The medical issue is one of great importance. What about the woman who, days before a deployment, finds out she is pregnant and can’t go. Which male submariner will “get screwed” with back-to-back deployments? Another large issue is relationships. If a major casualty occurs is a guy going to be more concerned about his girlfriend than dong what is necessary?

 160      FT3 (SS)           Former Active Duty

I served aboard the USS Cobbler (SS-344) from Jan. 1949 to June 1952. The close quarters, days at sea, etc. would not have been conducive to good relations with shipmates if we had brought a few women on board. It is a ridiculous idea.

 161      ETN2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

162      Spouse

My husband is on a sub. As much as I’m for women rights, and the progression of women, the thought of women being on a sub with men is just irresponsible. Did anyone consider the ramifications; lawsuits, pregnancy, and sexual harassment to name a few? I think the thought of women on subs hasn’t been thought through, and needs more time really considering if it’s worth the trouble

163      MM2 (SS)        Former Active Duty

The military is not the place for social engineering, especially on a submarine.

 164      Spouse

Women need to stay where they belong… not on submarines!!! They won’t be able to hack it! It is difficult on the guys as is… women are too emotional!! My husband is on a submarine in charge of a lot of people. This would create a lot of problems for him and his sailors! These women are freaking nuts! Anyway we all know if they don’t like it they will just get pregnant to avoid sea so other people can do their job!

 165      SK2 (SS)           Former Active Duty

I was qualified (SS) on a new-construction fast attack, SSN 661, out of Norfolk, Va. in the late 1960’s. This was at the height of the COLD WAR. I see no purpose for the United States Navy to now try WOMEN crew members on submarines for what amounts only to “political correctness”. What is the point?? Is it not enough that we (the US Navy) have the absolutely BEST submarine force in the world, and have for the last 60 plus years? What, can a female crew improve on this record? It makes no sense. Thank you.

 166      E-7       Retired

Women are not suited for submarine lifestyle. I’m not saying they can’t do the job. If they want to go to sea in a submarine, put them all on one by themselves. The wives of sub riders have enough to worry about. The $$$ it will cost to make a boat coed is staggering and a waste of money.

 167      MM2 (SS)        Former Active Duty

I am all for equality in the workplace, but the submarine environment is impossible for co-habitation. Maintaining safety will be compromised. There is no place on a sub for protecting a woman’s privacy. Please reconsider this political issue so not to compromise the safety of our submarine crews. Their jobs are difficult enough.

 168      MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

This is yet again politicians meddling in what is none of their affair. They cannot even do their own jobs correctly, so why should we expect them to be able to make decisions of a military nature?! It was interesting yesterday that Obama made the comment that Sarah Palin had no experience in nuclear strategy. Does he really think that a Harvard law degree qualifies him any more so? Signing away 1/3 of our nuclear warheads, when he has no sound way to determine compliance by the Russians, is in no manner what I consider a profound grasp of nuclear strategy!

169      MT2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

As a former qualified member of the USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN657), 1979-1981, I cannot see the feasibility of placing women on submarines. The question is not whether or not women are good enough to serve aboard subs, but whether subs are good enough for women. They are not, and neither is a foxhole for that matter. A submarine is a highly lethal weapon system, not a social experiment.

170      Concerned Citizen

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 171      FP3                  Former Active Duty

This also goes for sub tenders; there is no room for sex on a sub and if there is a woman onboard heads and thoughts will turn an away from the job at hand! I was a sub-tender; a pipefitter/welder on board USS Nereus (AS17) and there were no women here, or gays, just good men! And there were no sleeping rooms for women!

 172      STS1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

The idea of having both genders on submarines creates a new set of problems for an already difficult situation already. It poses a myriad of problems trying to cohabitate on surface ships already, and those same problems can be multiplied many times over on submarines where space is limited. This is not to mention the tension the wives would experience when their spouses deploy on patrol. My opinion is this is a very bad idea.

 173      STS2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 174      TMCS (SS)        Retired

It is inconceivable the powers-that-be in the Defense Dept do not understand nature. It doesn’t matter if the women are officer or enlisted, when at sea for extended periods of time, with mixed genders, nature will take its course. It is very close quarters in submarines and a simple thing as passing in passageways will invite unwanted contact. IT WILL HAPPEN, NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE DISCIPLINE. These people making the decisions need to do a 60-day patrol to understand how it works. They need to go through Qualification. Qualifications alone will promote opportunities for mixed genders. The other element I have not seen mentioned is the uprising of the wives of the married submariners. They will give their man a choice, to sea with women or your family. If this comes to pass, I predict in a short time there will be gross disqualification of men from submarines. And if that doesn’t work, they will leave the service at EAOS. And then add “Don’t ask, don’t tells,” and the water gets muddier. Retired Chief of Boat USS Daniel Boone SSBN 629 (G) 1972-1973

 175      RADM  Retired

Opposed to women in submarines. 20 years in attack submarines, 4 years in command, multiple deployments.

 176      E-5       Former Active Duty

The dynamic of having females on submarines has not changed, despite other countries that have recently adopted this measure. The fact remains that there will never be enough to volunteer to make a significant majority. Any less will cause “complications” of varying degrees, mental and physical pressures will only increase when they are admitted aboard.

177      E-5                   Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 178      MMCS (SS)      Retired

If you have never had to enter a sanitary tank to retrieve a woman’s feminine product you have not lived. The quarters on a boat are too confined and the submarine force does not need the issues that are all too common on surface craft. If anyone wants to verify this they can. What would happen if you had to shut a watertight door on a compartment that is flooding and your girlfriend is on the other side? Do you let the boat go down or dog (shut) the door?

 179      FTG1 (SS)         Former Active Duty

The very nature of submarine duty precludes women serving. In the heat of an emergency there have been times when men have had to fight casualties in their underwear. That is too much of a distraction.

 180      LT (MC), USN (R)         Former Active Duty

As a submarine Medical Officer for two years between 1964-66, I had the chance to see some of the stresses to which FBM crew members, officers and enlisted, are subjected. Given the tight confines of a submarine (diesel or nuclear), the stresses associated with gender differences, coupled with normal submarine operations could be dysfunctional. Men and women in a normal work environment have problems; no reason exists to add further to the stresses of a submarine patrol by placing women aboard.

 181      STS1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

I do not support women on submarines as it is a safety and security risk. Also, it is an opportunity for unsafe and unethical behavior.

 182      STS3     Active Duty

Women on submarines would hamper or way of life as submariners due to the fact it would discredit the dolphins. I believe this because women will say things like “he’s being too hard on me” or “he’s making me do these like clean the bilge and such because I’m a woman”. This will then make it easier for qualification check outs and then dolphins (submarine qualification) mean less and less over time.

 183      E-6       Active Duty

I am active duty Army but my fiancé was navy for quite some time. I most definitely disagree that with woman should be on submarines. Women do not have to prove they can do everything; this is embarrassing. Subs are for men. Why do women think that they can just go a ruin it for men? They like the fact that there are not women on them so they don’t have to deal with all the bullsh*t that women typically make men deal with and drive them crazy. Mood swings, periods, bitchiness, all these cannot be helped. Now men will on subs will have to keep comments to themselves. The underways will become even more intolerable and more negative incidents will occur. I could rant on this forever but I won’t. I will just say that I do not agree. This is complete horsesh*t. And whoever’s idea this was, you were probably were pressured by your wife or something… don’t deny it, a woman influenced you.

184      E-5       Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 185      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

I oppose this not because of the men’s club motto, but because of the operational duties of every submariner. The extra tax dollars that are going to be spent to ensure woman’s needs are met on a submarine are a complete WASTE! The people making these decisions have never been underway on a normal cruise or patrol. I spent 6 years on the USS Michigan and I’m not sure I would have made it that long with women on board.

 186      RM2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 187      E-7       Retired

Opposed to women in submarines.

 188      STS1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Submarine duty requires one’s full attention. Young males and females serving in such confined quarters is a recipe for disaster.

 189      Spouse of E-8

Opposed to women in submarines.

 190      E-4       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 191      ICC (SS)            Retired

I served on USS Nathan Hale (SSBN 623 Gold), Commander Submarine Squadron 18 SMMS/PMT Team, USS Nathan Hale (SSBN 623 Blue), and USS Tinosa (SSN 606). Our duties involved living submerged in a body-to-body environment where one wrong side step so as not to brush each other might result in hazarding the boat. The submarine crew works as one entity to perform the mission; there is no room for mixed sexes or emotions or extra baggage. I can just imagine what would happen on a stores load out, halfway night or all of the other traditions of the submarine force that breaks the tension of being confined and deployed. I cannot imagine a female sailor climbing into the Bilge Collecting tank at sea. I hope I do not learn this will even be an experiment. I take my membership in the Fraternal Order of the Submariner very serious and I do not wish to share it.

 192      Spouse

No name, email, or telephone please. As a spouse and a woman I say no to women on submarines!

 193      E-7       Retired

I joined the navy in 1956 and went aboard my first submarine, USS Razorback, in April 1958. I qualified in 1958 and rode the USS Catfish, USS Trigger, USS Salmon; all three I decommissioned. I commissioned the fast attack USS Barb (SSN-596) in 1963 and retired January 1978. I believe there is no place for women on submarines. Thank you.

 194      MT1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 195      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

The people involved in making this decision should make one full patrol on a submarine first. I think that would be enough to cause them to change their minds. A submarine is not a surface ship. It is far more confined and you are more cut off from the outside world. This leads to a sort of surreal environment where I am afraid people would do things they normally would not do.

 196      EM2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

I served aboard the USS Jacksonville for about 5 years during an ERO in Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, ME. When we left the yards, we had several female shipyard workers that left with us for sea trials; it posed all sorts of logistical nightmares. We lost the lower level head so the women could have it, which made it nearly impossible during times like sanitation tank blows. Let me be clear, I am not opposed to women serving, not even on submarines, but we don’t follow the same form other nations have done to integrate women into their programs. Look at nations like Sweden, Germany, Canada; they all have women serving on subs. They also do much shorter deployments (Canada’s longest deployment when they met us in Norfolk in summer of 2007 was a 3 week mission). They don’t segregate their women, either; I watched a documentary on Swedish submarines and how their crews live, and the women and men that worked side by side in the tight submarine environment also berthed, bathed, and bathroomed side by side; no special staterooms or treatment. It is bad enough to give up everything you know to serve aboard a sub, but to lose even more because the Navy wants to impress the US public, 99% of which has never seen or served in a sub, it makes it even more unbearable for the current submariners. Attrition is at an all time high in the sub fleet, so if they want to allow women in, that’s fine, but don’t treat them any different. They wanted equal rights with us, so treat them equally. That is the only way the “Silent Service” will EVER respect women in their midst.

 197      Concerned Citizen

Opposed to women in submarines.

 198      Spouse of E-5

It’s just a disaster waiting to happen!

199      Spouse

I feel as a military spouse that women on subs is a bad idea. I know of many a female sailor that openly flirted with male sailors and when acted upon it turns into “he /she said”. Usually the male gets into trouble and the female gets a slap on the wrist, if any punishment. I do not want to think of a female trying to get people’s husbands or friends in trouble. Also if there is sex on the boat, which is bound to happen, what honor would the US Navy bestow on the first child born on a submarine? I have also known many a women who got pregnant just to skirt going on deployment. I think the military is not thinking straight. I say you want women on subs don’t do co-ed; do an all women sub.

 200      Concerned Citizen

Opposed to women in submarines. I am the daughter of a submariner who served on the U.S.S. Menhaden toward the end of WWII. More information on this issue is available at www.cmrlink.org.

 201      Family Member

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 202      E-5       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 203      E-5       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

 204      Airman Second, USAF Active Duty

I think that allowing women to serve aboard submarines will be one more step in undoing the greatest military in the world. It is tough enough on our men in the Navy to be separated from their wives without having women aboard to add to their frustration.

 205      Spouse

Women don’t belong on submarines for various reasons. They’d have to renovate all the subs which would take a lot of time and money, time I am not sure we have because of the gazillion wars we are in the midst of now. Money, HA! They are willing to pay for the woman to be trained on submarines, even the schools would have to follow suit and dump money into renovating barracks for woman as well as men. They will need a female doctor aboard to right? Certainly they would need extra training. Everything is fine the way it is; it’s not about woman on submarines anyways. It is the simple fact that woman want to have access to everywhere that men do. It’s also sad that woman don’t want to act like woman, but like men.

 206      Other Family Member

Women in submarines just doesn’t make sense. Submarines are built to accommodate only one gender not two.

 207      E-6       Retired

Just because you want to do something, or can do something, does not mean that you should. There are plenty of things I want to do, but I know that I should not for various reasons. Placing women on subs is asking for a multitude of problems. From berthing, to health, there are just too many issues that have to be addressed before any women can be assigned to a boat. Once all the major variables are discussed and addressed, I say the Navy and DOD need to slow down and seriously ask themselves if this is being done as a political agenda or because it is something that is needed. As far as I know, subs have not had a problem with manning or getting qualified men to volunteer for sub duty. Those men take pride in that they are part of a select few that have gone to subs, earned their fish (qualifications) and had great careers. Those far removed from the everyday sailor on the boats have to ask themselves that question and they need have an answer for another one… What will they do if a large percentage of sub sailors refuse to reenlist because of being forced to serve with women? I have no facts to back up that last question, but you have to at least consider that it is a possibility. WASHINGTON! Wake up and smell the coffee. Political will does not make military sense.

 208      O-2      Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 209      Spouse of E-5

I do not think it will work at all. The guys get in trouble for jacking off as it is. What in the heck will happen now? I do not like it at all

 210      Spouse

Opposed to women in submarines.

 211      E-5       Former Active Duty

If women are placed on submarines: We need to educate submarine personnel’s’ wives that most workplaces have women in the workplace (seems obvious, but submariners wives have had the single gender luxury for a long time–and hold on to this too tightly), and they need to get over their insecurities. I do not want women on submarines, but if the orders are issued to place them on the boats I would hope leadership does a better job with educating the spouses and family so the guys do not have the extra added stress from their spouses/family.

 212      E-5       Former Active Duty

The idea of serving on a submarine is great when you don’t know the extreme risks to health involved – that’s why it’s all-volunteer and considered hazardous duty. Also, most wives of submarine sailors have never been comfortable with the idea of females in numbers in such tight spaces. If they start putting females on subs, male sailors can always un-volunteer themselves real fast, forcing a major fleet resource problem. The Navy can only prolong transfers for so long – if someone doesn’t want to serve on a boat anymore, they don’t have the right to keep them from transferring. The likeliest scenario would be the backbone of the force, senior enlisteds, which would fundamentally cause an experience meltdown and a personnel crisis within the force itself that would take years to recover from, if it ever did.

 213      MM1   Former Active Duty

I feel my thoughts will just be an echo to the thousands of submariners who have already submitted their thoughts. I will say this though, if you want to put woman on submarines, give them their own submarine.

• Pregnancy issues compromising mission
• Women having extra health issues the one corpsman would not be prepared to handle.
• Sexual harassment issues stemming from both confined space problems and long deployments with no contact
• Spousal issues – The submarine force already has terrible divorce rates, this will only compound problems
• Damage control efforts – It’s not very PC to bring it up, but when every member of the submarine is an acting member of the damage control team I relied on my shipmates to be able to carry me out of a compartment when I am unconscious. Males and Females are just built different – I just don’t think most females would have the strength to perform this role adequately.
• Command culture – It’s the elephant in the corner of the room that no one wants to bring up out of fear of not being politically correct, but when I am locked in tube for 6 months at a time I don’t want to deal with sexual tension. Call it “boys will be boys”, but there is a certain mental health aspect to it.

 214      E-7       Retired

I think that this would cause more problems than it is worth. The chain of command already have enough problems keeping the boat operational than to throw this into the mix. I have been on four different classes of submarines and I believe that when they design a submarine for this I am all for it; but for the classes we have now this will cause more problems than the Department of Navy thinks.

 215      Spouse

I feel it is not the best thing for the morale. With the Navy trying to cut back on spending, how is a good thing?

 216      Spouse

I have a lot of strong feelings on this issue. It would take me an hour to type them all. It’s really not a good idea for a lot of reasons, and more than just the “I’m a spouse and I don’t want women on subs so my husband won’t be tempted” type deal. I have argued with people about this and done research and my thoughts and opinions will never change! Putting women on subs is a BAD idea!

 217      Spouse

These are tight quarters and men rotate sharing beds because it’s so small. I understand that right now it’s just the female officers, but that will turn into female enlisted soon enough. You are only asking for more issues of rape and women getting pregnant more than on any other ship. Our husbands would have to be so careful as to never be alone with a female because of the closeness/tight quarters of the sub. There’s a reason that you stopped allowing women on the subs more than 25 years ago. Don’t make a huge mistake of allowing women on subs just because society wants them there. There have to be some rules that are different in the military than in society… just like church and state. There are real reasons and concerns of why certain rules are in place. I am sorry if some people feel “it’s not fair” but that’s a huge safety concern. Not everything can be completely equal. In the end men and woman are different and each sex can’t do exactly what the other sex can do.

 218      Spouse & Former Active Duty

I believe that this is a safety, health, and morale issue. I am ALL for equality (believe me) but, it would make better sense to have an all female sub or none at all. We like to believe that all our servicemen and women do the right thing all the time and are always mature and motivated. I was there for 12 years, and they are not. Just like civilian life, we get some bad in with the good and I do not want to risk our reps with a bad decision. Please reconsider!

 219      QM2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

The submarine service is a highly physically and physiologically stressful and disciplined service. There is no room for the emotional roller coaster ride that women display during their natural biological functions. Emotions have no role in the decision making process of following the orders handed down the chain of command. Many of decisions that may be made on board, are done out of the need to survive, whether in combat or in an emergency situation. Further, the demands and inconveniences placed on the male crew of such a tight and enclosed environment far outweigh the political establishment’s needs to conduct such an unnecessary experiment. The military already has problems with so many women becoming pregnant that the Army has had to emplace harsh rules to curtail these issues. A submarine crew does not need the distractions during delicate operations that demand the 100% focus and attention required to complete the missions before them. As the parent of a daughter I would not recommend my daughter to become a member of the submarine force, though I have encouraged her to serve in the military.

 220      Spouse

I believe that allowing women on submarines would cause more harm than good. There would be a substantial amount of money needed to allow for the change in living quarters. The space on a submarine is already confined. I am also concerned for the well being of my husband. I know many active duty military women who use their gender as a tool to be discharged from the navy. For example, in close quarters it is impossible for the men to not rub up against or accidentally bump into other people on the submarine. If a woman decides to use an accidental touch against the man and complain, it would ruin his career. I know these are ‘what if’ situations, but my priority is to protect my husband and his career. I feel that it is irresponsible and unessential to allow women onto the United States Submarine fleet.

 221      Spouse of E-5

My husband is in the navy and serves on a sub. Having a women being in tight quarters on a sub isn’t a great idea because of the tight quarters. There are going to be sexual harassment issues, men feeling uncomfortable in their workplace, and not to mention, the wives of submariners are going to be worried if another woman is going to accuse our husbands of sexual harassment. I want my hubby going to work and feeling comfortable in his workplace and much more than that, I want peace of mind that something terrible won’t happen while he is at work. Not only all of the above mentioned, but subs are going to have to be redesigned to fit a woman’s needs. The sleeping quarters are going to have to be rearranged. Putting women on subs would be a huge risk to the navy and it would be a mistake. Not only that, but the navy is going to see a lot more sexual harassment cases than ever before. You put men and women together in tight quarters what do you think is going to happen?? Come on people there is a reason why women have been denied on subs for all these years.

222      Family Member of E-5

Submariners already have a stressful working environment in close quarters with other males. If you add females to this it will only create MORE issues and potential “sexual harassment” issues, “grievance reports” and impair the ability of the service members to operate to their best abilities. Everybody will be on edge, not to mention hormones will create more drama than imaginable, especially in CLOSE quarters. Logistically speaking, this is a BAD idea.

 223      E-5       Active Duty (was E-5, currently CW2 in Army)

I think that the unit cohesion will be destroyed if women will be put on subs. The morale of the crew will be next to follow. The close living conditions make for a breeding ground for sexual harassment cases. What is going to happen if I were to accidentally brush up against a woman’s breast while walking down a passageway too small for two people? It is not about woman’s rights, it just is not appropriate. Try doing a poll of sailor’s wives, see how they feel about it.

 224      E-7       Retired

All stores on a boat have to be loaded by hand. Cases of ribs weigh upwards of 65 pounds. The physical requirements during emergency situations such as carrying a male shipmate out of a compartment that is on fire and she weighs 135 lbs and she has to carry a male who could weigh up to 250 lbs. I think they could not only endanger their shipmate but they could become a part of the casualty themselves. There is no reason to have this scenario become a reality.

 225      Spouse

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 226      Spouse

I am concerned about the modifications that will be made to subs and the cost of doing just that. Also, I am concerned about the hazard of a women being exposed to radiation and the harm it could cause to an unborn fetus if she became pregnant onboard the submarine. The confined space would be an issue for passing in the hallways; you always seem to brush against someone and the possibility that could turn into a sexual harassment suit.

 227      Concerned Citizen

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 228      Spouse

In general, just a bad idea. You’ll have the same issues as surface ships. Pregnancy, rape (or accusations), ect. What about general hygiene? Do you plan to overhaul the layout of a submarine to accommodate female hygiene on subs? Disposal of waste products alone will be a big problem. What a waste of tax dollars!

 229      E-5       Active Duty

It simply will not work out. Submarining is a dangerous business which only submariners can make safe. A “brotherhood”… not brother and sisterhood. Women simply won’t be able to handle this life style. Some men can’t even handle it.

 230      Spouse

Putting women on subs will only make it more difficult for our service members to do their jobs effectively.

 231      Spouse

Women on surface ships have only caused problems. Women on subs will do the same. Our service members should not have to change the way they do things to accommodate women in a place where quarters are already cramped.

 232      MM2 (SS)        Former Active Duty

Females in the military are held to different standards of physical readiness than males. They can be slower, weaker, and have a higher body mass index. On a submarine we have limited numbers of sailors. Each and every one of us is trained to be a first responder to any casualty. A fire can fill the entire compartment with deadly smoke in seconds, not minutes. Flooding can sink the boat. I feel that if anything the Submarine Service should require more stringent requirements of physical readiness for its sailors, not lower ones. Allowing females onboard risks the life of everyone that is underway. If a surface ship is sunk most will survive; if a submarine is sunk, the chance of a complete loss of crew is very likely. I do not think that heightening the risk of loss of life, “safety of ship”, and mission readiness is worth any benefits that would come from the political correctness of allowing females onboard. Also the “Submarine Service” is an all volunteer service and we volunteer to live in substandard conditions that, if our prisoners were in, the ACLU would never allow it. If females are onboard, these conditions would become more limiting and we did not volunteer for that. There are only 2 crew heads onboard a SSBN and at times for maintenance one has to be secured, so this creates serious restrictions on the crew that would be intensified by the limitations that a co-ed crew would create. I could go on about other issues that I see as severe restrictions on the crew such as watch-standing limitations, not being able to enter areas of the boat that you need to because there could be females sleeping there; this jeopardizes the safety of all. And if females are ever put on SSN’s (fast attack submarines) what is going to happen when there is a female “torpedo-man of the watch” and her watch standing area includes the torpedo room berthing where up to 24 sailors sleep? SSBN’s are also a sought after and highly desired duty station for many submariners and there are limited numbers of sailors assigned to one. How is it equal treatment that 100% of females will be getting those orders? Females are a valuable part of the military and their service is equally appreciated. However submarines, due to the limitations created by the requirements of the construction of the boat and the inherent danger posed by being confined and isolate hundreds of feet below the surface, females would reduce the state of readiness. I would propose that the submarine service create higher standards for all submariners. Then if females are required to meet the new higher standards they would be as dependable as their male shipmates to save the life of another. Also as for heads (bathrooms) if they were to put in deck to overhead partitions in the stalls and the showers and females and males could use the same head (somehow) that would fix that problem. But if a small percentage of the crew gets one head and the majority of the crew has to share the other there will be problems. There are only 4 crew showers and if the handful of females get 2 of those and the males all have to share the other 2 how can there be a reasonable expectation of hygiene? And as for the “Goat Locker” (chief’s quarters) there is no way that it would be possible to have a non-co-ed berthing and head. And co-ed living conditions would be against most religious beliefs. So I do not see political correctness trumping “safety of ship”, risking lives, endangering mission readiness, disparitive treatment in the selection of orders, and complete religious disregard.

 233      Superseded by comment # 505

 234      CDR     Retired

As the former commanding officer of two submarines, I feel that the introduction of women into submarines promises no increase in our ability to fight and win wars, to carry out the missions normally assigned to submarines in peacetime on the verge of war, nor any other task assigned to submarines. People in submarines live in an environment where privacy is virtually unattainable and where physical contact is inevitable. This will lead not only to problems of a sexual nature, but also, in our currently litigious society, to an endless series of harassment complaints. These alone will destroy the mutual trust and confidence which is at the heart of submarine life.

 235      LT         Former Active Duty

Women on subs – not functional at all due to emotional make-up and finances.

 236      CAPT    Retired

I commanded 2 submarines. There is nothing to be gained by placing women as crew members. On the other hand, more issues than I care to mention will develop. Why do it?

 237      Superseded by comment # 504

 238      LCDR   Retired

Congressional stupidity abounds! Cost of privatizing a submarine for separation of sexes far outweighs the political correctness. Perhaps even a bigger problem is the fact that submarines depend on Corpsmen who are not qualified to handle female medical issues. The whole idea of women in the confined spaces of submarines is crazy!

239      LT         Former Active Duty

As an ex-submariner, I find that women on board subs have numerous concerns that appear not to be addressed.

• Sub atmospheric conditions affects on women.
• Cost is prohibitive, as the government is broke already.
• Back in the day, sub missions for long periods of time without direct communication with family members led to numerous extra marital affairs and family breakups. Adding women to the ship on extended deployment would be further aggravating these problems especially for wives left at home.

 240      Other Family Member

Allowing women on submarines is only asking for more trouble. There have been too many incidents of fraternization in the recent past. There are too close quarters on a submarine.

241      CAPT    Retired

Having had command of a Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine and having served in both fast attacks and other missile boats, I believe that this decision would be detrimental to the mission and in no way enhance military effectiveness of the submarine. I am very concerned about health issues involved for women having knowledge of serious medical issues that have been faced on surface vessels which would have been lethal on a submarine. An independent duty corpsman would be unable to handle some potential emergency medical situations that just do not occur with men. A woman of child bearing age is much more complex medically than her male counterpart and would face unacceptable risks in the submarine environment. Studies have shown that the elevated levels of certain trace contaminants in the submarine atmosphere would cause damage to a developing fetus causing unacceptable risks to an unborn child. Accommodating women would be at the detriment to the men on board the submarine and would potentially limit the available space for mission essential equipment. This change of policy can only be justified to satisfy some “politically correct” motivation which is not the criteria which should apply to military decisions. A submarine is a military weapons platform with peculiar characteristics which enable it to be a true stealth weapons system. Women on board would detract from that capability.

 242      BM1 (SS)/MS1 (SS)      Former Active Duty

I served on three submarines, SSBN 616(G), SSN 679 and SSN 716. Submarines are very small confined ships that stay submerged for months at a time. There is little to no privacy and there is almost no way to ensure that women will be able to have complete privacy. If it’s not broken don’t fix it. Women can have a very successful career and can achieve the highest rank as an officer or enlisted without serving on submarines. Another concern is how long will a female sailor actually serve in the submarine community? Will she show up, get her dolphins, and then leave for another community?

 243      MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

As a former submariner and current Base Commander of the Cincinnati Base chapter of the USSVI I am very opposed to allowing women aboard submarines. I believe that women can do the jobs required aboard subs but a coed submarine would be very detrimental to the missions of our military’s greatest war machines. Placing men and women in close quarters under such stressful situations would only undermine the whole purpose of the submarine’s existence and cause grief not only aboard the sub but among the families of the sub sailors involved. Please stop this insane misjudgment before we incur the damages that could affect our country for a lifetime.

 244      TM3 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Women DO NOT belong on submarines… for their safety and that of the crew and the boat.

 245      LCDR               Retired

We must not have coed crews on our submarines. The attention/thoughts of all submariners, whether on watch or not, is required while underway to be 100% for the safety of crew and boat. The distraction of women onboard would reduce the ability of the crew, separately and collectively, to meet the absolute high standards of thoughts and reactions that preserve the safety of ship/crew. The ever present dangers inherent with submerged operations are greater now and increasing because of ever changing missions and operations in previously unsailed waters around the globe.

 246      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. What are they thinking??

 247      TMC (SS)         Retired

I have served on three fast attack submarines, one in the Pacific and two in the Atlantic. In the pacific we deployed for seven month to the WESPAC area and did extended patrols lasting sixty days or more. In the Atlantic we did eighty five day patrols from home port to home port. After sixty days tensions begin to run high. Casualties in ship control have to be dealt with in seconds, not minutes. There is no room to have the frictions that I feel would be present in a mixed gender crew. Let’s also remember that there has not been a fast attack submarine built with enough bunks for the entire crew. I feel that anyone wanting to place women on submarines should have to ride one for eight five days. I don’t think many naval personnel have had that honor.

 248      LT         Former Active Duty

During my naval career, I spent over 3 years submerged. Looking back on my tour as a Department Head, I cannot in good conscience understand why this social experiment. Just exactly how will women in submarines improve our capabilities in the submarine force? The answer of course is it will only serve to distract from the focus of the mission. This is PC CRAP and must be stopped. BTW I was a nuclear qualified Chief Engineer and SSBN Weapons officer, USNA ’61. I changed my mind; if you want to use my name etc. go for it. The FACT that neither Admiral Mullen nor Roughead (Chairman JCS, CNO respectively) are submariners reinforces my opinion that they don’t have the foggiest idea of what the hell they are talking about. Combine them with the congressional bozo’s on the house and senate armed services committees and you have a recipe for a PC CRAP disaster resulting in a morale breakdown in the submarine force.

 249      MT3 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Considering the close quarters, length of time on patrol, the current loss to the navy of pregnant service members, the morale of the wives left behind, and the very nature of submarine patrols, it is obvious that no one who has not lived the life is capable of understanding what is at stake. What will it mean, both personally and professionally, for those who serve in submarines and those loved ones ashore. Do not make a mess of the submarine force over being seemingly politically correct

 251      E-6                   Retired

Asking for problems with morale and family.

 252      TMC (SS)         Retired

Opposed to women in submarines. It’s not like an aircraft carrier with extra heads (bathrooms) and berthing.

 253      CDR                 Retired

The Submarine Service has been a unique arm of the U.S.Navy for 110 years. It has always taken deep pride in its reputation of SILENT SERVICE. The influx of WOMEN will do much more harm than good and will destroy and deteriorate an exceptionally fine UNIT. The “Safeguards” will be destroyed by a flare of words & tempers. When will we learn!?

 254      EM1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Being a 3 year submariner I watched as many of the men went ashore to find sex in foreign ports. Now you want to make it available on board a close, and I mean close, quarter boat? How many marriages do you want to destroy? How many unwanted pregnancies do you want to happen? Don’t tell me it won’t happen because I saw a shipmate having sex in his bunk with a young woman he had brought on board. Others were waiting in line. She wasn’t a crew member so what do you think will happen when women are around for extended periods of time underwater? You will disrupt morale on board and create a great distraction.

 255      MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

This seems to be PC run amok. The Submarine Assignment Policy Assessment done by SAIC in 1995 seemed to make a very valid case against women on subs. What has changed?

 256      RM2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Having served nine years on both SSBN and SS boats there is not a space that is never without a body on watch or in the space now. Mind you I have been out for 26 years; maybe that has changed but I see nothing but trouble if you assign waves to the boats

 257      EM1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

A significant part of qualifying would in many minds be considered different forms of harassment. Now this may shock some at first, when you stop to think about it, understanding and learning how the boat works can be done by anyone willing to put in the time and learn. Under normal conditions there is no pressure, especially emotional to contend with, until the lights go out and you’re in water up to your knees. Not the time to find out that you can’t hack it. The stresses put on non-quals and qualified individuals will find your breaking point or at least tries to. If you can’t keep your wits about you when someone does or says something you don’t like how can you be trusted to not fail your shipmates when all our lives are hanging in the balance? From the news reports of things like Tail hook and others, women aren’t thick skinned enough to be trusted inside the hull of a submarine!

 258      FTC                  Retired

It would be a distraction for the males, diminishing mission focus.

259      E-6                   Former Active Duty

I am sure many of the issues have been gone over why we need to do this. However the one issue that seemed to get little play is the medical issue related to the regenerated air and pregnancy/fetal deformation. I was told that no male corpsman may examine a female so does that mean a submarine must have a doctor on board? Secondly is the command going to question the female’s sex life to determine if she is pregnant before deploying on an extended deployment? Would this not be a direct invasion of her privacy?

 260      QMC (SS)         Retired

This is ridiculous; keep it a male only society. This is an elite group of MALES! Most wives think this is a dumb idea. You can’t keep women from getting pregnant on surface ships. What makes anyone think they will be any better at stopping this from happening on Subs?!

 261      E-6       Former Active Duty

I believe that women should be allowed on submarines but only if they are given their own boat. After serving 11 years on Submarines I feel that having women serve alongside men on a boat would be distracting and I say that because I would be distracted. After depending months at sea, at any given time boys end up being boys and we all know where that would end up. There are already enough divorces in the military don’t you think?

 262      E-5       Former Active Duty

Sorry I don’t wish to have anyone sacrifice more head time (i.e. 4 showers and 6 stalls) to accommodate a female. And on top of that, if I’m out cut off from the world, why do I now have to worry about sexual harassment when I jump out of my bunk to put a fire out or a drill, and now I have to make sure I look inoffensive.

 263      E-6       Retired

This is a stupid idea just for the sake of political correctness. The pressures of sub life are bad enough without adding ‘he’ing’ and ‘she’ing’ to the mix. Thanks.

 264      SN        Former Active Duty

Submarine sailors have enough stress and don’t need the many problems that would surely develop, in time, with women on board.

265      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Because of the very close quarters on a submarine mixing of male/females will prove to be a disruptive influence in a variety of ways. Mixing males and females in such close quarters will create a natural and unavoidable sexual tension. It will in no way add to the fighting ability of the crew, and the distraction, whether direct or indirect, will detract from the focus needed to train, drill, and perform at top level. In combat situations submarines will be operating on the extreme edge of risk, and any distraction can make the difference in victory or defeat. It is a serious misjudgment and a potentially tragic mistake to mix sexes on submarines.

 266      TM2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Leave well enough alone!! I’m sick and tired of the p.c. people.

267      EMCM (SS)      Retired

A submarine at sea is not a good place to intermingle men and women is such close quarters; based on my 20 years experience in submarine force.

 268      ETR1    Former Active Duty

This is the dumbest idea I ever heard of! Do not do this!

 269      Spouse

My husband served aboard a diesel submarine in the early 70’s. Quarters were shared and tight. I don’t think that is fair to either our men or women in the navy. It would be very difficult for women to serve aboard a submarine.

 270      YNC     Former Active Duty

Submarines crewed by 100% female crews would be fine. But mixing the sexes in this very close environment manned 80% by people under 25 and 95% by people under 40 will do nothing but create problems. These ships already have to surface for toothaches. The first time one has to surface for an ectopic pregnancy the CO will have to decide between saving a life and preserving the mission. And nether decision will do anything to preserve his career or the career of his squadron commander. Let’s think these things out logically and not emotionally.

 271      ETN3 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Women should not be on submarines. Submarines are not designed for men and women. I believe that having women aboard would be too much of a distraction and temptation.

 272      ETR2    Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

• So, on a ship without enough space to give each crew member their own rack, where do they intend to find space for “female privacy”… that on a ship where there is no privacy?
• On a ship that requires everyone to know and be proficient in all systems on board, how is it possible to isolate spaces by gender? That scares the hell out of me; I wouldn’t ride in it.
• Who would tell my wife that I’m riding around in an extremely confined space for months on end with a group of good looking women?
• Does anyone have any idea how long my wife would agree to my staying in the submarine service after she found out about the “other women”?

 273      STS2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

How will the wives of the men on board going to feel? Working that close and on subs there is on privacy. The cost to change the subs to allow women to serve on subs and the extra space needed… is it worth it?

 274      Superseded by comment # 495

 275      E-5       Former Active Duty

I believe that to do this in the confined space on board a sub with the close proximity to each other will breed too much familiarity. That would only lead to fraternizing with the opposite sex. The condition then would lead to a breakdown in the battle ready condition of the “boat”.

 276      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

My service was from 1958-1964 and morals were different about sexual interaction than they are today. However I see co-ed subs as being a disaster looking for a place to happen!

 277      Spouse

The submarine force has the time honored tradition of being men only. If women are allowed on subs, it will change the dynamic of the teamwork and brotherhood of the crew. Honestly it would a logistical nightmare to allow women to serve on subs. As a submarine wife, I would hate to know my husband has to contend with the stresses of dealing with the opposite sex during a mission or deployment. Women have no place on our submarines! Keep it a brotherhood!

 278      Spouse of E-6

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 279      E-7       Active Duty

Sanitary issues: where to dispose of the monthly waste. Medical: the issues with a pregnant female being underway, along with the cost with a medevac (medical evacuation) once we find out they are pregnant.

 280      Spouse

I personally think that allowing women on the submarines are asking for disaster. There are so many factors as to why a woman should not be on a boat.

 281      Spouse

Nothing good will come of combining men and women on subs. It is too small and close quarters. The men already have a hard time with the limited space and few bathrooms. I feel their lifestyles will diminish.

282      Spouse of E-5

Ridiculous! Men should be able to be themselves and be relaxed as possible when out to sea. It’s hard enough being away from your family and friends for most of the year. Women on subs will create nothing but stress and sexual harassment lawsuits.

 283      E-5       Active Duty

I have just ended my tour on board the USS Virginia in 2009 after 5 years. Looking back I find my time spent serving onboard was very memorable and at times, very fulfilling. I had never thought of the idea of what those times would have been like if women were on board for full deployments. During one of our full deployments out to sea we did have 1 female rider on board for a week or so, and it changed life onboard and day to day operations drastically. Now, I am not opposing that women not be allowed on submarines in this petition for the fact that they cannot perform at the same level as men or handle life out to sea on a submarine. I am writing to explain that due to the limited space on submarines, making adjustments to accommodate women would be crippling. Women would have to have their own berthing and bathrooms, which is a logistical nightmare. An example would be on the boat that I was on we had FWD Berthing that would hold 12 racks. If there were say 7 women on board that would be 5 racks that could not be utilized. On board we had 3 heads that the entire enlisted crew and to share. Often times it was difficult enough to wait to use the shower or the head in some cases. Another issue brought up by the notion of women serving on subs is would there have to be separate berthing and bathroom facilities for enlisted & commissioned females serving on the sub? This is simply one of many variables to consider. When I first went to sea we had around 80 riders. That was around 230 men onboard and it was a nightmare enough standing in line just to use the head. If women were on board then there would still be one less head to use for the select few women. Having women on board would do nothing but complicate things unnecessarily and detract from focus on the mission at hand. The submarine force has been around for over a hundred years. Submarine sailors have had this proud tradition of having our own world out to sea, where there are enough trials and hardships to deal with, without having to worry about making special allowances to keep things separate. I believe that were these changes to take place, that this would only cause morale, and above all, operational efficiency to fail.

 284      E-7       Retired

The Navy will not be able to sustain a deployable force. Viewing combat ships and the introduction of women they were significantly challenged. The submarine community is significantly smaller and will not be able to sustain the losses that will occur. Submarine life on spouses is extremely difficult. Then you add the possibility of relationships outside the home in the work place. The perception is there, realized or not. You may say that any work place in the U.S. has women in it, true. The submarine force is a unique workplace environment where close quarters and working spaces are mere feet apart. There is only so much space on boat.

 285      Spouse

There are too many negatives to having women on submarines. There are a lot of health risks for women. There are also a lot of other situational reasons that women should not be on subs. It’s a bad idea. If it is done, it should not be done by combining co-eds.

286      Spouse

As a woman, I feel submarines are the ONE place that women do not belong. I cannot see how the appropriate accommodations can be made at this time.

 287      E-6       Former Active Duty

This plan is a plan that will only lead to more problems in the submarine community at the prospective gain of what? Equality? Ever heard the term different but equal? Women may be equal but are definitely different and will only throw a huge wrench in the already stressful work environment that is a submarine. This as well as the home life of many submariners whose wives rest assured while they are gone for up to 9 months at a time that they are with their brothers and there is no cause for alarm as to what’s going on out there under the sea. With women onboard I would expect to see domestic disputes and divorces among submariners skyrocket.

 288      Spouse

There is no need for women to be on submarines Hygiene wise it’s disgusting. The quarters are tight enough without having to create separate quarters aka showers, bathrooms, etc for women. It would cost us taxpayers all of this money for something that isn’t going to make anything better or more productive. If anything it’s going to create more issues – such as sexual harassment claims. Submarines have small spaces – how could you avoid not brushing up against someone? The only solution would be to allow woman officers on submarines – they already have separate quarters.

 289      E-4       Active Duty

I am completely against women on submarines. In my recent English college class, I actually wrote my final on this subject. If you would like a copy let me know and I’d be happy to send it. It’s full of facts and numerous opinions from other submarine sailors.

 290      RM1 (SS)         Retired

I served in Submarines from 1962 until I retired in 1978. Although I love the idea of having a woman on a submarine with me I know that it is a very bad idea. There is already a problem in the navy with women serving on combat surface vessels. Take that and multiply it times 10 to start to realize the effect of having a woman serving on the submarines. Only a very elite type of woman could ever be accepted into the fraternity of submariners and those women are few and far between. There are just too many obstacles to be overcome to ever make it work well. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the person responsible for enforcing the rule to put them there. It is going to be a nightmare and the entire submarine force will suffer because of its implementation. I know it isn’t likely to be stopped but I would never want to be credited with putting my name on its implementation because it is never going to work well. You think there are problems now with it in its planning stages just wait until it really happens and the navy is faced with all the problems that are going to arise then. Wives of the men on board are also going to be one of the forces I would hate to contend with. When I sit and think of all the obstacles, I wonder why the navy wants to push this stupid idea off on all the sailors. It will go over almost as well as putting a gay man on a sub and I expect that will be next. I’m just glad I’m retired and have my 20 behind me. Some of these hair brained ideas will end up getting a whole boat killed and no one will want to take the blame for that after it happens.

 291      E-5       Active Duty

Aside from the obvious technical and fiscal issues with this plan, the camaraderie and uniqueness of the submarine lifestyle and those aboard will be lost in a fond and henceforth bygone era which can never again be brought back.

 292      E-6       Retired

Women on Submarines present a clear distraction for men. Anyone who understands human sexuality realizes this. In extreme close quarters for extended periods of time this amounts to torture for men and will affect their job performance as well as their morale. You are asking for problems in a situation that does not warrant both sexes.

 293      Spouse

Women need to stay off subs.

 294      E-5       Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Don’t need them (women).

 295      TMC (SS)         Retired

As already seen in the surface fleet, and I suppose ashore also, men and/or women can’t seem to keep their Roman hands and Russian fingers from touching each other, and this includes commanding officers. Give the CO’s a break; they don’t need this additional burden to bear.

 296      E-5       Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 297      ET2 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Having been underway with female “riders”, the distractions that are caused aren’t worth the hassle. What happens to the sanitary napkins on a 6-month deployment? You can’t flush them. Talk about insubordination when a guy is told to compact trash with used tampons. What happens when a female becomes pregnant? What happens during a stores load when it’s time to load TDU weights? What about the dolphin ceremony? What if the woman doesn’t like any of the other women onboard? Who’s going to pin her fish on her? A guy can’t do it.

 298      Spouse

I believe this is a bad idea. I believe that this will create an abundance of accidental pregnancies, infidelity, and rivalry. The male crew members will have to change everything – the way they talk, act, pal around with one another, etc. It will no longer be a brotherhood. This is just one job that I do not believe females should partake in.

 299      TMCS (SS)        Retired

Too tight a space for women to be on board.

 300      E-7       Retired

Life on submarines is arduous in a special way. There is NO privacy and the close quarters would lead to problems between the sexes. Additionally, space is precious and the need to segregate men from women would be space prohibitive. Any one issue can be overcome, but when you add up all the little issues, logistically it is not feasible. Don’t let a political agenda cloud the truth.

 301      STSCS (SS)        Retired

Young submariners, and some veteran submariners, do not have the requisite level of maturity to deal with this. Equally as important is that the submarine spouses will have a difficult time dealing with this also. We will just have to see what we will see.

 302      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Having served as a qualified submarine crew member from 1962 to 1970, I strongly oppose the request by the Navy to allow women to serve on submarine crews. I served on both diesel subs and nuclear ballistic missile submarines in which our patrols lasted as long as 78 days submerged. Being a red blooded American sailor, the last thing I needed was to be within a few feet of a female, that was not my wife, and still have 20-30 days in that situation before we surfaced. My wife would have liked it even less. You don’t want to lose the support of Navy Wives! The people who are proposing adding women to the crew list have not been in a similar situation. The CNO is NOT a submarine sailor, nor is the Secretary of Defense or the head of the Joint Chiefs. This issue is being forced down the throats of the submarine service for political reasons, not that it makes sense. A submarine crew lives a quite different life when under way. On one patrol we had a navy chaplain make the run (go on the patrol). He at first took a rather dim view of our antics but at the end of the patrol he had become “One of US”. That’s how we survived the isolation. Women in the crew would limit the life style quite a bit and would be a temptation that would be very difficult to deal with. Just look at the situation in the surface fleet where sailors have plenty of room to go “cool off”. I thought that women were not allowed in combat situations. A submarine could find itself in a combat situation it did not expect. It happened quite a lot in the Cold War. Please do not allow a major disruption to a group that has demonstrated its ability to adjust to and endure very difficult situations for very long periods of time. Our National Defense does not need the negative impact it WILL create.

 303      Mother and Spouse

I feel that the distraction of women and men together is too great in such a closed environment. This is unhealthy in times of stress and combat. Plus, I feel that you will be putting undue stress on marriages. Wives will worry about the natural temptations their husbands will face. If a woman would become pregnant on board a submarine, it will open the chance for someone to place a lawsuit on the govt. should the child be deformed. Can’t people just use common sense and see that this is a bad idea? Just because a woman is as capable as a man in things, why do they have to do it? If that is the case, have an all-woman submarine!

 304      E-8       Retired

As a young submariner I would have said “YES, YES, YES, put gals on submarines; we’re tired of these darned nukes.” But now as a retired older guy I’m more inclined to say, “Darn, missed out again.” I love these inexorably-quixotic progressives making decisions about things they haven’t the slightest concept. The arrogance of their ignorance makes for great theater; it’ll likely be detrimental to military morale and crew effectiveness, but what the heck, when the uninformed are in charge, what could go wrong . . . right?

 305      TM2 (SS)          Retired

Adding women to submarine crews is a dangerous political correctness action that will add new UNNECESSARY risks involving ship’s safety, professional crew performance and dangerous harassment and personal privacy issues. Mixing women into the already close and oft times cramped living conditions inevitably creates crew discontent due to a less comfortable work and leisure environment and also adds totally unnecessary relationship issues of distraction that will become all too commonplace. Physical strength issues will bring an additional negative into play as workload distribution will now become an even more difficult obstacle. For the sake of brevity, I have left out numerous other concerns but will end this by stating that I definitely fear that by adding women into the active submarine forces, it would definitely be the major contributing factor to the eventual loss of an American submarine. JOB ONE of an American Submariner is too arduous and all consuming to foolishly incorporate this dangerously unnecessary Political Correctness policy within!

 306      MM2 (SS)        Former Active Duty

While women MIGHT be able to perform the jobs necessary, the special accommodations needed, as well as the lack of privacy on board today’s submarines will only lead to more harassment claims, pregnancies, STDs and other related issues that the Navy can easily avoid by not allowing this ban to be lifted. If you thought the Tailhook scandal was bad, lifting this ban has the likely potential to be a hundred times worse.

 307      E-5       Former Active Duty

A submarine is a very difficult environment to live and work on. We were almost always 3-section duty and refused leave (repeatedly) because not enough personnel were available to support. Any loss of individuals (i.e. pregnancy, maternity leave, or reduced radiological work capacity) would negatively impact the ships mission and entire crew. If women were not allowed to become pregnant I wouldn’t have an issue having women on board, but as I have seen in the past some women have used pregnancy as a way to escape deployments. I hope before implementation, if it occurs, at least a small trial run occurs. Don’t just open the entire submarine force up. Study the effects and opinions of the crew through small trial runs prior to eliminating the entire ban.

 308      QMC (SS)         Retired

As a female now looking back on my days of submarine service I understand why I spend so much time in the doctor’s office from the events and traditions that made me whom I am today. NO women in submarines; space is limited, no privacy, and no time for mood swings. I could go on but I won’t. As a women that has gone through, and lived, the submarine life I am saying NO to women aboard boats.

309      E-5       Active Duty

Life on board is hard enough with 149 other men yet alone put women on boats; that’s for the birds.

 310      E-5       Active Duty

We do not have a voice in this. We are not allowed to say that we don’t want this. If we do then we are punished. No one ever asked the real submariners what we thought of this. The only people they talk to are the ones that will agree to anything as long as it makes them look good and help them make rank. Well what about the enlisted guys that are the back bone of the sub force? When does our opinion matter? We are the ones that are going to have deal with this train wreck of an idea when it fails.

 311      E-8       Retired

Inadequate facilities for separation of genders. Trust me, there will be problems… divorce being one of them.

 312      E-6       Active Duty

I worry about how many women will get pregnant before a deployment and put watches port & starboard… and whether they will be able to pull their weight in A, TM, and M Divisions.

 313      Spouse of E-6 Active duty

I don’t believe that women are prepared to go on 6 to 9 month deployments.

 314      Spouse

Would cause more problems than it’s worth. Too costly for one. The timing is ludicrous since we are almost bankrupt.

 315      FT2      Active Duty

I serve on the USS [redacted for privacy] and adding women to our submarines just doesn’t make any sense. We are already cramped for room and having to make accommodations for women just isn’t that feasible. It just doesn’t make sense.

 316      CTTCS  Retired

It is bad enough that surface combatants lose sailors in critical billets due to pregnancies, which requires the pregnant sailor to detach from the ship. How does one argue the same thing will not happen on board a cramped sewer pipe (submarine)? Lose one or two critical billets on a submarine and you are facing some deep doo-doo. Further, on board subs, attention to detail is EXTREMELY important. Lose thought of that and we will have more than the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion lying on the bottom during non-wartimes. You know, the entire time I was out away from my family, I never once looked over at the guy sitting the watch station next to me and wondered what it would be like to hug and kiss him. Can guys in the surface navy say that about sitting next to a good looking woman? Just go to the PBS website and do a search on “CARRIER,” watch the 10 episodes of that and come back here and tell me the same thing will not transpire onboard my beloved Boats…..you can’t; and by God, that is the scariest part about this proposed evolution.

317      E-5       Active Duty

With the submarine fleet, as a whole, grossly undermanned I don’t think having women on subs is a good idea. The average crew on a boomer is around 160 fully manned; take one person out of that crew and everyone feels it. I know women have every right to start a family, but too many times I have seen women get pregnant just to get out of going to sea. When that happens there isn’t anyone to replace them and the rest of the crew suffers as a result. I still wonder when the “higher ups” are going to respond to this double standard. The question I have to ask is this: With the “new” drug policy that was released recently and the impact it is having, not only on the submarines on my base, but across the fleet as a whole, are we ready to further decrease the size of submarine crews at the risk of losing service men or risking more accidents at sea? Furthermore, I think that the mere presence of women on submarines undermines the unit cohesiveness and morale of the crew because of the paranoia of being falsely accused of harassment or worse. What will happen when it’s a woman’s “time of the month” and she flushes a tampon down the drain and clogs a san tank and cries when she has to dive in there and get it out? If a Brillo pad clogs those up a tampon sure will. If you can’t flush them, what will you do with them? I’m sure not going to smash them with the rest of the trash. My wife is also against this decision, stating that the confined space and cramped quarters is asking for too much trouble. If this does happen she says that you (the brass in Washington) should expect an increase in sexual harassment cases, pregnancies and a decrease in mission readiness. This decision to allow women on submarines has helped me make my decision not to stay in for retirement.

 318      E-6       Active Duty

The submarine community is one with little to no room for imperfection. We strive to achieve this high standard and require more from our sailors because of the extremely difficult task we are faced with… maintaining a nuclear powered vessel operating bellow the ocean surface. Allowing women on board places us in harm’s way; not because they are not skilled mariners, but because they face other challenges in life due to cultural and health issues. When something as simple as kidney stones can remove a qualified submariner from his duties, the health issues women must deal with can as well. The margin of men required to operate a submarine and actually stationed on a submarine is so close that we could not absorb the impact that an unplanned loss due to pregnancy or other health related issues may cause. Because our society is not one of gender neutrality, sharing heads and a common berthing is not practical and it is not fair for a crew that already is forced to hot rack to raise the number of hot racking males to accommodate for several females. There simply are not the facilities on a submarine a woman requires or the space to allow an equal share in space.

 319      ET1 (SS)           Retired

Since navigation division and ET division have been merged the subs have had more collisions and navigational hazards. Check history…

 320      E-7       Retired

Women have no part on submarines. There isn’t enough room and it would be too costly to modify the subs for their comfort.

 321      E-9       Retired

It is a service like no other. The long deployments and closeness breed a certain brotherhood like no other. Even after retirement we seek out other submariners and remain dedicated to each other. During those long deployments there were times, when if observed by outsiders, they would have thought us anything but “brothers”. The mental makeup of women and men a proven medical fact teaches us that the ladies just don’t get along very well together under long periods of stress. To put women in the situation not only puts the mission in jeopardy but the lives of the male crew members.

 322      E-7       Retired

I think women play a valuable role in the Navy but they should not serve on submarines. Submariners must be able to focus entirely on the job at hand without unnecessary distractions. The lack of space would probably cause undue distraction.

 323      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

I have more than 2 years underwater in the US Navy fleet, and early Nuclear Fast Attack and Polaris Missile Submarines. I served approximately 10 years in the boats doing many fast attack patrols and at least 6 Bluenose patrols during the 1960’s. I have been a Nuclear Reactor Operator, a division LPO twice and subsequently the Senior Instructor at a Nuclear Training Prototype (S5G). Next year I will become a Holland Club member (qualified in submarines for at least 50 years). While I was happy with my enlistment I left the US Navy as the rated pay was insufficient (at the time) to support my family. (And I was also receiving the highest-level proficiency pay during this period). Inspection of both warrant and LDO opportunities would have required an initial pay decrease that I could not withstand. I more than tripled my annual pay upon discharge and subsequent citizen employment and am now happily retired. Submarines do not provide a significant amount of privacy. Crewmembers bump and rub each other when traversing passageways and while going about their normal duties and this personal contact is more extreme during serious operations. Including female members in the close and isolated environment of submarine duty that crewmembers experience during long periods submerged and the de facto intimate and very personal proximity to others will cause serious loss of unit cohesion. Also, related follow on problems that mixing genders in such an environment would produce will occur. Does the Navy then intend on providing day care for infants “on-board” while a boat is on patrol due to births from an unknown pregnancy, require pregnancy tests before deployment, require surfacing and removal of pregnant sailors during a patrol, or just require that female (or male?) sailors serving on boats be infertile? Pregnancies will occur as has been demonstrated by the surface Navy problems (1/3 of shipboard female sailors get pregnant?), and the mission threats those pregnancies produce. And will loading sea provisions now require the usual items necessary for the care of females and infant children just in case births occur at sea on a patrol? While including females on such deployments may not be the current plan, they will likely occur in the future with this change. Submarines are a very unique environment where the fighting capability, the boat’s watertight integrity and thus the entire crew’s safety is dependent on EACH person’s mental attitude as well as competency, physical capability and training. Injecting female sailors into this environment will cause a reduction of the boat’s ability to perform its mission by reducing or destroying unit cohesion, if not generating a plethora of proceedings or lawsuits for the Navy to sort out, while jeopardizing the boats focus on competency. Not well publicized, but a key process that occurs on boats, is the unwritten method boat sailors use to ensure their shipmates, and thus the crews mental stability under stressful situations. Boat sailors “PING” (say intentionally stressful things) on each other constantly, but especially to new crew members. This is not an organized activity, but something each seasoned sailor does upon his own judgment in an attempt to test that other crewmembers will not crack under heavy mental stress. This has been going on since crews entered subs and I suspect that it still occurs simply because it works. And, while toned down significantly, a much lighter and respectful version of this interaction can sometimes occur between submarine officers and enlisted sailors. Shipmates who cannot endure this stress are eventually removed either by their own request or by their questioned ability to perform. This process is essential to ensure the safety and readiness of the crew and the boat, and cannot be pre-determined by normal standards used that are rife with political correctness. Submarines complicate this relationship due to the close confines of the crew and isolation due the submarine mission. This is the way boat sailors live, and I suspect it will not change, as it is a boat-integrity and fighting capability issue. Each boat sailor is dependent on each other for both a job done well and the safety of the boat. A single failure to perform competently can place the boat in a situation without the possibility of recovery. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Navy and other military officers in positions to influence the decision to place female sailors in subs, and who have not worn a white hat on a sub, would have any clue as to the nature of the enlisted crew interactions. While I have no personal experience here, I am certain that similar activities occur in other fighting units where a close relationship with each of the other members occurs and is required for unit competency. This and similar processes are a significant element in developing the competent working relationships, the result of which has sometimes been described as a “band of brothers”. Injecting the female gender into an already stressful situation will reduce the ability of the crew to ensure its own safety and readiness. It will destroy ad hoc processes that cannot occur across gender lines in the same form and result. And, the eventual penalties which would be applied to eliminate this process would reduce the morale of the crew and lead to a less safe and diminished fighting capability of the boat resulting in a reduction of the ability of the boat to fulfill its mission. Adding female sailors into the stressful and intimate environment of a submarine is best left on paper as a bad idea.

 324      E-6       Retired

Give them (women) their own sub!

 325      RM2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

I believe it is a bad idea in a long sad history of bad ideas. With the financial burden already being placed on the U.S. taxpayers, it would not be economically feasible to spend taxpayer dollars to retrofit an already aging fleet nor spending years and more taxpayer dollars in designs to build a new fleet of boats to accommodate women. The stresses on submariners are already insurmountable and now you want to throw the complexities of working in a confined space for extended periods of time with mixed genders while only having one way communications with your spouse and family? This is a recipe for disaster! The submarine community already experiences one of the highest divorce rates in any branch of military service. It is not a matter of willingness to conduct yourselves accordingly, it’s a matter of simple human nature. The problems that it will place on submarine commanders, the careers that will be ruined due to misconduct and/or allegations of misconduct will be an added ‘bonus’ of submarine service. The only foreseeable way that this would work is to commission all women boats. Look at the logistics…how will they get qualified and who will train them? Without having served on an actual sea-going command for months at a time while undergoing the rigors of qualifications? Can we as a nation afford this? Why are other countries not following suit if this initiative is of such worthiness? USS Francis Scott Key SSBN 657 88’-91′

 326      E-5 (SS)            Former Active Duty

In the extremely confined space that is normal on a submarine, I believe that it would be near impossible to accommodate separate berthing space and toilet/shower facilities for both sexes. Unless the intention is to also significantly enlarge the overall size of the submarines to rectify this crowded condition; but then that would make them less stealthy and easier to locate and add to the overall cost of production.

 327      E-5       Former Active Duty

I think it would make a bad enough situation even worse. The conditions on a sub are not fit for COED living… especially for fast attack submarines. I don’t know about SSBN, SSGN, or Virginia classes. BAD, BAD, BAD.

 328      E-5       Former Active Duty

Conditions are too cramped for mixed crews.

 329      LT         Retired

Not needed. The only reason to make a change to allow this would be not enough males qualified to fulfill the needs of the navy. Otherwise, we would be looking for trouble.

 330      MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

Extremely bad idea. Men and women cannot successfully cohabitate on a submarine. The consequences would most likely be catastrophic. If women must serve on submarines then put them on women only submarines. The living conditions are not suitable for men and women on any US Navy ship, especially, submarines.

 331      RM3 (SS)         Former Active Duty

I cannot imagine being on a 75 day patrol isolated from my family with women on board. It’s definitely not the same as a surface ship. It’s hard enough being away for that long but would be an impossible situation with women on board not to mention the stress it will be on the wives left at home.

 332      Spouse of Active Duty E-5

My husband is a sailor on Boomer. Being on patrol for three months at a time and not having communication for long periods is hard on him. I know that the comradeship of the fellow men onboard and their casual nature ease some of the tensions of the job. I am a female engineer in a 90% male dominated field. It is easy to maintain professionalism when you can go home at night and vent. But when you are with these people 24/7 for 3 months, how are you supposed to maintain morale? I’m not saying that women cannot perform the duties on a submarine. I’m saying that the morale would greatly suffer. This social experiment will only be a detriment to US Navy.

 333      Spouse of E3

Women aboard submarines, on the whole, is more trouble than it’s worth. First of all, don’t you think divorce rate amongst our Navy is high enough? If this were to pass it’d skyrocket. Second, female products; where would they go? And who wants to be the one male or female compacting that trash? Thirdly, sexual harassment charges will increase undoubtedly. I happen to know the things young sailors say and do, and it’s no secret that those things are going to offend most women. As far as smoking, I’m sorry; are they trying to take every last decision from our young men? They defend our country but cannot drink under the age of 21, and now let’s also take the cigarette from their mouths? Medically, that’s great but that is someone’s personal decision and not the governments! I don’t see them telling our men they cannot wear string bikini underwear or telling them they cannot say certain words. When will the line be drawn on individuality?

 334      MT1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Allowing women on submarines, after 110 years of US Navy submarine service, is a slap in the face to all male submariners that have come before the current submariners. No women should be allowed on submarines!

 335      MCPO  Retired

Living conditions are too close for females to be onboard.

 336      EN1 (SS)           Retired

For whatever reason the rush is on to get woman aboard our submarines. The procedure and some details have been explained how this will be done. However, some very important information has been left out… one of which concerns pregnancy. Will pregnant woman make patrols? Will there be trained corpsman in pre-natal care onboard? Will the boats that have women on them have a doctor instead of a corpsman onboard? Or if they become pregnant before a six month cruise be left ashore and replaced?

 337      E-3 (SS)            Former Active Duty

I am a former submariner and do not believe that it is a good idea. There are too many problems to overcome. The first woman would be officers then they would try enlisted personal. It just would not work yet.

 338      STSCS (SS)        Retired

As a former submariner I am very opposed to this – but not for the same reasons as most. Most females I have served with are just as competent and able as their male counterparts. The bigger issue is the inherent differences between males and females. The Navy has its mind set on making everyone fit into one mold but this is simply not possible. My biggest concern is for the welfare of the sailors. Submarines do not have a doctor stationed onboard. Pregnancy tests are NOT 100% correct. The navy is setting itself up for a HUGE lawsuit. The first time one of these women loses a pregnancy at sea, there will be HELL to pay. There are a number of other reasons this is a bad idea… too many to list here.

 339      HMC (SS)         Retired

I served 10 years as a medic on fleet, FBM and SSN’s. Having women on subs would present many health and psychological problems. Navy regulations can only control so much but they cannot control emotions. The mission is the most important As a Medic I would not want to treat women. Then again I guess they will have female medics. Don’t destroy the one of the 2 elite units in the Navy by trying to be politically correct.

 340      CAPT    Retired

My book, Navy Strategic Culture, argues that women should not be permitted on combatant ships: period! The arguments are all there. We must stop the tidal wave of political correctness, and think harder about the security of our country! RWB

 341      MTC (SS)         Retired

Riding submarines is tough enough without the potential for gender issues. We were often told the submarine force had the highest rate of divorce and marital problems because it is the most difficult type of deployment. At the same time, the relationships are sound and deep. Maybe because each dolphin wearing member knows they can trust and depend on their shipmates to safe their life in an emergency. The biggest portion of that trust for me was the bonds shared person to person, in the berthing area, the head, the mess desks. These are very intimate relationships and very necessary. To add women to this situation can lead to very confusing emotions for the sailors and their families back home. When I was on active duty, my wife at the time was in favor of equal opportunities for women… and maybe even submarine duty…just not my submarine!

 342      YN3 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Based on experience serving around female support fleet personnel in the early 90’s I would say that women serving aboard submarines would be a logistical nightmare. The esprit de corps that is a natural part of submarine life would be ruined because female personnel would be on a continual revolving door basis. Women get pregnant, have many more health issues then men, and would be an overall disruptive factor in crew trust. A submarine crew would spend so much time attempting to train female crew members that they would be far more trouble than they would be worth.

 343      LCDR   Retired

I served in the Submarine force for 21.5 years. The confined and prolonged nature of submarine operations makes mixed sex crews problematic. Surface craft have routine contact with their families via radio, phone, or internet… submarine crews do not. The divorce rate was high enough as it was. This is a really bad idea… made by persons that have never been there.

 344      ET1 (SS)           Retired

The stress on marriages for submarines was bad enough as is. I had one good friend suicide over his new wife leaving him because of her insecurity while he was on patrol. Submariner divorce rates are high enough. Can you imagine what a married couple will go through with wives knowing there are women on board and the strain of serving underwater for two and a half months with the opposite sex … in such close quarters? Some people pretend that professionals won’t have issues. But, it is a bogus expectation that near 100% of sailors, male and female, will contain their perfectly human sex drive under these circumstances. I don’t begrudge women an opportunity to serve. But on board a submarine with men is not the appropriate venue.

 345      MS1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Honestly it just can’t work. You can’t change how men and women think biologically. It would also make my wife very uneasy. It’s not a matter of trust, but opportunity. I have seen worst on the sub tenders… guys always talk about things that happen. Submariners need to stay focused. We don’t need this kind of a distraction. And that it will be. My hormones were raging!

 346      MM1 (SS)        Retired

I do not think putting women on submarines would be good. Submarines are not a place where women should be. Men are men and women are women and to ask men and women on subs to act right is asking too much. The stress and loneliness onboard is high and acting right would be hard. I spent 20 years in the navy and made 21 patrols on SSBNs; I know what I am talking about. Nothing against men or women; it just won’t work on a sub.

 347      CAPT    Retired

Silly idea. If firmly committed to concept, build any new subs to accommodate. Don’t spend money trying to adapt existing boats to this additional requirement.

 348      MMCM (SS)    Retired

Don’t do it. As a former COB I think placing women on submarines can only waste money and cause many problems for the submarine force. I spent 7 months on a WWII boat, made 13 Polaris patrols on three subs and 4 spec ops on two attack boats. This is not the place for social engineering.

 349      LCDR (MC)      Former Active Duty

You can’t fight Mother Nature. I can’t imagine what happens to unit cohesion and protective attitude toward females on long isolation. Nor attitudes at home of spouses whose husbands are at sea with females. Happened in Desert Storm with mixed sex crews went to war. Only time we brought back more people than we sent over. 900 pregnancies during deployment. Same happened when mixed crews were manning missile silos in AF for SAC. Most powerful WMD is testosterone. That is the way we were built. I was a navy flight Surgeon.

 350      STS1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

There’s enough already going on during patrol. Adding the “drama” of mixed sex crew members will add to more stress and lack of concentration.

351      TMCM (SS/SW/DV)     Retired

I have no problem with any race or gender on a submarine, but let me qualify that statement as each aspect MUST be thoroughly and meticulously thought through!

• First and foremost, a submarine is not DESIGNED for female work/usage in any aspect.
• Second, the long term ENVIRONMENT inside a submarine will not be physically healthy.
• Third, men make illogical DECISIONS around women often wrong and endangering himself.
• AND after working with many of the first Women on Ships in Tenders, their decision making is often more illogical, driven by strong NATURE instincts, that may not be of the best interest of The Mission at hand or military in general (family, love, and appearance).

For the most part I found I enjoyed working with Women in the Navy. They work hard, they try harder than men, and they are reliable. But the military does not, and I don’t think ever will, come first on their list of priorities and personally for me, this is the main reason they are a threat to the Submarine “Community”.

 352      CAPT    Retired

Female berthing is not feasible aboard a submarine. If normal female privacy rules apply, junior female enlisted will be treated much more favorably than junior male enlisted in sleeping quarters assignments. The only way in which females aboard subs can be considered is that if there is NO distinction made between men and women–rank/rating is the sole determinant. I do not think the navy or the country is ready for that.

 353      RDML  Retired

There is a natural attraction between men and women which can and sometimes does impact the workplace on board ships and other units. In the reduced space of submarines, methinks the proximity of men and women would naturally lead to physical attraction, one for the other. Given the well documented problems involving male senior officers and female subordinates in surface ships, it seems reasonable to assume that something similar will happen in submarines. Why risk readiness in subs for a social matter?

 354      E-5       Former Active Duty

I feel it will be too costly of our tax dollars to provide and retrofit submarines for female occupation. It is not an issue of whether they can perform the job, it is a design and cost issue and it is not necessary for our country’s defense.

 355      YN3 (SS)           Former Active Duty

I’ll go along with surface craft having female sailors but having been a DBF (diesel boat forever) sailor I cannot see how it would be possible on subs. I don’t even think female sailors would be OK on nukes. I don’t believe that women have to have every opportunity to do everything that men do – submarine service in my way of thinking is not an “Equal Opportunity Employer”.

356      Spouse of E-5

Opposed to women in submarines. Comment not published at request of author.

 357      Spouse of E-6

Financially and ethically women should not be on submarines.

 358      Spouse of E-3

Women would not fit in on submarines. Their (submariners) way of life is very different than that of the surface fleet. Especially on fast attack subs, the men are like family. They are like a fraternity. Women would just get in the way and change things too much when they don’t need to be changed!

 359      YNC (SS)          Retired

Although I think women could perform the duties required there are two main issues I have with this:

• Manning – Being the Leading Yeoman on 5 submarines and the Admin Officer at a Submarine Squadron I have dealt with the problems of getting boats manned for deployments. What is the plan if you have an unplanned loss of a female? Naturally the main concern is to find a body to fill the billet, but what if there are not any females available. The only option is to select a male to fill the billet. Now you have an extra male and what will end up happening is that somebody is going to have to hot rack.
• Habitability – As shown above this is a strong possibility that hot racking will be needed to fill unplanned loses. Also, to create berthing and head for females, the males will take it in the shorts. Limiting the number of showers and toilets that the males will be able to use considering the numbers is just not sensible. This is just another knee jerk reaction to what some think is a problem. Nobody said life was fair. There are many males in the navy who aren’t qualified to serve on boats for many reasons; are they being discriminated against?

 360      ET2      Former Active Duty

As a former submariner. I do not believe placing women on board would be a good thing UNLESS the entire boat was female. The quarters are just too tight and with the current environment of sexual harassment charges being leveled at the drop of a hat it would lead to many witch hunts as it were. The drills frequently require sailors to be in extremely close quarters and the removal of one of the heads for women only would be a major impingement on the ship as a whole. Please reconsider this idea.

 361      Spouse of E-6

I not only would hate to be one of those women, it also is very inefficient. Submarines are small vessels; you will have to designate a head specifically for them. What if a woman is pregnant? You can’t have them going up and down ladders. It’s ridiculous and not well thought out.

 362      Spouse

I do not think it is a good idea. Nothing good can come from men and women in that small of a space. Not letting women on subs does not limit their opportunities. Women can do the same jobs on a carrier.

 363      E-5       Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines. Leave things as they are.

 364      Spouse

Putting women on submarines would be a big mistake for many reasons. Safety would be a big factor as I think some minds are not where they should be with hormones in the way. If a woman gets pregnant and not going to sea, the men will have to make up for that person taking one more man off of shore duty to fill the billet. It will hurt and probably end some marriages.

 365      MAJOR                        Retired Army

Opposed to women in submarines.

 366      CAPT    Retired

The most compelling reason for not having women aboard submarines is the need to maintain focus on the mission and to maintain readiness. Any “distraction” could (and will) have a detrimental effect on performance. Deployments are long and space is limited. “Intimate” contact, not necessarily sexual, is inevitable and will occur.

 367      E-6 (SS)            Former Active Duty

I served on the USS Greenfish (SS 351) and the USS Haddock (SSN 621). Berthing space is a premium on any submarine as well as bathrooms (both of these boats only had 1 shower). There simply is not enough room to have a mixed crew. It would also completely stifle the give and take that is normally present on a submarine. My wife also thinks this is a really bad idea; she had the opportunity to sail on the Haddock.

 368      TM2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Good idea? Drop a pretty female into a long tube with 100 or so men and watch the results. They’ve got to be kidding. The reason that men put up with one another in bad conditions is that there is a total lack of females aboard. My God, can you imagine the competition and fighting that this would cause? Anyone suggesting this idea has absolutely no comprehension of males. Harmony of brotherhood would be tossed aside the instant she came aboard and the crew would revert to cavemen. The one place I do not want a dysfunctional crew is aboard a sub carrying nuclear missiles.

 369      CDR     Retired

During the cold war I commanded a SSN and carried out a number of Cold War operations. Many things have changed since then but human nature has not. I am extremely grateful that all I had to do was worry about training my crew and carrying out my mission. I did not have to worry about who was sleeping with who and who might be jealous of who. I do not understand why we would ever choose to use our warships as vehicles for social change. I am grateful for having been spared these social issues and I support not ever imposing them on future commanders.

 370      CAPT    Retired

Service in a submarine is unique to all Naval Service. The officers and men who man our boats are rigidly screened for traits that compliment service in a very high risk, physically arduous environment that demands the capacity to live, work and fight in very close physical proximity, without any possibility of relief from the setting until the mission is completed. Submarine service is arduous and hazardous duty without even considering the mission of “fighting the boat.” We have essentially mastered dealing with those elements without injecting the element of cross sex, social and work interaction. To make the next step will add an entirely new, untested dimension to life in a submarine. It is foolhardy to recklessly accept the known dangers of cross sexual service in confined spaces (inserting women in surface vessels has not been a raging success) to the well being of those who serve in our boats (both the men and the contemplated women) by going forward with this action. It is further grossly inconsiderate to the spouses, who keep a shore side vigil for their men at sea, to force the social sexual risk upon them as an additional element of risk associated with their loved ones careers. It may well cost the Navy the loss of men… extremely valuable men… when we can ill afford attrition from that new cause.

 371      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

The close quarters on submarines does not lend itself to female crew members.

 372      CAPT    Retired

Being a part of a submarine crew/team requires the utmost personal, emotional and physical strength. If a weakness exists anywhere in that crew/team make up the Submarine’s ability to successfully fight and complete its mission is threatened. In the submarine warfare environment this is not acceptable!

 373      CAPT    Retired

I believe woman are fully capable however, I believe it is an invitation to career ending decisions and it will lead to quotas which will disrupt the continuity of the submarine crew. The stringent screening process will be compromised and lead to less qualified crews. A submarine crew is a close knit group of people, when men and women get close knit………

 374      E-5       Former Active Duty

I made 4 patrols on USS Daniel Boone and one on USS Lewis and Clark. Not a good idea.  There are enough family problems without adding to it

 375      MM1 (SS/SW) Retired

Having served onboard a Carrier (CVN 76), 3 submarines (SSN 769, SSBN 737, and SSBN 656) I can say that the living arrangements are nowhere near the same. It’s VERY much tighter on board a submarine. On the carrier there is significantly more room both in berthing and just space to get away from people. I don’t think anyone who wants this has ever spent a large amount of time deployed on a submarine. Just my opinion. But I think if they do this it will lead to a very high percentage of divorces in the SS community.

 376      STSC (SS)         Retired

What does the Navy gain by this? NOTHING. Females do not bring any new skill sets that we don’t already have. I never worked with a female officer I would want to serve with on a submarine and a chief has enough to worry about without trying to see if ‘Seaman Gronk’ is screwing around with ‘Seaman Recruit Hotlips’ in AMR.

 377      TMCM (SS)      Retired

Just plain not a good idea……

 378      IC3 (SS)                        Former Active Duty

Having served in Submarines and knowing how cramped they are and how difficult it is to have any privacy at all women would only make living conditions more difficult. It is also well known about the instances of sexual relations that are on surface craft. One carrier in particular has been called “The Love Boat”. Submarines would not be any different.

 379      E-6       Active Duty

Females on Submarines is a bad idea all around. The main areas subs are used for now-a-days is to remain undetected, while conducting high level missions in support of National beliefs/defense. There are many scenarios that could potentially pull that boat off mission when adding female sailors into the mix such as ectopic pregnancy, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, and Endometriosis. While most are non-life threatening, all must be treated as soon as possible to prevent possible long term issues, which most IDCs are not going to be well versed at combating or treating. Then you have the “close quarter” living aspect, which if you have ever responded to a fire or flooding on board an operational submarine, you will find that most of the first responders are in skivvies (underwear) and boots. At that second when you wake to the general alarm, the instinct is to save the ship… not make sure you are properly dressed. I would also hate to see the first time the female sailor is standing in the chow line in Middle Level passage and gets brushed by one of the Neanderthals, we humbly call A-Gangers. That is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen. The only way I can see a female on a boat is the XO. Even then it would be very tricky when we have distinguished guests onboard. These brief summaries are only a glimpse into why I think women on subs are a bad idea. There are many more reasons.

 380      LT         Active Duty

I do not see how this will increase the military readiness of our submarine force. Change should not be made for the sake of change. I do not foresee this change aiding our mission accomplishment. I also feel that this may further hurt retention as some sailors will walk rather than accept the change. We are already in dire straits on retention as shown by regularly extending sailor’s tours onboard and cannot afford a large out flow of men and experience. Please do not allow this change.

381      LT         Active Duty

Some women are truly qualified to serve aboard ship, and they do an excellent job, but until we use a universal standard to measure everyone, we will always have women aboard who degrade the readiness of the ship they serve. Until the Navy irons out this issue in the surface fleet, I don’t believe we should be extending these problems to an already overtaxed submarine fleet.

 382      MM1 (SS/SW) Retired

Not to mention the disruption of routine but speaking from an A-ganger’s stand point, there is no way a woman could do all that without causing problem. And we all know that a submarine at sea needs no more problems.

 383      E-4                   Former Active Duty

I was in the Army when they started putting females alongside males in front line positions (1978). Nothing good came of it but men trying to get at the women; and being jealous, and distracted, etc. An officer in the sub force I know saw a woman arrested after coming to port and purchasing a brand new car for cash after being on an aircraft carrier for a deployment. I have sent reams of essays to the Senate and Congress, all of which have been ignored. We have here corrupt sycophantic men in positions of military leadership allowing radical women, and corrupt politicians to dictate this terrible policy change. It is a demonstration in how some men hate women, and some women hate themselves; how they hate reality and want to impose Utopia on everyone else. There are so many other reasons, to not allow women in combat roles, but these are the two I choose to mention here. If men truly love and care for women, they will not allow women to be on submarines.

 384      Family Member (mother)

I don’t think that during this time of fiscal irresponsibility our government needs to be spending money to refit subs to suit women. There are many things that I can think of that are unsuitable about a woman being in an enclosed space for long periods of time without proper sanitation, etc. As a woman I don’t think that women have to be in the sub force just to be “fair”. Social experimentation has no place in our armed forces.

 385      Spouse of E-7

This issue seems to have been kept very quiet and doesn’t seem to be well researched. Women could, in all probability, do the job. However, they would be a risk to mission safety. The submarine force is trained to fear women and fear sexual harassment charges. When you add a woman to a submarine you risk distracting one man. One man on a carrier is not a life or mission risk. While everyone should always be prepared and at full function, a submariner HAS to be at 120% physically AND mentally or the mission will FAIL. The US Armed Forces is NOT an equal opportunity employer. If it were, we would not have weight restrictions, you would not get kicked out after one too many DUIs, and there would be no restrictions on physical or mental handicap. Women, at the very least, would be a distraction which men on a submarine mission cannot afford. This also doesn’t touch upon the issue of sleeping space (hot racking), sanitary waste, and private quarters taking away space that is already far too small.

386      MMCS (SS)      Retired

As a former COB I have carefully considered the potential problems this change will generate. I believe these changes will have a significant negative impact on combat readiness and retention.

 387      STS3 (SS)          Former Active Duty

I made (7) patrols in USS ‘BOOMER’. I can honestly say that I believe that females are capable of doing the jobs, but mixed gender crews are a bad idea. It will decrease readiness and increase the types of care that are required on board.

 388      LCDR   Retired

I object because I do not believe that women can perform the damage control requirements. Putting a patch on a leaking pipe or torquing down on a leaking valve, standing waist deep in freezing sea water where the pressure could be 100 psi, is not for the faint hearted.

 389      LT (O3E)          Retired

American submarines have been designed for the missions specified, not for accommodating the specific desires of what constitutes “fair”. Opening submarine billets to women will compromise the missions of the submarines themselves and will have a negative impact on retention.

 390      CDR     Active Duty

As a private citizen I would encourage both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees to hold hearings to review the Navy’s planned change to the submarine personnel assignment policy.

 391      Concerned Citizen

Women shouldn’t be on submarines… these guys have a hard enough time doing their job and all you want to do is rub tits in their faces? Come on…

 392      MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

I do not think that this is the time to allow women to serve on submarines. We are still building boats that do not have enough berthing for a 100% male crew. The addition of women aboard will cause junior PO1s and senior PO2s to hot rack. These are the sailors that we are trying to retain. Even the addition of female officers will have this effect because the addition of one, two, or three female officers will displace three male officers into enlisted berthing. I just cannot see how the addition of females to submarines will improve combat efficiency.

 393      SOSN (SS)        Former Active Duty

I find it hard to believe that women can be compatible aboard a submarine. There is not enough room to separate males from females. It is only asking for more problems for the men who man these great vessels.

 394      E-5       Active Duty

I have 10 years on subs and this is the most idiotic idea ever. It is going to take a miserable, dangerous job and make it worse in the name of “equal opportunity”. Once you volunteer in its almost impossible to un-volunteer, so unfortunately we can just change jobs to protest this. It takes 2 years of hard work to just be useful on a sub and now anytime a female doesn’t like it she can mess the ENTIRE boat up in manning by simply getting pregnant; that is how much we depend on each other. Never mind that it’s so tight down there we have to share our beds, and 3 toilets for 100 men, let’s throw some women onboard who, according to Navy policy, are required to have their own bathroom facilities. You will ruin a superb service with this nonsense, and I will find another job in the Navy rather than go underway with women. Sorry, it’s not that they are not capable or I am a misogynist. It’s just a different world that no space shuttle, surface ship or cockpit can compare to and we psychologically deal with the stress of the job in ways that women onboard could ruin careers by complaining about.

 395      SK1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

I do not believe that women should serve on submarines. I believe between the close quarters and the continuing stress that it would just be adding another problem to worry about.

396      CAPT    Retired

What is the military advantage that will be gained to the submarine force by putting women on submarines? None that I can see. After 23+ years in subs, including 4+years in command of one, I can see no possible military necessity for putting women on subs. I think that doing so for no good military reason is tantamount to treason. I would rather get a root canal with no anesthetic than command a sub with females in the crew. I can just see it now. You are about to deploy for 6 months. You have just qualified a man for a top watch station so that you are no longer port and starboard. Then, the day before getting underway, little Miss Sally, one of the three watch standers in that billet, walks up and says “Captain, I’m pregnant”. Back you go to port and starboard. Oh what fun. Who is the IDIOT that agreed to this stupid publicity stunt?

 397      Concerned Citizen

I believe that women should not be on submarines.

 398      E-4       Active Duty

Establishing women on submarines is an undeveloped idea being given political precedence for special interests. I am not opposed to women on our submarines so much as I am the lack of studies supporting such a force-changing decision. When I search for scientific studies on this matter, I am unable to find any. We do not know how a woman will react to the pressure changes as we proceed deep. We do not know what reproductive issues may arise from a woman being consistently exposed to the nuclear reactor. Men have been proven to create more girls than boys after being exposed to nuclear radiation. What happens to a woman’s body? My next question stems from the mind-breaking nature of being deployed on a submarine. How are the men going to cope with this? Masturbation, sexual innuendos, and pseudo-gay behavior are rampant while on station simply because there is no other way to stay mentally engaged to that isolated world.

 399      E-5       Active Duty

Me and my Mrs. have discussed it, not only between ourselves, but with our close friends here at sub base. With the camaraderie, strength and tradition we’ve had for over 110 years, all of that… and with one LT. Rebecca Dickinson, or one PVT Shavonte Hampton, all that will come crashing down. We pass our lessons learned within hours or days of events on board our boats, whether DUI, maintenance issues, whatever. But all it will take is one woman like these to make a media circus and the submarine fleet will take a spiraling dive that I fear we won’t come back from. Save the billions of dollars in remodeling, and leave a good machine working well alone. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We may not be the prettiest at times, but we are the best. Don’t destroy that.

 400      Spouse of E-2

My husband will be on a boomer submarine in a few months. I do not agree with all the change that is happening. His father was on a sub 20 years ago. I understand that you cannot stop progress, however I do not view allowing women on subs as progress. When the men are underway they get very bored and turn to each other for entertainment. There are age old rituals that they look forward to participating in. Some of the men I know have already drawn up the tattoo that they will get to represent when they pass the equator. I asked why this is so important to them and I was told it is what is done, it is what has always been done; a rite of passage. This will end when women get put on the subs. Just one thing to make them agitated at the bottom of the ocean. Also I would like to say that I trust my husband, with all my heart and do not believe that women on a sub would cause him to cheat on me. It would never happen. However what does worry me is that some 18 year old kid with hormones pumping is holding my husband’s life in his hands. The men on subs are safe unless there is an attack on them or if one man makes a mistake. I don’t want someone getting distracted trying to impress a woman and make a fatal mistake costing my husband and 120 of his best friends their lives. I am begging you to leave the Silent Service alone. If it isn’t broke why fix it? My whole world is at the bottom of the ocean and I fear that you are asking for a disaster.

 401      Spouse of E-6

There is no place for women on submarines, even refitted ones. With men and women in such tight quarters the potential for problems, both professional and personal, seems MUCH LARGER than any benefit to making subs co-ed. Quite frankly, men aren’t too terribly well “behaved” while underway with other men. Imagine what will happen when the opposite sex is introduced! I feel that congress and the decision makers in the Navy should ask current submariners for, and actually take into consideration, their input. Let those who will actually be affected by the changes be part of making the decision. If women want to be on submarines so badly, give them their own separate subs. Keeping the sexes separate is not a sexism or a discrimination issue, it is a matter of safety and professionalism for the benefit of the Navy.

 402      E-6       Active Duty

The changes will have a significant negative impact on combat readiness and retention

 403      E-7       Active Duty

I hope this doesn’t happen. It will be detrimental to the submarine force.

 404      Spouse of E-5

Women should not be allowed on submarines.

405      E-5       Active Duty

WTF!? WHY!?

 406      E-5       Active Duty

I believe that having women on submarines will hinder the mission of the Navy’s submarine force. The environment that is provided for males works, and by having the opposite gender onboard will cause distractions, unnecessary drama, and complicated situations and both sexes will have difficulties. The request to have women withdrawn from that particular portion of the Navy’s force will provide more stability for our future.

 407      Spouse of E-6

My husband has been in sub force for 6 years and AS a wife I do NOT want woman on subs it’s been that way forever and no need to change it now.

 408      Spouse of E-5

Women should not serve on combatant vessels.

 409      E-5       Active Duty

Some traditions shouldn’t change just because the world does!

 410      Spouse of E-5

This is insane. There are going to be so many issues. Sanitary changes will be a big issue. And for men with families, divorces rates are already high. With this change they will sky rocket!

 411      QM2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

I served during Vietnam, 1/1968 – 12/1970 on a Fleet boat. We made 2 WesPac patrols; each deployment was 10 months. I cannot imagine a woman serving under those conditions in cramped quarters with 120 men that cannot smoke. I suggest we gather up the Senators and deploy them for 6 months and see how they do. I believe you will see an increase in NONVOLS (non-volunteers) and a loss of quality in the sailors that serve. Women in the wardroom may work for a while, but they still have to qualify and interact with the crew. This will cause some serious problems.

 412      MMC (SS/DS)  Retired

Introducing women on the current class boats is not practical due to the privacy concerns. Build a new class boat that satisfies the requirements for proper berthing and heads and I will support the idea.

 413      MM1   Retired

This is an ill conceived idea from all angles. There are health risks, moral issues, billeting issues, space and berthing issues. I understand that we all can do our part, but when it comes down to it, a submariner needs to be able to do the job of anyone and everyone else onboard; a woman lacks the physical strength to do so. This puts other lives in danger. If you follow the ORM procedures, this policy fails.

414      MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

I have discussed this with my wife. As a former Polaris Submarine sailor (9 patrols), we both agree that married life would not have been the same if women rode the boats with me. 2 1/2 months at sea has a way of changing one’s moral perspective.

 415      CWO4 (SS)       Retired

Before any votes are taken, each female representative and senator should make one patrol to find out what she is voting for. On board the boat, they will be treated as non-quals and not a representatives or senators.

 416      E-6       Active Duty

How is this going to work? No plan has been put out yet. The only way for this to work is to fully integrate the boat. Why should a female nub (non-qualified person) have her own rack while a qualified male is hot racking?

417      EM1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

While I feel that some women may be capable of serving in submarines I think that having women onboard will put the crew and its mission at risk. Perhaps in a culture where there are unisex bathrooms, dorms and sleepovers from a very early age, a mixed gender crew may work out but that is not the current culture in the U.S. today.

 418      MMC (SS)        Retired

This issue is being forced upon the submarine service by people who have an agenda other than improving the submarine service. I feel those behind this decision neither know what the full effect their actions will be on sub crews nor do they care. It’s difficult enough for submariners to perform their duties as it is now. I do not wish to imagine how much more difficult it will be with forcing this issue. While I know there are plenty of capable female sailors who might be able to serve aboard subs, I really feel that the way this issue is being presented and accomplished will cause more heartache and discontent than any of those directly affected by this deserves to have to endure.

 419      EM2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

If they want to be on a sub so much give them their own sub and put the people who want them on subs with them and let’s see how they like it.

 420      CDR     Retired

The only ‘support’ statement that I’ve read to date is an empty rhetorical comment that “it is the right thing to do”. I believe the American people and military personnel who would serve in close intimate contact in peace and war deserve a better and compelling reason. Since [you] believe that circumstances have changed and that now it is ‘right’ – then the ‘old’ way must have been wrong… or the old way is now wrong. Which is it? Upon what evidence do [you] base your considered decision? Who are the ‘experts’ who helped [you] reach that decision and upon what do they base their evidence? If newspaper reports are any indication, there is NO such evidence unless it is a supposed ‘fairness’ issue. Is that it? Is that the ‘justification’ that you wish to back? [Your] lack of judgment is astounding! What a pity – female integrated officers and enlisted don’t work out. The Navy has just another excuse to bludgeon compliance in contravention to ‘normal’ male/female relationships: This is dumb at best and you should know better. Males and females are not appropriate in a military relationship. Many may die because of “PC” wishes and dreams. That is a risk America must never take! Why do it? What is the benefit to the nation’s fighting effectiveness? Unfortunately, while our nation’s victories must always be certain, “failure is not an option.” Social experimentations such as has been implemented and as proposed (with a purported justification of ‘fairness’) is NOT subject to ‘fairness’ in time of conflict. There must be only one outcome: victory! I think that America deserves a more coherent and rational reason why homosexuals and females should be integrated within the Navy ships of the line. — Most respectfully, [name redacted for privacy]

 421      IC2 (SS)            Former Active Duty

As a former submariner, I am against seeing women allowed to serve on submarines. There is nowhere in the service where there exists a more enclosed working environment than on a submarine. Morale of the crew is one of the most essential and paramount issues. Allowing women to serve on submarines is the most asinine issue I have ever heard of and would only undermine the morale of the crew.

 422      E-5       Former Active Duty

There are needs that women have that not only pose health risks to them, but can also jeopardize the mission of a submarine. In the 6 years of submarine duty that I served, we had ONE incident that required a medevac. That situation put mission at risk and was a very big deal. If there is a medical/mission risk on a more frequent basis with the introduction of women, then our future submarine program is at risk.

 423      EN3 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Mixing sexes on submarines would severely impact the overall safety and function of the submarine forces goals.

 424      IC1 (SS)            Former Active Duty

There is no rationale to spend the funds to retrofit submarines to accommodate women on board. The camaraderie and brotherhood developed during long periods of confinement submerged has no place for women. I do not argue the capabilities of women to perform the duties required. Unless you have BTDT (been there, done that) you’ll never understand.

 425      QMSN (SS)       Former Active Duty

My submarine service was limited to the diesel boats, but undersea is undersea. Granted that female officers will be assigned initially which will somewhat limit association with enlisted men. We, as men, act and use profane language which acts as a relief valve during extensive deployment. If enlisted men feel constrained because of the females it will cause undue mental strain.

 426      ST1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

I feel the effort to place women in submarines is politically motivated rather than induced by service need. I cannot see where it would be cost effective or how it would improve the submarine service preparedness or operation. As much as I personally ‘like’ women I fear the potential for problems out-weighs even the possible political gains.

 427      MMCM (SS)    Retired

Women on submarines is a very bad idea. The camaraderie of the crew is such that all depend and lean on each other in time of crisis and war. Questioning the ability to depend on women in a crucial moment of a crisis is not a burden that these brave submariners need, nor have needed for the past 100 Years. Politically Correct or Equal gender opportunities are not a realistic issue for submarine crews.

 428      FTGC (SS)         Retired

I believe it would create a hostile environment both on the boat and the home-front. Why not have an all female submarine?

 429      ETN2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Aside from the fact that in this time of massive debt, which requires reduced spending, not making submarines coed, the health hazards for women are present. This is a foolhardy “experiment” and should be stopped immediately.

 430      E-7       Retired

I’m a retired Chief MM from the old diesel boats. It would be impossible to carry out missions with ladies aboard!

 431      EM2     Former Active Duty

I think it will be a very foolish thing to station women on the boats.

 432      LCDR   Retired

Now that our Commander-in-Chief has so thoughtfully decided to allow women, gays, and other trash in the submarine service, we are going to be in the bottom of the curve just as we were in the 60s when we took everyone and anyone because of the rapid expansion due to the FBM program. I would be glad to talk to anyone about the trash we received in Idaho for training and the large number (25-45 percent) of the classes that did not make it through. Listen to the men who served and see what their comments are. Mac

 433      FTG2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Women can perform any ordinary job on a sub. However things are not always ordinary. I once had to wrestle a 200+ lb. hatch shut with water pouring in on top of me. I doubt if any woman would have had the strength to do it… that 30 seconds made the difference. That’s the difference between a sub and a surface ship. A sub is already in a hostile environment and everybody should be capable of saving her when a casualty happens. Women lack the upper body strength.

 434      TM2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

I believe that due to the close proximity of living conditions, even men who are specially selected and trained for this type of living will react in ways which will cause disharmony and downright aggressive and competitively behavior for the attention of a female on board. No, I digress… I do not believe it will, I am positive it will!

 435      E-6       Former Active Duty

The submarine force is not a social experiment platform. This in no way will improve our readiness or our ability to succeed at our mission. This is only for political reasons and that needs to stay out of the military.

 436      CWO-2                        Retired

There is NO place for a woman on submarines. I think it would be detrimental to morale. I expect that only women officers will be allowed on board.

 437      E-5       Active Duty

What about the tradition? There are very few traditions of the Navy left, why take another one away? The whole sexist thing… call us sexist if you want, but do you ever see us sub guys butting into the women only organizations or groups, or even arguing that we should be allowed to? NO! We leave the women and their “women only groups” alone. Do men have a “Men’s Rights” group to fight for our rights? NO! Women do have their “Women’s Rights” groups. The excuse of it helping manning: it is exactly the opposite. I have heard and witnessed more than 4 or 5 crew members say this is it for them. They would not continue their naval career due to this. So, if the plan is to only put 4 or 5 women on the subs, you are losing more. Manning goes down, not up. There will continue to be a loss of sub force personnel as this drags on. The manning issue will continue and get worse.

 438      LT         Retired

This will cause concerns from many of the wives who already have enough problems running the household while their husband is on deployment. The track record for females on surface ships has documented a number of problems, so why expand this program to include the submarine force?

 439      E-6       Former Active Duty

I have seen many women that have the physical abilities, several that have the mental toughness, and a few that have both attributes to do the job. I can say the same for men. Hey, being on a submarine is not for all men; it definitely is not for all women. Not all of the men onboard a submarine can do 100% of the tasks required. There are plenty of guys that can’t haul a submersible pump from the forward compartment to the engine room bilges. It’s all about teamwork, selflessness and keeping your cool. I worked with men and women throughout my naval career and other than a few bad apples (of both genders). I found there were pros and cons to working with both. Having completed a handful of six month deployments and nearly a dozen 3-month underways, I can honestly say that gender is the problem. Women on submarines will undoubtedly be a distraction… forever. The ties that bond a crew of submariners together are strong and nearly inexplicable. Regardless of whether favoritism or partiality toward women actually occur (which it will), the perception of it will sever the bonds that hold a crew together. I mean who wants to work for some softy master chief or LCDR that lets the women get away with anything because he is scared for his job? This is what is instilled into lame naval leadership and the sailors of our Navy today. The leadership of today’s Navy fears for his/her job. I did not have any respect for weak leaders while I was serving, and would not expect anyone to have respect for them today.

 440      YN3 (SS)           Former Active Duty

This change in policy will directly lead to a loss of combat effectiveness that will cost this country greatly in the future? Are the Chinese trying this?

 441      LCDR   Retired

The CO and all Department Heads, Division Officers, LPO’s, COB, etc have enough to worry about to keep the ship ready and able to support the mission! They do not need the unnecessary distraction introduced by having a crew that included women of any rank or rate.

442      LT         Retired

I realize that men and women serve together on surface craft, in other branches of the military, and as astronauts. HOWEVER, men being men and women being women, it is just too much to throw them together in the unusual environs of submarine duty and expect them to function as an efficient team at all times, under all circumstances, and for months on end. I need not detail the effect of such assignments on military family life, regardless of the moral/religious standards of those involved.

 443      ET1 (SS)           Retired

The Navy hasn’t successfully integrated women into the surface fleet yet. The amount of screwing around that goes on onboard a mixed-gender ship is unreal. And now they want to put women on submarine crews? What are the problems with this? The Navy already knows because they commissioned a study into this very topic back in the 1990s. They are now ignoring their own study. Read it here:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/SAPA%20020195.pdf

What has changed since that study came out?… nothing, except the direction of the political winds. More important stuff to read:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/HPScott%20061200.pdf

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/NAVY-DACOWITS_0295.pdf

 444      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Lifting the ban on women serving on submarines does not improve our national defense. There are no significant benefits to the mission by providing cohabitation of male and female sailors in a tight, restricting environment. The introduction of women simply to meet a politically correct quota is detrimental to overall morale.

 445      LCDR   Retired

The potential and most likely inevitable “competition” that bright healthy boat sailors will exhibit is a given. Just recall what occurred on liberty after a couple of months on patrol. In my estimation, the distraction of throwing a female in the midst of all the critical attention to duty required is an invitation to sloppy performance at best and disastrous at worst.

446      E-7       Retired

Yes, we can overcome the habitability issues. Yes, we can overcome the privacy issues. What we cannot overcome is high-school hormones. Will it kill mission-effectiveness? Probably not, but it WILL disrupt the cohesiveness prevalent in today’s submarine force. You can’t turn a 360 foot long steel pipe into a social-experiment.

 447      RM2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Another PC move by our non military politicians. Vote them out now! P.S. someone has to be the scullery maid.

448      EN2 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Has anybody gotten any feedback from the woman of the men on the boats?

 449      Spouse of E-6

My first issue is the timing: How many billions of dollars are we in debt right now, with schools having their budgets cut? But “we” are going to spend how many billions refitting subs that already work fine?! Secondly, when does the number of good submariners who are going to go to mast become too many because some wimp of a girl either can’t keep up and gets chewed out or overhears a lewd joke or …now here is my favorite…gets touched while passing by a male shipmate? A submarine is a sacred brotherhood… not a glee club where anyone and everyone can join. I have never seen a tighter knit group of people than the men of a submarine. When you are xx feet underwater with nothing to do but talk to the men you are down there with, everything, yes everything including sex and marriage come up, and not always in a positive innocent manner. The men that serve on our sub force do not need to try and do their jobs while walking on egg shells out of fear of hurting the poor ladies’ feeling because they made a boobie joke. Now let’s throw in the no smoking ban… are you serious!?! Are you trying to get someone killed? Introducing the stress of female members and telling guys that have smoked for who knows how many years that they have to quit for months at a time cold turkey! Who’s brilliant idea was this? On to my last issue: I hope that it is female, and female shipmates only, that have to carry and dispose of the female trash (in case you’re missing my hint tampons and pads) after a 3 month patrol; can you say bio-hazard? Following through with that note, what is going to happen when a female crew member says she can’t stand watch because of her cramps? Or has to get up and change in the middle of a brief/drill? Or worse when something as important as, say, driving the boat (yes I know there are two helmsmen) needs to be done? It takes a little longer to do that than when a guy needs to take a piss. I believe some women can do anything a man can do; yes I said some, not all. I have no fairy tale delusion that I could keep up with up with the insane pace that a sub sometimes has, nor would I want to. There are honestly things that a man can endure/do that a woman cannot (we get child birth they get sub service! {yes, that’s a joke}). Yes I am a female and I think someday that women should serve on subs. This day, this decade is not it.

 450      MM2   Former Active Duty

I do not believe that a woman belongs in such a stress filled job where lives are at RISK!

451      E-9       Retired

I spent a large part of my career on boats and I am 100% against women on submarines. There will be a berthing and head problem, psychological problems, and a host of others. Some women could probably handle sub duty but I believe the majority will not. The Navy SHOULD NOT put women on subs.

 452      E-5       Former Active Duty

Men and Women should not be living and working together in a close environment for extended periods of time.

 453      QM2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

There are serious compatibility issues with combining men and women together on submarines. There isn’t the room and certainly not the available bunking for proper separation. If women want to be on submarines then they should have their own boat and not be combined.

454      Spouse of E-5

I believe women can absolutely do the job but I don’t believe that they should. Some traditions must be maintained in this country and we need to stop letting political correctness and controversy destroy all of our traditions. I don’t believe there will be many women lining up to join submarine forces in the first place so I don’t exactly see how they base spending millions of taxpayer dollars to retro-fit a few subs just for a slight chance of an increase in recruitment. It’s a waste of money just so some women can make a name for themselves.

 455      E-7       Retired

The cost of this effort could be better spent on protecting our borders with defense dept funds

 456      LT         Former Active Duty

Most misguided; guaranteed trouble.

 457      Spouse of E-6

As a spouse never having set out underway on a submarine, I can only imagine the difficulties they have working the strange shifts and not being able to escape topside to “get away from it all” for a few minutes in the sun. I can say that my husband enjoys being able to be a “guy” underway without worrying about watching every word and move he makes. I believe women on submarines is an enormous mistake. It will take morale to a new low, even lower than I’ve seen it on the boats here in the Northwest. The male-only lifestyle is all they have; women on board will change it all for the worse. Everything that makes going underway tolerable for my husband will change drastically. Factual information exists that proves the logistics of female berthing, privacy and toilets are going to pan out to unjust enrichment for women and an undue burden on the men, namely the enlisted men. Anyone who has read the reports from the last investigation into getting women on subs will see the proof of just how many ways this WON’T work.

 458      FTC (SS/SW)                Retired

Affording the opportunity for women to serve on submarines is, at best, a noble gesture on equality to all military personnel, in particular, the U.S. Navy, to serve equally among male counterparts. This idea, as proposed, requires much more in-depth study on engineering issues to afford women in the Submarine Service. There has been only noble input presented, and nothing to identify the magnitude of a poorly thought process. The mental attitude, the mental and physical stress, crew interaction, structural and material support, onboard medical support, and the actual need to give women in naval service the opportunity to serve in submarines. Forget the traditional role of “men only” in Submarines, and the male attitudes generated once Qualified in Submarines. The multitude of issues being raised is real, and modifying the modern submarine to conform to women’s special needs, is certainly profound, and unreasonable. Will this issue flow into the SEAL contingent next? Cease this idea. It will only be a disability and travesty to a noble military outfit. Very respectfully, FTC(SS/SW)

 459      E-9 (SS)            Retired

NO.

 460      PO3                 Former Active Duty

Rape will occur if women are aboard submarines!

  461     RM2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

I think that the insertion of women on submarines would lead to demoralization of the crew which is very important in the operation of an efficient ship.

 462      Spouse of E-5

I feel this is asking for trouble. Being a submariner is a very physical job that does not have the option of going topside to get fresh air or regroup. I also read an article about the dangers of the chemicals in the air to women that are pregnant. Sometimes men and women cannot be equal.

 463      Spouse of O-4

Having women on subs is just a breeding ground for sexual harassment lawsuits, most of which would be baseless. Have you SEEN how narrow the passageways are? Not to mention the berthing and head situations. Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill to retrofit submarines so that maybe a handful of women can “say they’ve done it”. Look at women on surface ships… nearly every cruise *someone* manages to get pregnant… are we really going to jeopardize mission to get a woman back to the pier because she’s pregnant? Some things just need to be left alone!

 464      FTB2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Anyone that has ever served on a submarine understands that there will be nothing good to come out of this. Moral and discipline will decline, and the ability to carry out missions will fall because of this. Unless all crew members are unmarried, there will be major problems for all. Just imagine your wife or husband being deployed for weeks or months on a sub with a mixed crew. Most marriages will suffer from this mistake.

 465      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

466      AO2     Former Active Duty

I am currently in the Navy reserves. I used to serve on active duty with a carrier air wing. When I was on active duty, I was an Aviation Ordnanceman. I know of the “friction” this will cause first hand. I do not want to see the sub force made irrelevant because of “equality” issues.

 467      ETR2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

I served on two US Submarines from 1958-1961. The last submarine I served on was a SSBN. Not only would women on board have been a determent to the entire crew’s ability to function as a fighting unit; their presence would have been a danger to themselves and/or others. My lead navigation ET Chief had to strip to his undershorts and enter a periscope well daily for several weeks while at sea-on war patrol in order to repair a mission critical periscope. He did the repair while hydraulic oil rained down on him. Would a female ET Chief be willing/able to do the same? I seriously doubt it. I experienced an excessive radiation exposure as well as a depth charge attack by a Russian warship. I saw veteran male submarine officers not handle either “incident” very well. I can only imagine how female officers/enlisted submarine crew members would have reacted to these “real submarine world” operations. A submarine that is meant to remain an effective fighting unit over long periods of deployment is no place to carry out a “social experiment”! Any sane person will know that in some capacities men and women are not created equal. Submarine duty is one of those distinctive capacities that men perform best. History has proven this to be true. Experiment with women on U.S. Submarines at our own peril!

 468      E-5       Active Duty

Due to the confined and close nature of submarine life there can only be problems by allowing men and women to work together in this manner. It may be the right on paper but in reality it is only going to lead to unnecessary problems.

 469      E-6       Former Active Duty

The overwhelming majority of people who really know about submarine service (as practiced by the USN) are opposed to women in submarines. They have dozens of well-thought-out reasons for their opposition. One of my own is that there are in fact physical requirements that few women will be able to accomplish on their own – in a community that stresses pulling your own weight. Presuming that a study was done, why are these things apparently still unknown at the highest levels? Get down to the deck plates and live the life for a few months. Talk one-on-one with some unheralded submarine sailors, outside the view of prying eyes. It will be a real education.

 470      LT         Former Active Duty

The Social Engineers have maneuvered for this moment for a long time. We are at the endgame now. For those on the sidelines, be advised that your inaction will guarantee another massive win for the Social Engineers and massive future military losses for America. John Howland, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USNA-At-Large/

 471      STS2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

Risks need to be mitigated to the maximum degree possible in such a unique environment. Young men (and women) have tendencies to let emotions sometimes override common sense and their ability to function, as trained, for combat/emergency situations. This is not a good recipe. It is very much the correct time for not supporting the “political correctness” climate our current leaders embrace. Somebody please “lead” and do what’s right for the good of the submarine force and this country.

 472      FTB1 (SS)         Former Active Duty

Submarine crews are very small for the size and complexity of the vessel. The extreme psychological pressures and long submerged deployments are not conducive to coed units. Also there is minimal ability to segregate coed crews. In this time of reduced budgets is it the wisest choice to expend the money and hazard a vital mission critical to the continued security of the country to pursue social PC diversity in the submarine service?

 473      ENCS (SS)         Retired

First you want to ban smoking on the boats, and then you want women aboard. Thank God I was in the “old smoke-boat” service!

 474      E-6       Former Active Duty

There isn’t enough room or privacy for submarines to be co-ed. A major waste of money will be spent to make a submarine co-ed. The sub world is not for the female type. If they want to be on subs the make an all girl submarine and see what you will get. It will only take one to figure it out. If this world still thinks we are equal then please – make an all girls submarine but leave the current silent service alone.

 475      CAPT    Retired

I have personally observed aboard numerous surface ships the extent to which women can, will, and do influence an alpha male to be her protector and patron resulting in inappropriate work distribution creating adverse impacts to the deck plate sailor. I have also observed fresh female ensigns who cannot navigate from stem to stern and will be perpetually spending time trying to qualify with no real desire to do so. From an accountability standpoint, aboard a cruiser, the ship ran aground briefly near Bahrain with a harbor pilot inboard, the CO on Deck and a full Navigation team at work. Following the dustup the CO lost his command, the XO, who was not on the crowded bridge, got a punitive letter, and of course the OOD and JOOD careers were effectively ended. Only the female navigator was sparred any fallout and was seen by me skipping through the wardroom happy as a lark because she was going to DC (Washington) as an aide. It made the wardroom sick. How many other CO’s have been relieved for inappropriate behavior with resultant superior’s loss of confidence leading to their career death? Women take advantage of the environment, while poisoning the command and divisional workplace. Carriers return home with 1/3 of the women pregnant. I don’t know what portion follows birth control effectively. I cannot fathom how much worse it will be on submarines. I’m not sure King Neptune will like it. Submitted with profound respect to all that serve to the best of their abilities. May God help us as we put our women in the front lines against our enemies. We should be ashamed.

476      LT         Former Active Duty

I served on fast attack subs for 6 years. It is absurd to think that women can serve with men on subs without sexual relationships developing. An active duty rear admiral I spoke with recently said 40% of women on carriers returning from WESTPAC came back pregnant. What do you suppose the percentages will be for subs?

 477      CAPT    Retired

Women in submarines is a very bad idea. The close quarters, the need for over 100 years to “hot bunk” junior enlisted, and the long, multi-month periods submerged are the perfect storm for:

• Sexual activity;
• Crew strife over sexual competition;
• Wife anger over husbands at sea in a “sewer pipe” with women;
• Massive resignations, but both officer and enlisted coming from home pressures; and,
• Aborted patrols/operations by pregnant sailors who would violate Naval Reactor policies on exposure to ionizing radiation. This is a social experiment that should be stopped.

 478      LCDR   Former Active Duty

You cannot legislate or repeal human sexuality. The submarine is too small to allow proper dignity and privacy for a mixed gender crew. I see no way that this move can improve readiness. At the very, very, very best, it is neutral. At worst, it is a disaster. It will probably hurt recruitment and retention in the submarine force.

 479      Spouse

How in the world can the service members’ wives do their job “holding down the fort” while they constantly worry about the women living in such close spaces with their husbands?

 480      CAPT    Retired

Served on 1 destroyer, 6 submarines and a submarine tender without women. Commanded two submarines. Strongly oppose women serving on submarines. Too many privacy, personality, and fraternization issues. A commanding officer’s nightmare.

 481      MM1 (SS)        Former Active Duty

With women on board in tight living quarters will be difficult, as with the up and coming smoking ban. There is no place aboard submarines for women. Are there any female Navy SEALS? Need I say any more.

 482      SN        Former Active Duty

This will never work, even on a Nuke Boat. The women will never submit to the normal harassing that goes along with qualifications to get your Dolphins, unless they just pin them on like the surface fleet.

483      E-5       Active Duty

There is not a single submariner in the fleet who wants women on submarines. This whole plan is coming from a group of people who have never submerged before (SECNAV, CJCS, CNO). What do they know about submarines? We’re not called the Silent Service for nothing. Not only do we have to deal with the upcoming smoking ban but know we have to deal with PMS on top of it! The top of the chain of command really needs to get their collective heads out of the clouds, or the President’s butt cheeks as applicable.

 484      Spouse of E-5

Opposed to women in submarines.

 485      CS3 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Against. Puts both women and men in a bad situation.

 486      Spouse

I am a future wife of a submariner who has been in for three years and we both find many things to be problematic with this including: pregnancy, facilities, medical knowledge, depression, “the brotherhood”, and many other things. It isn’t just an equality issue you have to see past that; why fix something if it isn’t even broken!

 487      Spouse of E-7

My thoughts are that until the upper brass that has decided to lift this ban serves aboard a submarine, not just “rides” one, they should not ever be allowed to make decisions regarding who should serve. I am a firm believer in the old saying “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Sorry Navy but this social experiment is going to do nothing but damage to men, women, families and the overall morale of the Submarine Service.

 488      Spouse of active duty

I believe you are looking for a lawsuit when it comes to putting women that close to men in such small quarters. Women are bound to brush up a man in passing and they will cry sexual harassment. There are jobs on the submarine that require two people and being in awkward positions and I can’t see having a woman and man doing this together. You also have the pregnancy issues. Lots of women become pregnant to get out of deployment. What will happen to the manning of the crew if you have women getting pregnant all the time? Some of these things may not happen right away, or at first with the officers, but eventually it will happen. If you want women on a submarine then give them their own submarine.

 489      Spouse

I am all for equality, however I am not for breaking a 110+ year tradition. The risk of sexual harassment within such close quarters and uneven male to female ratio will no doubt be proven disastrous, not to mention the financial impact reconstructing a boat to that magnitude will entail. I feel divorce rates will rise and retention and morale will fall.

490      E-4       Active Duty

I think that women on submarines is a horrible idea. It’s worked for over 100 years as it is and I think that it should not change. They say that it was a success on surface ships, but surface ships and submarines are two very different animals. The tighter confines and general lack of privacy or space would make the whole process very painful.

 491      Spouse of E-5

This has to be one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard. Our submarine force carries out some of the most prestigious missions. Our men do not need the distraction of ‘who is sleeping with who’, or ‘who wants to sleep with who’. I can guarantee that half of the women that go to a boat are going to come back pregnant. All that is going to do is add more of a strain on married couples and the military budget. It’s ridiculous! Not to mention with as close of quarters as a submarine has there’s no room for women. There’s a sanitary issue for one. A submariner’s job is very demanding. My husband has told me of times when he barely had time to sleep, much less shower. Women have more demands in their lives than men. All in all, PMS’ing does NOT need to happen on a submarine. Before you decide to put women on submarines maybe you should consider making more people want to STAY on submarines. Raise the re enlistment bonus’ or create a fully women operated submarine. Don’t make submarines Co Ed. That’s retarded.

 492      Spouse

First, submarines are extremely cramped; space is at a premium and every inch is used for needed equipment, weapons, sensors and supplies. To accommodate women, costly design modifications would be required and take space needed for higher priority items. Secondly, putting men and women together in very confined quarters for long periods of time submerged (up to two-plus months) is simply asking for trouble, both aboard the submarine and potentially on the home front.

 493      Concerned Citizen (S1W Prototype Qualified)

I do not feel it can work, not because women are not very capable, but because the costs and privacy issues for mixed sexes would drive the cost of boats up in the long run. And it is essential that there be no animosity created by any factor on board a submarine. Anyone who thinks that, especially on a boomer patrol with long weeks at sea, sexual tensions will not erupt, is I am afraid very naive. I think it is just one more sign of a navy that wants to be politically correct. There are plenty of opportunities for women on surface ships. Does any other navy in the world currently do it?

 494      CAPT (US Army, Ret.)  Retired

Bad idea… would be a major distraction and expensive to accommodate females on subs

 495      E-4       Former Active Duty

I would compare the tight cohesion of a sub crew to that of a Marine rifle squad. The politically-correct can force this but morale and performance will pay. I do not feel most women have the upper body strength for jobs required by All Hands in emergency situations on a sub, unlike a carrier where you can get lost in a crowd. And the queers will watch from the fantail.

496      LCDR   Retired

Why change something that works so well to start with? There is little privacy between the “males” who are presently serving aboard. Adding females creates even more tension. Why not try an all female crew first and see how they would get along?

 497      Midshipman 2nd Class            Former Active Duty

The combination of confining spaces, long tours at sea, and critical missions has always required specially suited sailors, be they enlisted or officers. High tension is ever present, thus the Submarine Service has always been a “Selective Service.” High morale usually offsets this tension thru the formation of close personal bonds. The introduction of co-ed crews and sexual tension will wreck havoc with the morale of the crew. Young, virile men and women will enter the natural competition that is found throughout Nature. Focus will be lost and mission readiness will suffer. This has already happened in the surface navy, although not reported. Demand official statistics of ship’s crew lost to pregnancies and automatic shore assignments. Do we want to now spoil the effectiveness of the ships that carry our nuclear deterrent and those that kill the enemy’s missile bearing boats?

 498      CAPT    Retired

I served in submarines both on eight Polaris patrols and in support of submarines during my later reserves tour. Females on board will work only to the detriment of the service. Male hormones and sailor social character cannot accommodate extended coexistence in the closed and personal environment onboard submarines under patrol conditions.

 499      CAPT    Retired

Two simple questions: (1) Will assigning women to submarines enhance combat readiness? Answer: NO. (2) Will assigning women to submarines create problems? Answer: YES. So why do it?

 500      LT         Former Active Duty

As a former officer qualified in submarines, I believe that ‘Women In Submarines’ is foolish and will decrease the effectiveness of our navy. This will also cause personnel problems that will never be solved. Do not start this; it will be easier to fight it now and be labeled ‘anti-feminist’ than to live with the problems it will cause.

 501      CAPT    Retired

If the issue is PC and social justice, then by all means let the females in. If the issue is maintaining a proven military effectiveness against a determined enemy, then don’t.

 502      MM2   Former Active Duty

NO, NO. Women do not belong on submarines. Also, if they do go aboard how are they going to only allow officers? What are the admirals thinking about? Why can’t they leave well enough alone? All this is going to do is cause problems on a nuclear submarine that is under water up to 3 months.

503      CAPT    Retired

To do this will FURTHER degrade the readiness of the Navy and harm the morale of the submarine service.

 504      CPO     Former Active Duty

No one has successfully explained to me yet how increasing sexual tension amongst the crew will improve:

• Morale
• Unit cohesiveness
• Command readiness
• And, most importantly, overall military preparedness

 505      LCDR   Former Active Duty

Having made 7 Polaris Patrols as well as a post shipyard availability cruise, I can state unequivocally that placing females in submarines is a terrible idea. The living quarters are too tight as is and there will be no provision for the unique medical problems of females. Most importantly, no case has been made that females aboard submarines will improve our military readiness or capabilities. On the contrary there is no way to provide for minimum female privacy in existing hulls without degrading the fighting capability of our submarines thereby reducing our country’s defense capabilities.

 506      CAPT    Retired

I would be all for women in all positions, regardless of the dangers involved and strength requirements, but those positions will never have equal treatment. They did not exist at the Naval Academy in 1976 and they do not exist now, no matter how many lies are told.

 507      LCDR   Former Active Duty

I admire women and recognize their accomplishments. I feel sincerely that women will be a disruptive influence. Even if not they will, in moments of extreme stress, not be as psychologically sturdy as men, or as physically capable when it is demanded. Also, men want to protect women and NOT BE bossed by them. Finally, maybe it is an isolated phenomenon but the recently relieved CO who abused her whole crew, officer and enlisted, in a completely unacceptable manner, gives rise to very grave doubts

 508      TM3 (SS)          Retired

Allowing women on subs is the highest form of politically incorrect stupidity. Intense concentration is required in many areas of the service, but it is unique in subs (as I know from personal experience) Adding young healthy, sexually active sailors of both sexes to this situation is thoughtless and dangerous. Remember the sinking, and loss of life on the Japanese boat, due to “entertaining” political contributors with “sub rides”. Eric

 509      MTC (SS)         Retired

The mission of our submarine fleet is far too important to be adversely effected by the failings of human nature which has already proven itself in the ranks of the surface fleet.

 510      Spouse

It’s not a very good idea to put women on submarines because there is trouble just waiting to happen. Adultery, sexual harassment, everything that I can think of can and will happen. If those women get put on a boat of men there is going to be trouble. Mark my words, the navy is looking for trouble. There will end up being a lot of divorces if this happens.

 511      Spouse of O2E

As a spouse of a submariner officer, I feel that women should not be allowed on subs. It’s not that I don’t trust my husband, I trust him beyond belief. I feel women just don’t belong on there. I know we are capable, but I feel this is a boys club and should remain a boys club. If a female officer gets pregnant they just pull her off board. Well when anybody’s wife gets pregnant or has a baby, they don’t pull our husband’s off board to be home. Our guys miss holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, births, deaths, and so much more. When will the government realize that it is not fair to our guys for these women to pretty much get what they want and will come off a submarine and pretty much live a shore duty? Also this privacy stuff they are talking about, there will never be privacy! I’ve been on a sub! The guys don’t even get privacy to themselves, so how the hell are they going to make it for the women. I feel we don’t belong, and heaven forbid we don’t give them what they want and then we get slammed with a lawsuit from the women because they didn’t get what they wanted. Please keep these women off our force, if you want to ruin this long standing tradition, then go ahead and ruin all the boys clubs. You can’t just make changes with submarines; go ahead and change them all. Women need to remember their place and life and leave the man stuff to the men.

 512      O-4      Retired

Slowly and surely our nation’s defenses are being undermined. Why is it necessary? There are some things we need not change, and this is one of them. I had 18 years either on submarines or ships associated with submarines. We do not need this!

 513      Spouse of E-5

I do not support women on the submarines. From what I have learned over the last 3 years of being a submariners wife I think it would be detrimental to the navy to allow this to happen. I think an increase in sexual harassment will be an adverse reaction as well as the many adjustments that have to be made to accommodate a woman’s cycle and pregnancies. I think it will fester resentment and create more broken homes down the line!

 514      O-3      Former Active Duty

Women on subs? No way! Not because I lack faith in discipline on the deck plates… our sailors are generally better men than their officers are. And not because I believe women are inherently not up to it… if such were the case, the state of Israel would not exist. I say no because our national command authority has demonstrated over and over that they will miss NO opportunity to sacrifice combat readiness on the altar of political correctness, hence unequal physical fitness standards, lax discipline in the face of overt fraternization, etc. Children ought not to be issued chainsaws until they have demonstrated proficiency with butter knives, nor should flag-grade officers be entrusted with the pressure-cooker headaches of integration on subs until they have demonstrated adequate proficiency with similar issues aboard, say, aircraft carriers.

 515      RM1 (SS)         Former Active Duty

As a former member of the US Navy Submarine Force, I can tell you that the berthing and head facilities onboard current US Navy submarines is not adequate for the men serving onboard let alone adding a female contingent to the mix. There are not enough heads or individual berthing spaces to accommodate the required segregation of crew. As usual someone with no knowledge of the situation has made a determination for the expediency of politics and not the best interest of the country or the US military. If the President or any member of Congress knew what they were talking about they would wait to implement this after a suitable vessel was designed and commissioned.

 516      MM2 (SS)        Former Active Duty

The fleet is not ready for this, and by fleet I mean ‘the fleet’, the boats themselves. The logistics and dynamics are not right with current ship designs. The retrofit is only half an idea. This was not thought out very well and rolled out with even less thought. If you really want to integrate the Submarine Force, you need to design a ship with this in mind. Doing it this way is bad idea and should be stopped.

 517      CDR     Retired

Those who point to the “success” of women on surface ships, and how it is a no-brainer today now that they are there, are deluding themselves. Has anyone looked at or published the statistics of pregnancies during or after a deployment of those women stationed on-board? What is the percentage of women onboard surface ships that became pregnant and couldn’t deploy? These billets had to be filled by another male or female sailor. This personnel shuffle decreases readiness fleet-wide and costs the taxpayers twice, once for the original sailor still receiving regular and sea pay and once for the sailor who had to fill the billet. What happens to the rotation of the person doing the filling? Most likely a back-to-back deployment which decreases morale.

 518      Other Family Member

I am very concerned to say the least of the turn that the military, especially the Navy, is taking toward political correctness. My son-in-law has been serving as a nuclear electrician on a boomer sub out of Bangor Naval Base in WA for the past 4 yrs, and he can tell you a plethora of reasons WHY having females aboard his sub is “morale suicide” for a sub fleet. It’s bad enough having to deal w/MALES and their problems, not to mention the egos within the command. My DAUGHTER, as a naval wife, can tell you about all the DRAMA that goes on within the wives at the FRC meetings, etc. She can only IMAGINE what THAT will do to the STRESS LEVELS, which are already maxed out as it is, when you add FEMALES aboard. Thankfully, my son in-law’s 6 yrs are up come this fall, and most likely will NOT be re-enlisting. We really feel sorry for those that will be stuck having to deal with the added addition of frustration and stress that will come of this new policy change.

519      STS1 (SS)          Former Active Duty

It’s a really bad idea!! You are going to bring the surface fleet’s problems to the sub force, where there is no room to escape from it!

 520      LT         Former Active Duty

Political correctness, once again, carried to the level of ABSURD!

 521      EM1 (SS)          Retired

The boats are no place for women. Physically for them it is a poor idea. It also adds an unnecessary tension in a ship that constantly runs in harm’s way. No slight on the professionalism of female sailors, either enlisted OR officer (having served with both). The benefits would be few and the drawbacks would be MANY.

 522      SO3 (SS)           Former Active Duty

Make every Representative and Senator ride 1 patrol or 1 deployment on a SSBN. End of discussion.

 523      STSC (SS)         Retired

Although the day to day physical demands of submarine life are generally well within the capabilities of most able bodied people, the environment aboard a submerged submarine is at best hostile to human life. It is difficult enough for a man to adapt to the confinement, the compromised hygiene, the very long hours and the demands mentally of working in such hostile conditions. It will not be possible for opposite genders to work in these conditions without succumbing to the stresses and compromising their professionalism. It may be possible to offer some privacy aboard SSBNs but such is not the case aboard attack class boats. The first thing you learn aboard a submarine is there is no privacy.

 524      Spouse of former active duty

There are plenty of reports out there to support the ban. Women do not belong on subs with men. The quarters are too small; the medical issues alone should keep the ban in place.

 525      E-6       Former Active Duty

Women submariners cannot, in truth, commit worse errors than some males have as exemplified frequently since the USS Greenville’s blunders (for example). What women submariners can do is ruin the fragile esprit and enduring pride of the world’s premier silent service. If the customary (as in all of the services and surface warfare) attempts are made to shield women from abject and embarrassing failures, a wedge will be driven into what has taken a century of male sacrifices and underrated traditions to forge.

 526      Spouse

This is one place where equal rights don’t belong.

 527      E-5       Former Active Duty

Served on sub. Life can be difficult as it is. Throw woman in the mix will put everyone on edge.

 528      Concerned Citizen

Future sailor going into Navy Nuclear program on [date redacted for privacy]. I feel that females on submarines will be extremely disruptive to the work environment and, more importantly, the camaraderie of the crew.

 529      E-5       Former Active Duty

From past experience with women in the military it is not in best interest of my country. I am sure there are places for females; I feel strongly this is not one of them!

 530      E-6       Active Duty

I am currently in the NUPOC program and was very disappointed to hear this news.

 531      Spouse

It is common knowledge that many women in the military are vipers. They go after men and either things happen and they get pissed, or they get spurned and they get pissed and try to ruin carriers. There is also the concern of close quarters. What is the next step; co-ed showers? or handing out condoms while underway? I realize that everyone has free will and people can say no but should the good honest people who are there to do their jobs be put in such an awkward situation. Just because we can does NOT MEAN WE SHOULD.

 532      E-5       Former Active Duty

I believe this is a big mistake allowing women to be on submarines. Before our government approves this, they should go to sea and see what life is really like on a submarine. Who is going to pay for the modifications of a pressure vessel?

 533      E-4       Former Active Duty

I believe that mixing a submarine is the problem. Whether or not women are there only do a job, there comes a matter or instinct. At some point during a 6 month deployment or a 3 month deployment a female is going to be in heat. During that time every guy on board is going to know it. Some guys can resist that but not all. It then becomes an added stress that is not needed on a submarine. Absolute concentration at all times is needed on a sub. The subs that allow women currently are short range diesel boats and I talked with sailors that were on these mixed subs and there was sex. All they did was sit on the bottom of the ocean listening for people coming into their country’s waters. That is not the mission we have on our boats. We need our sailors battle ready at all times and it is difficult enough to do after a month or two at sea without adding extra stressors. And the first time a woman gets “sexually harassed” please have her talk to me. It is a sub life. If you can’t be close enough with your fellow sailors to say anything on your mind, then you can’t trust that person with your life. If you can’t trust them with your life you won’t be able to live with them on a sub.

 534      Spouse

I am a wife of a prior enlisted, now officer. He is currently active duty, over 20 years now, and has been on fast attack and boomers. I do not think having women on subs is a good idea. From everyone that I have talked to, wives and other sailors, no one really thinks this is a good idea either. Life on subs is hard enough without adding additional stress on the boat with having women on board. I think if they add women to the boats you will have increasing problems with accidents/deaths on board and maybe higher divorce rates as well.

 535      Spouse of E-6

The navy hasn’t thought this through. What happens when women get pregnant, are PMS’ing, have to go off duty to change their pads/tampons? My husband will have to pick up her workload and they are already overworked as it is.

 536      Spouse of E-6

I think allowing women on subs is one of the biggest mistakes made by the navy. Not only do you have to worry about infidelity (as a spouse this is a big issue for us) but what happens when a woman gets pregnant? You lose a person for patrols and I am sure there are certain watches they won’t be able to stand due to birth defects that could happen. Then let’s talk about sleeping quarters; they are already cramped as is. How are you going to separate women from men? Or does the lovely navy think it’s ok to have coed sleeping quarters? And last but not least, submariners are a one of a kind group of MEN. Why take away everything they know just because some women are whining about not having subs as a career option?. Boohoo. There are plenty of other choices out there in the navy… leave the subs alone!!

 537      TM3 (SS)          Former Active Duty

It’s not the fact that women can’t do the job, but people are asking for a mind state of a man being secluded with women in a close environment. If they’re going to do this, why not S.E.A.L.S. as well? BECAUSE WE’RE HUMAN, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT JUST DON’T MIX!

 538      E-6       Active Duty

In my honest opinion, females should be integrated onto submarines. That being said, I believe the SSBN’s are not designed with females in mind and I am against them being used as the test platform. Those men on the boomers are stressed enough being under for months at a time, adding females to the mix would just be an unnecessary stress. Let them do their job without that extra stress. If you want to integrate females, Great! But do it on a platform that had them in mind and has the separated quarters and heads required of a co-ed navy. Thank you for your time.

 539      Spouse

I believe that there are several aspects of this new policy that have not been thought through. If the various issues have been discussed then the discussions and remedies to the problems I will discuss have not been made public. Our military “ran out” of funds early last summer yet our military is finding yet more ways to spend needless amounts of money refitting boats to accommodate women aboard submarines. I believe we have many more places this large amount of funding could be used in our military. There is a limited amount of space on a submarine and most sailors already feel that they are cramped and now they will not be sharing as many of these facilities any longer because at least one berthing area and one shower/restroom facility will be reserved for the 3 woman officers that will now be aboard each ship. Will the women be asked to hot rack or sleep between missile tubes as other sailors have when there wasn’t enough berthing to accommodate all on board? There are approximately 140 men on the ship that instead of utilizing 3 shower/restroom facilities will now be using only two while the other shower/restroom facility will be shared by 3 women. Is this fair to the sailors that have given so much to their navy? There is a certain lifestyle that most sailors settle into while on a submarine for countless days. This lifestyle revolves around being around other men, and only men. There is a sense of comfort that comes with that situation. This will be taken away as soon as women are on board. As for the women on board; I myself am a working mother of 4. I understand wanting to be considered equal. In the military environment, and not necessarily just on submarines, women are treated more than fair in most circumstances. It may just be biology but when a child is conceived the woman must be the carrier of that child for the 9-10 months of gestation. During the end of that time period most military women receive time off while still receiving their full pay. They are allowed maternity leave that extends beyond their regular leave days. Just 3 years ago were male sailors allowed any time off when their children were born and it is still difficult to this day to be able to utilize this leave. It is all subject to the needs of the command at the time. In most surface ship divisions there are more than enough extra bodies to cover the gap. On a submarine however they are manned for only what is needed. If a division has 5 billets then there are typically only 5 personnel assigned to that division. If one of these personnel become pregnant and can no longer perform their duties (i.e. go underway for several months at a time) then the other 4 personnel in that division must cover for the 5th person because they are still filling said billet. So according to the detailer, the person that fills these available billets, there is no position available there. What happens if more than one woman are in a division and they all become pregnant? What happens to that division then? Who covers those positions? And lastly, in a perfect world there would be no fear of adulterous behavior in a mixed gender environment… alas… this is not a perfect world. If the amount of family issues arising while sailors are on deployment wasn’t already at a peak level then this is just going to add to the stress that all sailors and their spouses experience before and during a patrol. Just ask those who are responsible for messages to and from the boat and the countless number of emails that are sent between spouses who are already dealing with an enormous amount of stress and then add the fact that regardless of the professional nature of the men and women aboard submarines… people are still only human and there will be added problems with women aboard submarine vessels.

 540      Concerned Citizen

Hello. I have been dating a submariner for some time. I have been on Virginia-class submarines. They are tiny, and every inch of space is being used for something. It is already unbelievably uncomfortable for the boys onboard, but they will be even more cramped if accommodations for women must be made. Additionally, I have heard multiple stories of illnesses ranging from scabies to influenza spreading rapidly through a submarine. Mixing genders will force all members into even tighter quarters, which will increase the rapid spread of these problems. Sexual activity among crewmembers can also spark the spread of other diseases and infections. On a sub, the racks are barely inches from each other. There is no personal space or privacy. This is just asking for sexual harassment and assault to occur. The sub would have to carry additional supplies to accommodate women as well. Many of the traditions that submariners have to stay sane would have to go, as women might be offended. The navy is not an equal opportunity employer. Submarines are based on efficiency and stealth. They are just big enough to accommodate the crew, and they carry just enough crew and supplies to accomplish the mission. Putting women on submarines would require larger subs with facilities for women, or the current subs would have to be altered to accommodate women, which would make quarters for both women and men even smaller. More supplies would have to be carried, and in the case of a woman needing to be removed due to pregnancy, additional crew members would need to be on staff. The efficiency of the submarine would be lowered, and efficiency is exactly what makes submarine warfare effective and allows them to go on missions for such long periods of time.

 541      Spouse of E-7

There is enough stress on the lives of submariners and their spouses already, so why add more stress by adding women to submarines?

 542      E-5       Active Duty

Women affect men psychologically; her very presence in a room will make a man act differently. There is no ‘equality of the sexes’; that is a pipe dream, a lie. There is man and women, each with their own unique talents and abilities, many of which overlap. I am not saying that a woman is not smart enough, or strong enough to do the job of a submariner. I am saying she should not be on a, roughly, 300′ long 30′ across tube signed-sealed-and-delivered to the depths of the ocean with 150 men. We don’t allow women in men’s locker rooms. Why not? We are all for equality and quote unquote equal opportunity (it has been said before, but I will say again: The navy Is NOT An Equal Opportunity Employer, nor should it be), are we not? The answer to that is obvious; it should not need to be stated. This is the military people, not some private country club trying to make a political point… or maybe we are; maybe that is what we have degenerated to; politics. Instead of the submarine service doing its job of protecting the interests of The United States Of America, we are some politician’s soap box. We have a dangerous job to do, a job that requires focus as much as it requires relief. There are things that happen in a boys locker room… jokes and gags that men play on each other to relieve the boredom, relieve the stress and anger of every day underway and we will simply not be able to do that with women on board. I have been underway with women, midshipmen or squadron medical officers, and the entire atmosphere of the ship changes. Things become more tense and more guarded. It is a simple fact that to many men a women is a distraction, plain and simple. That street runs two ways. To many women a man is a distraction, plain and simple. We don’t need that kind of distraction underway; we don’t need to be constantly worrying about being “P.C.” or sexual harassment, real or fabricated, or whether or not my reliving a port call is going to end me up at the green table for offensive behavior. I don’t want to have to worry about a hard charging woman out to make a name for herself, trying to prove “women can do this too”, climbing to the top on the broken careers of my fellow shipmates or myself. Distractions kill; it has been proven time and again. I am not a sexist, I am not bigoted in any fashion but adding his pressure to the already over taxed pressure cooker of the submarine force (longer deployments, fewer port calls, less manning, longer sea to shore rotations) is a bad idea.

543      ETCM (SS)                   Retired

Not sure that this is a good idea. Glad I am not a COB who has to deal with women on a ship. It is difficult enough keeping the crew focused and now we are adding a whole new dimension to an environment that is extremely demanding already.

 544      EM1 (SS)          Retired

Totally political move. Only reason this is issue is someone is trying to get voters. These boats just are not the place to go co-ed.

 545      IC3 (SS)            Former Active Duty

Women aboard submarines will be counter-productive to unit cohesiveness in an already highly stressful situation. Living and working in close quarters with little or no privacy for months will lead to discipline problems. Decisions will be made with gender considerations negatively influencing outcomes that may endanger ship/crew when otherwise they would not. This is a politically expedient policy change that will later be found to negatively impact the Submarine Service. I am sorry to see it happen.

 546      Spouse of E-7

This is clearly political. The military is not the place for social engineering.

547      MMCS (SS)      Retired

This is just smoke to divert our attention from the real cost of the wars. Purely political. Being a submariner is hard enough as it is. I can remember the distraction from having the women come onboard the boat during an upkeep from the tender or SIMA. Work would stop so all the guys could go look at this women or go talk to her. The force does not need this distraction. Nor do the marriages need this additional stress.

 548      E-6       Active Duty

Lifting the ban on women serving on submarines is a purely politically motivated agenda. There is absolutely no operational benefit in this decision. Currently the submarine force has enough issues to contend with (USS Hartford collision of 2009, USS Newport News collision of 2007, USS Philadelphia collision 2005, USS San Francisco collision of 2005, USS Oklahoma City collision of 2002, and USS Greeneville collisions and grounding to name a few) indicating a downward trend in submarine readiness. With that said this is not the time to introduce a new distraction to the submarine force. The logistics of equipping a boat to handle women sailors is going to be extremely expensive. All the estimates are in the multi-million dollar range, showing the current administration’s disregard for any fiscal responsibility during one of the worst economies in recent memory. The decision to put women on submarines has affected the morale of the sub force already and we are one to two years from them setting foot on a boat. The once high standards of the fleet are already lowering because of Naval Brass’ total disregard for the opinions of anyone O-5 and below and the politics of the evaluation and FITREP programs. Quality officers and enlisted personnel are leaving the Navy because they are not ranked fairly among their peers; if a woman is thrown into the equation it further complicates an already broken system. She will be ranked over a higher performing male either because she stands out being different or because nobody wants to be the first CO that throws a woman out of the program. None of the aforementioned issues breeches the “contrary to good order and discipline” issues that are sure to arise. Not as in ‘someone said something out of line to a female shipmate’ but the morale issues and rumblings that are bound to arise over preferential treatment. I know the official policy will be “they are to be treated no differently than any other crew member” but the reality of the situation is that they will be treated differently. “Why?” you ask; because they ARE different. The decision makers at play that champion this cause have either never gone to sea on a submarine, or have not been to sea on a submarine in 10 or 15 years. Which brings me to my closing point that applies to all policies set for the submariner; he who sets the rules and policies for the seafarer, should himself go to sea.

 549      Lt Col   Retired

Once again, the Democrats/socialists hope to inflict their social engineering idiocy on our armed forces. I hope the USN “has not yet begun to fight” this matter. Make it a point to vote the Dems and RINO’s out of office in 2010 and 2012.

 550      CTR3    Former Active Duty

Woman aboard submarines? Absolutely not! Another thread comes loose in the fabric of military custom, order and discipline. It won’t be much longer before the USofA contracts with North Korea (to name one) to maintain and “man” US Navy vessels to save money and add to “man” power pool. No women aboard subs! No women aboard naval vessels! And get rid of those silly new uniforms, #### covers and cammies.

 551      LT         Former Active Duty

The close quarters required in submarines mitigate against professionalism when men and women are confined together. This can only subvert the mission. I would not object to staffing submarines with all women if equality in every single arena is somehow an objective that must be met. Please do not weaken the elite military services.

 552      Concerned Citizen

I do not believe women belong aboard submarines. As a women myself I feel that there are certain areas that men serve better than women and this is one of those areas. Women need to quit fighting to be “equal” with men and allow them to perform their duties undisturbed. There are other areas women can serve and they should be content with them.

 553      ETR2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

The distractions of females on Submarines could lower combat efficiency. The close quarters would cause the brushing of male against female and lead to thoughts not present with an all male crew. The presence of females would also force censoring of the crew who are bawdy at best. To pass the long months at sea, crews typically indulge in conversations that women would not understand or want to tolerate leading to censorship, then morale problems.

 554      LCDR   Retired

Since these women will be nuclear trained line officers, I assume they will be working in the engineering spaces. I can remember many hours spent in the reactor compartment and tunnel during my service in the early 60s. Have studies been completed on the effects of radiation on the unborn fetus? It’s a given that women in the early stages of pregnancy will be deploying.

 555      CAPT (USAF)    Former Active Duty

It’s not going to work. I cannot imagine how the male members of a crew cannot be mentally distracted or inhibited in their daily duties. It’s going to bust crew morale in a big way.

 556      STS2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

The submarine force is one of the few places in the military that women should not be allowed to serve. If allowed, there will be nothing but problems, logistically (space on board), as well as physical and mental requirements for the female Submariners. I know this from experience. USS Miami (SSN 755)

 557      E-5       Active Duty

I am a submariner and I am on a boomer. I live the life day-to-day and while I support woman in the military I know what life is like on my boat and I know that this will be the biggest mistake that the Navy will ever make.

 558      Spouse

As a woman who served in the military, and one who is now a Navy wife, I am completely against this. I have multiple reasons but some are pretty graphic. I will try to word this delicately. When I served I learned a lot about how the women I was serving along side of behaved. There were multiple false claims of sexual harassment, along with a high rate of pregnancies right before deployment. On a carrier, if 10% of the women get pregnant and cannot go out to sea it has very little effect on the ship (because the crew is much larger). On a boomer sub, the crew is roughly 120 sailors, so if 10% of the females get pregnant that boat may not be able to go out to sea, which in turn will mean another boat will have to stay out to sea in its place. How is that fair to the submariners and their families? Also, I have been on my husband’s boat, and I am in no way intimidated by the thought of any of those women “stealing” my man. My husband is a great faithful man, and I trust him with all my heart. However, I do not trust that these women will not make false sexual harassment claims on multiple male crew members. Anyway, those are just a couple reasons I do not support this.

 559      E-6       Active Duty

Allowing women to join the submarine force is a completely political front. I do not understand how letting women aboard submarines is “necessary to maintain American dominance beneath the seas.” We have been a dominant force for a long time without women aboard our boats, and can continue to do so without them. What is going to happen when a woman gets pregnant and cannot deploy? Am I supposed to be Port and Starboard for six months? We rely heavily on our brothers to accomplish a mission and our orders. When you lose a person, it affects the whole boat in some way. This has got to be one of the worst thought out things the navy brass has come up with. Has any of the brass actually asked the true volunteers of this force their opinions? I have been in submarines for 13 years now and I have never been asked my feelings about women on submarines, especially by the brass making the decisions for us.

 560      E-6       Active Duty

Manning is major issue. The addition of women into submarines is not going to give us a pool of more candidates but is going to limit us. Pregnancy and general health concerns that are limited to females will show a single boat being shorted another sailor. If a female was to become pregnant, she is immediately removed from the submarine. This is one less person, serving on a boat that is already undermanned, without a replacement. If another woman was to be the previous replacement, that doesn’t make up for the training and experience that cannot be readily replaced. No one denies that a female cannot do the job, but why try to cause more problems with the stresses and tensions already existent with submerging a boat? A submarine is known to become a highly unrefined place when submerged; it’s a release of tensions, for guys to be guys and not worry. With women, we can’t be the way we are. And in a military, specifically a force that is also underfunded, are we going to be spending extra funds to support the transition of females simultaneously? Leave females off my boat and use the money to buy us replacement parts and tools. This is only going to be limited success within the officer communities. Everyone will praise how well it comes out, but in the long run, you are destroying one of the most power forces to function in the US Navy since WWII.

 561      Spouse of E-4

First I would like to point out that I am a woman myself and my husband is not on a sub. I strongly believe that there are some places that women do not belong and a sub is one of them! It is sad enough that most women in the US Navy have horrible reputations. But to make it worse they live up to these reputations. As a spouse MANY other spouses I know we constantly have issues with adultery or attempted adultery involving Active Duty Navy women whether it’s on the home front or on deployments. And in such a stressful environment as a submarine, I think those chances of adultery will only get worse. Which I personally think that the Navy is to blame; they have the power to make sure that living arrangements/showers/personal spaces are not coed. In most cases these arrangements are provided however they are not enforced. The divorce rate is high enough. Let’s not add another thing to increase it. I cannot believe that the navy, yet again, has passed us off as not having an opinion. I think spouses are the backbone of their service. They do a horrible job of boosting the morale of our sailors and we have to pick up that slack. They pretend to give us our credit but when, as a spouse, need something you rarely get it.

 562      Spouse

I cannot imagine any effective regulation on pregnancy, which I feel is the biggest issue for allowing women to serve on submarines. Just like on surface ships women will get pregnant during deployment but how does the Navy plan to relieve these women of duty once that happens? I’ve seen women get off a 9 month deployment of an air craft carrier very early into the deployment due to pregnancy and it seems to be done regularly. How would this work for submarines? Unlike a surface ship which is SURFACED AT ALL TIMES submarines are not easily “accessed”. Are “missions” going to be put to the side to accommodate a newly pregnant female? If a woman is taken off during deployment who will take up the slack? The submarine service is already undermanned so why put more pressure on our already over worked sailors?

563      E-6       Active Duty

Submariners I have served with have had a problem with female midshipmen who come aboard for just a day. What happens when they are there for a whole patrol/deployment? The need for segregation in an already severely limited space, and the special treatment/favoritism that is sure to come from this will impact the crew’s performance/morale as a whole. Many male service-members on shore or sea duty have had their careers ruined by opportunistic women who use their sexuality or threat of sexual harassment charges if they do not get what they want. I know this does not represent a majority, but I cannot help thinking that given how the brass is viewing this program as PR gold, that they would do everything they could to hush any negative instances in order to save face. Many men who have already sacrificed much of their personal lives to serve in this unique brotherhood will be collateral in this move of “progression”.

 564      E-5       Active Duty

As an active duty submariner, I firmly believe that women on board submarines is an operational hazard. Women will add a completely new element to mission readiness with regards to pregnancies, which are inevitable, as well as relationships with fellow crew members. It is my belief that women will also be uncomfortable with the behavior of their male counterparts onboard these submarines. Attempting to alter the behavior of the men in the crew may drastically lower overall morale. It is for these reasons that attempting to allow women to serve on submarines is a truly terrible idea.

 565      Spouse of E-7

Don’t try and fix something that is not broke. It’s a man’s world; leave it that way. The point here is, I could go on forever, but instead why don’t you go to a few of our bases and truly ask around because this is not OK with the wives and the sailors.

 566      Spouse

I am very opposed to this ruling. Women do not belong on submarines alongside men. There are enough problems on our surface ships and those are much larger with more sailors. This is putting men and women in very small living quarters where there is little to no privacy. We already have enough problems with cheating spouses and wives getting pregnant on our surface ships. Now this is going to pour over onto our subs, a place where fraternization does not belong! This is only going to bring even more problems for our military and our men who aren’t even allowed to be men anymore. We are becoming way to accommodating, whether it is people from other countries coming here, or the women in the military. Let the Men have their military!

 567      E-6       Active Duty

Submarines are no place for women. The Mission comes first. With my experience of the surface fleet on shore duty, 100% of the women at my command used their gender to manipulate their workplace, and openly admitted it. From as little as flirting with a male sailor to gain better internet access while underway, to planning pregnancies to avoid deployments, and everything in between. I have been stationed on four submarines, and will seriously consider a career change if I have to go back to a boat with women on it.

568      Spouse

I believe women should have their own sub. They are capable of doing the jobs required but should not be mixed with the men. Among other things, women on subs with men will be a distraction from the missions of the boats. Not to mention the inconvenience to the men. How many men are NOT going to choose subs now that women are allowed? The men lost are going to outnumber the women gained.

 569      MT2 (SS)          Former Active Duty

While it is possible for women to perform the jobs asked of them, my opinion is that when the qualification process starts, one of two things will happen: (a). the checkouts will get so easy the whole qualification process will become a joke. OR (b) the checkouts will be what they were and after a female does not qualify in a timely manner the entire command structure will be turned upside down. I for one am glad that I am out now because I would hate to see what charges are going to be brought against the CO and XO of the first boat that has a blue nose or shellback ceremony underway with a women on board.

 570      E-9/COB          Retired

I served as Chief of the Boat for two SSN’s serving on 5 Subs total including 2 SSBN’s. Regardless of what we think, the truth will be hidden and the whole force will change in ways that no one has yet to perceive. The logistics of sleeping can be worked out, but the problem is the long missions. The longer the mission, the less navy rules apply and the more God rules take over. You cannot legislate the need of humans. As a COB I would not allow myself to be in a position to provide favors for favors. And the wives back home in an open society will let ideas grow to problems for the marriage.

 571      E-4       Former Active Duty

I’ve heard of more than a few issues of having women on surface ships. These ships have been fitted to accommodate women and problems still arise with operational and personnel readiness. The fact is that a submarine is the tightest place one can work in the Navy; they cannot be EASILY or cost effectively changed. This WILL cause the same problems. This will be significantly more profound on a submarine crew due to their small numbers and very close camaraderie. I also feel that proportionally the number of incidents will be larger due to the smaller force as opposed to larger ships and battle groups.

 572      E-5       Active Duty

I don’t know how well this is going to work. All I see happening is a lot of harassment charges being brought up and a big disruption of day to day life on board a sub. I have been on two SSBN’s and don’t see how this will work.

 573      E-6       Active Duty

My concern does not stem from a woman’s physical limitations. While serving on my submarine I encountered males who couldn’t operate certain equipment. My concern is a woman conveniently getting pregnant before a deployment. I was on a fast attack submarine for 5.5 years. Augments are available to guys whose wives may be expecting or even for the sailor who has issues at home or just as a reward. A pregnant woman will take the limited augments away from those more deserving. Also I have been underway with woman and it was incredibly painful. I also have numerous friends I have made who served on surface ships and very few have any positive comments to say about woman who they either worked with or supervised. Most expected special treatment and privileges. There is no place for that on a submarine. Everyone is expected to pull their weight and if not they go away.

 574      E-6       Active Duty

I believe that it is going to change the camaraderie and its going to make others extremely uncomfortable and the submarine fleet will no longer be the elite because women will be given special treatment for the sake of being scared of sexism. I SIGN THIS PETITION TO NOT ALLOW WOMEN ON SUBS!

 575      E-6       Retired

A submarine is no place for a woman. There are too many inherent dangers that men deal with every moment that are ingrained in the culture of the service. Among these is the exposure to radiation areas on board a boat. A woman may be pregnant and end up exposing the child to levels detrimental to it. Also the physical requirements for the conversion of a boat, or building a new one, to accommodate females would cost taxpayers millions. These may seem trivial reasons to oppose this measure of political placation, but from those of us who sailed, they are important ones. DO NOT LET women onboard in any other capacity than that of an official visitor.

 576      E-5       Active Duty

There is a reason it is called the “Silent Service”. Personally I don’t think women can make it 3, 4 or 5 months out sea submerged.

 577      Concerned Citizen

Although women are capable of performing in this area I do not believe this is a good environment. Such a closed, isolated, secluded, and confined setting doesn’t create the optimum working conditions for focusing on such important tasks as required in underwater settings. Thanks, PR

 578      MT3P3 (SS)      Former Active Duty

I oppose women in submarines because of the distraction they will cause. The duty is too hazardous; too confined, and it would be difficult to make accommodations for them. They have special problems that could be detrimental to the job.

 579      E-6       Active Duty

There are too many reasons for me to begin why this is a bad idea. Someone who gets paid a lot more than me thought that this was a good idea so they ran with it. Now to save face they are ignoring the HUGE cost it will take for the conversion, medical studies, privacy studies, PROVEN medical issues, and many other reasons NOT to place a women on a sub. I strongly feel that the time and money that will be spent on this program can be put to installation upgrades, building new vessels, and keeping our sailors alive in the sand.

580      E-6       Retired

Why destroy combat effectiveness for nothing more than political correctness?

 581      ET1 (SS)           Former Active Duty and current MD

While many arguments against women serving in submarines are compelling, the following editorial I wrote was published by the Los Angeles Times this week addresses the most compelling and very real dangers to women–to date, largely ignored by the Navy.

‘Women, subs and nuclear radiation’ Women are due to start serving on nuclear subs in 2012. But have concerns about radiation exposure been adequately explored? Roger C. Dunham,

May 13, 2010, Full article here:

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dunham-subs-20100513,0,222015.story latimes.com

 582      ETC (SS)           Retired

I proudly served aboard six submarines for twenty years. If anything can negate shipmates camaraderie aboard a submarine, a full time female is it. The first thing to understand is that old-timers will withhold common discussions around her because of their uneasiness. An overzealous fellow officer/skipper could chastise crew members for any number of reasons because she’s a woman and shouldn’t be subjected to such. My first three boats were manned largely by WWII vets who used any descriptive words they wished to get their point across. While I understood their world and seldom used their descriptions I had their respect and earned their Dolphins.

 583      CDR     Retired

I am against women being in submarines. I believe this for multiple reasons:

• The minimal manning that exists on submarines makes any absence due to pregnancy have a proportionally greater impact on combat readiness
• The close confines of a submarine make the necessary accommodations for women difficult to achieve. Devoting an entire berthing compartment or bathroom to the small female complement onboard a submarine puts unnecessary hardship on the male crew.
• The sexual tension that will inevitably flow from having a mixed gender crew in their early 20’s in close daily contact will inevitably adversely affect morale, teamwork and combat effectiveness. Even assuming all hands have perfect behavior, the fact is that there will be sexual tensions among the men, who will be unconsciously competing for the attention of the women. This will lead to counter-productive competition among the crew, with a resulting loss of combat readiness. This situation is only exacerbated if (as will likely happen) individual crew members behavior is less than perfect as the result of this tension.
• There is no pressing need for women in submarines. The USN was able to adequately man almost 100 submarines in the 1980s. The force is 1/2 that size now, but the US population is greater in size. There simply is no manning problem that requires using females to replace males.

 584      E-3       Active Duty

I don’t feel that a submarine was built, designed, or is the proper platform for women. The submarine fleet has existed for over 100 years without women; why reinvent the wheel? My husband’s dolphins are looked at with a lot of respect and pride, both of which I feel will die with women on submarines. Being that I have served myself, I know far too well the scams, politics, lies, and deceit involved with women in the force. Nuclear submarines are our deterrence, and the tip of our mighty spear. Let’s keep that spear sharp and strong. Please decide against destroying the pride and strength of our submarine fleet, and keep women off of submarines.

 585      FTB2 (SS)         Former Active Duty

There is not enough room for women on subs. Berthing and heads would have to be completely re-designed to house enlisted women. The closeness of the crew would be split. I just don’t see it working.

586      Spouse of E-7

My husband is a submariner and has been in the navy for 15 years. I am against the idea of women being on a submarine for several reasons. Submarines are too confined for men alone on a patrol now. In every aspect, tension rises, personal space, and personal body care. Some men alone cannot handle a patrol; now add women with menstrual cycles on which I believe will and can affect a workplace… especially a submarine. Carriers already have had a rise in fraternization. I imagine on a submarine it will be an issue considering the small community. These are just a few points I’d like to make. I have nothing against women equality, but I do believe there are some places where women do not belong.

 587      O-6      Retired

Disagree with assigning women on submarines.

 588      Spouse

I’ve been the wife of a submariner for 9 1/2 years and I’m concerned about the morale of our sailors with women on board. I know it’s hard enough to keep morale up on an underway but some of the fun and cutting up that goes on during deployment is most definitely going to have to be altered to prevent “offending” women while at sea. I also see the potential of some of the girls crying harassment seeing as two ppl can’t even pass each other on a submarine without rubbing up against each other. I personally just think it’s an all around bad idea.

 589      MT1 (SS)          Retired

In an already high stress environment, allowing women to serve onboard Submarines will be one more added distraction in an environment where distraction could be deadly. Normal order on board an underway submarine will be greatly altered. Just check the statistics of onboard pregnancies of the surface fleet.

 590      E-6       Active Duty

Women do not need to be on submarines.

 591      E-2       Active Duty

As a woman, I realize that it’s rather odd that I’m against this. However I AM against it, and only for reasons of safety and mission productivity. As they say, boys will be boys. Even though I’m widely considered “one of the guys”, I’m well aware that there are certain things held back even from me, never mind what it will be like for them once female Zeros (officers) are incorporated. It’s unfair to the guys on the subs to throw such a tension-inducing wrench into what has clearly been a well-functioning dynamic for the last 110 years.

 592      E-5       Former Active Duty

Without sounding crude or facetious I would hope someone in authority would take the time to realize the biological effect submarines have on young men. To subject them to the presence of a woman, no matter what rank, will undoubtedly create a situation that can only lead to some poor soul having to face disciplinary action for no other reason than being HORNY. My God, what the hell are you people thinking? Have you ever served on a submarine on a 90 day patrol? I am a “normal, non-sex offending”, mature male of 61 years now, and I can confess without hesitation that when we came in off patrol my sex drive was off the scale. THINK… It will cause great harm to someone.

 593      IC1 (SS)            Former Active Duty

I don’t believe that women should be allowed on submarines. Too many changes would be needed in order for this to happen. There are many physical and mental challenges that take place at sea that I don’t think women would be able to handle. I don’t believe the military would have anything to gain by having women on submarines.

 594      LT         Former Active Duty

Women on submarines – I think it’s a bad idea. As a prospective submariner, YOU are supposed to adapt to the environment until, or if you can, “do the job”, that is, “get qualified’. The submarine environment and its crew do not adapt to you! I was qualified in submarines as a junior officer, and later was a nuclear power instructor (Shift Engineer) at an NPTU. Adding females to the mix cannot help and will likely hurt. There are certainly women who can hack it in the submarine environment. Unfortunately, there are some who can’t or won’t. The pressure will be on the submarine force to adapt to them, not to force them to adapt to the submarine force, or go back to the surface fleet. Putting women on submarines is going to negatively stress the existing system of submarine crews. Please don’t do this! Former LT, USN (1120, qualified in submarines, Engineer qualified and screened for Dept Head)

 595      E-7       Retired

There is no justifiable reason to put females on submarines. The navy has failed to overcome the problems inherent in mix-gendered crews aboard surface ships. Such problems will be amplified in the narrow confines of a submarine. Unfortunately, a submarine’s operating environment is infinitely more hostile and unforgiving than a surface ship. Why risk sending another boat on eternal patrol?

596      E-6       Former Active Duty

This is not only a matter of corrupting tradition, it is a matter of endangering lives. Women have sufficient opportunities in today’s military. A submarine is not a workplace where those that are more susceptible to environmental and/or biological hazards (think of unborn child and female biology) should be exposed. To do so endangers all others aboard.

 597      E-6       Former Active Duty

Due to the physical demands of the work and the isolated (and unforgiving) operating environment, I do not believe women should be assigned to submarines. The social aspects are another reason for NOT assigning women to submarines, but the physical demands outweigh social issues in my estimation.

 598      E-5       Active Duty

A political move that will reduce the readiness of the submarine force by adding pregnancy, and other issues due to close quarters coed environment.

 599      O-6      Former Active Duty

I made four patrols, two as Executive Officer, during WW II. Troubles over women ashore were divisive afloat when on patrol. Women aboard a submarine on an extended patrol would be equivalent to buried mines on a highway in Iraq.

 600      E-5       Former Active Duty

Not necessary. Women can have their own sub. Crews should not be mixed. Too many distractions.

 601      E-5       Former Active Duty

I will leave my comments short, and blunt. I do not think women should be allowed on submarines. One of my main reasons for this opinion is the stark difference in which the surface and subsurface fleets operate. In the surface fleet, if any grievance or conflict arises, even under the most harrowing situations, there is proper space, time, and replacement personnel to keep that warship functioning, while still addressing any personal conflicts. In the subsurface fleet, there is hardly the room, barely the time, and NO replacement personnel, to accommodate any personal conflicts. Submariners are asked on a daily basis to put the needs of the ship, mission, and navy ahead of their own needs. And if that means the sailor suffers mentally or physically, then so be it. That is the level of dedication required to be a submariner.

 602      Spouse of E-4

Submarines have a “set” crew with no “extra” hands on deck if someone is unable to stand watch. What will happen when a female submariner has a negative pregnancy test prior to leaving port, then 3 weeks in finds out she’s a month and a half pregnant? That’s one less hand on deck. What happens when a female has “personal issues” and cannot stand watch because she needs to use the head because of her menstrual cycle? Or any other female issues for that matter. Submarines are tiny compared to surface ships. The crew is a LOT smaller than surface ships. Every sailor I have spoken with about this issue is not a fan. They feel like they will not be able to be themselves while they are underway and it is already taking a toll on them. I have no issues with my husband being with another female for X amount of days, it’s the thought of the living situation and how much different it will be for the sailors on board. The sailors will have more stresses than before. Some sailors may start worrying about their wives and how they are coping knowing that they are with a female for so many days going through alert periods where there are WEEKS without contact. I personally feel that a new female officer on board a submarine wouldn’t want to jeopardize her career by “lusting” with a married sailor; others feel differently. That is not my concern. Knowing how my husband comes home and tells me of fun times with his shipmates on board in his off time and then knowing how much of that will have to change. I thought that being a wife, or anyone for that matter in this country, was to help keep our military members morale high. Especially in submarines given the circumstances they are living in for such an extended amount of time. As far as I am concerned this has lowered the morale of all the sailors I have spoken with, not heightened it. I may not be anyone special; however I don’t feel it is efficient to send a bunch of sailors out to sea for missions vital to our countries security with low morale and extra “stresses” on the job.

 603      E-5       Retired

Enough of Political Correctness in the military. It’s ruining us and we will go down like Rome. It was a nice ride. I pray it doesn’t end. Our job is to kill people and break things, not for social experimentation. We don’t have much longer until we get back to our founding. USS Seawolf SSN (575)

 604      E-5       Former Active Duty

I served onboard the Albuquerque from 1985 to 1989. I served during the Cold War and being able to talk about some of those missions now let me ask this: What do you do when you go into a sensitive area and they remove the doors and there are only curtains to separate things? What do you do when the mind brings you thoughts of home and a loved one while you are 500 ft down? The honest answer is that on surface ships you can go topside and get a breath of fresh air or find a private place but on a sub you are close to your shipmate 24-7. You better be ready for a lot of sexual harassment and at the very least sexual tension which comes from these close quarters. The people who made this decision never served on a boat but they love practicing political correctness for the sake of votes. And I didn’t even address the issue of physical strength which in a close environment requires even more upper body strength that women just naturally don’t possess.

 605      E-7       Retired

It’s hard for me to put down what I want to say. I would like to write about the all the stuff I experienced while I was in, a lot of it not pretty. Being a woman in a man’s world not easy.

 606      E-5                   Former Active Duty

Purely political.

 607      E-5       Active Duty

While a SSBN/GN are larger that the LA/VA/Seawolf classes, there is still a lack of facilities for women (berthing, medical, washrooms). If a crew is allowed to integrate with women (enlisted particularly), what will happen to manning if the females must be cycled out due to pregnancy or other medical concerns? We will be stuck with that service member not performing their duty for up to a year without any relief. Also on the matter of ‘The Brotherhood’; it will destroy the camaraderie between the men in fear of sexual harassment or what could also happen, discrimination.

 608         E-6          Retired

Putting women on submarines is simply adding undue stress to an already highly stressful situation. The logistics of how to manage berthing and heads is going to drive the crew and the command nuts (for both male/female and officer/enlisted). With the fact that absolutely nothing may be flushed down the sanitary system I wonder how they plan to deal with certain hygiene products. If you say those items will be thrown away as trash, then I wonder how the sailor that has trash disposal duty is going to deal with this biological waste. What exactly is the submarine force gaining by making these changes? What is the return on investment?

 609         E-5          Former Active Duty

Women have contributed significantly to the armed forces for decades and I am proud of their service; however, sub service is unlike any other duty in the entire military. Other branches of service operate in large groups with support close by but this is not the case on subs. It’s not a military base, it doesn’t land after a few hours in the sky, it doesn’t pull into ports regularly and it has very limited medical resources (sorry doc). What happens when a woman declares pregnancy on the 4th day of a patrol?? What happens to the poor guy who rubs up on a female passing through the engine room? What would happen to the underway morale once he gets busted for “sexual harassment“? What do you do with the feminine products (give them TDU duty)? The list goes on and on… oh yeah… what will they do on halfway night??? Haha… I have no doubt the outcome will be disastrous, but the Navy PR department will have no choice but to declare it a raving success.

 610         E-5       Former Active Duty

There are many tactical and operational aspects of integrating women into the submarine force that are being overlooked to accommodate political and bureaucratic interests. This is a mistake! As a submariner with 6 years of sea duty on fast attacks I can undeniably say that there will be inevitable issues that will arise during this transition. I cannot go into specific details here, but in general these issues will affect our operational readiness. In many cases these issues that might cause a ship to have to surface to helo (helicopter) personnel in or out; or in a worst case scenario, cause a boomer crew to have to be relieved early as a result of an incident. There are even WORSE scenarios that should not be discussed. This is not a matter of “politics” and bureaucracy at this point. It is a matter of national security. Why would we would we put national security at risk for a matter like this? If women want to serve as submariners, train an all-female submarine crew and deploy them!

 611      E-6       Former Active Duty

I was one of the first women allowed back into the Nuclear Power field. Even while on shore duty at a training facility, men were uncomfortable with this and on constant alert, always looking over their shoulders to see if I was there, afraid to say anything that could be taken wrong. I served on board an aircraft carrier for two deployments and I know how stressful and hard it can be on morale. I can’t imagine how much worse it is on a submarine. It is wrong to add to the pressure and stress of one of our country’s most important teams by asking them to not only go to sea and risk their lives for several months at a time, but “make sure you don’t say anything that could be taken the wrong way and don’t touch anyone while running through the narrow passage ways to get to the EPM and keep the boat from sinking.” Our submarine crews should be seen as an asset and protected from anything that will make their job any more difficult or stressful. Not to mention, it is an all volunteer force. Chances are, with the added pressure of women on board the volunteer rate will go down, degrading the quality of the volunteer force and maybe even causing the standards to be lowered to ensure manning requirements can be met. The decision to put women on submarines is purely political, with nothing to gain in the most important function of our military, combat readiness.

612      Spouse of Active Duty

Opposed to women in submarines.

613      Former Active Duty

I don’t think women should be in the military services period. In order for the military to accept women in to the military and have a genderless military, the whole boot camp process would need to be revamped. The stripping for a person’s “identity” needs to be stripped ear rings, head shaving needs to be for all recruits. You should be able to retain your identity after the boot camp process but Stripping your identity is part of the mantra of one team one fight. Boot camps don’t need to be segregated if you want a “genderless” military. I condone unisex bathrooms as well. With that said then the military could weed out the individuals who could not control themselves and discipline without impunity. In addition I do support Gay’s in the military as long as they control themselves. I also think this makes a great excuse when you don’t want to hook up with overbearing kniving women. I enlisted at 30 y.o. to do my duty for my country, not to whore myself out at work. One more thing I would like to add. A horrible truth this would be a great breeding ground for communicable venereal disease. It seems we always forget this horrible reality. On submarines “hot racking” is a norm. How is this applied to women? And the fact that male and female genitalia is the opposite. How could the secretion of vaginal fluids influence sheets? All things I think were over looked before this “political” decision. This was NOT an “operational” decision for sure. I served in the Navy on a Destroyer.

******* Non-Voting, Comment Only **********************************************

### LT              Retired            The Netherlands

Due to the fact that the welfare of the boat is dependent on the total confidence on each other, makes the chance of relationships and the possibility that someone becomes jealous, one man to another, or one woman to another, too dangerous for a submarine.