One more comment before I bust a seam. EVERY single one of the people listed as being for this are SURFACE fleet people. Roughead was cruiser group commander, Surface fleet. Mullin was surface fleet. Gates was an intel officer in the USAF and the closest he came to a nuclear missile was to deliver intel reports to Whiteman AFB out west, ON LAND. He’s CIA, and nothing wrong with this but, a Boy Scout goody two shoes (with whatever that implies) willing to work under Obama— good God. This whole discussion reminds me of the old school tie Brits who used to say espionage was wrong because “gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail”. Well all of these people have NO clue what submarine warfare is about, with the exception of their having in two instances served aboard what are known as TARGETS! In modern naval warfare, a carrier is something that can easily be taken out by a skilled sub commander with nuke torpedoes... who also may sign their death warrant doing so unless they are really crafty and escape. It takes a skilled tactical mind capable of deception to do this. Big blustery surface fleet types and air force flyboys have no clue and never really did. Ask a P-3 Orion subhunter vet how “easy” it was to find one of our own. They are putting this crucial element in our new defense structure in jeopardy by insisting they put submarines through the stupid social experiment to which they’ve alreay subjected the poor surface fleet. Did you know there was a commander relieved of command because he was on the surface too long, transferring a sailor with a rupture appendix 300 miles South of Iceland to a helo... and it was the helo who was LATE! I’m done, unless I read a PC type comment here. Our readiness is in jeopardy.
From what I’ve read here, there is simply NO ROOM on a submarine for social experiments.
FReepgards.
Blasted Skimmers!
Even Real Boy Scouts know better than this idea.
As for the others pushing they are Seat of the Pants Polishers or DACOWITS TWITS and nothing more.