Navy To Allow Women To Serve On Submarines

[oskar]

Generally, I believe that those who favor male/women crews fall into one of two categories:

1. They are somehow under the impression that life on a submarine is the same as life everywhere else (a workplace, a college campus).

2. They support male/female crews because doing so is a "politically correct" idea and the current popular thinking calls for the the military to be made to be just like everywhere else (a dangerous concept).

You can believe what you darned well want but both the above statements are false, in my case. I'll not presume to speak for others as you are doing.
Furthermore, your assertions have been disproved by other navies. So what is it that makes you think that USians are such Neanderthals that they have neither the self-control nor self-discipline required?
I am assuming (usually a bad idea) that you aren't simply a misogynist (sp?).

[Pax]

Well:
1. Let's give it a try before we make summary judgements.
2. There is the fact that other western nations have managed it without the world ending.

Anyway, all that can be said has been said.

[Brian]

Aug 15, 2010 15:45:37 GMT -5 oskar said:

Generally, I believe that those who favor male/women crews fall into one of two categories:

1. They are somehow under the impression that life on a submarine is the same as life everywhere else (a workplace, a college campus).

2. They support male/female crews because doing so is a "politically correct" idea and the current popular thinking calls for the the military to be made to be just like everywhere else (a dangerous concept).

You can believe what you darned well want but both the above statements are false, in my case. I'll not presume to speak for others as you are doing.
Furthermore, your assertions have been disproved by other navies. So what is it that makes you think that USians are such Neanderthals that they have neither the self-control nor self-discipline required?
I am assuming (usually a bad idea) that you aren't simply a misogynist (sp?).

Oskar, I'm not against women serving on submarines; rather, I'm opposed to men and women serving together on submarines. I think it's a bad idea. But as I've stated previously, I'm open to the idea of women-only subs. Why not explore it? Second, your comment about "other" navies ignores the fact that (1) "other" translates to very few, and (2) the navies with co-ed submarines are not among the world's most well-established naval powers.

[Brian]

Aug 15, 2010 15:38:10 GMT -5 MacBeth said:

You have toured subs, fine. But that has nothing to do with all of us being held accountable for our actions. And that applies to sailors of all genders.

I heard your points and read them very carefully. I also have no need to have you agree or disagree with my positions, and I am pretty sure you have no need for the same from me.

And had your most recent post on the topic been about opinions on the topic and not your perception of why the opinion of others have nothing to do with the topic at hand, I would not have responded - I believe we will continue to disagree on this. But not because I am too PC or am incapable of understanding that life on a sub has no relationship to any other way of life in the world. I disagree because I know that there will be issues in any change of circumstances, but I also know that we cannot continue to condone discrimination or continue to choose to support those "serving the country" who are incapable of being fully functioning adults, not just hormonal teens who have never grown up.

We continue to let slide all the things that are wrong because it is hard to change. But that cannot be our fallback position any longer. We have made much progress in the last 100 years in many areas. But we are falling back. That cannot be acceptable.

And to address your knowledge of subs, I could tour auto repair shops until I died and still not know what it takes and what they go through to fix cars. I am glad you have a passion about subs, but this is abour people and what is right and wrong. And for that, I do not have to watch shows - but I have taked the time to learn about the real topic - both from informational sources (such as other nations that have made this work pretty smoothly) and in firsthand life experience. And that, by your definition, is an "informed position"

Beth, thanks for your reply, the same with everyone else. I think this is definitely one topic that we won't agree on; further, I doubt if most (or even all) of the board will agree with my position. That's OK. I understand that.

What I think is most important is that we always maintain a certain sense of decorum in spite of any disagreements.

Or, as a local politician used to always say, "Let's agree to disagree agreeably."

[Pax]

Not to be obnoxious, Brian, but one of your major protests was that women can get pregnant. Perhaps you just meant the opportunity to get pregnant while at sea, but a woman can board and not be aware that she's pregnant for a full month. A submarine can travel a long way and get involved in very critical things in the course of a month, so I think your objection applies to those women too. That is, it applies to all-female subs. You've changed your mind on that objection? I do remember making an argument about how that risk could be mitigated, maybe you're just still in agreement with that.

[MacBeth]

I hope you do not believe I was being disagreeable, Brian. I was not the one assigning motives to positions without basis. I was only letting you know that I felt it was condescending. If it was not intended that way, then that is great - but I still tell my friends when what they are saying does not come across in the way they intend it to.

[Brian]

Aug 16, 2010 5:57:50 GMT -5 MacBeth said:

I hope you do not believe I was being disagreeable, Brian. I was not the one assigning motives to positions without basis. I was only letting you know that I felt it was condescending. If it was not intended that way, then that is great - but I still tell my friends when what they are saying does not come across in the way they intend it to.

Understood

[Brian]

Aug 15, 2010 20:04:59 GMT -5 Pax said:

Not to be obnoxious, Brian, but one of your major protests was that women can get pregnant. Perhaps you just meant the opportunity to get pregnant while at sea, but a woman can board and not be aware that she's pregnant for a full month. A submarine can travel a long way and get involved in very critical things in the course of a month, so I think your objection applies to those women too. That is, it applies to all-female subs. You've changed your mind on that objection? I do remember making an argument about how that risk could be mitigated, maybe you're just still in agreement with that.

Pax, it's naturally true (of course) that women sailors can show up pregnant before their ship (or sub) leaves port. And the women can then sail away--only to learn of the pregnancy later. There is no 100 percent way of preventing that.

The biggest risk in my opinion arises from men and women serving on subs at the same time. It's just a world that won't work, with pregnancies being one of several potential problems. But I also acknowledge that keeping women out of the submarine service altogether is unfair towards women.

So I'm willing to compromise and support having all-women submarines; however, there is something else that needs to be said here: This discussion has so far ignored the fact that America's submarine service has been the best in the world for over 50 years. Moreover, the sub service has been a key part of our national defense. With those factors in mind, what I'm NOT willing to do is completely change our submarine service (and potentially weaken it) just for the purposes of equality. Our submarine service has worked great for a long time just as it is.

There are times when national security concerns MUST trump other concerns--including equality ones.

This is one of them.

[oskar]

America's submarine service has been the best in the world for over 50 years

Here we go again with unsubstantiated Yankee bragging... and then y'all wonder why the US is neither well-liked nor (more importantly) respected.

[Brian]

Aug 23, 2010 19:10:49 GMT -5 oskar said:

America's submarine service has been the best in the world for over 50 years

Here we go again with unsubstantiated Yankee bragging... and then y'all wonder why the US is neither well-liked nor (more importantly) respected.

Bragging? Hardly. Can you name another country in the past 50 years whose submarine force was better than America's, Oskar?

[wheelspinner]

Our submarine service has worked great for a long time just as it is.

That was true of mounted cavalry at one time, as well. It's the worst possible reason not to move with the times, as many a military commander has discovered to his cost.

[oskar]

Bragging? Hardly. Can you name another country in the past 50 years whose submarine force was better than America's, Oskar?

It's up to you to prove your assertion.
There's no doubt the US spends the most money but, then again, it also spends the most money on the army and they aren't the best, the most money on healthcare and it isn't the best by far...
Now prove what you posted.
You might want to start with the submarine warfare that hasn't taken place in the last 50 years.

[joethree56]

That was true of mounted cavalry at one time, as well. It's the worst possible reason not to move with the times, as many a military commander has discovered to his cost.

Oh dear yes! Brian please research the tactical thinking pre WWII where thinking tacticians came to the conclusion that the invention of the machine gun would lead to stalemate and they had not even factored in barbed wire. These two things changed warfare and ultimately the world yet the finest military brains not only missed their implications but could not adjust to them when presented with their reality.
I do wonder though about this obsession you seem to have Brian. I had to come to terms with sexual emancipation as it happened and was married. Believe you me I was bewildered by it but reached true equality the day I realised that women bosses were similar bastards to men bosses.

[Pax]

"It works fine just as it is" doesn't give much incentive for progress.

[MacBeth]

Most probably said the same thing prior to racial integration......
And people were elected prior to women being allowed to vote.
The sun came up every day when we had slave owners.

[Brian]

Aug 23, 2010 19:26:11 GMT -5 oskar said:

Bragging? Hardly. Can you name another country in the past 50 years whose submarine force was better than America's, Oskar?

It's up to you to prove your assertion.
There's no doubt the US spends the most money but, then again, it also spends the most money on the army and they aren't the best, the most money on healthcare and it isn't the best by far...
Now prove what you posted.
You might want to start with the submarine warfare that hasn't taken place in the last 50 years.

Oskar, not to offend, but nothing I say to you (and nothing I present as evidence) would satisfy you that the USA has the "best" of anything.

I will say, though, that I don't equate "spending the most money" with having the best of something. After all, look at how much the United States spends on education.

This may surprise you, but I actually don't believe the United States has the best Army. Nor am I an American who believes the United States is #1 in everything. Moreover, we waste a lot of money with our military.

But I've done a lot of reading on America's military over the years, including stuff about the Navy, subs, etc. As far as subs and ships, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. The United States has (and has had) the best submarine forces for some 50 years.

2. If the Cold War had ever turned "hot," the United States Navy would have blown the Soviet Navy out of the water. (You will not hear me say that with the other services, but I will say it about our navy.)

[Brian]

Aug 23, 2010 20:00:37 GMT -5 joethree56 said:

That was true of mounted cavalry at one time, as well. It's the worst possible reason not to move with the times, as many a military commander has discovered to his cost.

Oh dear yes! Brian please research the tactical thinking pre WWII where thinking tacticians came to the conclusion that the invention of the machine gun would lead to stalemate and they had not even factored in barbed wire. These two things changed warfare and ultimately the world yet the finest military brains not only missed their implications but could not adjust to them when presented with their reality.
I do wonder though about this obsession you seem to have Brian. I had to come to terms with sexual emancipation as it happened and was married. Believe you me I was bewildered by it but reached true equality the day I realised that women bosses were similar bastards to men bosses.

Joe, you may find this hard to believe, but my opposition to male/female subs is NOT an opinion that I like to have. I wish I could have another one. But in my heart I know having coed subs is NOT a good idea.

[MacBeth]

Then I suppose it is a good thing that you are not making the final decision on that particular topic ;D

[oskar]

Aug 25, 2010 17:17:48 GMT -5 Brian said:

Aug 23, 2010 19:26:11 GMT -5 oskar said:

Bragging? Hardly. Can you name another country in the past 50 years whose submarine force was better than America's, Oskar?

It's up to you to prove your assertion.
There's no doubt the US spends the most money but, then again, it also spends the most money on the army and they aren't the best, the most money on healthcare and it isn't the best by far...
Now prove what you posted.
You might want to start with the submarine warfare that hasn't taken place in the last 50 years.

Oskar, not to offend, but nothing I say to you (and nothing I present as evidence) would satisfy you that the USA has the "best" of anything.

I will say, though, that I don't equate "spending the most money" with having the best of something. After all, look at how much the United States spends on education.

This may surprise you, but I actually don't believe the United States has the best Army. Nor am I an American who believes the United States is #1 in everything. Moreover, we waste a lot of money with our military.

But I've done a lot of reading on America's military over the years, including stuff about the Navy, subs, etc. As far as subs and ships, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. The United States has (and has had) the best submarine forces for some 50 years.

2. If the Cold War had ever turned "hot," the United States Navy would have blown the Soviet Navy out of the water. (You will not hear me say that with the other services, but I will say it about our navy.)

All speculative.
But the alleged "best submarine force" can't even manage to integrate women as equals but alleged "inferior submarine forces" have done so successfully... according to you.
There appears to be a breakdown in your logic.

[Brian]

Aug 25, 2010 19:06:49 GMT -5 oskar said:

Aug 25, 2010 17:17:48 GMT -5 Brian said:

Oskar, not to offend, but nothing I say to you (and nothing I present as evidence) would satisfy you that the USA has the "best" of anything.

I will say, though, that I don't equate "spending the most money" with having the best of something. After all, look at how much the United States spends on education.

This may surprise you, but I actually don't believe the United States has the best Army. Nor am I an American who believes the United States is #1 in everything. Moreover, we waste a lot of money with our military.

But I've done a lot of reading on America's military over the years, including stuff about the Navy, subs, etc. As far as subs and ships, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. The United States has (and has had) the best submarine forces for some 50 years.

2. If the Cold War had ever turned "hot," the United States Navy would have blown the Soviet Navy out of the water. (You will not hear me say that with the other services, but I will say it about our navy.)

All speculative.
But the alleged "best submarine force" can't even manage to integrate women as equals but alleged "inferior submarine forces" have done so successfully... according to you.
There appears to be a breakdown in your logic.

No, I don't think it works like that, Oskar.

Additionally, the navies you mentioned I would call "less established" and "less experienced" in terms of their submarine forces, not "inferior" navies.

[Brian]

Aug 25, 2010 17:32:28 GMT -5 MacBeth said:

Then I suppose it is a good thing that you are not making the final decision on that particular topic ;D

My only question would be, a good thing for whom?

[oskar]

I would call "less established"

Tell that to the Royal Navy. They've been labouring under the false impression that they've been around one heck of a lot longer than the US sub fleet.

[MacBeth]

For ALL Americans....

[oskar]

You may not have voted Repug in the pasr few years but youy're still a "Let's-never-change anything-'cuz-it-might-or-might-not-work-CONSERVATIVE", Brian.

[Pax]

Faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

www.answers.com/topic/faith

Regarding the second definition, I believe it's relevant in this way: Evidence has been presented of other countries that have successfully gender-integrated their submarine force, and you reject that evidence based on the belief that the American fleet is "more established." I'm not clear on your definition of "more established." Even more importantly, I'm not clear on your reasoning by which you conclude that being "more established" by definition means losing the ability to be gender-integrated. Or for that matter, how being "best in the world" necessarily stems only from tactical superiority as opposed to mere clear superiority in both sheer numbers and technology. In fact, on that score I have no evidence for it but I would say that a navy that has unquestionable superiority in both numbers and technology can afford to be somewhat inferior on tactics, and therefore will be. You have made a good argument that tactical superiority could be significantly affected by pregnancy, though you have conceded that rules could be put in place to mitigate that risk; as well, you say that you don't have a problem with female-only subs, despite that your main concern about pregnancy applies to those as well, given that females can easily be pregnant without realizing it until well into the mission. And come to think of it, "less well-established" navies arguably would experience ALL of the problems you've stated -- rape, pregnancy, simple distraction -- to a GREATER degree, not less, though you apparently are arguing the opposite. Regarding the American fleet, I've suggested that we should gather evidence -- that is, at least try to integrate it, and see what happens -- and your position, implicitly, has been not to even try... in other words, not gather evidence.

[Brian]

Aug 29, 2010 11:04:00 GMT -5 oskar said:

You may not have voted Repug in the pasr few years but youy're still a "Let's-never-change anything-'cuz-it-might-or-might-not-work-CONSERVATIVE", Brian.

You're probably right. Heck, that must be why I supported Obama's health care reform--the biggest potential "change" in American domestic policy to take place in my lifetime.

[Brian]

Aug 29, 2010 17:43:59 GMT -5 Pax said:

Faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

www.answers.com/topic/faith

Regarding the second definition, I believe it's relevant in this way: Evidence has been presented of other countries that have successfully gender-integrated their submarine force, and you reject that evidence based on the belief that the American fleet is "more established." I'm not clear on your definition of "more established." Even more importantly, I'm not clear on your reasoning by which you conclude that being "more established" by definition means losing the ability to be gender-integrated. Or for that matter, how being "best in the world" necessarily stems only from tactical superiority as opposed to mere clear superiority in both sheer numbers and technology. In fact, on that score I have no evidence for it but I would say that a navy that has unquestionable superiority in both numbers and technology can afford to be somewhat inferior on tactics, and therefore will be. You have made a good argument that tactical superiority could be significantly affected by pregnancy, though you have conceded that rules could be put in place to mitigate that risk; as well, you say that you don't have a problem with female-only subs, despite that your main concern about pregnancy applies to those as well, given that females can easily be pregnant without realizing it until well into the mission. And come to think of it, "less well-established" navies arguably would experience ALL of the problems you've stated -- rape, pregnancy, simple distraction -- to a GREATER degree, not less, though you apparently are arguing the opposite. Regarding the American fleet, I've suggested that we should gather evidence -- that is, at least try to integrate it, and see what happens -- and your position, implicitly, has been not to even try... in other words, not gather evidence.

Pax, when we talk about "more established," let's further define what that means (and what it should mean).

First off, the attitude that I'm getting from supporters of coed subs on this board is twofold: (1) The experience of the United States (and other major submarine powers) in operating submarine fleets means absolutely nothing. (2) "Other nations" have integrated women into submarine forces; therefore, America and everyone else needs to do the same. In my view, that's not only faulty logic, it borders on horrendous irresponsibility.

When we speak of "established," shouldn't the decades of operating large numbers of submarines (and extensive experience in combat environments) count for something? Or do we just discount that experience if it doesn't agree with the current political thinking?

Let's keep a few things in mind:

1. The navies that have integrated women into submarine crews are NOT among the world's established submarine powers. That is an indisputable fact; it's not even argue able. We're talking about small navies here, and we're also talking about navies that do NOT have extensive experience operating large numbers of submarines--either in combat or while at peace.

2. The countries of Norway, Australia, Sweden and Canada (countries that folks here believe we should "look to" as a means of shaping our submarine policy) DO NOT operate nuclear-powered submarines. That is a HUGE difference--both in terms of time spent at sea and in potential risks to female crew mates. Yet the thinking here seems to be that we need to become more like the countries named above.

3. Operating a submarine fleet isn't easy. It's a difficult and serious operation. Experience and expertise matters--no matter what the current "trend" is in political thinking. The United States, the Royal Navy, the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Indians--all of these nations are among the world's foremost submarine powers. Yet NONE of them has deemed it a good idea to introduce coed crews. Could there be something to that? Could there be some real insight (instead of prejudice) between such thinking? I believe so. On the other hand, though, folks here ignore the experience of major submarine powers and instead want submarine policy shaped by a handful of lesser experienced submarine forces who don't even run nuclear ships.

Makes no sense.

As for "trying," what does that mean to you and everyone else here?

Does that mean we decide to--crack! spur of the moment--introduce women to ALL of our submarines tomorrow? I don't know about you, but I'm sure both Beth and Oskar would favor that.

And THAT would be damn irresponsible. We're talking about an entirely NUCLEAR fleet. We're also talking about vessels that--let's be honest--would have to be modified in some form (potentially hurting their effectiveness). I've toured two submarines. I can guarantee you that women will not put up with the bathroom and with some of the living quarters that exist on submarines.

Let's also consider something that perhaps no one else here has considered: Having a massive integration of women into submarines also means we'd be introducing a massive amount of INEXPERIENCE to our subs. The quality of our submarine forces would take an instant decline.

In terms of "trying," I'll talk about that some.

If by "trying" you're talking about taking a few boats and attempting to see how well men and women can serve together (a "pilot"-type project) then that's one thing that I would be open to (believe it or not). But this business about making a massive change to the submarine fleet overnight while expecting the quality of our force won't take a nosedive is damn naive and irresponsible to me.

I apologize if I sound a bit testy in this post. But I care greatly about the quality of America's armed forces and honestly believe that this nation is currently allowing politics to shape a key aspect of our military in a not-so-great way.

I also feel that too many folks here have no appreciation at all for the great job America has already done with running a submarine force. There is an attitude here that it counts for nothing.

[oskar]

Sept 6, 2010 14:34:54 GMT -5 Brian said:

Aug 29, 2010 11:04:00 GMT -5 oskar said:

You may not have voted Repug in the pasr few years but youy're still a "Let's-never-change anything-'cuz-it-might-or-might-not-work-CONSERVATIVE", Brian.

You're probably right. Heck, that must be why I supported Obama's health care reform--the biggest potential "change" in American domestic policy to take place in my lifetime.

That health care "reform" is a bit of a joke. Nothing much will change other than increasing demand and driving up health care costs.

[oskar]

Sept 6, 2010 16:24:10 GMT -5 Brian said:

Aug 29, 2010 17:43:59 GMT -5 Pax said:

Faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

www.answers.com/topic/faith

Regarding the second definition, I believe it's relevant in this way: Evidence has been presented of other countries that have successfully gender-integrated their submarine force, and you reject that evidence based on the belief that the American fleet is "more established." I'm not clear on your definition of "more established." Even more importantly, I'm not clear on your reasoning by which you conclude that being "more established" by definition means losing the ability to be gender-integrated. Or for that matter, how being "best in the world" necessarily stems only from tactical superiority as opposed to mere clear superiority in both sheer numbers and technology. In fact, on that score I have no evidence for it but I would say that a navy that has unquestionable superiority in both numbers and technology can afford to be somewhat inferior on tactics, and therefore will be. You have made a good argument that tactical superiority could be significantly affected by pregnancy, though you have conceded that rules could be put in place to mitigate that risk; as well, you say that you don't have a problem with female-only subs, despite that your main concern about pregnancy applies to those as well, given that females can easily be pregnant without realizing it until well into the mission. And come to think of it, "less well-established" navies arguably would experience ALL of the problems you've stated -- rape, pregnancy, simple distraction -- to a GREATER degree, not less, though you apparently are arguing the opposite. Regarding the American fleet, I've suggested that we should gather evidence -- that is, at least try to integrate it, and see what happens -- and your position, implicitly, has been not to even try... in other words, not gather evidence.

Pax, when we talk about "more established," let's further define what that means (and what it should mean).

First off, the attitude that I'm getting from supporters of coed subs on this board is twofold: (1) The experience of the United States (and other major submarine powers) in operating submarine fleets means absolutely nothing. (2) "Other nations" have integrated women into submarine forces; therefore, America and everyone else needs to do the same. In my view, that's not only faulty logic, it borders on horrendous irresponsibility.

When we speak of "established," shouldn't the decades of operating large numbers of submarines (and extensive experience in combat environments) count for something? Or do we just discount that experience if it doesn't agree with the current political thinking?

Let's keep a few things in mind:

1. The navies that have integrated women into submarine crews are NOT among the world's established submarine powers. That is an indisputable fact; it's not even argue able. We're talking about small navies here, and we're also talking about navies that do NOT have extensive experience operating large numbers of submarines--either in combat or while at peace.

2. The countries of Norway, Australia, Sweden and Canada (countries that folks here believe we should "look to" as a means of shaping our submarine policy) DO NOT operate nuclear-powered submarines. That is a HUGE difference--both in terms of time spent at sea and in potential risks to female crew mates. Yet the thinking here seems to be that we need to become more like the countries named above.

3. Operating a submarine fleet isn't easy. It's a difficult and serious operation. Experience and expertise matters--no matter what the current "trend" is in political thinking. The United States, the Royal Navy, the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Indians--all of these nations are among the world's foremost submarine powers. Yet NONE of them has deemed it a good idea to introduce coed crews. Could there be something to that? Could there be some real insight (instead of prejudice) between such thinking? I believe so. On the other hand, though, folks here ignore the experience of major submarine powers and instead want submarine policy shaped by a handful of lesser experienced submarine forces who don't even run nuclear ships.

Makes no sense.

As for "trying," what does that mean to you and everyone else here?

Does that mean we decide to--crack! spur of the moment--introduce women to ALL of our submarines tomorrow? I don't know about you, but I'm sure both Beth and Oskar would favor that.

And THAT would be damn irresponsible. We're talking about an entirely NUCLEAR fleet. We're also talking about vessels that--let's be honest--would have to be modified in some form (potentially hurting their effectiveness). I've toured two submarines. I can guarantee you that women will not put up with the bathroom and with some of the living quarters that exist on submarines.

Let's also consider something that perhaps no one else here has considered: Having a massive integration of women into submarines also means we'd be introducing a massive amount of INEXPERIENCE to our subs. The quality of our submarine forces would take an instant decline.

In terms of "trying," I'll talk about that some.

If by "trying" you're talking about taking a few boats and attempting to see how well men and women can serve together (a "pilot"-type project) then that's one thing that I would be open to (believe it or not). But this business about making a massive change to the submarine fleet overnight while expecting the quality of our force won't take a nosedive is damn naive and irresponsible to me.

I apologize if I sound a bit testy in this post. But I care greatly about the quality of America's armed forces and honestly believe that this nation is currently allowing politics to shape a key aspect of our military in a not-so-great way.

I also feel that too many folks here have no appreciation at all for the great job America has already done with running a submarine force. There is an attitude here that it counts for nothing.

Great red herrings, Brian, but red herrings nonetheless.
You can believe what you wish but belief is a very poor substitute for data and the only way to get any data is to do it.

[Pax]

Brian, I disagree with your reasoning and conclusions on this issue, but that won't come as a surprise to you, given our thoroughly detailed opposed positions on it. :-). You obviously feel very strongly about this, and there is nothing I can say that would change your mind -- not that I expected to anyway.

I'm glad you'd be open to at least opening it to a few boats to see what happens. That would meet my requirement to at least try.

Otherwise - I plan, once again, to not post again on this issue... we can agree to disagree.