so who won? i mean who was right? - Crimson Tide (1995) Discussion

[–] indynick-1 14 years ago

because everybody are *beep* idiots. they dont want to discuss intellectually anymore. they just wanna bitch, bitch, bitch about the contributions by Tarantino and Towne, which I thought were good contributions to the script.

To answer your question(s), they were both wrong. As their superiors have said at the end. Ramsey is an example of our generation. "Generation Me" It's all me, me, me when he knew that Hunter was his equal. Even though he wasn't captain. Watch as he constantly states that hes captain of the Alabama. It didn't matter if he was captain. So his ignorance could've been their downfall.

Hunter, on the other hand, was wrong the same time Ramsey was wrong. Like I said, they were supposed to work together. Hunter is also another example of Generation Me, he thinks he's more rational and always right. Which he isn't.

I kinda lost my train of thought on the 3rd paragraph. But i hope you got the kind of debated you wanted.

If a girl looks swell when she meets you, who gives a damn if she's late?

reply

[–] mark6785 14 years ago

lol , thanks for yor thoughts. even if train partially derailed :)

reply

[–] pjpurple-1 14 years ago

Good question. I've watched this movie quite a few times and I had my mind made up a long time ago about who I thought acted correctly.

I just showed the movie to my boyfriend the other day. I totally took it for granted that he'd agree with me. But he didn't! ha Shows what i know.

His immediate reaction was that the Captain should not have been questioned and that Hunter started a mutiny. I countered that Hunter could not agree to the orders because the message had been cut off. He couldn't give his assent to an incomplete message.

We had a lively discussion from then on. lol We didn't fight. I found it interesting that he didn't agree with me.

At the end of the film Hunter and Ramsey's big mistake was stated at the Board of Inquiry. They did NOT work together. They were both fairly hotheaded. I was surprised at Capt. Ramsey. After the galley fire incident, he took Hunter aside privately to have a talk with him. But when things got really serious, the captain just yelled at him on the bridge. Hunter yelled back. Neither one took a second to realize how their actions appeared to the crew. At the very least, it has to be bad for morale when the two top officers can't get along.

reply

[–] Lunch_Beast 14 years ago

It seems to me that both couldn't have been wrong. Only one could have made the right answer. Lets think about it logically.

There were only two decisions to be made. Launch the nukes or not launch the nukes. Hackman's character wanted to launch and Denzel's character did not want to launch. If launching the Nukes was the right decision, then Hackman was right. If not launching the nukes was the right decision, then Denzel was right. Now if there was no right decision, then how can either be wrong?

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

What I find very interesting here is the general lack of reply from American submariners. I think this may well be the result of them not wanting to criticize the film and contrast it with the true, secret procedures onboard misslie submarines.

However, we don't need to get anywhere near those.

Let's examine some of the premises on which the film was based. Firstly, that the action depicted would never be a problem now because sub captains can't independently fire their missiles. This ending statement was based on the idea that captains were allowed to launch after receiving the order to ARM their missiles.

The ending statement has little to do with the actual scenario depicted. Ramsey is not just ordered to arm but to fire. The message from the National Command Authority meant that the President HAD given his order to fire.

Now let's examine the EAM itself. Forget all the background phrasing and justification, and concentrate on the actual order: "Immediately launch ten Trident missile sorties." IMMEDIATELY launch: as in with all possible dispatch. The orders are valid and confirmed--that's what the codes are for! The rest of the message could have said, 'donald duck is angry.' The context is irrelevant, the order is what matters.

Personally, I would say that this is a unwise order. By ordering an immediate launch, instead of a launch window, the NCA makes it less likely that a recall could be sent before launch is achieved. But THAT'S NOT MY CALL. Someone way above my paygrade has made the tough decisions, not I must act on them.

Now, are Hunter and Ramsey equals? There seems to be some confusion over what an Executive Officer is.

The Captain of the ship is responsible for the safety, security, and operation of his ship. On no one else is this precise authority laid at all times, though the Officer of the Deck (not Hunter!) also acts as the Captain's direct representative and shares responsibility. He is the head of the operational chain of command and controls conventional weapons release.

The Executive Officer is the head of the administrative chain of command and often influences the operational chain. He is in charge of the day-to-day routine aboard a vessel and executes the Captain's designs. He is generally considered the Second-in-Command aboard a vessel, and to be sure is a mighty and feared being, but he is NOT equal to the Captain.

The XO's repeatback is to eliminate the possibility of rogue launch-- so the captain can't one day decide to blow away a country because he has a headache. It is one of many other safeguards. It is not the XO's job to question valid orders.

Hunter acts out-of-line in his badgering with Ramsey, but Ramsey also acts out-of-line in his response. Who is at fault?

I'll tell you: the unidentified PRESIDENT who orders IMMEDIATE NUCLEAR LAUNCH and then tries to recall it.

reply

[–] Basiclife_0 14 years ago

^^ A nice considered response - Always good to see ^^

First let me say I'm not a submariner but have served in the forces. What I found the most shocking is how badly communications broke down between the Captain and XO.

Whilst I agree Hunter shouldn't have been questioning the captain in front of the crew, Ramsay should have been willing to listen to the XOs opinions and if after due consideration he disagreed, then he has the right to do so - a shouting match in front of the crew is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Ultimately, the buck stops with the captain and he has the final say. If he's wrong (especially after the XO explicitly voicing objections) then there are going to be serious repercussions - But that's the job.

reply

[–] Thrillseeker303 13 years ago

Very true.. once you make the decision to give a nuclear launch order you better be sure of it so you don't have to go like "oops I made a mistake"

reply

[–] pjpurple-1 13 years ago

I already posted my opinion of the film so I won't repeat myself here. But I've followed the very interesting discussion that's taken place. I wish we could ALL be pacifists and all nations could disband their armies. However I reside in the real world where there are bad people who would take advantage of pacifists.

So to all the military posters here- a heartfelt THANKYOU from a grateful citizen!!! As it says on a bumper sticker I saw "Home of the free, because of the brave"

reply

[–] minuetteg 13 years ago

...pjpurple-1 on Sun Aug 21 2011 14:23:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already posted my opinion of the film so I won't repeat myself here. But I've followed the very interesting discussion that's taken place. I wish we could ALL be pacifists and all nations could disband their armies. However I reside in the real world where there are bad people who would take advantage of pacifists.

So to all the military posters here- a heartfelt THANKYOU from a grateful citizen!!! As it says on a bumper sticker I saw "Home of the free, because of the brave"

I wish all the non-pacifists could be pacifists...then there would be no need for non-pacifists to set non-pacifists against other non-pacifists. Much though I despise these filth, much as I recognise the good their demise does society as a whole, I would rather they all just retire to some arctic island, play a few war games, and publish the results online so we could pat them on the back for "winning" the war.

And as a solid citizen of the free west, I'd like to shout out a HUGE "F-ck Yourselves into Cocked Hats!!" from those of us who don't go murdering.

M

Please note, I do not want comments from housewives, students or the unemployed.

reply

[–] wel_da_war 13 years ago

It seems to me that both couldn't have been wrong.

There's an old proverb that goes something like -

A judge is overhearing a case involving two farmers. One is upset because the other one bringing his cattle onto the other's land in order to drink from a pond.

The first farmer says that the second farmer's cattle is destroying his land and he has a right to protect his land. The judge says "You're right!"

The second farmer says there is a long standing law that states every farmer has a right to guide his livestock to water, even if it means trampling over another man's land. The judge says "You're right!"

The court stenographer looks at the judge and says "They can't BOTH be right!"

The judge looks at her and says "You're right!"

The world is yours & everything in it. Its out there; get on your grind & get it.

reply

[–] snafuone 12 years ago

Ramsey told hunter after the fire in the galley that he was allowed to disagree with him, but not in front of the other crewmembers. THEN, Ramsey tore Hunter a new one when he told him to "Shut the BLEEP up!" when Hunter did not concur with the firing of the missiles. Ramsey was a hypocrite, and in my opinion, Hunter was right that since the EAM message was not complete, they should not fire the missiles and kill a billion Russians. I disagree with the verdict, or decision, that the military panel gave them at the end of the movie. I think Hunter was right on. I hated the racial tension, arguing about black horses and white horses. That has no room in any movie, and it kinda ruined this one for me. I love the action and the suspense of just the thought of a nuclear showdown, where literally billions of lives, and civilization as we know it, is at stake. I love all nuclear-based movies, whether it's "K-19: The Widowmaker", true story about a Russian nuclear sub lost at sea, "The Day After", "On the Beach", "Crimson Tide", "The Sum of All Fears", "War Games", etc. They're all damn good!

reply

[–] AGood 12 years ago

I read the first ten or so posts and then scrolled down to chip in.

Ramsey was right.

But my belief is Hunter was in the right.

If they fired those rockets it would have been the end of the human race.

When watching this for a second time I remembered the start of the movie WarGames where they did a simulation (but the people not knowing this) and they ordered the nukes to be fired and they flat out refused to do it.

The CO even armed a pistol pointed it in the guys head and said to fire them and the guy could not do it.

Hence why they brought in a machine to fire the rockets.

Its a different movie but look how well that turned out.

Hunter was in the right. Morally, logically and in the spirit of command.

Ramsey was in the right to the letter of comamand.

I would say most decorated commanders/leaders would be those people who act in the spirit of command not the letter of.

reply

[–] somgu 14 years ago

Their standing orders were to launch the missiles, and that any incomplete radio orders were to be ignored. In that light, the XO was wrong. But the captain tried to replace the XO with another officer who would confirm the launch, which was also wrong.

If you think about it, it becomes apparent that they were both breaking established rules, and legally they were both wrong.

This is, of course, looking only at the legal ramifications and not the moral or logical implications. It's not up to the crew of the ship to make moral and logical decisions, it's their job to follow policy. This is clearly a failure of the policy makers themselves, which is what the admiral at the end of the movie seems most concerned about.

reply

[–] bobdigital18 14 years ago

Well I don't know a ton about navy regulations but i do know a bit about army regulations.

Going by the book you ALWAYS follow orders... but that is actually not always the case.

Certain circumstances exist where you are actually obligated to disobey a direct order even if given by the president himself.

For instance if i was in the army and the president called and ordered me to torture an enemy soldier that we captured i would have to disobey that order.

This is because we have a treaty signed and by law we are not allowed to torture... You can not be ordered to break a law of war. Now you can still potentially be punished for such a disobedience but that does not mean you took the wrong action strictly following military guidelines (as well the punishment itself would be illegal too but may still be carried out... who knows)

Also there is this great scene in the movie "The Thin Red Line" where an officer directly disobeys an order to charge up a hill because it would get all his men killed and gain nothing. He was on the radio with his superior and gave him a reason of being unable to understand completely the order he was giving. I think part of a mental competency objection. After all if a superior officer is not fit not only must you not obey his orders but you must replace him.

So i guess Hunter could POTENTIALLY disobey the order because he could argue it was not an order any rational person could give IE the captain was irrational and unfit to give any orders.

The problem is it was a really gray area (and like i said these are army guidelines i speak of not navy) but sometimes you do have a duty to disobey orders.

I would like to hear someone with more experience than me in this area weigh in here because it is a very interesting matter.

How do I get these ideas? It's like a gift, you know? It's like I can't control it.

reply

[–] movie_fan59 13 years ago

"Going by the book you ALWAYS follow orders..."

Uh, no. You always follow lawful orders. There is no obligation to obey an unlawful order and you can't be court-martialed for disobeying one.

reply

[–] imdb-6238 14 years ago

If you think about it, it becomes apparent that they were both breaking established rules, and legally they were both wrong.

I'm not sure. The captain says: "Mr. Hunter, we have rules that are not open to interpretation, personal intuition, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder. We're all very well aware of what our orders are and what those orders mean. They come down from our Commander in Chief. They contain no ambiguity."

But how can that be the case if protocol requires the captain and XO to agree before carrying out the action? As Hunter says: "This is not a formality, sir; this is expressly why your command must be repeated." If orders were always clear and unambiguous — the result of following a clear rulebook that accounts for all contingencies — there wouldn't be any need to place this check on the captain's power.

Now, it might be true that the XO's disagreement was a refusal to follow direct orders, one that was far outside the bounds of his power to refuse to repeat the captain's command. I don't know. But refusal to follow orders is an act for which there is redress. A soldier can do so and know he'll have his day in front of a JAG Corps to explain his reasoning.

(And, as bobdigital18 points out, both real-life and fictional soldiers have found themselves in situations in which the "correct" action was to disobey an order. The Nuremberg Trials famously demonstrated that you couldn't get off the hook for war crimes by claiming you were just following superior orders.)

So people can disagree on whether the XO was acting by the book with his refusal to repeat the command. But the captain's attempt to replace him with a different officer is quite clearly a violation of chain of command and nuclear launch protocols, and why the COB was correct to order the captain's arrest.

I think the XO was more "correct" in terms of protocol, but others may disagree. Of course, with the stakes as high as they were, protocol went out the window altogether. Both sides ended up doing whatever they felt was necessary, because both sides thought their actions would save lives.

That's precisely why the result of this standoff, in the universe of the film, was a change in policy so that nuclear launches would require the active participation of the President. (Wikipedia says that the real-life US policy was likewise changed around the time of the film, but there's no citation.)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cmap2 14 years ago

Strictly speaking, Captain Ramsay was right. The orders were in hand. They were valid orders, as Hunter himself acknowledged. And they were unambiguous: "immediately fire." The President had made his decision, and at that point it was only the job of the captain and XO to execute it, not second guess or hypothesize about what could have been in the incomplete EAM.

In the end, the world was of course better off that Hunter refused to fire when ordered, but that doesn't mean he acted properly. It just means he go lucky that the President rescinded his order. Had Ramsay been able to launch the missiles, he would not at all have been responsible for what transpired afterwards. Rather, the President would have been responsible for issuing what would turn out to be a premature launch order.

It goes back to the conversation in the officers mess about Von Clausewitz and the nature of war - Ramsay had a reverence for the chain of command (e.g., the bomb on Hiroshima - "Drop that *beep* twice, sir!), while Hunter was all about questioning the wisdom of things (e.g., the drill after the mess fire). It's established early on that Hunter is a subversive presence on the ship, even if that's not his intent - witness the conversation he had with Wepps where he criticizes the captain for running the drill in the aftermath of the mess fire. Hunter had no business questioning the captain's judgment with another officer, let alone after just a few days on the ship. When he does things like that, he undermines the captain's authority, and that's why Ramsay turned hostile towards him.

A lot of people miss it because Hunter is the more likable character while Ramsay's this gruff, villainous guy who makes racist-insinuations, but in terms of who was out of line, it was actually Hunter, and his insubordination started almost immediately upon boarding the Alabama.

reply

[–] tbeller80 14 years ago

The law says that Ramsey was right. The reality of the situation was that Hunter's conscience got lucky. If this situation were real it would have been a moot point since the sub would have had a backup radio that would've taken a few minutes to replace. The President and company were wrong to order an immediate strike and 15 minutes later order a recall. And who decided that 10 missiles were needed? 10 Trident missiles can make most countries extinct. They were only supposed to hit a couple captured nuclear missile bases.

reply

[–] mike683 14 years ago

As a former member of the Silent Service, I found this movie a bit over the top. You would never see; a submarine crew take sides or commandeer weapons as such, have captains threaten to shoot crew hostages to launch missiles, leave their “somehow forgotten” dead shipmates floating in the fictitious "bilge bay", and expose dogs at sea to NUCLEAR radiation. Nevertheless, I suppose the “Emergency Action Message” (EAM) question needs addressing.

With orders being orders, the protocol falls first with the standing order for dealing with EAM’s. The Captain proceeds under that protocol by acting under a clear, concise, and authenticated EAM, yet ignores the fragmented EAM as if it does not exist. The latter is still an EAM (a rose is still a rose) and it is subject to the same protocol of extreme clarification by the nature of its weight. That being, an EAM is a serious world altering communication when it comes to directing a submarine to launch or stand-down its missiles. Ramsey essentially argues that he is following orders yet fails to follow the standing order of EAM verification.

reply

[–] donstuie 14 years ago

The whole point, and the beauty of this movie, is that we're left to make up our own mind. As is said at the end, they're both right and they're both wrong.

Ramsay is (technically) right because: The last completed order they received said to attack
Ramsay is (morally) wrong because: He was willing to possibly start WW3 on orders that may or may not have been valid without confirmation

Hunter is (morally) right because: With what was at stake, to make 100% sure before launching nukes was the right thing to do
Hunter is (technically) wrong because: He disobeyed a direct order from his superior officer, refused to acknowledge that incomplete orders = no orders, and started a mutiny

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

I think we should definitely consider the other side of things when we judge this movie.

Crimson Tide shows very little of what is going on in the outside world-and rightly so, becasue that would spoil the premise of the movie. However...

When I think about the events leading to the order to launch, my mind flashes to the movie The Sum of All Fears, where President Fowler gives the order to 'Strike' and then almost immediately countermands it.

In SOAF, the communication is perfect--even with a handful of seconds left on the clock they are able to stand down America's nuclear forces pretty much instantaneously. However, if there's one thing that we've learned from warfare, it's that nothing goes according to plan.

In the Tom Clancy nonfiction "Battle Ready" Gen. Anthony Zinni recounts a story about how he incorporated 'fudge time' into cruise missile strikes to account for political recall and/or backlash. There is definitely a conflict in the political structure that will work against the efficient employment of our armed forces.

This is good and bad. Good, because it deters rogue action. Bad, because it tends to create CF's like the situation in Crimson Tide. I've heard more than one person say that the Satcom has hindered our forces in the field as much as it has helped.

You be the judge.

reply

[–] dcobbimdb 14 years ago

Lot of good posts in this thread. I’ve seen the movie many times and is one of my favorite movies and this is a good debate indeed.

They both were right…
Capt. Ramsay was right in that he had orders in hand to fire and was simply waiting for the missiles to be ready to fire before rising to launch depth being there was the Russian sub in their location. So following the order to the letter and trying to preserve the sub and crews safety at the same time. In this he was right. His choice to not risk the safety of the crew to rise up to a level where they could receive the additional NCA message prior to launching the nukes was a choice you could argue back and forth though and was the basis for Hunters argument…

Hunter was right in that Ramsay could not replace him in order to fire the missiles, so in that regard Hunter was right, but you could argue that Hunter’s refusal to concur and fire the missiles could have been misguided to begin with, in which case Ramsay would have a valid reason for wanting to relive him of duty and replace him. But like a previous poster had mentioned this arguing was done publicly. They didn’t take it to close quarters, make their arguments and hash out a solution that both would accept and agree upon, which probably wouldn’t have worked anyway given their differences in personalities.

Hunter’s desire to receive the additional EAM message while his intentions were good would put the ship and crew and it’s mission more at risk, which does kind of break that cardinal rule of ship and crew coming first being they would need to rise to broadcast depth prior to launching the missiles in hopes of receiving the additional message. Something they didn’t really emphasize enough in the movie IMO was how the typhoon class sub were basically the ultimate Russian sub, in many ways superior to the Ohio class US sub, so it was a very real threat…

They were both wrong in that they could not resolve their differences and come up with an agreeable solution, which ultimately lead to a mutiny. You could argue both sides as to whether either was is right or wrong in their choices, however the fact that they were receiving an additional EAM after already receiving the previous one to fire to me makes this more of a lopsided argument in that there really were only a few possibilities (mainly one though), either the rebel forces surrendered (which was the case) in which to stand down the order to fire or that the target package could have changed, which was extremely doubtful in this case being that the rebel forces were surrounded to begin with. Or it possibly could have been a fake transmission via the enemy. As funny as the OP’s statement “pick up some beer on the way back” is, an EAM would only be used to order the firing of the missiles and after that point to recall that order. That’s pretty much it other than a rogue non authenticated message, which in itself is extremely unlikely in this situation. So IMO the fact that there was a second incoming EAM to begin with meant that the order to fire was recalled.

This difference of personalities between hunter & Ramsay was illustrated from the beginning during the officer’s dinner. Ramsay being the hard nose “tell me to fire and I’ll fire” whereas Hunter was more of the philosopher especially seeing the bigger picture of the potential and outcome for a nuclear war who ultimately would fire if there were no other options

Great movie…

reply

[–] robertwnielsen 14 years ago

I thought Jason Robards' character summed it up at the end - "You may have been proven right, Mr. Hunter, but insofar as the letter of the law is concerned, you were both right. And, you were also both wrong."

"Has anybody ever told you you have a SERIOUS IMPULSE CONTROL PROBLEM??"

reply

[–] Mrpinkeye 14 years ago

i think if theyd launched like they were told to the captain wouldnt have got in much trouble as they didnt recieve a message telling them to do otherwise. depends if you mean who won by a)the navys code and rules or b) who was morally right....

reply

[–] donstuie 13 years ago

i think if theyd launched like they were told to the captain wouldnt have got in much trouble as they didnt recieve a message telling them to do otherwise.

Given it would've been the end of the world if he launched, I don't think it would've been a problem as there would've been no-one left to blame him.

reply

[–] Mrpinkeye 13 years ago

good point!

reply

[–] AMSATcorp 13 years ago

You are all morons. There is no debate here. Ok, so you guys actually want to sit here and discuss the issue, regardless of the fact that if Ramsey had his way, it would have started a nuclear war and done uninimaginable damage to our planet and killed millions (maybe billions?) of lives.

So I guess you are trying to say, who was right if you "went by the book." Well, Ramsey's power, the power to release a nuclear weapon, at the time, was an unthinkable thing (which is why it needs the DIRECT authorization of the president now), therefore, there had to be a check on him. The XO was his check, and because Hunter did not agree with him, he tried to just replace him, which goes against the whole point of having an XO in the first place! Ramsey broke military law. Hunter, however, acted under military regulations, therefore, there is no discussion here. Those who tried to release Ramsey from his cabin were also breaking military law. Ramsey and anyone who tried to help him should have face a court marshall.

There is no debate here, because, even playing the theorectical game of, what if the message said "blah blah," the US still practices redundancy, therefore, if there is ANY DOUBT, even 0.0001% doubt..when it comes to the release of nuclear weapons, that is TOO MUCH. At least Hunter knew this. The rest of you who say they were both wrong are not very intelligent. Also, just because the old moron at the end said "as far as the letter of law, you were both right..and both wrong" means nothing. The fact that the law was changed showed that the Hunter being wrong by the letter of the law was only because that law was absurd, and is why it had to be changed.

One thing is clear: if you try to debate this, you are a dangerous person, and unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me. I have come across too many unintelligent pro-war rednecks who can dignify the US going to war with anyone, and want the US to just nuke the rest of the world off the planet.

reply

[–] Mrpinkeye 13 years ago

omg...you feel better after that!? now SHHHHH!

reply

[–] Capt_Jeffrey_T_Spaulding 12 years ago

There is not debate because I say so!
There is no discussion here because I say so!
If you debate me you are dangerous!

You argue just like Ramsey!

Oh how the pot doth call the kettle black!

reply

[–] Ms_Belladonna 13 years ago

I thought they were both wrong......Lipizzano Stallions they are neither from Spain or Portugal.

reply

[–] minuetteg 13 years ago

Nobody was right. By merely joining the armed forces, and not questioning the validity of your employer's missions, you are in the wrong.

Consider the opposite; the film depicts a power struggle between two higher-uppers in the Chechen rebel hierarchy, as referred to in the film. One wants to launch missiles against the US immediately, the other wants to await confirmation . Do you care who was right? Or are they both just a couple of pricks?

Just by debating the issue, you have bought the insinuation that one of them is correct, and have thus fallen for Hollywood's trap; to keep dumb teenagers signing up, and to keep dumb citizens paying up in taxes.

M

Please note, I do not want comments from housewives, students or the unemployed.

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 13 years ago

There is a difference. Allow me to iterate it below:

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and will well and faithfully execute the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So Help Me God."

I take my orders from the President of the United States, acting according to the Law of the Land as determined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court of these United States. My allegiance lies with the the Nation as an entity, and the ideals presented by the Founding Fathers in the aforementioned Document. THAT, is what I base my decisions on.

The Armed Forces, as a whole, have the ability to be misused. That potential has existed as long as they have. But they are also a necessary part of the framework of the nation, and members of the Armed Forces do their duty regardless of the political motive behind it--because we are bound by our own oaths and beliefs to do so.

I have faith in the country and its leaders to act in the right more times than not. In the immortal words of Stephen Decatur: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

[–] minuetteg 13 years ago

For the purposes of this discussion, there is no effective difference between al quaida, and the US military. You both swear oaths of allegiance, just in different languages. You are both itiching to murder without questioning the validity of your orders.

Every man wakes up in the morning and assumes his natural, individual responsibilities; it's he alone who decides whether they are right. If, for example, he doesn't like the immoral actions of his company, let's say he finds out they base their income on fraudulent transactions, he has the right to resign IMMEDIATELY and not ever open another spreadsheet for them.

In neither the US military nor in al quaida does the soldier have that right to exercise conscientious objection and be released immediately from all his duties. There's a reason enlistees sign up for minimum 1yr periods or more - so that you don't have time for your conscience to interfere with the murderous missions. No real difference at all.

Filthy pigs, the lot.

M

Please note, I do not want comments from housewives, students or the unemployed.

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 13 years ago

I guess then, it's a good thing that I am an officer capable of resigning my commission at any time and legally bound to refuse orders that are in violation of the laws of war as set down by U.S. statute, the Geneva Conventions and other treaties.

I guess its a good thing that as part of my training I received more than a year's worth of training on moral casuistry, Utilitarian and Kantian morality theories, natural law, the Just War concept, and inherent evil of warfare. It must have been coincidence that we are required to read and evaluate the historical account "Ordinary Men" on the Nazi Ordnungspolizei, and how to prevent the repeat of that behavior; or that the largest book on my desk is "Ethics of the Military Profession".

I guess its a good thing I signed up for duty in a volunteer service, which conscientous objectors have absolutely no obligation to join in the first place.

I guess its a good thing I have never killed a man and have no plans to do so. In fact, I would be quite happy to never fire a shot in anger.

Your statement contradicts itself. First, you assert that enlistees are coerced into committing "murderous missions". By stating that they have to be forced into doing so, you admit that they are not natural murderers. Yet you then proceed to call them "filthy pigs, itching to murder." Why? Because they have remorse of their actions or not?

Al-Queda is not a military organization. It has no allegiance to a nation-state and specifically condones violence against civilians and nonmilitary targets. It adheres to no internationally recognized laws of warfare. Its members hide among innocents, wearing no uniforms or marks of legitimate combatants.

It is not the simple idea that American soldiers swear an oath, it is the contents of said Oath: a pledge not to a leader, or a religion, or a political group, or even to the soil of the nation itself, but to those ideals that form the nation--the Constitution.

Unless you want to tell me that the Constitution is inherently evil.

But when did we move into ground actions? You have called the American military in its entirety trigger-happy murderers. So why would LCDR Hunter even care if it was right to launch the missiles. After all, that would just be more death. Awesome, right? DIE COMMUNIST INFIDELS, or something like that?

Not even Hackman's character feels that way. The two officers are debating both the legal and ethical ramifications of their actions. I served aboard an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine. You dont' think that every time I heard the general alarm I didn't cringe? But I believe that nuclear deterrence is vital to the United States' defense.

You sanctimonious bastard. We live in a world of walls, and those walls have to be defended by men with guns. If you will not pick up a weapon and stand a post, then refrain from insulting those who do.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

[–] minuetteg 13 years ago

First of all, lie to yourself if you want, but don't give ME that crap about, "I hope I never have to kill a man". You chose to take employment with one of the few branches of US Government with official clearance to wield terminal force. You knew what you were getting into when you enlisted. You heard, read and signed off on the warnings that you would have to take human life if ordered to do so, hell you may well have given a few yourself at the Indoctri - sorry, "Induction" Centre. If you REALLY didn't harbour a wish to kill, you wouldn't have joined.

Secondly, filthy scum like yourself have NO business even mentioning the Geneva Convention. It is a good and great body of law that the military overall, but the officer ranks like..for example...YOU! violate with the same regularity, insouciance and impunity that I exceed the speed limit, in places where the media don't point cameras - like the hills of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan.

You have even LESS business mentioning Conscientious Objection - if you had been conscripted, I wouldn't be coming down on you to the extreme that I am (and that you richly deserve). It's the fact you DID volunteer that I take most exception to. I hold NO man morally responsible for his actions when conscripted (unless he later shows he'd been psycho enough to have signed up anyway); he faces the full force of the law if he fails in his "service". Conscriptees are simply...well, simple. You can't be that brainy if you can't beat the draft during peacetime.

Bahhhh. There's a hell of a lot else I could say but unlike you, I don't sit at my computer wasting taxpayer's money quoting Jack Nicholson.

Please note, I do not want comments from housewives, students or the unemployed.

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 13 years ago

Okay, first I will admit: I was quite angry when I read your response. You insulted my honor, integrity, and morality: the three things I am most proud of. But after due consideration, I can't feel angry at you. I can only pity.

Let me apologize to you. By allowing myself to be angered by your previous posting, by allowing myself to drop to your level, I have done you a disservice.

I understand now that you are either woefully ignorant about the nature of the Armed Forces, or live in a twisted parallel universe. I could try to argue against your points, but in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, you post is so bad, it's not even wrong. I hope you respect his commentary more than that of Jack Nicholson's.

At any rate, I wanted to come down on you, hard. But that would be playing into your hands, so I allowed myself to question, "What if he's right?" And then I asked my brothers in arms for their commentary.

Second Lieutenant T. Paul, USMC: "I joined the military to fly jets, because it had been a childhood dream. Later on, I decided that I wanted the camaraderie of serving in the Marine Corps instead. I don't think there's a closer family."

On people joining the military to kill: "Not me, but I can understand that there might be some people who join to do that."

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician 2/c J. Herbelin: "I joined the Navy because I thought I could design guns there. Found out I can't, I stayed because I felt like I belonged. Like I have an obligation to be here."

Ensign N. Gomes, USN: "I joined to pay for college. I don't think I'm going to stay for a career, though."

Electronics Technician 3/C L. Baker: "I joined because I thought it would be a good career and it would give me a good shot at going to the Naval Academy. I want to fly planes."

On people joining the military to kill: "That was actually one of the cons for me. I mean, I'll follow orders, but I hope it never comes close to that."

Midshipman T. Harris, USN : "People who are out only to kill don't belong here."

Midshipman G. Law, USN: "I was recruited to play football. I figure I'm going to drive ships now."

Since you obviously think I'm scum, I might as well tell you a bit about myself so you can have an opportunity to revise your opinion. After graduating from high school, I enlisted in the United States Coast Guard. I served for two years in the fields of marine safety and recreational boating safety.

While on active duty, I applied to and was accepted to the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. I majored in Naval Architecture and entered the Submarine service selection track, and have served in submarines since.

I joined the Coast Guard and the Navy, mostly, because I love the water and sea, and cannot imagine living without it. I specifically joined the Coast Guard to learn seamanship and save lives. I transfered to the Navy and the officer program because of its opportunity and my view of the importance of the Navy mission.

I am a third generation American, third generation military servicememenber, and in the third geenration of my family never to kill anyone, on active duty or otherwise. Oh, and I follow the speed limit, too.

As for your claims that officers especially are monsters...I really don't know where you are getting this. You call conscriptees simple-minded, all officers war criminals, the military a terrorist organization. I can't see that any of this is supported by any reasonble interpretation of facts.

FYI, all of this has been on my own time. I'm not "wasting taxpayer dollars" any more than you are wasting your own by replying.

If you like, you are welcome to come back on and blast me for all you're worth. Seriously, go ahead. But your own blatant prejudices against the military, the enlisted man, the officer, and the people in your signature are already acting against you.

The members of my unit also wanted me to tell you: We're still going to die for your right to say stuff like this. Because that's what we believe in, and we understand that many times it's a thankless job. But it's our job, and as you point out, we chose the good and the bad both when we took our oath.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

[–] minuetteg 13 years ago

I'll reply more comprehensively when I have more time, but you know, reading your last post was probably the most fun I ever had with my trousers up. Barring one particular section of it.

Edit out the names of those individuals you quoted. Technically, you're in violation of Terms of Service by placing their names up on here, even if you did so with their consent. More gravely, and I use that term in it's fullest implication, there are people out there who hate them as than I do, BUT are just as psycho as your cohorts, and though, as the most aggressive pacifist you'll likely ever meet, I'll happily toast the cleansing of the human gene pool of any volunteer military by whatever means, I am STILL a pacifist. The people I refer to are not.

As such, I'd rather that any harm that does befall your shipmates
not accessorise me in any way, however indirectly, unwillingly and unwittingly. You volunteered for the military, which was the clearest example of your poor sense of judgement, and you now compound that by jeopardising their safety. You're an officer, and as such have just proven my point that you need to be a lunatic to willingly join the armed forces.

You seem completely unable to formulate policy, so I'm going to make it easy, and give you an order.

Delete those names, sailor. NOW.

M

Please note, I do not want comments from housewives, students or the unemployed.

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 13 years ago

Did you honestly think I DIDN'T give hem aliases? One of my outside hobbies is writing; I like trying to figure out good names.

1. Even if I had used real names, and I can assure you that the names given are not, I don't see that this specifically violates the TOS.

2. You seem to have a pretty low opinion of humanity. Still, telling me that you want me to do something to assuage your conscience by making sure you can't be implicated in any crimes that progress from our discussion is pretty sad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying, "I don't care about their lives, in fact I want them to die, but I won't do that myself."

Step back for a second and see how you sound. That attitude has been used before, several times, in some of the worst atrocities known to man. You have spent the last few posts of your discussion saying how badly the military and its members need to be destroyed; now you want to wash your hands of any resulting action.

Pacifism represents an attitude of nonagression and nonviolence. Those principles should be manifest in both your attitude and your actions. You cannot preach hate and then remove yourself from the consequences of your words.

If we are bad because, in your misinformed opinion, we want to kill people, then who are you, who wants people to die. You are entering some deep moral fallacies. Kantian ethics would already say you are in the wrong, for example.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 13 years ago

Here are some real names for you, though:

A BRIEF LIST OF AMERICAN PSYCHOPATHS (a.k.a. military volunteers)

President Theodore Roosevelt
President Harry Truman
President Dwight Eisenhower
President John F. Kennedy
President Lyndon B. Johnson
President Richard Nixon
President Gerald Ford
President Jimmy Carter
President Ronald Reagan
President George H.W. Bush
President George W. Bush
Vice President Albert Gore
Congressman (Colonel) John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania
Senator John Glenn, D-Ohio, first American to orbit the Earth
H. Ross Perot, founder of Electronic Data Systems
Robert F. Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Senator Theodore Stevens
Senator John McCain
Congressman Ron Paul
Senator Robert Dole

General George C. Marshall, architect of the Marshall Plan
Admiral Chester Nimitz
Vice Admiral James. B. Stockdale, philosopher and Stoic
Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, developer of modern Nuclear Power
Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr., rescue pilot at My Lai who intervened
Major Audie Murphy, movie star and most decorated American soldier of all time
Colonel Alvin York, Conscientious Objector and Medal of Honor recipient
Captain John Laboon, submarine officer and Jesuit priest
Captain James Lovell, Apollo 13 commander

David Robinson, star player for the San Antonio Spurs
Charles Bolden, head of NASA
Chuck Yeager, aerospace pioneer
Chesley Sullenberger, the "Hero of the Hudson"
Charles Lindbergh
Clark Gable
James Stewart
Bill Cosby

All members of the:

United States Navy
United States Army
Unted States Marine Corps
United States Air Force
United States Coast Guard
United States Maritime Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps
Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

Over 2,456,000 Americans on active duty at any given time.

Over 29 million American veterans.

Now, can you see the fallacy in your argument? Earlier you described military volunteers as "filthy pigs, the lot". Thus saying that every single person on this list meets your definition of a filthy pig, probably a war criminal, and by your insinuations much worse.

So...
-If you say that every single one of these people is a trigger-happy murderer, or a filthy pig, or any of your insults, you have stated that the leaders and role models of America for the last 70 years have all been completely worthless, or worse: war criminals and murderers, all of them. At which point I'll know this discussion has moved from rationality to inanity.

-If you make exception to any of these people, you invalidate your overarching argument. You will have admitted that you are wrong, and your stereotyping is incorrect and blatantly prejudiced.

Now, in your situation, I would try to bring up that there have been military members who have commited various crimes, which is a reasonable point. I mentioned one such action myself-- My Lai.

However, all that means is that the military is made up of both good and bad people. There will always be standout individuals who are saintlike or completely evil. My argument, however, is that the stereotyping of the military into a happy band of murderers is utterly wrong.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

[–] CGSailor 13 years ago

Michael,

I seriously doubt this troll even believes the crap it is spouting. It really does not care one way or the other.

It is posting purely for the purpose of causing those like us mental anguish and wants us to get pissed off.
He is a classic Internet Troll.
And you are feeding it.

Case in point was It's last post about reading your post was the most fun with it's pants on.

This thing is getting off on your anger.
probably has to wipe the spooge of it's monitor so it can see to respond.

IGNORE it.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 13 years ago

Fair enough, CG. I'm done.

I'd never figured you'd be the one to tell me when to shut to, but I know when to shut up. Thanks for the support, though.

He hit me where it hurt and I let myself be goaded.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

[–] CGSailor 13 years ago

I'd never figured you'd be the one to tell me when to shut to

Ah don't take it that way. When I was arguing, it was technical points. The moron was not a troll, just ignorant.

This is a troll. It does not even believe it's own nonsense. it's purpose IS the argument. By arguing with it you are giving it what it wants. You cannot "win" the argument because the argument IS the win for it.

Other than telling it to get a life and seek help, there is nothing to say for a sick frakker like that.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 13 years ago

Once again proving an old Navy axiom, CG.

Again, thanks for straightening me out. I needed some reason injected before I started down a slippery slope. In the meantime, apparently our guest has retreated back under his bridge.

As for the last, just cracking wise. Thanks.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

[–] briainhuntere 13 years ago

Sir,

For that response, I must simply tell you that you are the frakkin Man! Seriously, my hat is off to you.

My thanks to you and all of your brothers in arms for your service. I looked at myself and didn't feel myself capable to serve. But I have respect for you and your comrades for taking this duty.

This has been a favorite movie of mine for years, despite inaccuracies from official DOD policy.

reply

[–] minuetteg 13 years ago

...michaelnewmann01 on Tue May 3 2011 18:10:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, first I will admit: I was quite angry when I read your response. You insulted my honor, integrity, and morality: the three things I am most proud of. But after due consideration, I can't feel angry at you. I can only pity.

I'm back. Things can get busy in the private sector. You know, the taxpayers who finance your nautical soujourns around the high seas? Hope that rings a bell somewhere.

Now, let's sift through this; as a member of a volunteer military force, by definition, you don't have any honour, or morality. You cannot. The only possible exclusion I can conceive is highly unlikely, as you clearly have a degree of intellect that almost wholly precludes you from being too stupid to understand that the organisation you are in employs terminal force to achieve it's ultimate objectives.

In other words, while ignorance is no defence, you're not even ignorant. You ARE delusional, but that's no defence either. And save your pity for your victims.

...Let me apologize to you. By allowing myself to be angered by your previous posting, by allowing myself to drop to your level, I have done you a disservice.

I'm not the one you should say "sorry" to. It's the murdered citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan and quite a few other nations you owe an apology. And if I've angered you, well I hope being irked made your reconsider your stance.

...I understand now that you are either woefully ignorant about the nature of the Armed Forces, or live in a twisted parallel universe.

Heh, given how horrified I am that I share a planet with people willing to assasinate other people on order, I yearn for a different universe. Thankfully most military can't afford expensive drinks, so I won't be seeing you all at the bar.

Lemme see if I've got this correct; the purpose of the armed forces is to use physical force, including terminal when deemed necessary by your command structure, to achieve your government's aims?

...At any rate, I wanted to come down on you, hard. But that would be playing into your hands, so I allowed myself to question, "What if he's right?" And then I asked my brothers in arms for their commentary.

You wanted to ask whether I'm right - and put the question to a bunch of MILITARY? Tantamount to asking f\\cking DRACULA if he should take charge of a blood bank...

Why don't you ask YOURSELF???

Ok, I'm going to admit something. Coast Guard. Do you take a vow to employ terminal force if ordered to?

The members of my unit also wanted me to tell you: We're still going to die for your right to say stuff like this. Because that's what we believe in, and we understand that many times it's a thankless job. But it's our job, and as you point out, we chose the good and the bad both when we took our oath.

I suppose that answers my last question; if you're prepared to die for my freedom of expression (like that would be under threat if you suddenly stopped living), it therefore is a good bet you'll kill for it too.

No, thank you.

M

Please note, I do not want comments from housewives, students or the unemployed.

reply

[–] CGSailor 13 years ago

Minuettroll

You are one sick fraker.
SEEK HELP!

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Capt_Jeffrey_T_Spaulding 12 years ago

George Orwell said:

“The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …"

I can't say it any better.

reply

[–] CGSailor 13 years ago

the very nature of your post shows that you are basing all your conclusions from a false set of understandings.

In otherwords, you are a fool who is spouting off at the mouth and has no clue what the hell you are really talking about.
You have completely mischaracterized the military and thus all your conlusions based upon that mischaracterization are false.

Grow up.
Get a clue.

You got two choices right now.
You are one of two things.
A) A moron who is speaking out on what he does not understand.
or B) A troll who knows full well and is posting crap just to bait others into arguements.

There are no other choices.
So which are you?

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] AMSATcorp 13 years ago

Don't want comments from housewives, students or the unemployed? Wow. I have to say: regardless of how intelligent of a post you create, reading that just discredits you as snobby, pseudo-intellectual *beep* The fact that you have the nerve to refer to "dumb citizens" considering your mental constraints is pretty comical.

Also, just to make it clear, I wasn't calling your post intelligent either. I was just saying, even if you did manage to say something intelligent, nobody will ever mistake you as intelligent, thankfully, because of your signature. I wish more people had signatures like you so we could identify the morons BEFORE reading their mind-numbing posts that almost make you feel dumber for just having read them.

reply

[–] gobears19872 13 years ago

In the case of this movie, Ramsey is correct and Hunter is wrong. That is at least the case in terms of how they conduct themselves. The movie ignores the Navy's true regulations, but under those regulations there is not a single case allowed where a launch order can be recalled. As soon as they received that launch order, they are to carry it out and any subsequent messages recalling that order are to be treated as an enemy ruse. Both Hunter and Ramsey would be drilled with that repeatedly.

As far as the lengths Ramsey goes through to try to carry out his order, they are actions he is allowed to do. Captains of a Trident submarine are instructed to do whatever is necessary to carry out their orders. They can even order crew members who refuse to carry out the order to be arrested, and if they resist and try to stop you from carrying out the orders, deadly force can be employed.

-"It's in the net! They score! They score! The 'Hawks win the Stanley Cup!" - John Wiedeman WGN 720

reply