Who was in the wrong here?

Who was in the wrong here?

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11037096/Royal-Navy-alcohol-consumption-curbed-after-fatal-submarine-shooting.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_B._Fluckey#World_War_II
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

this movie was stealthy comfy.

And the Cap'n was fucking retarded.

Gene Hackman by a mile

In US naval protocol, even at the time the book was written and the film made, it's stated a partially intercepted order completely invalidates the previous one with regards to nuclear launch.

Hackman would have been violating navy protocol by continuing on despite a garbled message

This movie was made about a non-issue. US strategic protocol has thought of literally every scenario.

THE RUSSIANS

>Hackman would have been violating navy protocol by continuing on despite a garbled message
>a partially intercepted order completely invalidates the previous one

uh?

They deserved to get nuked. Plus it was just Vladivostok they targeted. No one cares about that backwater.

Hunter / Denzel Washington was wrong.

In an organization, especially the military, you don't get to decide which orders you are going to follow; and you certainly don't get to have a mutiny because you don't like the fact that you're in charge.

They had a properly formatted and validated attack order. They have a job to do; and it got all fucked up because Hunter decided he knew better than everyone else in the chain of command what was happening.

In fact, I think Hunter could be a millennial he's so fucked up in the head.

was the underwater combat realistic? I was under the impression that Torpedoes float and are meant to hit surface vessels.

>he hasn't seen The Hunt for Red October

He was probably listening to his rock and roll music while we were doing missile tests.

I have seen it actually but can't remember much, except being lazy about the language,the 2IC wanting a titfu and Jack Ryan boarding a Russian submarine in a fucking suit.

Top kek read it perfectly in Sean Connery's voice.

It's so good, definitely rewatch it. But yeah, torpedoes have running depths set, they don't just run on the surface.

Funnily enough, the US navy had a major pain in WWII with their torpedoes running too low. As a result, captains set them for 0 feet of depth just to hit the bottom of hulls.

what are some similar movies? not necessarily about submarines but about tension between two authorities about some what seems a non-issue from the outside as some user said (there was no real threat, nukes were not launched) but for them is life or death.

Even though I could see his point and you're rooting for him, his whole character gave me this impression of "fuck you I won't do what you tell me"

do they really have firearms on a sub? isn't that dangerous?

Rush is kind of like that. Not authorities per se, but the stakes are high for them.

I thought he was "too by the book", while the old captain was more about guts and experience.

also can you smoke on a sub? seems weird

Everything's dangerous on a nuclear sub.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11037096/Royal-Navy-alcohol-consumption-curbed-after-fatal-submarine-shooting.html

bizarre they have rifles on a sub. for a lot of reasons

Obviously to beat the Barb's record for ballsiest landing party: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_B._Fluckey#World_War_II

Put it this way, if Hackman got his way, there would be MILLIONS of dead civilians