Ramsay was correct - Crimson Tide (1995) Discussion

[–] robi1138-1 10 years ago

How is he correct?

1) He was wrong for ignoring an incoming EAM (simply because the transmission was interrupted).
2) He committed mutiny retaking a ship.
3) He was wrong about what he thought the EAM would say (and would've started a nuclear war).

He's 0/3...hardly what I would deem as "correct".

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 10 years ago

No, without the real verified message there was no message. As there was no message the rest of your points are moot.

reply

[–] robi1138-1 10 years ago

Wrong again.

An incoming EAM that is cutoff doesn't discount its authenticity simply because it couldn't be transmitted in full (for a valid reason, no less...the inability to receive said message at that depth without the radio antenna). That's like seeing someone yell something to you but not being able to make it out because of ambient noise and saying "Well, he's not saying anything because I can't hear it". That doesn't even make sense.

Also, my other two points are perfectly valid as they had nothing to do with point number one...not directly anyway. The captain was properly relieved by the EXO and he would've been responsible for starting a nuclear annihilation event. I'm having trouble understanding why you're defending a character that was so clearly wrong in every sense.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 10 years ago

Ok, I'll give it another go:

Submarines don't 'phone home' very easily... indeed it's fracking hard, and to do so risks detection. An Ohio has had a big portion of its crapload of dollars spent on NOT being detected.

To avoid submarines having to 'phone home' submarines basically sit and receive VLF messages, which are extremely slow to receive. So slow, that the messages are in essence pre-formatted and then authenticated.

So, the message would be something like:

"do code 10 - AZKDBE"

Do code 10 may be: "launch everything you've got at New Zealand, oh, and by the way, so you know it's a real message, your verification is AZKDBE"

WITHOUT AZKDBE, there is no message. However unlikely it is, the messages could have been compromised (as per the material given by the Walker spy ring). So, as Ramsay said, it was a message fragment. He had 'in hand' a legal and authenticated message. He had another piece of paper which was in essence the makings of a paper aeroplane. He tried to get better information (raising the buoy (dunno if that's a real thing or not tbh)) but that didn't work. What choice did he have?

You've taken the line that Ramsay was wrong because as it turns out the subsequent EAM had revoked the previous EAM, but what if it hadn't? What if Hunter had been wrong and by NOT pre-emptively striking the rebels, the revels launched which resulted in a massive retaliatory strike?

reply

[–] robi1138-1 10 years ago

An incomplete message is not "no message". He may have had orders in hand but he had possible orders that were cut off. Regardless of whether the cutoff message was authentic or not, or whether it said to launch or not, it created doubt...a valid doubt. Not only a valid doubt but a possible world-ending doubt.

I didn't take the line that the ends justified the means. If the order had been to launch, the EXO would still have been right. There are other subs and land-based missiles to launch...even if some had been taken out by the enemy

You don't think the prudent thing to do when unsure about starting a nuclear war would be NOT to launch?

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 10 years ago

I'm not sure if you have any military experience or not so I'll assume not. Please don't consider that I'm 'talking down to you' as I'm not.

I have quite a bit of military experience, and that military experience was in electronic warfare.

The Soviets were EXPERTS at EW. I mean by far the best. They cracked into a huge number of western communications nets and did it so seamlessly that people would be sent incorrect messages all the time and act on them.

Mostly, high risk assets such as the nuclear arsenal was safe because of the nearly constant use of one-time-pads etc, but there was always the risk of a network being compromised. When a network is compromised you ignore it.

Something like this with one alpha being a non-genuine message:

Zero Alpha this is one Alpha, message over

One alpha this is zero alpha, authenticate zulu bravo over

zero alpha this is one alpha, I authenticate Xray

X-ray is just a guess, because One Alpha doesn't have an authentication pad. From then on it goes something like this:

Zero alpha this is one alpha hello? Is anyone out there?

In the mean time Zero alpha will do this:

Zero alpha net call. Change to <new network frequency>

They will then rapidly do a network authentication and try to find the real one alpha.

All of this is well and good in a land-based comms network, but in a submarine you can't do it, so you rely on autheticators.

Now, you will notice that Zero Alpha didn't give One Alpha the time of day after he failed the authentication. He was totally ignored. You don't plead with the person (well, you may give them a chance by re-authenticating, but in a high risk situation you may not).

The same with the message fragment. There may be a real message, but without an authentication it is nothing.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] robi1138-1 10 years ago

Ok, re-reading your initial post, I agree that it's the C-in-C's responsibility to order a launch with absolute certainty knowing that an order to cancel the launch may not go through for whatever reason. However, due to the redundancy that's employed when given launch orders (assuming the movie is correct on this point as I have no military experience) it's still prudent to not launch when an incomplete message has been received. Remember, this is an incomplete message, not a complete message that failed authentication (like the example in your last post).

Also, not talking down to you either btw, I think you're minimizing the order that was given here. This is not a small scale attack with conventional weapons that's being ordered. This is potentially a civilization ending event. Regardless of the rules that are meant to be followed, I'd think anyone with common sense would err on the side of caution than get this one wrong.

reply

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 10 years ago

Sorry to butt in here, but with as much intelligent exchange as you guys have put forth in this thread, I am surprised that no one has gotten to the crux of the matter.

Irrespective of the validity of the second message (fragment), Ramsey is clearly - clearly - in the wrong about the single most important issue in the launch dispute. The launch procedures require the concurrence of both officers. There is a reason for that. Ramsey has no legal authority to disregard the objections of the XO and replace him with someone else for the purpose of artificially creating that required concurrence. Ramsey's order to have Hunter removed because he won't repeat the launch commands is an unlawful order. If it were otherwise, then the whole notion of a two-person command system for nuclear release would be a farce.

"Morbius, something is approaching from the southwest. It is now quite close."

reply

[–] robi1138-1 10 years ago

Agreed.

I don't think we disagree on that (I don't believe so anyway), just whether or not Ramsey's initial decision to launch was correct.

reply

[–] CGSailor 9 years ago

Split,
What you say is mostly correct but improperly being applied to the situation at hand. In all, Robi is correct.

Yes, a message without the proper authentication is to be ignored as a false message.

But this is a message that was for technical reasons, cut off in mid transmission. The whole message may very well have (and indeed DID) the proper authentications.
The thing is, they did not have the whole message by which to judge if the message should be ignored or not.

Ramsey's mistake... is not in simply going with the message at hand and ignoring the "message fragment".

It was that he refused to take the time available to attempt to authenticate the fragment while proceeding with the original message.

And yes, I went to and passed the PacFleet Radio/Telephone Operator's course at Naval Amphib Base Coronado.

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

reply

[–] Drooch 9 years ago

4) He took a crew member hostage, threatening to execute him unless Weps allowed him to launch the nukes.

reply

[–] dogscantwink 10 years ago

You guys are both right but you're missing the point, if it had been a conventional war there would have been no issue and hence no movie. The fact that they were talking about releasing nuclear weapons was the difference. As Denzel said in the Captain's mess early in the movie nuclear war is itself the enemy.

He (Denzel) mutinied plain and simple but the circumstances (losing communication with an incomplete directive in hand) demanded he mutiny in the given situation. They were both right and both wrong depending on your perspective but logic dictates you give Denzel a lot more leeway to prove he's wrong.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dogscantwink 10 years ago

We can take Google out of context all week, I've spent the last 23 years in the Naval Service and my original post is accurate.

How was Hunter the 'proper authority' to take the boat? The better question is under what circumstances can the XO or any other officer 'legally' take command of a ship from the Captain? Hunter didn't 'legally' relieve Ramsey, he took the boat by force under circumstances of which any JAG would side with the Captain. The fact that he (Hunter) was ultimately correct is the catch of the movie and the reason for the stand up with the Pacific Fleet command at the end.

Hunter mutinied, he took the boat when he had no legal authority to do so which is why the Chief of the Boat (COB) had serious issues with what happened. He (COB) knew that what had happened was improper and a violation of Naval procedure but he had the same reservations about the course the Captain was taking as Hunter (especially since the release of nuclear weapons was involved). That's the only reason the COB sided with Hunter. If you've never been on a naval ship/boat the COB or Master Chief is the brains of the operation.

Hunter was wrong but ultimately right, Ramsey was right but ultimately wrong.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] andyk888 10 years ago

Ramsay was never correct. Hunter had his number since the initial interview. Ramsay spoke to much.

A small character flaw early on but a large character flaw later. Fact is Ramsay wanted overwhelming control. He committed mutiny when he violated Hunter's command.

And honestly. How could Ramsay ever be correct? Ramsay's decision destroys the world. Hunter's prevents war. And as Hunter states, even if the message fragment wasn't to stop the launch, the world was over anyway. Get off the drugs my man!

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] manofsteel4455 9 years ago

Sounds like some of you guys are robots.

reply

[–] Zach126 9 years ago

Agreed. An "independent thinker" is a GOOD thing in my book. And the last thing the world needs is a bunch of robots who can't think for themselves. Especially when nuclear weapons are involved. Also, I'm all for working as a team & following the chain of command when things are done by the book but when a CO totally disregards an EAM just becuz it got cut off and becuz he has an itchy trigger finger, you don't just do as he says & blindly fire your missiles. Sometimes you DO need to question authority. Hunter was right.

reply

[–] ilon 9 years ago

If Ramsey was correct he would be the one who started a war.
That's the dumb way of being correct.
If there's any chance to avoid war, any position disregarding that option is wrong.

reply

[–] subwoofers 9 years ago

the script was wrong (just kidding)

Danny Nucci was cute

it was a good movie no matter who you think was "right"

reply

[–] mattmens1 9 years ago

I don't even see the reason for the argument here. Don't get me wrong, you all have valid points. However, I thought the end of the film answered the whole "who was right/wrong" thing perfectly. The panel told them that they were both right....and both wrong. That is the point. They both acted in ways that were not "by the book." However, because of the outcome of the situation, Denzel got the promotion, while Hackman got the sack. Early retirement technically.

reply

[–] mikeyg24 9 years ago

That he was forced into retirement is not clear and I doubt he actually was. I always got the impression that Ramsey figured that he was obsolete in a modern navy. I have no doubt that a man of his calibre would certainly have been allowed to remain in the navy in a non combat role but that wasn't his style either. Out with the old in with the new.

Hey! You're not old enough to drink! Now go and die for your country!!!

reply

[–] Jeneral28 9 years ago

Both were wrong. Hunter was illegally removing the Captain from command (COB should also be faulted for siding with the XO but then funnily he corrected Ramsay over nuclear weapons release procedures). Rmsay was wrong threatening Weps, Hilaire, creating Zimmer as an XO. The issue about a faulty radio, a broken EAM is highly unlikely to happen in real life. Even if it did, as I started off, Ramsay was in no position to force Hunter to agree with him to repeat the order--Ramsay was not following the two-man rule. Hunter was in no position to relieve Ramsay, COB was in no position to agree with Hunter even as he corrected Ramsay (and why only COB? Like the rest of the crew in the COnn just stand by and watch? There are officers and enlisted men all around in earshot, hearing the most dreaded order ever. No one takes sides before or after Hunter took control? Yeah that's a movie.)

And please, heck if you have served for 100000000000 years or not served. Whether or not you have served, been in action, wounded or nearly died does not qualify you to be better than others.

reply

[–] CGSailor 9 years ago

Hunter was illegally removing the Captain from command

Wrong.

Ramsey tried to circumvent the two-man rule regard nuclear weapons release. That was a violation which warranted his removal from command by the XO.

Ramsay was in no position to force Hunter to agree with him to repeat the order--Ramsay was not following the two-man rule. Hunter was in no position to relieve Ramsay

What you said in green is correct. However how do you figure the section in red?
You have made no case for that and in fact the section in green IS Hunter's reason for relieving him. The only thing you have done is say that Hunter has no authority to relieve Ramsey without making any valid statement as to why.
Because you say so?

Sorry. Doesn't work.
You are wrong.

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

reply

[–] Maegnas 8 years ago

There's another thread about this, last post there is like 5 years ago.

Interesting topic but, imo, flawed approach - and let me explain why.

There are unique circumstances when nuclear weapons are involved and special care and considerations must be allowed. Also, most posters are civilians so their perspective is more the "humanitarian" one while those under active military service (or retired veterans) tend to focus more on the military side of things.

So let's try and skin this cat 4 ways...

a. Under military law, an order MUST be executed. If a revoke is issued, on time, the recipient of said order is relieved of their duty to follow through with it. There are precious few exceptions, such as unlawful orders (an order to torture prisoners of war, for example) but this was not the case here - from a military standpoint anyway. Under this "light", Ramsey was correct, his only fault was his inflexibility in trying to confirm what the broken EAM was about.

b. The "two-man system" is there for a reason, so that no one man can launch nuclear weapons unchecked. When Hunter refused to repeat the order and gave a valid reason for it, Ramsey tried to oust him and replace him with another, more "compliant" to his views - and there he was out of line big time! Hunter was well within his rights AND within naval code of conduct to remove him and assume command (as stated by others, more knowlegeable than me on the subject).

c. While the concept of orders (and follwoing thereof) is the cornerstone of military discipline and conduct, orders involving the release of nuclear weapons are, by nature, a special kind of animal. This is not an officer ordering an enlisted man to "clean the latrine" or stand guard, this is potentially a world-ending order, if carried out the wrong way (or, as some would argue, if carried out at all). Safeguards are placed especially for this particular kind of order and still those who are responsible to "push the button" more often than not refuse to do so (how many times has a nuclear weapon been released since August 1945? Even in drills it was fairly common to happen upon operators - for lack of a better word - who did not "perform properly". Tests are different as they were not aimed at an "enemy"). Under this "light", I think Hunter was both right and in the right to want to verify what that broken EAM was about. Even without it, how easy is it, even with orders at hand, to know that YOU are going to be responsible for millions, if not billions, of deaths and still go through with it?

d. Given that there is such "weight" in this particular order, an "immediate launch order" is, in itself, a crime against humanity. Think about it for a moment, the CiC issues the order for immediate launch, seconds later the "birds" fly and a couple of minutes later comes the "oops" moment? How do you rescind such an order? Yes, there are failsafe systems like self destruct and all that but ICBMs and IRBMs are not exactly slow moving things, a couple of minutes and they can well be out of range for such a recall - then what? Also, imagine a mentally unstable person as CiC, someone with anger issues, or someone prone to outbursts of rage. Would YOU follow orders issued by such a CiC, given that the end result is pretty much it.....the END? Under this consideration, both Ramsey and Hunter were wrong, they shouldn't even be onboard a ship/boat (which one applies to subs?) that could mark the end of civilization, to say the least.

One last point, or another reason why Ramsey was wrong. EAM is not exactly a routine way of communicating with a SSBN, is it? That "E" stands for emergency and therefore a fragmented EAM should merit some time to see what it is about - which Ramsey did not even think of doing.

Cute and cuddly boyz!!

reply

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

Good post.

One small point of order on an earlier section then Ill adress where your section D has a lot wrong with it.
A,B,and C are all good though (but for the point of order)

and still those who are responsible to "push the button" more often than not refuse to do so (how many times has a nuclear weapon been released since August 1945?

One does not follow the other.
You cannot make the claim that many have refused the order based on the fact that none have been released since 1945.
Why? Because the order has never been given since 1945.

Kinda hard to disobey an order never given.
lol.

That's the small point of order. On to section D.

d. Given that there is such "weight" in this particular order, an "immediate launch order" is, in itself, a crime against humanity. Think about it for a moment, the CiC issues the order for immediate launch, seconds later the "birds" fly and a couple of minutes later comes the "oops" moment? How do you rescind such an order?

You don't, and there is no such provision to do so. All nuclear launch orders are immediate launch.

The failsafe is in the issuing the orders in the first place. That's something the film has wrong.
The order for a nuclear strike is an absolute last resort and is never given unless the president is 110% damned sure that nukes must be used and there is no going back once given. It is never given unless there is absolutely no other choice and no do-overs. THAT is the failsafe.

Yes, there are failsafe systems like self destruct and all that but ICBMs and IRBMs are not exactly slow moving things, a couple of minutes and they can well be out of range for such a recall - then what?

No... There isn't.

What you are thinking of in error are what is called "Range Safety Packages"
Civilian unmanned Rockets have them (Think:NASA)

Military TEST launches have them.
But active "warshots" do NOT.

If USS West Virgina goes out off the coast of California near Point Mugu and conducts a live missile test and fires one towards Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands...
That Trident D5 will have a Range Safety Package.

When USS West Virginia goes out on a 70 day Deterrence Patrol with live missiles in case the unthinkable happens... Those 24 Tridents DO NOT have Range Safety Packages installed.

The reason is quite simple.
For tests, or for unmanned civilian flights, you want the ability to self destruct a missile or rocket that goes off course.

But you DO NOT WANT the enemy to be able to hack and send a signal and blow your warshots out of the sky.

Also, imagine a mentally unstable person as CiC, someone with anger issues, or someone prone to outbursts of rage. Would YOU follow orders issued by such a CiC, given that the end result is pretty much it.....the END?

Even the President has to follow the Two Man Rule. It's not just for those receiving the orders, it applies even to the President GIVING the order in the first place.

Only the President can initiate the order, but that order must then be confirmed by a second before it is issued out for others to follow.

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

reply

[–] CGSailor 8 years ago

One small addendum concerning disobeying an order never given.

There is only one concrete example that I am aware of and that is on the Soviet, not American side.

Soviet ship and submarine commanders had nuclear launch authority one their own initiative for small tactical nukes, however they ooerated under a THREE MAN (not two) rule. The Captain, XO, and political Officer all had to agree. But they needed no authority from Moscow to do so. God help them if they're wrong though.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, A soviet sub was trying to get past the American blockade. The Americans were onto him though and were dropping practice depth charges (basically small hand grenades thrown over the side). This was to signal the sub to come to the surface. The ASW version of firing a warning shot across the bow.

Out of contact with Moscow while in deep submergence, The Crew thought that perhaps war actually broke out and USA/USSR were at war. They thought they were being attacked for real and the captain decided to use a nuclear torpedo which they had one aboard. Under the three man rule The Captain and the Political officer both voted Yes.

The XO said no.
That XO being the same man who was also aboard K-19 when they had their Nuclear Reactor mishap as portrayed in the film K-19 Widowmaker. The historical basis for the character played by Liam Neeson

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

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

reply