Think the mutiny ended their careers
In the Navy epecially everyone who sided with Ramsey. There's the scene where Zimmer storms outs the inquiry.
shareI have no idea. In the real world, fast-forwarded to the present day, I would be stunned if anyone involved who picked up a weapon and pointed it at a shipmate were ever allowed to go to sea again. Not saying that would be just; it's simply the PC risk-averse management style that pervades every institution in the US today.
But I really have no idea.
"Morbius, something is approaching from the southwest. It is now quite close."
What about the captain threatening to shoot and kill the random sailor if the guy who knew the combination didn't open that lock?
Back to the mutiny theme. Was there really a clear cut side to be on as far as the chain of command? Some were obeying the captain and others were obeying the man who relieved the captain. I don't know the legality of relieving a captain of command as to whether there was any doubt as to whether he could do that or if there was some doubt as to whether he had a "legal/policy" standing to relieve him.
Would the crew know whether to disregard Denzel's character or whether to disregard the captain based on the Navy policy for such situations? I don't know the real policy so I don't know if Washington's speech was Hollywood make believe or if he could have relieved him of command in real life.
Deutschland hat die Weltmeisterschaft zum vierten Mal gewonnen! π©πͺπΊπΈ
[deleted]
- Their job is to hold the weapons and fire them from undisclosed locations. Frankly, all the decision making on whether to fire or not or where to fire the weapons to are way above their paygrade. They don't have all the information at hand and they don't have the political or military authority to make that judgement call. So they need to just shut up and follow orders. People like Hunter are not suitable for these roles. He should be doing desk jobs somewhere. Maybe working intel.
Can you cite a single line of dialogue that establishes the idea that Hunter is actually inserting himself into the decision process of whether the nuclear strike is correct policy? I don't mean theoretical discussions, I mean overriding the National Command Authority on actual current orders because he has evaluated the strategic situation for himself and decides there should not be a strike.
Hunter is advocating exclusively for making sure the sub follows the most up-to-date set of orders (or does nothing until they can receive current orders).
I would suggest that you are slightly incorrect when you say "Their job is to hold the weapons and fire them from undisclosed locations." As I see it, their job is to hold the weapons in undisclosed locations and await orders to fire. At any point that the sub loses the ability to receive orders, they are mission incapable. Period.
"Morbius, something is approaching from the southwest. It is now quite close." share
[deleted]