MovieChat Forums > Crimson Tide (1995) Discussion > To the sailors on here?

To the sailors on here?


What are the existing rules of conduct in the scenerio portrayed in this movie?

You've been ordered to launch nuclear weapons but another order comes in but can't be received.

Isn't there already a plan for this contingency?

I'm sure it isn't left up to the whim of the officers and their personal opinions.

How would this go down in real life?

reply

It's been asked before and you are going to get the same response.

The ACTUAL rules, regulations, procedures, contingencies etc... regarding communications protocols and Nuclear weapons launch are......


wait for it...


CLASSIFIED.


You are not going to find out.
Anyone telling you what they are is talking out their a$$ and doesn't know wtf they're talking about.

Anyone who does know... knows they cannot (and will not) tell you.


Ask all you want, that's all the correct answer you're going to get.



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

reply

Well, let's twist it then to ask more about orders and the chain of command, throw the nuclear weapons part out. Forget about them, let's just talk conventional weapons or some type of an assault or attack.

Let's say it is a time of war and a ship has been ordered to launch some cruise missle at a target or do some type of coastal bombardment or land some marines somewhere and some new directive is received but cut off or somehow their communications are disrupted during their reception. Their commanders are clearly attempting to give them some directive and for whatever reason they were disrupted.

Does the ship have a protocal as to whether they just go ahead launch the attack or do they stand down until the last orders were confirmed?

Is that also classified or is there some type of policy regarding an unconfirmed order given from above? (Keep in mind just forget the nuclear weapons, world war 3 subject and just bring it down several levels/degrees to more common everyday commands a vessel may receive.)

reply

It is then meaningless as the situation is different without nuclear weapons.

If some conventional attack was ordered and then some other message about the attack started to come in but was cut off, the captain would have the leeway to hold off and confirm and/or work to re-stablish comms.

It is the very nature of it being a Nuclear strike that makes everything so all damned important to get every single thing correct or nothing at all.

Conventional has more leeway.

Your very act of bringing it down a notch from nuclear makes the whole point of your question moot.


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

reply

You see, it is my question though, not yours. It isn't moot to me. I'm curious about the subject and it still gives me some satisfaction to know the policy's on more routine issues to give me a basis to compare against weightier issues.

Even if they are not the same it gives me a starting off point to contemplate and guess at when I try to envision what would happen in a real life episode similar to the movie. It helps me make a more educated guess as to what they may do regarding a nuclear launch based on how they may handle a less titanic situation.

Just because it isn't the same situation doesn't make it less interesting for me to discuss and speculate about. It is still entertaining to speculate and it is entertaining to have discussions and dialogue.

In real life I cannot imagine we would ever launch a nuclear weapon with an unknown order just hanging there. With the number of fail safes in place I don't believe a launch would go when another order has come in like that. Standing down seems obvious to me, it doesn't even seem like the decision would be close or controversial one but automatic. Knowing more about the smaller orders just helps solidify my opinion/belief about the bigger ones.

reply

It helps me make a more educated guess as to what they may do regarding a nuclear launch based on how they may handle a less titanic situation.

That's why I said it's a moot point. Not because it isn't of interest to you...

But because the situations are so different that you would NOT be making an educated guess of one based on the other.


And I am not sure which one it is, but that only other person to have responded is an ignored individual. I ignore a rare few and for very specific reasons. If it is who I think it is, it is a known troll that loves to dispense utter bullsh!t and to make himself out to be what he's not.


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

reply

Devil's Advocate:

Suppose the less than nuclear scenario the OP was inquiring about were targeting something about to launch a nuke at the US, or any other equally pertinent and time sensitive scenarios?
Can you provide insight into that based on the OP's line of questioning?

I do believe that would make it more relative to the events in the film.

reply

can you be more specific? I am not sure exactly what you are trying to get at.

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

reply

Lets say, they are going to deploy countermeasures of some sort(I have no idea what it would be) to stop a rouge RT-2PM Topol crew from launching at the US(again I do not know if this is even possible, but hypothetically) and time is extremely limited.

reply

There is only one thing the US Navy has in that regards, The SM-3 Anti-Ballistic missile version of the Standard Family of Missiles.

There is nothing to debate in such a situation, Warned of the threat, if your ships systems can detect the threat, you try to shoot it down. PERIOD. There is no EAM messages, or attempts to confirm or any of that, the warning comes across standard Navy Command and Control communications networks and if you can... you stop it.

But doing so is a crapshot at best.

the SM-3 Standard Missile is fired from the Mk 41 VLS Launchers associated with the Aegis Combat System found on Ticonderoga Cruisers and Arleigh Burke Destroyers.
Not every Tico and Burke out there however is fitted with the SM-3. The Mk-41 VLS only has 96 cells (Burke) or 122 cells (Tico). These cells are used by a multitude of various weapons.
The SM-2 (being replaced by the SM-6) Surface to Air Missile
VL-ASROC
ESSM (4 per cell)
Tomahawk

The vast majority of those cells will be taken up by the Surface to Air Missile and Tomahawk missiles. With a handful of others for the ESSM and VL_ASROC.

SM-3 is limited to a few specific ships deployed to specific geographical locations where an ICBM threat is a potentiality. Ships off Japan, Guam, Hawaii... for example, in the case of a Rogue attack by North Korea.

A few ships based around San Diego, Bremerton and other Militarily significant ports on the West Coast, Norfolk, Mayport, and others on the East Coast, and politically sensitive targets near the ocean like Washington DC... would be others in the case of an attack by more capable opponents with greater ranged ICBMs such as Russia or China.

Aegis and the Spy Radar has to be switched into an entirely different operating mode because of the nature of the threat. Higher Radar signal output plus alterations to the Pulse train, The Pulse width and repetition rate and interval... All must be done to detect and track a contact at such great ranges, altitudes and moving at near orbital velocities. Even then, the ship has to be almost perfectly under the flight path (sub-orbital trajectory) to have a chance of intercept. The Launch envelope is very VERY small.






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

reply

The Above answer is for stopping the missile if fired.

If you are referring to stopping the crew before they can fire, There is but two other possibilities.

1) A Tomahawk strike
this would not be likely as the it takes time to set up and the flight time of the subsonic missile would be hours, not minutes.

2) An Air Strike
Again, prep and flight time is a factor.


Regardless, on both situations command and control is as normal, just like in the previous example. The orders come as they do normally in regards to any Combat orders. With the same ability to recall/cancel.

It is the unique nature and scope of destruction and political consequences that requires extraordinary measures in regards to Nuclear weapon release.

See my second response to the OP when he tried to go non-nuclear in the scenario.


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

reply

Thank you for your prompt and in-depth(no pun intended) replies.

OT; Was smoking hash as common on missile cruisers as it was on submarines?

reply

Not in my time.

Zero Tolerance...
"Not in my Navy" was the watchword.



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

reply

I'm aware of the zero tolerance rule, but I am also aware it was ignored(by enlistees) as late as the 80s, maybe later but I have no knowledge of it. In the 60s it was common place, but the skipper would do his best to catch the offending party. Due to the re-circulation of recycled air on a sub there was no hiding it, but there was denying it.

reply

I'm aware of the zero tolerance rule, but I am also aware it was ignored(by enlistees) as late as the 80s, maybe later but I have no knowledge of it.


The Zero Tolerance Policy was not instituted until 1981. It took a year or two to clean up all the potheads and other losers. So no.. it was not ignored into the 80's. It didn't exist until the 80's.

If you pissed positive, you were history. Dishonorable Discharge. No ifs Ands or Buts about it. No exceptions, No waivers.

You could be sailor of the Year, recommended To transition to an Officer... but you pop once, that's all flushed down the head.


Captain Carroll "Lex" LeFon Had an excellent post about Drug use and the Navy. I'll see if I can find it in the archives. But for now, I am late meeting a Friend to go pick up Pecans 

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

reply

Here's something that isn't easy for me to talk about, but right now I feel some kind of need to do it.

In 1975 I lost a good friend due to drug related issues. More than just a fellow shipmate, we also rented an apartment off base. But he made the mistake and although he wasn't discharged from the Navy he could no longer be in nuclear power.

What keeps the story in mind is that I discovered a few months ago that there is also an element of stolen valor involved.

There was another man, not my friend, in RC Division who was a real problem, and the rest of us often wished he had never been assigned to our boat. Quite some time ago, in a different thread, I mentioned that of all the nuclear trained people I encountered on the Skipjack there were only two that should have been weeded out before they ever got to the fleet. This man was one of those two.

What I was seeing, what was obvious to anyone was his whole attitude. He didn't like the Navy. He didn't want to qualify and do his job. He had no interest or intention of supporting the other personnel as they did their work. He was just a sullen, uncooperative, useless burden the rest of us had to bear.

What I did not know until it all came out with his arrest was that he was heavily involved in, not merely using, but selling drugs in the area. I think it's understandable that I wouldn't have recognized the signs, if there were any to see, because I have never taken illegal drugs or been involved in a drug culture in any way. We had a HMC who would frequently give drug awareness lectures to the crew. My knowledge of the matter was considerably less than what he tried to impart to us. I wasn't interested in drug issues because they're not a part of my life, never were, and the thought never crossed my mind to associate them with this person or anyone else.

And yet the man did have certain worthwhile talents. He once made a very fine shelf to store our tech manuals. Much to our surprise. We didn't know he had it in him. But there were other things. We had an ongoing problem where various instrument reading were wildly messed up. It took a lot of time to keep trouble shooting them and we had to go into cabinets that ordinarily were never even opened. And the cause always turned out that something, like a potentiometer, had been twisted way out of alignment. Obviously someone was going into the cabinets and messing up the equipment. We couldn't prove anything, but we knew it had to be this man because there was nobody else in RC Div. or Engineering Dept. who would have any reason or wish to do such a thing.

He was written up several times and went to Captain's Mast, and each time we kept hoping the CO would get rid of him. To our disappointment and bewilderment all he ever got was a slap on the wrist. We didn't know at the time this was because Naval Intelligence was involved and had requested the CO to not remove him until they were ready to act. They were actively combating the drug problem and had quickly zeroed in on this guy. They even had an undercover officer living with him as a roommate.

But eventually he was arrested by the Shore Patrol for other issues. We had three section duty on the Skipjack, so most weekends we had one duty day. This problem guy eventually reached the point where he would not come in on his duty days. No authorization, no calling in, no explanations. He simply wouldn't come in. And that was when we sent the Shore Patrol after him. They took him to the brig, and then Naval Intelligence pounced. It seems that among other things he had been hosting parties where drugs were available. A number of guys from the boat had attended some of them including my friend and roommate. And some of them had taken a few puffs of whatever it is they smoke. I was never invited, wouldn't have gone if I had been, and in fact never even knew at the time about the parties.

All that came out and that's how I lost a friend. Of course the problem guy never returned to the Skipjack and I never saw him again. I heard that the Navy was planning a Court Martial and that he had hired a smart, civilian lawyer to defend him. Nothing happened quickly and much later I heard that the Navy had decided to avoid the expense of a trial and the need to bring back witnesses who had completed their naval service and were now living in other parts of the country. It was said that the smart lawyer had negotiated a deal in which his client would simply be released from the Navy with a less than honorable discharge. Not long after that I reached my EAOS.

And now for the stolen valor part. Several months ago in a moment of random curiosity I decided to do Google searches of names from the past. Just to see what I might find. I Googled the problem guy's name and was connected to his obituary. He died of natural causes about six years ago. What caught my notice was the way he "turned" his life around after the Navy. He went back home and became a reactor operator in a civilian nuclear power plant. Which indicates to me he concealed the truth about his Navy record and drug history. Later he became involved in other activities and labored to support the corresponding community of enthusiasts with such things as magazine publishing. Looking at the history of all he did for them it was really, and I sincerely mean really, impressive what all he accomplished.

But it also appears that he never told the truth about his Navy days. I almost gagged when I read the part of his obituary of how he joined the Navy during the Vietnam era (like a good patriot) and "served" on one of the earliest nuclear submarines. I would like to state here that he did not "serve" on the Skipjack. He was "assigned" to the crew of the Skipjack. The people who "served" were the ones who did their jobs and supported the others in doing their jobs.

And for his funeral the family requested and got a motorcycle escort from the Patriot Guard Riders. That in turned triggered a series of condolence messages from well meaning Patriot Guards about how "you were a true patriot" and "your nation is grateful for your service" and other fine tributes that this guy did not deserve. However admirable his subsequent life might have been he had no honor in his naval record.

I guess that's why I feel this need to talk about it. It's not about things that happened forty years ago, but about the stolen valor issue. That's been bothering me ever since I read it and I guess I just want to get this off my chest.


***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

Hell of a deal ain't it.
It's why I so fraking hate Stolen Valor *beep* (and our particular asshat of a stolen valor troll that keeps showing up in these boards. (see below)

We had a few on Halsey that were busted and thrown out of the service. Mostly Deck apes from 1st Division. Undesignated Seaman. a couple of radiomen as well.

The Biggest problem Halsey had was Alcohol abuse. Moral was low because of command problems with certain officers. And DUI's and other violations were common.
So much so that the Ship's nickname for a time was USS Alcahalsey.


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

reply

So much so that the Ship's nickname for a time was USS Alcahalsey.


That's sad. Also funny. Thanks for the laugh.

From my amateur observational position I'm not sure drugs were a big issue up to the mid 1960's. They certainly weren't out in Norman Rockwell America where I grew up. In my high school there were no drugs, no users, certainly no sellers. Not that I ever heard of. Everyone was clean cut, clean shaven, neatly dressed. There weren't any written school rules about these things either. Everyone knew how they were supposed to dress and look and did the right thing without being told. None of the boys had long hair. When I graduated from high school I had never even heard the word "hippie."

But by the late 1960's that had changed. There were now all these issues and drug problems in my old school. Kids arrested. Even some deaths. Sad to hear about.

I'm guessing from that that what the Navy experienced was similar. By the late 60's and early 70's problems that had not previously existed were hitting hard. And I think the naval leadership, accustomed to the old ways, often struggled in trying to find a proper way to respond.

One thing that seemed to be especially baffling was the anti-military hostility engendered by the Vietnam War. This was completely contrary to all their experience. There were occasions when I overheard the older guys, the senior people talking about it. They literally didn't understand why it had changed. World War II was a very patriotic time and the military was very popular. Nothing was too good for the people in uniform.

Little known fact that in the late 1940's Congress actually authorized travel pay for servicemen in the continental US who were traveling on leave. It's true. A serviceman who was approved for leave simply had to inform the pay office that he "intended" to travel to a certain place on his leave and they had to calculate mileage to there and back and issue the appropriate travel pay. The idea was these young people were away from home serving their country, and wouldn't it be nice to help them go home on leave and see the folks.

I was told about this by a Storekeeper who later transitioned into a Disbursing Clerk when that rate was created. He said the program didn't last because of the rampant abuse. He was stationed in Key West and said in short order everyone going on leave was reporting an "intention" to travel to Seattle. Naturally no one actually went there but they didn't have to return the money either. And if you asked them about it they would smugly reply, "Well, I intended to go there at the time but then I changed my mind." He told me the way the law was written there was nothing illegal about what they were doing, given that it's hard to legally prove what someone "intended."

But that reflects the kind of support the country had for the military, and even if the travel pay program didn't last the good will and support did continue with little or no dissent up to the mid 60's. For the older guys that was all they had ever known.

When I was in the Navy starting in 1970 drug issues were certainly serious but I think the leadership was still experimenting with how exactly to deal with it. There was training of course but still some learning needed on what kind of training worked and what didn't. An example of counter productive training being the film warning of the dangers of LSD by depicting as a typical LSD hallucination the user dreaming himself in a sunny field and being mobbed by a bevy of beautiful and scantily clad girls.

And there were certainly consequences if a sailor was caught using drugs. But it didn't inevitably result in discharge from the Navy. My friend from the Skipjack was transferred off submarines and out of nuclear power and reassigned elsewhere to menial duties.

Another piece of evidence. In 1971 I went through several months at ET-A school at Great Lakes. On occasional mornings the instructors had staff meetings for the first hour. We students had to occupy our time some way, and we were allowed to check out a projector and training film from the library. There wasn't a wide variety of films so we tended to see the same films over and over.

There was one anti-LSD film titled "Trip To Where?" It was actually pretty well done with a plot and sub plots and polished, professional acting. In the main plot a sailor who was an air traffic controller on an aircraft carrier and basically a nice guy got involved with LSD one time but kept having flash backs. Eventually he had a flash back while giving instructions to a pilot trying to land his plane. That was the end of his assignment to air traffic control. In the final shot of the film he was working with a yard crew picking up trash while the narrator intoned that at the end of his enlistment he was not approved for reenlistment.

That was a Navy training film in 1971. So, no drugs didn't result in automatic discharge back then.

And that's my perspective of the Navy's response to drug issues.


***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

Ah... Good old Navy Training Films.
Remember "The Man From LOX?"


https://youtu.be/Q9sIT6P_05I

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

reply

No, I missed that one.

I do remember a couple of other films. There was one about a boomer sailor. For much of the patrol he was occupied with repairing a troublesome piece of equipment. But he finally got it fixed. When the patrol ended and he came home anticipating a little R&R his wife was waiting with an urgent repair job. The washing machine needed fixing. The title of the film was "Waiting For The Robert E. Lee."

The other was a (well deserved) tribute to destroyers. Or in the film "Greyhounds of the Sea."


***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

The Zero Tolerance Policy was not instituted until 1981.


I meant through the 80's. You make it sound as though it was impossible, but I have heard first had accounts of it happening(they could be lies, i guess). Maybe Silent Service gets a bit more leeway?

reply

I meant through the 80's. You make it sound as though it was impossible, but I have heard first had accounts of it happening


To this very day, there are small groups and individuals that do drugs now and then. Don't get a random drug test during the time they would piss hot. and think they get away with it. During my time in the Navy, the Dice never did roll for my coming up for a random test. Had I been a drug user, I would have gotten away with it unless they found out or suspected from my actions or otherwise.
It happens.

But on the whole as a culture... NO.
Where Officers would look the other way or just general slaps on the wrist when caught... NO.

You insinuated that the rampant drug culture in the Navy and it's Zero Tolerance policy was IGNORED through the 80's

No It was NOT ignored.

You are conflating the fact that individual cases of drug abuse happened through the 80's (and to this very day)... with the idea of the zero tolerance policy being ignored.
but I have no knowledge of it.

Then stop gainsaying those that do.


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

reply

You insinuated that the rampant drug culture in the Navy and it's Zero Tolerance policy was IGNORED through the 80's


No, I did not. I said I had heard first hand accounts from SS men who had either partaken themselves or had direct knowledge of it going on.
They even went as far as to describe the type of pipe they used(sneak-a-toke), why it was hash and not cannabis(more concentrated and harder to find), and where they smoked most often(by the missile tubes).

They said, and I quote, "It did happen more often than you would ever think".

reply

You're right. you didn't insinuate it. You outright stated it.
You flat out stated that the zero tolerance policy was ignored through the 80's.

There will always be people who try to get away with breaking the rules, and even today you can find people being busted for drugs even in the military.

But that is not the same thing as a pervasive system wide ignoring of a policy.

You are either failing to grasp that concept, or worse... deliberately ignoring it in order to not admit being wrong in your statement.



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

reply

You're right. you didn't insinuate it. You outright stated it.
You flat out stated that the zero tolerance policy was ignored through the 80's.


No, I didn't. I am referring to statements made by SS servicemen, 3 to be specific, who have all confirmed that it did happen on their patrols. None of them said if they were involved or not, just that they were aware of it(and i never probed). I have no opinion or theory either way. I was simply stating what I consider facts and wondering if it was as common in your area of the navy.

You seem to have a habit of getting all huffy for no good reason.


My real interest is in classified data I will never be privy to(like maximum depth).

reply

No, I didn't.


Let me quote you....
I'm aware of the zero tolerance rule, but I am also aware it was ignored(by enlistees) as late as the 80s, maybe later but I have no knowledge of it.


I am not getting huffy.
You made an erroneous statement which I atrempted to clarify.
You have since gone on a spree of trying to defend your erroneous statement rather than accept your error.

All your defense is showing is that yes... there are individuals that still try to use drugs in the navy. That was never questioned.

Perhaps your original statement was poorly worded and not what you meant, but it is what you said.




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

reply

If there is anything I am getting "huffy" over (and with good reason)...
Is someone who asks a question when they admittedly have no firsthand knowledge of, then gainsays the answer from someone who has been there, done that, got the DD-214 to prove it.


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

reply

Is someone who asks a question when they admittedly have no firsthand knowledge of, then gainsays the answer from someone who has been there, done that, got the DD-214 to prove it.


But, you have no knowledge of SS either... I was questioning your area and time of service(Missile Cruiser of unknown era), not whether or not you thought the information I had gained from other sources was accurate. You went off topic and got obviously offended(or came across as such).

A simple, "No. That would never happen in my time and area of Navy service" would have been more than sufficient. Instead you went off on an apparent vendetta to undermine anything I had learned from other sailors of equal or greater qualifications.

*beep*

reply

For the Good of the Service
By Neptunus Lex

As a squadron commanding officer, I had to discharge two otherwise fine Sailors who had “popped positive” on urinalysis screens for having THC in their systems. They were good kids, from bad backgrounds - the service had been a lifeline for them, a chance to remove themselves from bad situations.

And I had cut that lifeline - sent one back to the gang infested streets of El Paso. The other returned to East Los Angeles. Truly, my hands were tied.

The Navy has a zero tolerance for drug abuse - it is the surest ticket out of the service, with an “other than honorable” discharge. An OTH won’t debar you from federal employment like a bad conduct discharge, nor is it equivalent to a felony conviction, like a court martial sentence would be. But neither will it move you, by itself, to the “must hire” queue in any prospective employer’s candidate search.

It was not always thus.

When I was a third class midshipman, I cruised aboard a Spruance class destroyer, and drug abuse was fairly rampant - this was back in the late 70’s, and then, as now, many of our Sailors were products of their time. At night an officer could head aft to the helo deck, and watch two or three lounge-abouts flick the burning remnants of a marijuana cigarette over the fantail, and do nothing about it - nothing at all.

Morale in the 80 man supply berthing, where we youngster mids made our racks, was terrible - everyone seemed to hate the Navy, at least among the junior folks - everyone was counting the days until they could get out. It was a real eye-opener.

In 1981, an Marine reserve crew in an EA-6B had a landing mishap (a ramp strike) aboard the USS Nimitz. In the mishap itself, and the resulting conflagration, 19 Sailors died. Eleven were found to have THC in their blood during the post-mortem.

The Navy got serious.

Everything in the Navy depends on teamwork, much of it done around heavy equipment that moves inexorably at great speed - some pieces of gear and environments I have seen could not have been better designed had it been done on purpose to claw and rake at unwary flesh, governed by a diminished mental capacity.

CNO sent out his famous “Not in My Navy,” missive, and routine drug screening began for the first time. CO’s were given temporary authority under “Project Upgrade” to discharge malcontents, malingers and ne’er-do-wells immediately. Anyone who swore they hated the Navy and wanted out as soon as possible was offered the instant opportunity - some took it gratefully (although these were in fact few), some were given it without asking.

The results were dramatic.

The next time I deployed, this time aboard an LST, the USS Barbour County , the difference in morale was incredible. Everyone knew that we had an unshakeable standard, that there was no flexibility, no second chances and for those inclined to gripe about their lot in life, an easy way out - to the ones who wanted to be a part of something special, an organization that stood for something, this was part of the proof that they were.

I remember distinctly the time when a signalman had been found in the act of smoking marijuana - there was a Captain’s Mast, a non-judicial procedure in which the CO is invested as prosecutor, defense attorney and judge, simultaneously. The accused was brought before the CO, and forced to stand at attention. We mids had been asked to watch the process, it being thought good for our professional education. An LST, designed to work in close proximity to the shore (and in fact to run up upon it) is a flat-bottomed boat, and in the relatively high seas between San Diego and San Francisco, our next port stop, she rolled around at an alarming rate and angle. The poor Sailor, standing at attention, was challenged to maintain his balance. Some of the junior mids found his efforts to maintain his footing unbearably humorous, and could not stifle a snigger. The CO wheeled around on them, and tongue-lashed them with great violence in front of the entire assembly until they dropped their eyes to their reddening cheeks in shame.

We got the message - this was a man’s life, about to take a turn very much for the worse. It was nothing to laugh about.

When I was a young lieutenant, and division officer, I had a Sailor who was always in trouble, and worse, who tried to lie his way out of it, transparently, ultimately unsuccessfully. He came from a broken background, his wife had chronic medical issues and the CO was resolute - he would be discharged. I thought this unfair in the larger view, and presented my case to the CO in private. He told me: “Lex, we’ve got a job to do. That man is taking up a disproportionate share of the efforts of a Chief Petty Officer who could be getting that job done, and training his replacements for the job the Navy will have to do 10 years from now. While we are debating about him, your Sailors who have a chance to make something of themselves are wondering where their division officer is. You can’t save them all - some you have to scrape off, for the good of the service.”

After talking with the CO, I no longer thought it unfair. I thought it hard.

And I began to realize - it can be a hard service.

When my turn came to wear the command pin, I had very much hoped not to have any of my Sailors fail the drug test, or otherwise fail to demonstrate a pattern of acceptable performance - These were other peoples sons and daughters, given to me in trust. They had dreams and goals and aspirations that they thought the Navy could help them reach. No one joins to be a failure. I tried to love each of them as though they were my own family, I wanted them all to succeed. Their dreams I tried to make my own.

Oh, I knew that I could never save all of them - some come to us with a lifetime of emotional baggage that cannot be overcome in the short time a Sailor has to prove that he can perform, or not. We are not a charity, not a half-way house.

But I also considered anyone who had to leave the service other than on his own terms as much a failure of my leadership, my ability to reach him and make a citizen of him, as much as his own failure to measure up.

So when one particular Sailor, in whom I had invested a deal of personal time and effort, and who came from a very difficult background, and had been showing great promise, popped positive on the urinalysis test, I was not angry - I was sad.

He hadn’t gone out with the idea of getting high - he’d had a few too many drinks, fell into a bad company, was offered drugs and used them. On Monday morning, his number came up for a random sweep. In a week’s time, he stood before me.

I’ve done a number of Captain’s Masts - and I never really enjoyed them. The mask of austere gravity and dreadful authority that the role required me to wear ill-comported with my ever-present awareness of my own manifest shortcomings, especially those of my youth. Some CO’s that I have seen were “flamers,” those who seemed to enjoy the humiliation of their accused. They’d scream and rant and gesture.

I was never one of those.

For this young man, I had nothing but regret - he and I both knew what he had done, and the penalty it carried. He and I both knew what he would be returning to, having left the Navy as a failure. The Navy, a place where the path and means to success is as brightly illumined as any I can imagine - having failed at this, what could he expect?

But my hands were tied, and he knew it - it was for the good of the service.

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

reply

Well, that was kinda depressing.

reply

Google Carroll "Lex" LeFon

You'll be surprised.

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

reply

[deleted]

this is a serious subject, troll. Take your stolen valor A$$ elsewhere.

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

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]