Who are the real mutineers? - Crimson Tide (1995) Discussion

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

Look to the actions of the COB. Especially the confrontation between the COB and the XO. That will tell you who the real mutineers were.

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

reply

[–] glynis23-282-577521 12 years ago

Hunter's mutiny was legally justified, of course mutiny is simply going against the captain which makes it obvious that it was mutiny relieving him, think in Navy regulations relieving a commandering officer by a subordinate should taken with the approval with the Navy department in Hunter's case it was impossible because they cut off from communiations and another reg saying a officer relieving his commandering officer or recommending such action must bare responsibility for it and must be prepared to justifie such action.

reply

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

I gonna not try to be rude here but there is just no way to say that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about without coming off rude to the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Nor am I one to claim that you can only talk about the military if you've served in the military. However it must be pointed out that your errors in your post stem from the fact that you've likely never served hence your ignorance (non-perjurative as in simply not knowing) of military matters.

Here we go....

Hunter's mutiny was legally justified

If it was legally justified then by definition it is NOT a mutiny.
That's like saying something was a legal criminal act. Legal and criminal being mutually exclusive.

of course mutiny is simply going against the captain

Again wrong.
Mutiny is the illegal usurpation of the Commanding Officer's authority. It is not simply disobeying.

which makes it obvious that it was mutiny relieving him

No it was not. It was authorized because the Captain violated the regulations regarding the two-man rule in regards to nuclear launch, and the XO was duly authorized to relieve the Captain of command.

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

reply

[–] glynis23-282-577521 12 years ago

Just playing devil's advocate.

If it's true then Ramsey's men are guilty of mutiny, probably learnt you don't work with a captain or executive officer because he went to Harvard you work with him because he's got the job or the ship and crew is no good, be like having a young inexperienced captain who won't fight in a war.

On wikipedia it said Hunter's mutiny was legally jusified.

I got all the navy stuff from movies I've seen.

reply

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

Just playing devil's advocate.

Playing Devil's Advocate is taking an opposing opinion or position, even one not held by yourself personally... to further the discussion in greater detail.

That's not what you did. You were simply factually wrong.

On wikipedia it said Hunter's mutiny was legally jusified.

That's your problem right there. Going to Wikipedia. An open "encyclopedia" whose content is posted and edited by ordinary people who oft times, knows about as much on the subject as you do. (i.e. Diddly Squat)

I got all the navy stuff from movies I've seen.

I got mine via the old fashioned way, Crusty old Salt from having served aboard Guided Missile Cruisers and an Aircraft Carrier.

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

reply

[–] glynis23-282-577521 12 years ago

Usually it's taking arms against the captain not the other way round which is what this film does with the changing commands.

If you look at the Caine Mutiny revolved around a captain being relieved of command by the XO it mentions a navy regulation about relieving a commanding officer by a subordinate, maybe it's changed now but Hunter did it by the book were Queeg was removed because a officer had a grudge against him.

reply

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

Usually it's taking arms against the captain not the other way round which is what this film does with the changing commands.

You do realize you are arguing with someone who was IN the Navy, as opposed to learning "everything they know about the Navy from films".

Captain is both a rank(O-6) and a position(Commanding Officer or CO for short)

Mutiny is the illegal taking of command from the COMMANDING OFFICER. Not necessarily a Captain in rank. But the POSITION.

At the time of the Mutiny... HUNTER was the Commanding Officer, having lawfully relieved CAPTAIN Ramsey of command.
Caine Mutiny... more fiction. Not a true event.

Let me ask you something.
Would you try to argue with a Pilot in how to fly the plane?
A Police Officer in how to enforce the law?
A Brain Surgeon on how to Operate?
So why would you argue from your Civilian armchair position, what is or is not a Mutiny with someone who was IN the Navy.

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

reply

[–] glynis23-282-577521 12 years ago

Doughtery's mutiny was not justified by any legal means,the admiral pointed out about the break down of the chain of command which failed because the two halfs did not work to resolve their differences. Doughtery and Zimmer like their captain did not adject to their new XO.

When your in the navy you don't work with a captain or executive officer because you like the way he is you work with him because he's got the job or your no good, if you look at all the mutinies they start off like Ramsey and Hunter not agreeing of one's conduct or how the ship is run.

reply

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

When your in the navy you...

Why are you (who learns everything about the navy from watching movies) still trying to tell a Navy Veteran, what you do or don't do in the Navy?
Your asinine presumptuousness is staggering.

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

reply

[–] hombremoya 12 years ago

Well, your replies don't come off well, either.
You may have been an Admiral in the navy, but doubling the amount of your answers with "you know nothing"-type of remarks, taints the facts - as good and as true as they may be.
If you'd refrain from putting off other posters, then your corrections would surely be better received and get the most respect from interested parties.

reply

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

I don't get that way until AFTER the "Yes, but..." replies.
And honestly, there is no "good way" to tell a person they are wrong.

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

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

I couldn't give a rat's a$$ what you think troll.
You are effectively doing to me, what you claim to hate about what I do to others. If what I am doing is so wrong, does that make it right for you to do it?

The idiot who has never served, was telling those who have served about what does and does not happen in the service. I set him straight.
You got a problem with that?
too bad.
FOAD.

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

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

No you are NOT trying to help me, you are attempting to attack me.

I on the other hand was merely pointing out the other *beep* mistake. Am I polite about it? NO. I admit that.
I have plenty of decent posts with plenty of other people on a wide variety of topics and boards, But I do not put up with asinine stupidity and will call a spade a spade.

Apparently YOU have a problem with bluntness.
Your problem, not mine. Don't make yourself my problem.

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

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] michaelnewman01 12 years ago

I believe, in purely technical terms, that when the putative Captain of a vessel commits misconduct, the legal term is "barratry". But I don't think that trying to duke this out will do much good. Far as I'm concerned, Dougherty's actions were the true mutiny.

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

reply

[–] cmcurrie2 12 years ago

@CGSailor: Glynis is possibly continually inebriated . . . or not an English speaker, or perhaps a young teenager. His cognition has some holes in it. He's persistent though. His 'I got all the navy stuff from movies' . . . whoa!!! Maybe dumb as rocks?!

I'm ex-summer crew on big sail boats -- the rules and eventual mutiny by Ramsey were clearly set out in the film. The confusion that civilians make is that they do not understand how to make rules-based decisions. They think everything is done with loosey-goosey opinion. Sad statement about American civilians.

reply

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

You were doing fine until your very last statement.

Sad statement about American civilians.

afflicted with anti-Americanism much?

You even indicated the possibility that he is not an English speaker thus raising the likelihood that he is not an American. Yet his actions are an indication of the poor quality of thinking from American Civilians?

I guess I should be thankful that knowing I was Military, that you limited your anti-Americanism to our civilians and not just to Americans in general.

The problem is that people in general around the world are getting afflicted with stupidity. NOT JUST Americans, I have seen a crapload of British who can't think their way out of a wet paper box and stuck in a mental mindset to hate Americans for everything they can think of. I think that is a sad state of British Civilians except I hold ONLY THOSE with that way of thinking responsible, not all British.

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

reply

[–] gouki_master 11 years ago

"A Crapload"? Really?

I was biting my tongue until I read that. I went on this board just to read about one of my longtime favourite films, and you're plastered everywhere.

I dont care that you are telling us you were in the navy. It doesnt matter. At best you can point out innacuracies with the film, maybe twice about each occurence. Instead you've been bashing everyone about how they know nothing, yet you cant prove you actually know what you're talking about because the audience on this board doesnt have 'clearance' (next you'll be trying to have a go about how this is public domain so Im being assinine, right?).

Anyway, back to your comment "I have seen a crapload of British who can't think their way out of a wet paper box..."

Define a 'crapload'. Is it the majority? 50/50? 20%? Its always funny when someone argues they shouldnt be bandied together; "I guess I should be thankful that knowing I was Military, that you limited your anti-Americanism to our civilians and not just to Americans in general."... then uses a group from another place and lumps them together also.

Stacey Slater shot Archie Mitchell

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Crapload is a colloquial expression, not a defined amount.
Obviously I have not taken the time to COUNT each and every one. Nor have I done a comparative study of those that are idiots (in my opinion) and those that aren't so I cannot give you a ratio or percentage as you ask for and no cannot be delivered.

Apparently you cannot understand the difference between someone making a determination against a WHOLE GROUP (American Civilians) and someone making a determination against a group that while undefined in specific size, is still limited to a FINITE and not a whole group. Clearly a crapload, is not ALL British.

you may take offense to the term crapload, but it merely means "a lot of". And no, a lot of does not necessarily mean most, or even greater than 50%. It means just that. A lot.

And yes, there are a lot of Americans that DO FIT the bill the other poster was talking about that I took offense with. The difference, if it has to be spelled out to you is that he was grouping the whole people whereas I only pointing out there were a lot (not all) from another group as well and that his defining it to a certain country rather than people in general was wrong.

That YOU cannot grasp that difference says more about you than any perceived insult you may take on my words says about me.

Yes, there are a "crapload" of Americans that can't think their way out of a wet paper box as well.
Feel better now? If not.. Boo Hoo.

Also did it ever occur to you that of those I have encountered who are British either A) never IDed themselves as Brits, and B) only those IDing themselves as Brit AND standing out as idiots, caught my attention. I have met a few who are not and I know there are a great many more who are not as well. But of those who made a point of placing themselves on my scope AND IDing themselves as Brits, most of them were idiots.

Maybe that's just the nature of the internet. You and I and a great many others who are intelligent, while a large absolute number, is still a very tiny fraction outnumbered by idiots.

And yes, there is a select group on certain boards here that take pleasure in their Britishness while bashing away at Americans.
My comment was mainly directed at them.

But in this case above that I was responding to, the guy even questioned the other guy's English skills, leading one to believe he might not even be a native speak, yet somehow his comments were indicative of all American Civilians stupidity.
Come again?

As far as security clearance and my knowledge goes. You are COMPLETELY Misrepresenting the situation. And I think you know that too.

I am NOT on here telling people things then claiming I cannot prove it due to security. If you knew ANYTHING about how security works, you would know I could not be telling PERIOD, regardless of "proving it"

There is one particular thread on this board that stands out that I think you may be referring to. Where some *beep* is trying to find out the ACTUAL Nuclear launch procedures.
I flat out said that even "I" do not know, and anyone who did know, could not tell because they ARE IN FACT classified.

Also I was not the only person thrashing this poser jerk who then tried (falsely) that he had the proper clearance so we could tell him (on an open forum read by anyone).

He got soundly and rightly trashed.

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

reply

[–] niko32-413-331212 11 years ago

Jesus fùcking Christ, did you take a special course or does it come natural to you to mount gigantic arguments over NOTHING?
What's up with this avalanche of anti-brit-ism (if that's even a word) that sprouted from a single sentence about "american civilians"?
I'm not even a brit, for the record.

I came here to see what other people thought of this movie, and instead I'm finding you bashing people in EVERY SINGLE FÙCKING THREAD.

When the guy said "the mutiny was legally justified", it did not, in fact, make sense.
If it was legally justified it was, by definition, not a mutiny. Exactly like you said.
Ok. We got that. Not a problem.

But in the message just after that, you start basically saying that anyone who wasn't in the Navy is an idiot and doesn't know jack shìt.
You just come off as a stuck up dìck with a superiority complex.

Instead of explaining things, you keep reiterating that you were in the Navy and you know better than anyone.
Well, guess what. You ain't Aristoteles. Ipse dixit don't work for you, sailor boy.

Lower your tones a notch and you'll see that your interpersonal relations will improve a lot.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Lower your tones a notch and you'll see that your interpersonal relations will improve a lot.

You mean like YOUR tone? attacking me from thread to thread?

And I am not Anti-British.

I was pointing out that there was a select group of British on these boards that are vocally Anti-America. I was not attacking British in general. I was attacking a certain group (who are British)
That you cannot distinguish that difference says more about you, than your rant on me.

Also...

instead I'm finding you bashing people in EVERY SINGLE FÙCKING THREAD.

Seriously? Over-exaggerate much?
Yes I do bash some people. Specifically... a certain type of person.
Unfortunately, that certain type is quite common.
Look for the pattern.
But I am not even posting in the majority of the threads, much less bashing people in "every single (bleeping) thread".

And mayhaps you look closer on the more technical threads You'll find quite a few people who enjoy my expertise.

So perhaps you can stop stalking my posting history in order to find fault and stop pretending to "come here to see what other people thought of this movie, and instead finding me bashing people".

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

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Yes, this. Well said.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

reply

[–] StarWarsIsMyLife 12 years ago

Hunter's act was legal. As you said, the Captain cannot simply elect to have the XO arrested due to the fact the XO does not concur. To do so would imply that the CO himself has sole authority to launch his boat's nukes and defeat the purpose of the two-man rule altogether.

If you're still confused, Zimmer says it himself. "This is a mutiny, Peter. There's only two sides to a mutiny."

reply

[–] glynis23-282-577521 12 years ago

Was it a counter mutiny or anti mutiny to free the captain?

Zimmer seemed rather pissed off when he stormed out the door after coming out the hearing like he was discharged from the navy or resigned to something low.

reply

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

Was it a counter mutiny or anti mutiny to free the captain?

Neither. It was just plain Mutiny. Hunter's actions were NOT Mutiny.
See my post above.

The first act of mutiny aboard was by the Captain and Dogherty, when Dogherty went to the captain's cabin to get orders from him to take back command from Hunter. Hunter was legally in command and the Captain had no such authority.

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

reply

[–] glynis23-282-577521 12 years ago

So Zimmer and Dougherty are the true mutineers, which would explain why Zimmer stormed out the door after coming out the tribunel.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] glynis23-282-577521 12 years ago

It's on the extented cut were Zimmer storms out the door.

reply

[–] cartwright33 12 years ago

Depends on the reality you choose to accept. If you accept the reality of the film, it clearly states that in the situation of a communications disruption the standing orders at that time must be followed. In that case it is the XO that is initially in the wrong. The film never makes it clear what the protocol is when the XO won't follow standing orders.

According to the trivia section, protocol for a nuclear sub is to maintain radio communication at all time... in that case when comms go down then I would assume that any standing orders are put on hold until communications can be restored.

reply

[–] sockstar1 11 years ago

The film never makes it clear what the protocol is when the XO won't follow standing orders.

The XO has to concur. If he doesn't concur then the orders are invalid and can't be followed.

After that happened Ramsay should have clarified the situation so that the XO could concur with the orders.

Half the boat should've been jailed, Ramsey threatened a junior sailor with a weapon, almost all the officers mutinied without just cause.

If this happened in real life (just a ship, not necessarily one with nukes) it would be an absolutely monumental scandal. Three random admirals wouldn't be involved, it'd be the US Government.

Come out with your hands up, we have you partially surrounded!

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]