MovieChat Forums > Crimson Tide (1995) Discussion > LT. Zimmer.. 'Think about your family!'

LT. Zimmer.. 'Think about your family!'

posted 12 years ago by whatwazdat
13 replies | jump to latest

When Zimmer and a few other crew members tried to convince Weps to go along with their plans to take back the ship, Zimmer says to Weps, "Think about your family!" And Weps replied, "I am, I am."

I thought it was pretty weak that Weps got persuaded. For the Hackman side that wants to LAUNCH, "think about your family" is a weak selling point and actually makes no sense. If you're starting a nuclear war, there's a good chance there will be no family, or your family may get sick from the radiation of nuclear war. It would make more sense for Team-Denzel to use family as a reason to confirm the message, rather than Team-Hackman using family as a reason to launch.

When Zimmer said think about your family, I thought Weps now had all the power and reason to not go along with their plan. It makes no sense to me that Weps got persuaded, especially when family was in the forefront of his thoughts.

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

Actually it does make sense.

the Argument about "think about your family" was made from the position of "we need to destroy those rebel missiles BEFORE they launch on the USA (and his family)"

NOT about starting a Nuclear war, because from that position there would be no nuclear war. Russia would not have retaliated against an organized strike limited to the rebel controlled missile field despite the argument StarWarsIsMyLife made in another recent post.

A) The (legitimate) Russians knew the rebels had to be stopped from launching on the USA
B) The Russians did not have the ability to do so, USA did.
C) The Russian government would be in communication with the US government over the strike.
D) Russians would not have retaliated against a strike done in cooperation with them.

It was only if the America Sub fired AFTER the base had been secured and the rebels surrendered, that Russia would have retaliated. But at the time of the argument in question, they did not know this. they were going on the presumption that they were firing on the rebels attempting to launch. So no. It was not weak or an error in logic. The error was in your interpretation.

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

[–] whatwazdat 12 years ago

I see what you're saying.

I was thinking along the lines of Team-Denzel's pov. If they're wrong, "nuclear holocaust." But you're right, Zimmer's thought process was different.

[–] sparrow_lt 12 years ago

We can imagine that during the missile crisis USA was on the line with the legit Russian goverment and they warned that if they didnt retook the missile base before the missiles were ready to strike , they wouldnt have a choice but to strike the base.

Now after the legit russian gov took back the base i can imagine the Russians informing the White House of the sucess and the Americans then informing then they called off all preventive strike plans..

Now in that situation if then out of nowhere you see 10 tridents (wich accounts for up to 80 warheads) taking off and coming at you ... the russians pretty much would saw "WTF" and follow their retaliation plans, wich would made the US command to launch even more and voila ... "nuclear holocaust" ..

To the Alabama officers it was clear that Ratchenko was going to fire and they didnt thinked that the Russians were about to capture the base and end the problem.. so for them if the rebels fired, their families (most surelly in the west coast) were in the line of fire.. they just didnt tought that if they were wrong they were putting them in the line of fire with their actions.. along many more families

[–] DJTech1982 11 years ago

It is highly illogical and unlikely that the legitimate Russian government would ALLOW a nuclear strike from a foreign power to be conducted on one of their seized missile bases. Think about it. Why would they? With all of their thousands of nuclear weapons, they couldn't attack the base themselves with nukes?

If the situation was reversed, would we allow Russia to hit our missile base with nukes? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Regardless of the country, a limited nuclear war would lead to an all out nuclear war because the country attacked would feel vulnerable and want to defend themselves. Plus, I don't know the geography around the base, but 50 475 or 100kt bombs going off would cause a lot of secondary damage and death... they could be in the vicinity of towns or something. The attack would upset the people.

What most likely happened is that we told the Russians to retake the base and they kept saying "We're working on it..." and we decided to attack because nuclear war was imminent; we did not have faith that the Russians would win. Either that or, in our "unilateral benevolent" wisdom, we expected that the Russians wouldn't retaliate because of a limited strike on them... the lesser of two evils.

Either way, a limited nuclear strike would cause a wider response by the Russians against us and it would not be pretty.

By the way, this totally echoes the Cuban Missile Crisis. We thought that just because Russians were fueling their missiles they would launch. It was NOT the case. In both cases, they just wanted to prove a point. America overreacts to everything.

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

It is highly illogical and unlikely that the legitimate Russian government would ALLOW a nuclear strike from a foreign power to be conducted on one of their seized missile bases. Think about it. Why would they? With all of their thousands of nuclear weapons, they couldn't attack the base themselves with nukes?

1) If the only way to stop the rebels from nuking another country with their own weapons was to nuke their own base that the rebels control... YES they would allow a Nuke strike on it.

2) Why not use their own Nukes?

Nukes cannot simply be re-targeted at will by pointing and clicking on a map. Real life ain't a Video game son.

Targets are made up and created months, years in advance. Every possible option every scenario dreamed up well in advance. Multiple different scenarios and options within each scenario. These are then put together in "Targeting packages"

When the order to fire a nuke is sent, the specific "Targeting package" is given in the order so they know what target or targets to hit.

The Russians would not have any pre-plannd strikes on their own locations to pick from and you cannot just target the missile "on the fly"

It would be far better to ask the US to do so for we WOULD have those sites already pre-targeted with an appropriate targeting package. Also asking the US to do so would be in the Legit Russian Government's interest as it absolves them of the blame if the US strike fails or the Rebels launch on the US.

If you were the Legitimate Russian Government, which option below would you choose?

A)If the Rebels launched on the US without warning from Russia, there would likely be a total Nuclear response against Russia from the USA.

B)If Russia warns USA that the rebels are going to launch and that Russia cannot stop them in time and gives permission for the USA to conduct a strike... even if it fails and the rebels do nuke USA... the likelihood of a full nuclear response by the USA against all of Russia is much less.

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

[–] DJTech1982 11 years ago

If the only way to stop the rebels from nuking another country with their own weapons was to nuke their own base that the rebels control... YES they would allow a Nuke strike on it.
--- you're assuming that is the only way to stop the rebels. That is what the movie assumes as well.

Nukes cannot simply be re-targeted at will by pointing and clicking on a map. Real life ain't a Video game son.
--- you ever hear of bombers and cruise missiles? The Russians could drop nuclear bombs on their own silos using their cruise missiles.

And before you say Russia doesn't have any cruise missiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile#Russia

I think you're one of those people who think that no will ever challenge our country when push comes to shove. I bet you would think that during the Cuban Missile Crisis that the Russians would do nothing if we bombed their missile sites and killed a bunch of their soldiers. They would definitely respond.

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Why are you telling me exactly what I said as though I said the opposite?

Is your reading comprehension that bad? Or did you perhaps hit "reply" to the wrong post?

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

[–] DJTech1982 11 years ago

What are you talking about? My reading comprehension is fine. Did I misinterpret you when you said that the legitimate Russian government would allow a nuclear strike on their own soil by a foreign power before trying it themselves?

Did I misinterpret you when you said nukes cannot simply be re-targeted at will by pointing and clicking on a map? A military can retarget nukes for attacks on their own soil. Not sure what you are saying...

Hmmmm.....

[–] dannygoodlet2 11 years ago

It seemed to me that whoever talked to Weps last, would have him on their side. I didn't like the Weps character, such a weak minded follower.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Well put.

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

[–] Jeneral28 11 years ago

In a nuclear exchange, neither side would survive.

But the show centred only on one third of the nuclear triad--it ingored US nuclear bombers or land-based ICBM which could have taken out the Russian ICBMs earlier. Or why not use conventional weapons--massive ALCM or Tomahawk strike?

In any case, Weps family be at risk--I suspect they were from Washington State?

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

But the show centred only on one third of the nuclear triad--it ingored US nuclear bombers or land-based ICBM which could have taken out the Russian ICBMs earlier. Or why not use conventional weapons--massive ALCM or Tomahawk strike?

Didn't I just run into you on another board where you claimed to understand the military perfectly.

Yet here you are again making a massive misunderstanding.

You might be aware that there are other nuclear assets available to the USA, but you have practically no understanding of the concepts surrounding their use and employment and strategy.

The Nuclear Bomber fleet is outdated and mostly used in a conventional role though they retain a nuclear strike capability. A Nuclear bomber would take many MANY hours to fly to the target. They had only a very short launch window. So Nuclear Bombers are OUT OF THE QUESTION.

An SLBM launch from Mid Pacific would have a far shorter flight time, thus a better reaction time than a Continental US Based ICBM strike. Therefore they are out of the question for much the same reason as a Bomber.

Conventional weapons would not be sure enough of complete destruction of the targets in hardened silos when faced with a nuclear threat if even ONE rebel missile survives and is launched.

And an ALCM would take longer to fly to the target than any suborbital SLBM. On the order of HOURS, not minutes.

But I defer to your expertise, What do I know? I only Served in the US Navy.
You on the other hand... Perfectly understand the military.

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