MovieChat Forums > Crimson Tide (1995) Discussion > No, they were not 'both right and both w...

No, they were not 'both right and both wrong.'

posted 12 years ago by StarWarsIsMyLife
9 replies | jump to latest

One of the less-appreciated themes of this film was the issue of "doing the right thing." Now, we all know "doing the right thing" is an ambiguous concept - the "right thing" is more a concept, one that is subject to the totality of the circumstances surrounding a decision that must be made.

I am unfortunately not well-versed in nuclear weapon employment procedures for U.S. fleet ballistic missile submarines, but even if the procedures that were depicted in the film (particularly the one regarding the lack of a contrevening order) were true-to-life, Captain Ramsey's actions were not only wrong, but imprudent and he would not be able to use the excuse of "I was just following orders" as a means of covering himself.

In the military, or anywhere else in life, for that matter, using your better judgment and looking at the big picture is an imperative for survival. The thing that, I believe, makes humans unique, is our ability to overcome our natural or artificial instincts, habits, etc. and do what we know needs to be done, no matter what the odds or obstacles standing in our way. On a procedural basis, Captain Ramsey may have been "right" and that was probably with the tribunal at the end was referring to in the now-famous declaration. However, procedural correctness does not always equal ethical, moral, managerial or operational correctness. The release of nuclear weapons is not your typical military decision. It is a decision that carries a weight that the world cannot carry and comes with consequences that can not be dealt with. As Commanding Officer of the most lethal weapon in recorded human history, nobody should have known that better than Captain Ramsey.

This thread is not about Captain Ramsey's motivation(s) for behaving in the manner that he did. This thread assumes that Captain Ramsey's motivations were pure and that his heart was in the right place. Even when we give him that benefit of the doubt, Ramsey's actions were inexcusible. His behavior showed little to no acknowledgement of what he and his crew were about to undertake and his refusal to have the communications problem looked into was incredibly imprudent and showed extremely poor judgment. Captain Ramsey's actions and behavior showed very little regard for the consequences and implications regarding the use of nuclear weapons, which is conduct unbecoming of someone who is tasked with such a responsibility. Ultimately, Captain Ramsey, along with his lackeys, who were just as culpable, all failed to look at the big picture, grasp the "point" of who they were and what their duty truly was and they made the wrong decisions.

I am not one to challenge Navy flag officers, but the tribunal is very wrong. Captain Ramsey was not right and he failed miserably in his duty as Commanding Officer of a Fleet Ballistic Missile submarine. The tribunal also failed - they attributed procedural correctness to Captain Ramsey being simultaneously right along with Lt. Commander Hunter. This implies that the top Navy brass does not hold Commanding Officers to a high standard, if all they expect is procedural correctness. That may fly with personnel lower on the chain-of-command, but it does not fly with servicemen who are responsible for hundreds of people, millions of dollars worth of equipment and who have the ability to make large-scale decisions of an existential nature.

This is what I had on my mind today. Great movie, a lot to think about.

[–] michaelnewman01 12 years ago

I would say the problem with your argument is that it presupposes that moral justification has any place in the launch of nuclear weapons.

When I was on Henry M. Jackson, my Captain pointed out that we were "the finger on the trigger, not the brains behind it."

In regards to the launch of nuclear weapons. As a member of the crew of a FBM, you cannot consider the effects of the nuclear launch in context to the order. That decision has already been made. The only person allowed to make that determination about nuclear weapons is the President.

If you were debating a general order, with general application, then I could agree that as officers, we are to trust in our judgment. But in the confines of a specific order to launch, there is no maneuverability. Ramsey was given a specific order to launch his missiles, not to make the determination of whether it was appropriate to do so. He would be well aware that launching nuclear weapons would most likely result in the deaths of millions of Russians, and also the likely deaths of himself and his crew.

There is a reason military officers are not given control of nuclear weapons, but most people assume that that is to prevent them from wrongly being used. But it is also to prevent them from NOT being used. Civilian control of the military, and nuclear weapons, goes both ways. Ethics has no place in the consideration of strategic nuclear weapons--at least not by those MILITARY officials entrusted with them.

The decision was NEVER Captain Ramsey's to make, nor was it Commander Hunter's. This was BY DESIGN, specifically to coincide with the use of nuclear weapons. It was made for them by the National Command Authority. Their mission was to carry out whatever orders were given to them. All "ethical" blame, should the weapons have been fired, should have been placed on the President. He KNEW, would have to know, that by issuing an order to strike he was pulling the trigger.

By that point, so many different considerations had gone into approving the weapons release (i.e. Presidential approval, two-man rule, transmission from TACAMO, correct authentication), that the only thing that should have stopped them was if the original message had some doubt in authentication. But it was authentic. It was confirmed. It's as simple as that.

You can keep a gun in a safe, unloaded, with a trigger lock. But if you take it out, take off the locks, chamber a round, aim it at a target, cock back the firing pin, start to pull, and then change your mind instantaneously before you break the trigger pull weight, and the gun goes off, should you really blame your finger?

Hell, by the same token you could argue that the major Combatant Commanders should refuse orders from the President to conduct hostile military operations in foreign countries because Congress has not yet voted on the issue. "Sir, I know you're the Commander-in-Chief and all that, and all orders are to be considered lawful until proven otherwise, but I really want to wait on Operation Just Cause until Congress votes for a formal declaration of war."

EDIT: As an addendum, there are a few general "moral" assumptions that a lot of people make in regards to this film that are poor.

ASSUMPTION: Captain Ramsey was about to conduct a large-scale preemtive strike against the whole of Russia. This would be morally wrong.
ACTUALITY: The missiles in question were being targeted "counterforce" against specific Russian missile silos in the hands of the extremists. These silos are generally (purposefully) not located next to civilian population centers, so actual civilian casualties from the Alabama's launch would have been light. The only targets in the strike were specific, very real threats to the United States.

ASSUMPTION: They would need confirmation of the launch orders to ensure they were legitimate. This would make sure the Russians wouldn't launch.
ACTUALITY: Whether or not the missiles were in the hands of the Russians or the extremists, a nuclear launch against Russia would have a high likelihood of provoking a nuclear response. This means that the President would have already considered and already dismissed the possibility of Russian launch--either it was not considered a concern (i.e. the President had informed Moscow), or the President was willing to take that chance.

Admiral Rickover said that in regards to any incident, if you could not point to one specific man and say "He is responsible", then no one was really responsible. All these ethical considerations, by their very nature, are placed upon the President as the ultimate representative of the people. And he made the call to launch.

Checks for nuclear launch, as a general matter:

Launch is necessary===> President (Moral)
President is sane, launch is necessary====> Second Man (Moral)
Order has legitimate origin, follows procedure====> Military establishment to TACAMO (Procedural)
Order was received properly and is authentic====> Submarine (via Codes, Procedural)
LAUNCH

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

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 12 years ago

To me, it seems like both previous posters are ignoring a central aspect to the film storyline.

Within the universe of the film, the possibility exists for the submarine to receive valid and authenticated orders to launch, and thereafter to receive subsequent orders countermanding the launch, still equally valid and authentic. We know this to be the case, because this is what happens.

As such, in the movie, at the moment that "the radio" becomes inoperative, then Alabama is, and should be considered, mission incapable. Period.

Logically, the boat is just as impaired by losing all comm after receiving the launch EAM as it would have been if the damage had occurred prior to receiving the order. She is out of the fight, as it were, until the capacity to carry out the mission is restored, and the mission implicitly requires being able to receive new orders as long as we are to believe that the NCA can revoke or alter the orders at any point up until launch. I do not need access to any procedural document to reach this conclusion; it is a fully logical inference from the basic contours of the story presented in CT.

Cdr. Hunter never quite states this point succinctly, but this is the essence of his position when you strip away the extraneous detail.

Now, I have seen it stated categorically that, in the real world, orders to launch SLBMs would never, ever be revoked. I have no direct knowledge of the process, but I am extremely skeptical of such absolute statements regarding a situation which has never been faced. In a scenario as depicted in CT, information being used to make the decision to launch a preemptive strike would be fluid, fragmentary, and often contradictory, and it is not difficult to imagine the President getting some new intel and urgently wishing to postpone a first strike he has ordered. The reality of such a possibility is irrelevant, however, because this movie includes it as part of the plot, so one may only judge the actions of the characters on that basis.

For me, an uninformed civilian, the aspect of the movie that seems most improbable is the notion that an SSBN could have its comm gear rendered completely inoperative whilst the remainder of the vessel is largely functional. Again, the starting point of its mission is the unfailing ability to receive orders, even after literal Armageddon, so comm on an SSBN should be extraordinarily robust and redundant. However, if one is to engage with the story of this movie, one has to buy the idea that the boat becomes isolated from the external command structure by moderate damage from a torpedo detonation nearby.

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

[–] michaelnewman01 12 years ago

I would say that the scenario depicted in the movie is so completely farfetched that trying to judge it is problematic. I find it hard to believe that everything could work itself out so completely to set up such a scenario. And yes, there are regulations in regards to the strict maintaining of continuous communications with our missile submarines.

However, I would like to make several points, if I may.

Part of the problem with this scenario is that it is too contrived. The use of deadly force, as a general rule, is "a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed".

So why is Alabama even being brought in to this scenario?

Specifically:

a) This is a first strike, not retaliatory, so the platform for launch would not need to be 'survivable'. The inherent danger of a loss of communications with a submarine would make it a poor choice if it not necessary. Why use Alabama?

b)Why would strategic nuclear weapons have been employed prior to the use of conventional force, especially seeing how this must be a counter-force launch if it is to have any moral legitimacy?

The overall plot of the movie would not even be plausible without massive negligence within the highest levels of government.

This theme continues: Why, why for any reason, would you authorize a NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE against anyone unless you were absolutely damn sure you wanted to. This wasn't a battlefield or a retaliation in the midst of a unbalancing first strike; the President would have had access to the best our command and control had to offer. Notice the content of the orders to "immediately launch" the missiles.

At that point, you have to consider the missiles gone. They weren't given a launch 'window', but an order to immediately launch. Why? Why wouldn't you build in some fudge time if you weren't absolutely sure?! To me this in unfathomable.

This movie is a colossal example of a lack of judgment, but that negligence is external to the submarine. I can see the Navy hushing it up simply in an effort to protect the President from the massive backlash he would face otherwise.

Hunter's actions make sense, if you pass the burden of judgment to the crew. But this is a poor thing to do. The American people of the movie world put their trust into the President, and he !&#ed up royally. I cannot stress that enough. If you aren't completely sure that you are willing to undertake the consequences of a nuclear strike, then you should not order it. Plain and simple. There should be no information you can receive that would change your mind.

But if you, as President, do order that strike, there should be no delay by the actual troops involved. Because if the sh!t hits the fan that bad, a quick execution of launch may be the only thing saving the world from another disaster.

I direct you to the example of The Sum of All Fears (spoilers to follow). The book in particular makes this very clear when Jack Ryan gives President Fowler a resounding "Reason You Suck" speech as he vehemently denies confirmation of the Two-Man Rule. Fowler had been willing to wipe a major city off the map to kill one person, and it turned out that person was 'innocent' anyways. Ryan's objections could be easily compared to Hunter's line or reasoning, but the difference was that it was Ryan's place to object. Not so with Hunter, especially because if he had had a bit more patience with Ramsey they could probably have resolved the situation without the confrontation. Hunter objected, and seized command, when there was still plenty of time left to confirm the message. The movie version also basically has Fowler acting like an idiot and saying such childish things as "He's had his chance to talk." Hello? Isn't the idea to avert nuclear war?

The question isn't whether nuclear launch orders can be recalled, it is why they were ever issued in the first place.

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

[–] gcronau 12 years ago

>> Not so with Hunter, especially because if he had had a bit more
>> patience with Ramsey they could probably have resolved the situation
>> without the confrontation. Hunter objected, and seized command, when
>> there was still plenty of time left to confirm the message.

Except I think you're remembering the sequence wrong. Hunter objected, *which he had the right to do*, and he was trying to work it out with Ramsey, but Ramsey didn't want to hear it and tried to replace Hunter with a random officer as the new XO. Which was a violation of the launch protocol and *an illegal order on the part of Ramsey*. The COB refused to go along with it. At that point, Hunter relieved Ramsey of command in a legal fashion.

[–] StarWarsIsMyLife 12 years ago

Thank you for your service to our nation.

There is not a single thing in your argument I disagree with. Your post was very informative and I learned quite a bit about a subject (nuclear warfare) that I am passionate about. That being said, I feel as though you may have misunderstood my argument.

The reason why there was any doubt as to whether or not the ultimate order from the top was to launch is because a "message fragment," as Captain Ramsey put it, arrived shortly after the order to launch came. If this message fragment never arrived, there would have been no doubt as to what their ultimate orders are and they would have launched.

As I said in the original post, I have no issue with Captain Ramsey from a procedural standpoint. What I do have an issue is that he exercised extremely poor judgment when presented with that message fragment. He takes a glance and says "I think there's nothing in this message." Really? The mere fact that it is a "message fragment" implies that there is more to the message than is present on the paper. He showed no concern or even interest in finding out what else may have been contained in the transmission. That is poor judgment and imprudence, flat-out negligence, of the highest order.

You are absolutely correct that it is not the COs call on whether or not nukes are to be used. But it is the COs responsibility to follow up on anything that may affect the orders that they have in hand. This is apples and oranges, but I was in the volunteer fire service. If I were responding to a call, was dispatched and heard a partial radio transmission clearly directed at me and I ignored it because it was a "message fragment," any negative consequence as a result of ignoring that transmission would fall squarely on my shoulders and my shoulders alone. While it is not my responsibility to be dispatched on runs, it is my responsibility to ensure I get all the information I need in order to do the job and do the job right.

If I justified my actions to my superiors and to the party requiring emergency service by saying "I had my call, that transmission was a message fragment, therefore I ignored it," not only would I have been stripped of my duties as firefighter/EMT, but I would also be subject to prosecution of both a civil and criminal nature.

My argument about the ethical/moral nature of Captain Ramsey's decision has nothing to do with the order to launch itself, which is what your argument is built around. It is what he did (not) do when presented with information, however partial, that had the potential to affect the instructions he had on hand. While the President of the United States would ultimately take all the blame for a failed nuclear strike, within the military service itself, Captain Ramsey would be (and should be) hung out to dry for his negligence. "I may have been presented with new orders, but because the orders were incomplete, I followed the orders we had on hand" is no defense at all.

Ryan's objections could be easily compared to Hunter's line or reasoning, but the difference was that it was Ryan's place to object.

But according to the two-man rule, both the CO and XO have to concur on the order to launch and the XO is in no way obliged to agree with the CO on the order to launch (he needs a good reason, of course). As Hunter proclaims himself, "Captain Ramsey, under operating procedures governing the release of nuclear weapons we cannot launch our missiles unless both you, and I agree. This is not a formality sir, this is *expressly* why your command must be repeated. It requires my assent, I *do not* give it and further more, you continue upon this course, and insist upon this launch without confirming this message first... " Therefore, by implication, it is very much in the XO's place to object (again, assuming he had a good reason to do so, which he clearly did).

Not so with Hunter, especially because if he had had a bit more patience with Ramsey they could probably have resolved the situation without the confrontation. Hunter objected, and seized command, when there was still plenty of time left to confirm the message.

Captain Ramsey's actions and behaviors spoke louder than he could bellow. It is obvious Ramsey had no interest in doing the right thing. Hunter even says "Captain, I think you need time to think this over..." to which Ramsey replies "I DON'T HAVE TO THINK THIS OVER!"

How does one deal with someone like that? Even the COB, who did not agree with Hunter's judgment, believed the CO to be out of line.

[–] michaelnewman01 12 years ago

If I might add a bit more.

What I meant in regards to waiting was this:
The Captain had not made any irreversible decisions by that point. The submarine was still at depth, and the order that Hunter had to confirm was simply targeting instructions. Hunter had no reason to object to that particular order, regardless of his objections to the launch itself.

Now, coming up to about launch depth get you close enough to the surface that you might consider raising the multifunction mast and getting a signal. Also, making such an ascent is a time-consuming process. You want to come up slowly, do a baffle-clearing turn, and ease yourself into position. Coming up to that depth would probably take ten to fifteen minutes.

Hunter could have confirmed the original target package, which he has no reason to object to, and then called the Captain aside for a few minutes, in a private setting like radio or even the CO's stateroom, to come up with a compromise. In my opinion, his timing served only to antagonize the Captain by creating an unnecessary delay in performing weapons readiness as opposed to weapons launch.

Also, while the concurrence of the Captain and XO is required, this is not the "two man rule" regarding Presidential release I meant. In fact, a U.S. Air Force Board of Inquiry has previously held that the legality and/or morality of a properly authenticated nuclear launch order is beyond the scope of an officer's need-to-know.

My previous argument is based on that principle. As presented in the movie, once a launch order has been received and authenticated, the process is fail-deadly. The chance that the President would recall a nuclear launch is (or should be) so infinitesimal, and the fail-safes required to order launch in the first place are so stringent, that once the order to strike is given it must be given precedence over doubt.

To look at your volunteer fire department concept. If you had been previously informed there was a fire developing and that you might need to go support it, then you are ordered to take an engine to the fire as quickly as possible because lives are in imminent danger, and then over the radio you hear the solitary fragment "urn to the station", would you continue with your previous orders or stop the truck right there until you could clarify the transmission. And if you couldn't get more information immediately, would you go back or continue on?

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

[–] StarWarsIsMyLife 12 years ago

The Captain had not made any irreversible decisions by that point. The submarine was still at depth, and the order that Hunter had to confirm was simply targeting instructions. Hunter had no reason to object to that particular order, regardless of his objections to the launch itself.

Now, coming up to about launch depth get you close enough to the surface that you might consider raising the multifunction mast and getting a signal. Also, making such an ascent is a time-consuming process. You want to come up slowly, do a baffle-clearing turn, and ease yourself into position. Coming up to that depth would probably take ten to fifteen minutes.

Hunter could have confirmed the original target package, which he has no reason to object to, and then called the Captain aside for a few minutes, in a private setting like radio or even the CO's stateroom, to come up with a compromise. In my opinion, his timing served only to antagonize the Captain by creating an unnecessary delay in performing weapons readiness as opposed to weapons launch.

Again, no disagreement there whatsoever. But the CO's initial response to the XO's very innocent query of "What do you think?" displayed absolutely no desire on the part of Ramsey to do anything close to what you described. He basically stated, implicitly, "My way or my way." I agree somewhat that the XO could have been more "creative" in handling the situation, given his knowledge on the CO's demeanor, but I do not think anybody could have anticipated the sort of resistance Ramsey put up when presented with the "message fragment."

Also, while the concurrence of the Captain and XO is required, this is not the "two man rule" regarding Presidential release I meant. In fact, a U.S. Air Force Board of Inquiry has previously held that the legality and/or morality of a properly authenticated nuclear launch order is beyond the scope of an officer's need-to-know.

My previous argument is based on that principle. As presented in the movie, once a launch order has been received and authenticated, the process is fail-deadly. The chance that the President would recall a nuclear launch is (or should be) so infinitesimal, and the fail-safes required to order launch in the first place are so stringent, that once the order to strike is given it must be given precedence over doubt.

It has been beaten to death, but the scenario presented in the film is simply not possible. That having been said, I am arguing based on the rules that the movie plays by, however illogical and unrealistic those rules may be.

Given that a "message fragment" arrived that was clearly directed at them and was an Emergency Action Message, they had a responsibility, not an option, to ascertain what the complete message was. Again, I realize in the real world, such a situation would never come up. But in the "universe" of Crimson Tide, the situation did come up and by those rules, they had to delay the launch.

To look at your volunteer fire department concept. If you had been previously informed there was a fire developing and that you might need to go support it, then you are ordered to take an engine to the fire as quickly as possible because lives are in imminent danger, and then over the radio you hear the solitary fragment "urn to the station", would you continue with your previous orders or stop the truck right there until you could clarify the transmission. And if you couldn't get more information immediately, would you go back or continue on?

In your example, it is not clear if the message was intended for me or for another unit. Again, the "message fragment" in the film was part of an EAM that was directed at the USS Alabama.

To illustrate, here is a "transcript" of what I was trying to convey (my unit is Engine 402):

DISPATCH: Communications to Engine 402.
ENGINE 402: Engine 402.
DISPATCH: Be advised that you... (static, followed by silence)

...And I do not respond nor follow up on the transmission. That is basically what Captain Ramsey did. He received a message clearly directed at the Alabama, but dismissed because it was a "fragment."

(Note that it is also Dispatch's responsibility to ensure that I received and acknowledged the transmission. For argument's sake, we are going to ignore that fact)

Now, here is an illustration of the argument you are making:

DISPATCH: Communications to Eng... (static, followed by silence)
DISPATCH: ...urn to the station.

(Again, this is an extremely simplified, near-impossible construction of a hypothetical event; we are merely making arguments here, so a bit of suspension of disbelief is necessary)

In your example, it is not clear to whom the message is directed at. It could be indeed intended for my unit, or it could be intended for another unit on the same run. It becomes more of a dispatch/alarm responsibility to find out the who and what regarding the message, but even if it were intended for my unit, I cannot be held responsible for not following up on it, because, again, it is not clear that the message was directed at me.

[–] Lunchbox-3 12 years ago

Captain Ramsey would be (and should be) hung out to dry for his negligence. "I may have been presented with new orders, but because the orders were incomplete, I followed the orders we had on hand" is no defense at all.

I don't know how it is in the real world, but in Crimson Tide, isn't this exactly what Ramsey is saying is correct? He says an incomplete message is the same as no message at all and the proper thing to do is to continue on with orders in hand. At least in the context of the movie he's doing what he's supposed to be doing.

The message fragment doesn't even contain an authentication code does it? It may be the enemy trying to fool him with a false EAM. If he is to follow orders he has to launch. Like the other poster said, the orders were to launch immediately. Not "launch an hour from now unless you hear back from us before then." It was "launch now." You don't tell someone to launch if you think there's a possibility that five minutes from now you'll change your mind.

Yes, it would be nice for Ramsey to authenticate the message fragment. However, the radio wasn't working and showed no signs of being repaired by the launch deadline. Ramsey and Hunter aren't there to make decisions, they are just supposed to do as they're told. They were told to launch, they launch. They only have to confirm that the message is authentic. For Hunter to agree that the message is authentic but then refuse to follow the order to launch is improper. The redundancy of Hunter repeating Ramsey's orders should only be for confirmation of authenticity, which he has done, after that he shouldn't be able to countermand a launch order like he does in the movie.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]