# last resort 10/4/12



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i dont know why but i thought the action was so much less in this one..less drama...was it my imagination or were you let down too?

didnt see daddy at all and what happened to him but i did like the rusky invasion vs not the Americans..nice spin on things.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I still really enjoy it even though it was amped down a little. There are some nice dynamics and some nice cross dynamics. Now the soldiers who ran away...will they become "the others"?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

My wife is uncertain about this show. Every time she tries to articulate why it seems like her issue is not knowing what actually happened and wondering if the characters overreacted. Funny, that's one reason I really like it!

I wonder if it will even take a season before we learn what the seal team was up to that led to this whole mess. I do like that the show seems to be in proper awe of seal team six and delta forces.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

Thought this one was better than the pilot. A little more character development. The pilot I thought rushed through a bit too much. Maybe a 2 hour premiere would have been better.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

mwhip said:


> I still really enjoy it even though it was amped down a little. There are some nice dynamics and some nice cross dynamics. Now the soldiers who ran away...will they become "the others"?


dunno..are they on an island


----------



## edtude (Oct 12, 2009)

mwhip said:


> I still really enjoy it even though it was amped down a little. There are some nice dynamics and some nice cross dynamics. Now the soldiers who ran away...will they become "the others"?


If you mean the missing sailors, they did not run away


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

edtude said:


> If you mean the missing sailors, they did not run away


I assumed he meant the ones that bailed during the spetsnaz firefight.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I assumed he meant the ones that bailed during the spetsnaz firefight.


That is what I meant.


----------



## edtude (Oct 12, 2009)

mwhip said:


> That is what I meant.


Hmm did they run away or were they part of the 5 that were killed? I was half asleep last night watching so I might have missed some of the dialog.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i thought that one guy was leaving to get a better shot from another location..guess i was wrong..was the seal


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

The two people following her bailed. Others were killed. The seal showed up later after being marked by the bartender and talked into somewhat taking sides.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

edtude said:


> Hmm did they run away or were they part of the 5 that were killed? I was half asleep last night watching so I might have missed some of the dialog.


I thought the two ran away hence when they gathered at the village Speedman told the Captain he sent a team looking for them.

Also there has been no mention of the 3(?) taken hostage. Have they not noticed yet?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

mwhip said:


> I thought the two ran away hence when they gathered at the village Speedman told the Captain he sent a team looking for them.
> 
> Also there has been no mention of the 3(?) taken hostage. Have they not noticed yet?


He sent the team to look for the two people taken hostage in the prior episode.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i wonder what happened to the guy who's 'island it was' in the 1st ep. i guess he was just filler but would be interesting to see if there was a mini revolt there.


----------



## TiVolunteer (Jul 10, 2001)

newsposter said:


> i wonder what happened to the guy who's 'island it was' in the 1st ep. i guess he was just filler but would be interesting to see if there was a mini revolt there.





Spoiler



He was seen in the previews for next week. Seems that the major plot point for next week's episode involves him


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

newsposter said:


> i wonder what happened to the guy who's 'island it was' in the 1st ep. i guess he was just filler but would be interesting to see if there was a mini revolt there.





Spoiler



He was shown in the previews for next week's episode


----------



## edtude (Oct 12, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> He sent the team to look for the two people taken hostage in the prior episode.


That was how I understood it as well


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

well now i'm glad i asked that question!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I'm just going to say we are in serious alternate world Science Fiction category after this weeks episode and any attempt to relate it to reality should be abandoned immediately as fruitless.

Ignore the submarines and the magic boxes and concentrate on if you like the characters and the drama of the story.

(And they better do something with the female Lt very soon vis-a-vis the crews respect. I'm getting tired of sailors disobeying direct orders).


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

I'm a little confused as to why they wouldn't have the world's opinion on their side. The way I see it, some element of the government attempted to get them to fire on Pakistan through non-standard channels, which they caught onto. The same elements tried to silence them by having another US ship destroy them and then making it look like it was Pakistan that did it. When they proved that they were still alive, the motivation to nuke Pakistan was gone, right?

I guess the question is had they not offered them the perfect excuse by making it look like Pakistan attacked the sub, what was their public rationale for nuking them in the first place?

I recall there was talk of some conflict between the President and admirals (generals?) mentioned in the pilot. Were we meant to take away from that that the executive powers were being too hawkish for them to want to follow?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

jschuur said:


> I'm a little confused as to why they wouldn't have the world's opinion on their side. The way I see it, some element of the government attempted to get them to fire on Pakistan through non-standard channels, which they caught onto. The same elements tried to silence them by having another US ship destroy them and then making it look like it was Pakistan that did it. When they proved that they were still alive, the motivation to nuke Pakistan was gone, right?
> 
> I guess the question is had they not offered them the perfect excuse by making it look like Pakistan attacked the sub, what was their public rationale for nuking them in the first place?
> 
> I recall there was talk of some conflict between the President and admirals (generals?) mentioned in the pilot. Were we meant to take away from that that the executive powers were being too hawkish for them to want to follow?


I don't think that the sub's supposed destruction was the Govt's excuse for nuking Pakistan.

I believe that we're not supposed to know their excuse/reason yet, but it has something to do with what the SEAL team was doing in Pakistan before their exfil at the beginning of the first episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> I don't think that the sub's supposed destruction was the Govt's excuse for nuking Pakistan.


It couldn't have been, because the reason the sub was "destroyed" in the first place was that it questioned the authenticity of the order to nuke Pakistan. So whatever the justification for nuking Pakistan was, it was in place before the sub was attacked. Which brings us to...


busyba said:


> I believe that we're not supposed to know their excuse/reason yet, but it has something to do with what the SEAL team was doing in Pakistan before their exfil at the beginning of the first episode.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

I found it interesting that the Russians were carrying American rifles. I guess this was for deniability and/or it was a joint operation or they were changed from Delta to Spetsnaz after filming.


----------



## trnsfrguy (Apr 28, 2005)

I thought it was a good episode.
During the firefight with the Spetnaz, the XO's earpiece kept alternating between hanging off his shoulder and in his ear. That really bothered me. There was no way he could have heard everything coming from his team or captain.
One question... When the captain and xo were talking about the captain's son, did the xo suggest that the friendly fire was intentional ?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

trnsfrguy said:


> One question... When the captain and xo were talking about the captain's son, did the xo suggest that the friendly fire was intentional ?


No, he was just suggesting that the reason the captain turned traitor is because he blames the government for his son's death.

It was an argument that really didn't make much sense, but the captain didn't do much to refute it. I think the writers believe that a career military commander could plausibly turn on his country because of a friendly fire incident, but that expecting orders to come through the regular chain of command can be considered treason.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, he was just suggesting that the reason the captain turned traitor is because he blames the government for his son's death.
> 
> It was an argument that really didn't make much sense, but the captain didn't do much to refute it. I think the writers believe that a career military commander could plausibly turn on his country because of a friendly fire incident, but that expecting orders to come through the regular chain of command can be considered treason.


Well, they do seem to believe that a sub Captain will detonate a nuke 200 miles off of DC.

And make the East coast glow in the dark for 50 years.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

When the two subs passed by each other under water, did anyone else think of The Wrath of Khan?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Donbadabon said:


> When the two subs passed by each other under water, did anyone else think of The Wrath of Khan?


What's funny about that is that I saw "Wrath of Khan" in it's initial release with a friend of mine who had been a submariner. When Spock points out that Khan is "very smart, but his pattern indicates 2-dimensional thinking", my submariner friend leaned over and said "I was just thinking that..."

The sequence in Khan is intended to mirror sub hide-and-seek games, so it's fun to see it cycle back in an actual sub context.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It couldn't have been, because the reason the sub was "destroyed" in the first place was that it questioned the authenticity of the order to nuke Pakistan. So whatever the justification for nuking Pakistan was, it was in place before the sub was attacked. Which brings us to...


I've been thinking of that. While time tends to be accelerated, the attack on the _Colorado_ came pretty quick after they refused the order to launch. The _Illinois_ could have been queued up to fire on them after they launched to try to hide evidence. When the _Colorado_ refused, the _Illinois_ was told to go ahead and attack it then fire the missiles at Pakistan themselves, plan B.

Conspirators killing the assassin isn't unprecedented


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I thought this episode was like a bad novel and was disappointing compared to the pilot. I don't know if the tech lady is a terribly written character or is being portrayed by a poor actress. Either way, it's a terrible character.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> I thought this episode was like a bad novel and was disappointing compared to the pilot. I don't know if the tech lady is a terribly written character or is being portrayed by a poor actress. Either way, it's a terrible character.


She reminds me of Lauren Ambrose's character from the last season of Torchwood. Which is not a good thing.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, he was just suggesting that the reason the captain turned traitor is because he blames the government for his son's death.


That wasn't the XO, that was the COB who suggested that the captain blames the government.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

laria said:


> That wasn't the XO, that was the COB who suggested that the captain blames the government.


Oh, then I don't know what conversation he's referring to...


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Oh, then I don't know what conversation he's referring to...


I assume the conversation at the very end when they were in the CO's room, but I didn't get any vibe that the XO was suggesting intentional friendly fire.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I couldn't find anything in my 10 second internet search so I'll ask. What does the COB do? Is he in charge of the regular sailors? Why doesn't Chaplin just kick his insubordinate ass or something? Just kidding on that one.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

The COB (Chief of the Boat) is the senior enlisted advisor to the CO and XO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Boat


> The Chief of the Boat (COB) is an enlisted sailor on board a U.S. Navy submarine or Cyclone-class coastal patrol ship who serves as the senior enlisted advisor to the commanding officer and executive officer, and assists with matters regarding the good order and discipline of the crew. The COB is the equivalent of a Command Master Chief in shore and surface units. There is only one COB on a submarine or Coastal Patrol Ship. The COB is generally responsible for the day-to-day operations of the non-nuclear portion of the boat as well as the morale and training of the boat's enlisted personnel. The COB is typically the most senior enlisted person; however, the commanding officer is neither required to select the highest ranking sailor nor the most senior in grade or time aboard. Likewise, the COB is not necessarily replaced when a more senior sailor reports aboard.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I thought this was a fine follow-up to the action packed suspense filled pilot.

Said it last week say it again - this is probably the best new show of the season so far.

I am digging Scott Speedman in this. 
He's growing up nicely.



Ereth said:


> I'm just going to say we are in serious alternate world Science Fiction category after this weeks episode and any attempt to relate it to reality should be abandoned immediately as fruitless.


Reality? I thought this was a TV show? 
Ya know - TV? Entertainment? Suspension of disbelief and dramatic license and all that?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> He sent the team to look for the two people taken hostage in the prior episode.


What people were taken hostage in the pilot episode? And by who?



Idearat said:


> I've been thinking of that. While time tends to be accelerated, the attack on the _Colorado_ came pretty quick after they refused the order to launch. *The Illinois could have been queued up to fire on them after they launched to try to hide evidence. When the Colorado refused, the Illinois was told to go ahead and attack it then fire the missiles at Pakistan themselves, plan B.
> *
> Conspirators killing the assassin isn't unprecedented


I thought in the thread for the previous episode, we discussed that the Illinois is a fast-attack sub, not a boomer, so it wouldn't be carrying nukes to shoot at Pakistan.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

DevdogAZ said:


> What people were taken hostage in the pilot episode? And by who?


Two SF personnel, a male and a female, were in the back of a van, taken by the little dictator wannabe who had that confrontation with the SEAL in the bar earlier.

This was shown during the Captain's monologue at the end.

(Or, how Miranda puts it more eloquently below).


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> What people were taken hostage in the pilot episode? And by who?


By the guy who "runs" the island. I think his name was Julian? The pilot ended with them (Cortez and Brennan) lying in the back of a van all beat up and tied up and the guy looking down at them.

The officers kept mentioning it in both episodes that Cortez and Brennan were AWOL, but then the guy from Felicity said that it was Cortez's third tour (I think it was the woman who was mouthy with him during their sexual harrassment interview in the pilot) and that she would not go AWOL.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I liked this episode more than the pilot. I'm enjoying the ride so far; though I get the feeling that at any time they could go off the rails into ridiculousness too stupid even for TV-fantasyland. But until they do go all "Flash-Forward" I'll stick around.


----------



## trnsfrguy (Apr 28, 2005)

laria said:


> I assume the conversation at the very end when they were in the CO's room, but I didn't get any vibe that the XO was suggesting intentional friendly fire.


That is correct. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention. I watched the end again and realized I was wrong.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> I liked this episode more than the pilot. I'm enjoying the ride so far; though I get the feeling that at any time they could go off the rails into ridiculousness too stupid even for TV-fantasyland. But until they do go all "Flash-Forward" I'll stick around.


That's exactly how I feel (although I felt the pilot was slightly better, this episode was still really good). It's always nice to see the Dichain (I can't remember her last name) from Dollhouse. I wonder what role the "islanders" will play in this whole thing. There's enough of all the cool stuff I like to have me sticking around. Spy stuff, military misconduct, eye candy, and maybe even some "Lost" type mysteries.

And I have no doubt this will get canceled before we get to know half of what is going on.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

danterner said:


> She reminds me of Lauren Ambrose's character from the last season of Torchwood. Which is not a good thing.


Ouch. 

I don't think she's nearly as manic though.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Cainebj said:


> Reality? I thought this was a TV show?
> Ya know - TV? Entertainment? Suspension of disbelief and dramatic license and all that?


I hate that argument. Just because it's a TV show doesn't give it license to be completely wrong.

If the characters were to start flying next week, would you still say "it's a TV show"? Shows have to be grounded in their own reality. A superhero show might have people flying, but you wouldn't expect it on, say, "Marcus Welby, MD", would you?

My point was that the world they've established bears little resemblance to the one in which we live. They have not only fictional submarines, but fictional physics as well. So I suggested it was an alternate reality with non-reality based physics and somehow you think "It's a TV show" is a rebuttal to that?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Sometimes TV writers have to take a little (a lot of) creative license in order to make their shows dramatic and compelling. I was listening to a podcast done by the creators of Breaking Bad and they were talking about a certain plot point from the S5 premiere and how they knew it was highly implausible, but that they liked the way it fit into the story and decided to just use it in the show despite it being unrealistic. Writers have to make those kinds of compromises all the time, because if TV shows mirrored reality, they wouldn't be very exciting.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Ereth said:


> I hate that argument. Just because it's a TV show doesn't give it license to be completely wrong.
> 
> If the characters were to start flying next week, would you still say "it's a TV show"? Shows have to be grounded in their own reality. A superhero show might have people flying, but you wouldn't expect it on, say, "Marcus Welby, MD", would you?


Well, there was a show on tv where a nun would sometimes fly.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> I'm enjoying the ride so far; though I get the feeling that at any time they could go off the rails into ridiculousness too stupid even for TV-fantasyland. But until they do go all "Flash-Forward" I'll stick around.


Ditto for me also. They have come dangerously close more than once, but I'm hanging in there for now.

The nuke off the East Coast... very very close to stupid. How will they handle the residual radiation affecting 1/3 of the US (rhetorical question, as we know they won't). Also, everything to do with the lady scientist/lobbyist/whateversheis strikes me as stupid.

In fact, the entire concept of conspiracy is tough to swallow. I see them leading us down a path where a good chunk of people know about something, but are able to successfully hide it. This just doesn't happen in any world I live in. Someone *always* leaks something, especially when nukes & war are involved. But in this show, they'll amazingly be able to keep it quiet.

Yet I still watch...


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

astrohip said:


> The nuke off the East Coast... very very close to stupid. How will they handle the residual radiation affecting 1/3 of the US (rhetorical question, as we know they won't)


They addressed the radiation in the last episode.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

busyba said:


> I don't think that the sub's supposed destruction was the Govt's excuse for nuking Pakistan.


I thought it was. But I freely admit I'm having trouble keeping up with everything that's going on!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

squint said:


> They addressed the radiation in the last episode.


They did? I don't remember it being mentioned after the nuke hit.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> They did? I don't remember it being mentioned after the nuke hit.


They said something about how the multitude of nuclear bomb tests in Nevada were closer to Las Vegas than this detonation was to the East Coast, or something like that. I don't know enough about the science and history of nuclear bombs to know if there's any validity to that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DLiquid said:


> They said something about how the multitude of nuclear bomb tests in Nevada were closer to Las Vegas than this detonation was to the East Coast, or something like that. I don't know enough about the science and history of nuclear bombs to know if there's any validity to that.


Ah, you're right. I forgot about that conversation. That was in this episode, not the pilot. It was the XO's wife saying that, because the government people were claiming that her husband was going to be in huge trouble for his involvement in detonating that nuke, and she was trying to point out that it was no more dangerous to the people on the east coast than the Nevada tests were for the people in Vegas.


----------



## su719 (Apr 5, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Ditto for me also. They have come dangerously close more than once, but I'm hanging in there for now.
> 
> The nuke off the East Coast... very very close to stupid. How will they handle the residual radiation affecting 1/3 of the US (rhetorical question, as we know they won't). Also, everything to do with the lady scientist/lobbyist/whateversheis strikes me as stupid.
> 
> ...


What I don't understand is that they nuc'd Pakistan, a nuclear nation and Washington DC is still standing. If we did that in the real world we would be wrapped up in a war with the nuclear power we shot at and would least be worried about some rogue sub.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

su719 said:


> What I don't understand is that they nuc'd Pakistan, a nuclear nation and Washington DC is still standing. If we did that in the real world we would be wrapped up in a war with the nuclear power we shot at and would least be worried about some rogue sub.


Well, there's a difference between having a nuclear weapon, and being able to use it on the other side of the globe...

What kind of delivery systems does Pakistan have? I've always thought the only people they were a real threat to was India.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

You would think that after us nuking Pakistan into the stone age and (hypothetically) having 75% of the world really, really, really pissed off about it and the Colorado launching a nuclear missile across the bow of Washington DC, that the president would have made a three minute phone call to Chaplin by now to ask wtf is going on.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> You would think that after us nuking Pakistan into the stone age and (hypothetically) having 75% of the world really, really, really pissed off about it and the Colorado launching a nuclear missile across the bow of Washington DC, that the president would have made a three minute phone call to Chaplin by now to ask wtf is going on.


That assumes that the President is innocent in this series.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JYoung said:


> That assumes that the President is innocent in this series.


There's a lot of turmoil going on with that administration. Talks of possible impeachment, loads of top-level military officials resigning in protest of something that we don't know anything about yet.

Either the President is in on it, or elements in the government are acting against him and he lacks any real power to do much about it since he's got a lot of problems on his plate right now.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think it's pretty likely what's going on in Washington: POTUS was about to be impeached. He (or his supporters) cooked up a way to start a war so that the impeachment proceedings would be put on the back burner. The methods of starting the war were intended to have "plausible deniability" which is why the SEALs can't say a word about their mission to the crew of the Colorado, why the fire order came through the Antarctic network, and why the Illinois was in position to sink the Colorado.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think it's pretty likely what's going on in Washington: POTUS was about to be impeached. He (or his supporters) cooked up a way to start a war so that the impeachment proceedings would be put on the back burner. The methods of starting the war were intended to have "plausible deniability" which is why the SEALs can't say a word about their mission to the crew of the Colorado, why the fire order came through the Antarctic network, and why the Illinois was in position to sink the Colorado.


Yes, that's the obvious choice.

Which is why it won't be the case.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, there's a difference between having a nuclear weapon, and being able to use it on the other side of the globe...
> 
> What kind of delivery systems does Pakistan have? I've always thought the only people they were a real threat to was India.


According to this, the max range of any ballistic missile that Pakistan is known to possess is 2,000 kilometers (although they have/are attempting to procure a missile with a range of 4,000 km).

Given that the distance between Pakistan and the US is roughly 11,000 km, a counter-strike by Pakistan is not a concern.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> Yes, that's the obvious choice.
> 
> Which is why it won't be the case.


That will actually be a good test of the quality of the writers. If the "mystery" turns out to be exactly what they telegraphed in the pilot, then we'll have to conclude that they're pretty crappy. But if it turns out to be something surprising, that would be great.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

DreadPirateRob said:


> According to this, the max range of any ballistic missile that Pakistan is known to possess is 2,000 kilometers (although they have/are attempting to procure a missile with a range of 4,000 km).
> 
> Given that the distance between Pakistan and the US is roughly 11,000 km, a counter-strike by Pakistan is not a concern.


I've been assuming that one or more of the impact points on Pakistan were the location(s) of their weapons. Wouldn't _any_ first strike be targeted to reduce or eliminate the opportunity for retaliation?

Perhaps the SEAL team was on the ground there to verify the location(s) for targeting. That might the reason for the one SEAL member saying they were a part of it.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Idearat said:


> I've been assuming that one or more of the impact points on Pakistan were the location(s) of their weapons. *Wouldn't any first strike be targeted to reduce or eliminate the opportunity for retaliation?*Perhaps the SEAL team was on the ground there to verify the location(s) for targeting. That might the reason for the one SEAL member saying they were a part of it.


One would think.

But we don't know the true goal of the attack yet, so I don't think we can safely assume that was the location of the strike.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

I've watched all the episodes but will someone please refresh my memory. Why is the COB being kept behing bars. I know he does not agree with the captain but was that it? Or was there some specific act he did to be locked up?

Thanks,
Gerry


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Gerryex said:


> I've watched all the episodes but will someone please refresh my memory. Why is the COB being kept behing bars. I know he does not agree with the captain but was that it? Or was there some specific act he did to be locked up?
> 
> Thanks,
> Gerry


I think it's a combination of him not agreeing with the Captain's actions, and him supporting the actions of the guy who was about to kill some of the crew when the female lieutenant shot him. When she shot his guy and the Captain backed her, it created a clear rift between them and they couldn't afford to have him running free and potentially undermining the Captain or wreaking havoc.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

Idearat said:


> I've been assuming that one or more of the impact points on Pakistan were the location(s) of their weapons. Wouldn't _any_ first strike be targeted to reduce or eliminate the opportunity for retaliation


Only if the country had a meaningful ability to strike back...


----------



## Anchorman (Mar 2, 2002)

What was the point of the Navy SEAL having Lt. Shepard "check his weapon" before the fight with the Russians? Was it just to give the writers a chance to demonstrate her proficiency with a weapon?

Also, I read something from an owner of an AK-47 that claimed that the magazine shown during that sequence was empty.  Anyone notice that?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anchorman said:


> What was the point of the Navy SEAL having Lt. Shepard "check his weapon" before the fight with the Russians? Was it just to give the writers a chance to demonstrate her proficiency with a weapon?


Since they had basically been ordered by the COB to kill her, I assumed they wanted to get her fingerprints on the weapon so they could concoct some kind of explanation of how she screwed up and shot herself. Either that, or it was just for intimidation purposes.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

That wasn't a SEAL, was it?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> That wasn't a SEAL, was it?


I don't think so. I thought those guys were just enlisted sailors who were loyal to the COB.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Anchorman said:


> What was the point of the Navy SEAL having Lt. Shepard "check his weapon" before the fight with the Russians? Was it just to give the writers a chance to demonstrate her proficiency with a weapon?





TAsunder said:


> That wasn't a SEAL, was it?


Definitely not a SEAL. That was one of the two seamen who were guarding the COB, who basically ordered them to try and take her out if they had the chance. Those guys were also the ones who bugged out when the fighting started, so we've seen how courageous they are.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What kind of delivery systems does Pakistan have? I've always thought the only people they were a real threat to was India.


That's probably true, which always seemed weird to me. If the only country you can nuke is at your back door, what's the use in having a nuke? Same with Iran and Israel or N. and S. Korea.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

stellie93 said:


> That's probably true, which always seemed weird to me. If the only country you can nuke is at your back door, what's the use in having a nuke? Same with Iran and Israel or N. and S. Korea.


Well, nukes don't destroy the planet. They can barely take out a city. If Pakistan nuked Mumbai, there would probably be no physical repercussions to Pakistan.

Until India nuked Islamabad in retaliation, of course.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

stellie93 said:


> That's probably true, which always seemed weird to me. If the only country you can nuke is at your back door, what's the use in having a nuke? Same with Iran and Israel or N. and S. Korea.


It's usually as a deterrent. Pakistan can't match India's conventional forces so they developed nukes. Israel doesn't have the manpower or size to guarantee victory in a conventional war against multiple aggressors so it has nukes as a last resort.

Countries don't need to have more nukes than their neighbors, just enough to hurt them badly enough that a victory would be a pyrrhic one.

Iran probably wants them for sabre-rattling purposes in addition to the deterrent effect.



Anchorman said:


> Also, I read something from an owner of an AK-47 that claimed that the magazine shown during that sequence was empty.  Anyone notice that?


Those kinds of goofs are quite frequent but I didn't see any AK-47s in the episode. Spetsnaz should be using AK-74s.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

squint said:


> Spetsnaz should be using AK-74s.


...unless they were trying to pass themselves off as US special forces operators....


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

Yeah, I mentioned that possibility earlier in this thread.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> That will actually be a good test of the quality of the writers. If the "mystery" turns out to be exactly what they telegraphed in the pilot, then we'll have to conclude that they're pretty crappy. But if it turns out to be something surprising, that would be great.


Only if the surprise reasoning actually fits and makes sense. Too often TV show surprises are something out of left field that make little sense, and are just used to be a "surprise".


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Flop said:


> Only if the surprise reasoning actually fits and makes sense. Too often TV show surprises are something out of left field that make little sense, and are just used to be a "surprise".


Good point. It has to be both surprising and coherent.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think it's pretty likely what's going on in Washington: POTUS was about to be impeached. He (or his supporters) cooked up a way to start a war so that the impeachment proceedings would be put on the back burner. The methods of starting the war were intended to have "plausible deniability" which is why the SEALs can't say a word about their mission to the crew of the Colorado, why the fire order came through the Antarctic network, and why the Illinois was in position to sink the Colorado.


And that's the kinda cheap story line that'll have me checking out of the Resort. It's tough to swallow those massive conspiracy theories. Too many people in the loop, and no way they pull that off.



DLiquid said:


> They said something about how the multitude of nuclear bomb tests in Nevada were closer to Las Vegas than this detonation was to the East Coast, or something like that. I don't know enough about the science and history of nuclear bombs to know if there's any validity to that.


The nukes these subs carry are so much more powerful than what was tested back in Nevada. Again, no one is fishing off the east coast for a while. Or anything else. And you can't just skip over that. Well, they can.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

astrohip said:


> The nukes these subs carry are so much more powerful than what was tested back in Nevada. Again, no one is fishing off the east coast for a while. Or anything else. And you can't just skip over that. Well, they can.


Exactly. They were testing ATOMIC bombs.


----------



## digdug (Jan 13, 2004)

Chiming in here. I thought it was odd that just prior to the encounter with the Russian soldiers, two of ours were standing in the middle of the little valley talking while the rest of the team was hiding in the trees. It wasn't until someone whistled that they then ran for cover. Was that intentional, or just stupid writing?


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

digdug said:


> Chiming in here. I thought it was odd that just prior to the encounter with the Russian soldiers, two of ours were standing in the middle of the little valley talking while the rest of the team was hiding in the trees. It wasn't until someone whistled that they then ran for cover. Was that intentional, or just stupid writing?


I think stupid writing.  As soon as they both walked out there, I was yelling at the tv, saying what the heck, why would you rendezvous in a wide open area. You can meet up near the edge... use a radio... anything but be a sitting duck.


----------



## vman (Feb 9, 2001)

They thought they had more time enforce the Russians arrived, and we're surprised. Still dumb, but largely just shows how outmatched they were against special forces. 

My problem with the show is there is no way out for them. With no friends in DC helping them figure out what the plan is, I really can't imagine what they think they are accomplishing. Arms dealer hottie will end up cracking the mystery, but they don't know that...


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

Just caught up. Still plays like a bad Tom Clacey novel. Not as bad as the Pilot. 

Regarding the only copy of the designs and schematics, since it was a prototype I would not be surprised that the technical details have not been delivered yet.

Oh, back to the bad Tom Clancey novel, the prototype giving the boat problems seemed to be a call back to Red October, and the problems with the Catapiller Drive. Wonder if the problems are Sabotage?


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Win Joy Jr said:


> Just caught up. Still plays like a bad Tom Clacey novel. Not as bad as the Pilot.
> 
> Regarding the only copy of the designs and schematics, since it was a prototype I would not be surprised that the technical details have not been delivered yet.
> 
> Oh, back to the bad Tom Clancey novel, the prototype giving the boat problems seemed to be a call back to Red October, and the problems with the Catapiller Drive. Wonder if the problems are Sabotage?


You think somebody wants to give the boat to the Rooskies?


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> You think somebody wants to give the boat to the Rooskies?


Not to that extent, but members of the crew trying to return back home and ending the situation...


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Win Joy Jr said:


> Not to that extent, but members of the crew trying to return back home and ending the situation...


That could be a factor.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

Win Joy Jr said:


> Not to that extent, but members of the crew trying to return back home and ending the situation...


Captain should've gave the same speech to the rest the crew as he did we the COB. They want to get home, but he knows whoever is in power wants them dead.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Win Joy Jr said:


> Not to that extent, but members of the crew trying to return back home and ending the situation...


Unless you're talking about a crew member who stayed behind on the island, that doesn't make any sense. By sabotaging the Perseus system, it made the Colorado visible to US Navy sonar and almost got them killed, since the Navy destroyers and subs were hunting them with live ammo. Turning off Perseus doesn't get them "caught," it gets them killed.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> You think somebody wants to give the boat to the Rooskies?





Win Joy Jr said:


> Not to that extent, but members of the crew trying to return back home and ending the situation...





DevdogAZ said:


> Unless you're talking about a crew member who stayed behind on the island, that doesn't make any sense. By sabotaging the Perseus system, it made the Colorado visible to US Navy sonar and almost got them killed, since the Navy destroyers and subs were hunting them with live ammo. Turning off Perseus doesn't get them "caught," it gets them killed.


Yeah, sabotage doesn't make any sense. If the Perseus malfunctions while it's being used, it's just going to mean that everyone on board has a high likelihood of dying.

I don't even think that a crew member that was staying behind would do it - his/her fellow sailors and the boat would undoubtedly mean too much to him/her. They may hate the captain right now, but I can't see someone sacrificing the entire crew/sub.

(Where is john4200 - surely we agree on at least this! )


----------



## marrone (Oct 11, 2001)

So from what I was able to gather from watching, and reading this thread, the Colorado was supposed to nuke Pakistan. Then the Illinois was supposed to take out the Colorado to somehow hide the fact that it was a direct order.

The Illinois shot at the Colorado anyway (did they ever think that they might actually MISS?), then at some point, fired the nukes at Pakistan? What happened to the Illinois, then? Wouldn't it be obvious to the rest of the world (Russians, for one) that a still-alive ship fired those nukes?

Or did the Colorado eventually fire those nukes? It looked like they did (the whole key turning) If so, why did they eventually nuke them? But the Captain said that they were only down one missile after the DC bow shot. Or did I miss-count?

So I'm confused. Who wound up firing on Pakistan?

-Mike


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

marrone said:


> So I'm confused. Who wound up firing on Pakistan?


Not the Colorado.

I am pretty sure it was the Illinois, after the Colorado questioned the order.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I don't think the Illinois is a nuclear sub. Based on previous threads, we determined that the Illinois is a "fast attack" type sub used to hunt ships and other subs, but not capable of firing nuclear missiles at Pakistan.

We don't yet know where the nukes that hit Pakistan came from. I don't think we're supposed to know.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> We don't yet know where the nukes that hit Pakistan came from. I don't think we're supposed to know.


I don't think it's supposed to matter beyond the fact that they came from the US.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> I don't think it's supposed to matter beyond the fact that they came from the US.


You're probably right. I think the news clips we've seen have shown that the US acknowledges they are responsible for the nukes, so it probably doesn't matter where the nukes were launched from. I wonder if we'll ever find out what the original plan was, however, since we presume that the Colorado was supposed to fire and then be sunk.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Based on previous threads, we determined that the Illinois is a "fast attack" type sub used to hunt ships and other subs, but not capable of firing nuclear missiles at Pakistan.


Did we determine that based on the show or real-life? Because I only saw someone post about the real-life Illinois, which hasn't been built yet (well, it is under construction). Neither has the real-life Colorado... and they are both supposed to be the same class of sub. So, I don't think we can assume the fictional Illinois is not capable of nuclear weapons just because the real-life one won't be... because then the fictional Colorado wouldn't be either.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

laria said:


> Did we determine that based on the show or real-life? Because I only saw someone post about the real-life Illinois, which hasn't been built yet (well, it is under construction). Neither has the real-life Colorado... and they are both supposed to be the same class of sub. So, I don't think we can assume the fictional Illinois is not capable of nuclear weapons just because the real-life one won't be... because then the fictional Colorado wouldn't be either.


I thought it was based on information from the show, but I could be wrong.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the news clips we've seen have shown that the US acknowledges they are responsible for the nukes


Yes. The news conference the chick with the fivehead was watching was an administration official (SecDef I think?) stating the reasons for the strike. It was something about being a pre-emptive strike for national security interests, or something similarly horrifying.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Aren't all subs named after states the same class of sub? In real life anyway?

I think that on the show we're supposed to assume that the Illinois is the same class as the Colorado, because they're both named after states, and that the fact that the class for state-named subs is different in real life from what they are in the show isn't something we're supposed to think about.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think the Illinois is a nuclear sub. Based on previous threads, we determined that the Illinois is a "fast attack" type sub used to hunt ships and other subs, but not capable of firing nuclear missiles at Pakistan.
> 
> We don't yet know where the nukes that hit Pakistan came from. I don't think we're supposed to know.


Are you being faceitious? Illiois is eiether a 688 are an Ohio. Probably an improved LA.

A while ago (early 90s), we removed nucler tlams from our fleet. however, attack subs still had harpoon, ASW, which, theoretically, could, in a Tom Clancy worl, attack boomers.

Diesel subs attacking one of us? LOL.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

justen_m said:


> Are you being faceitious? Illiois is eiether a 688 are an Ohio. Probably an improved LA.
> 
> A while ago (early 90s), we removed nucler tlams from our fleet. however, attack subs still had harpoon, ASW, which, theoretically, could, in a Tom Clancy worl, attack boomers.
> 
> Diesel subs attacking one of us? LOL.


No, not being facetious. Not even sure what part of my post was facetious.

Are you saying that based on what we've seen on this show, Illinois is a boomer? I don't remember the reasoning, but I thought people in the thread for the pilot agreed that Illinois was a different class sub than Colorado. Based on my limited reading of spy novels, I thought the US only had one class of sub that carried nuclear ICBMs. So if Colorado carries nukes and Illinois is a different class, doesn't that mean that Illinois couldn't have fired the missiles at Pakistan?


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Yeah, sabotage doesn't make any sense. If the Perseus malfunctions while it's being used, it's just going to mean that everyone on board has a high likelihood of dying.
> 
> I don't even think that a crew member that was staying behind would do it - his/her fellow sailors and the boat would undoubtedly mean too much to him/her. They may hate the captain right now, but I can't see someone sacrificing the entire crew/sub.
> 
> (Where is john4200 - surely we agree on at least this! )


Or, with the prototype disabled, they have no choice but surrender?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Win Joy Jr said:


> Or, with the prototype disabled, they have no choice but surrender?


Yeah, I can see that line of thinking from someone. But how do you guarantee that you are given a chance to surrender, especially when they've already had cruise missile launched at them _and_ depth charges dropped on them?


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

justen_m said:


> Diesel subs attacking one of us? LOL.


Diesel submarines are actually a serious emerging threat because they're economical and often quieter than nuclear submarines.



busyba said:


> Aren't all subs named after states the same class of sub? In real life anyway?


In real life, no.



DevdogAZ said:


> Are you saying that based on what we've seen on this show, Illinois is a boomer? I don't remember the reasoning, but I thought people in the thread for the pilot agreed that Illinois was a different class sub than Colorado. Based on my limited reading of spy novels, I thought the US only had one class of sub that carried nuclear ICBMs. So if Colorado carries nukes and Illinois is a different class, doesn't that mean that Illinois couldn't have fired the missiles at Pakistan?


In the show, they're of different classes. The _Illinois_ has a ducted propeller and bow-mounted diving planes which means it's either a Sea Wolf or Virginia class submarine. Los Angeles and Ohio class have sail-mounted diving planes and non-ducted propellers as far as a brief Google search could tell me.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

justen_m said:


> Diesel subs attacking one of us? LOL.


I think there's some confusion over nomenclature.

I don't think Dev meant to say that the Illinois is a diesel sub when he said "I don't think the Illinois is a nuclear sub." I think he just meant that it couldn't launch nuclear weapons against land targets. He was trying to draw the distinction between boomers and fast-attack subs and just used the wrong terminology.

Of course, in general when one refers to a "nuclear sub", they are referring to the onboard power generation, not the armament.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Does today's US Navy even have diesel subs in service anymore?


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

No, the US Navy no longer fields diesel submarines.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Based on my limited reading of spy novels, I thought the US only had one class of sub that carried nuclear ICBMs.


That's right... Ohio-class.



> So if Colorado carries nukes and Illinois is a different class, doesn't that mean that Illinois couldn't have fired the missiles at Pakistan?


Probably. If we're not assuming that in this fictional world they haven't invented some other new class of sub. 

The Wikipedia has the fictional USS Colorado listed as an Ohio-class sub, even though the real yet-to-be-built Colorado will be a Virginia-class sub. It doesn't say anything about what kind of sub the fictional Illinois is.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

AFAIK, fast attack subs were named for cities in the case of Los Angeles class subs, but are named after states for the new Virginia class subs. Boomers (Ohio class) are named for states. Only 3 Seawolf boats were built: Seawolf, Jimmy Carter, and I forget the third, but I believe it was named for a state. There are a few exceptions: Henry Jackson (Ohio class) for example.

I'm not sure how many Virginia boats are planned, but there were roughly 60 Los Angeles boats built (though a number have been decommissioned). With there already being 18 Ohio boats, if the Navy plans to build even a little more than 1/2 the number Virginia class as they did Los Angeles we'll need to start adding some new states soon. 

I believe the Illinois is a Virginia class boat currently under construction and would not carry nuclear missiles. At least not those carried by a boomer. I suppose it could have been outfitted with Tomahawks carrying a smaller tactical nuke warhead.

This is all based on random knowledge I picked up along the way. Clancy's book, The Hunt for Red October, got me interested in submarines years ago, and I still scratch the itch to read up on them every now and then, so take the info for what it's worth. 

Of course, all this is moot in fictional TV land.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Flop said:


> I'm not sure how many Virginia boats are planned, but there were roughly 60 Los Angeles boats built (though a number have been decommissioned). With there already being 18 Ohio boats, if the Navy plans to build even a little more than 1/2 the number Virginia class as they did Los Angeles we'll need to start adding some new states soon.


If I counted right, there are 31 planned: 9 are already built, 5 are under construction, 3 are named but not yet under construction, 1 is under contract but not named yet (or under construction), and the other 13 are a couple years in the future.

It looks like the 3 from the final block may be capable of nuclear missiles if they decide to go that way with a replacement for the Ohio-class subs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

Flop said:


> Only 3 Seawolf boats were built: Seawolf, Jimmy Carter, and I forget the third, but I believe it was named for a state.


USS Connecticut SSN-22. I have a remote controlled version on my shelf that I sometimes use to chase the dog around the pool.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

squint said:


> No, the US Navy no longer fields diesel submarines.


The US Navy doesn't. There are other organizations that do.


----------

