# Last Resort - "Captain" - 9/27/12



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

I haven't enjoyed a pilot this much since 'Lost'. I definitely hope they can keep this up but I really don't see how the concept plays out as a series right now. 

Andre Braugher is amazing, as always... glad to see him back and in a starring role.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

I really enjoyed that. Immediate season pass.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I liked it as well.

Helm, set SP for Keep Until I Delete.


----------



## dwells (Nov 3, 2001)

Ditto- don't know how or if they'll be able to sustain it, but that was absolutely fantastic


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I have a feeling that if I knew as much about military protocol as I do about science, this show would have annoyed me as much as Revolution.

But fortunately, I don't.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

There are some annoying inaccuracies regarding SLBMs and cruise missiles but compared to typical Hollywood fare this is almost like watching a documentary.


----------



## Crobinzine (Dec 29, 2005)

Thought it was pretty good. I liked seeing Autumn Reese again, she's a hottie.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

The first 15 minutes, all I could think was that I liked this show much better the first time I saw it, when it was called _Crimson Tide_. 

But it got much better after that.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I missed it and only watched a few minutes at the 45 min mark. Loved what I saw. I was happy to see it is playing again tomorrow night. Season pass is set.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

If it can keep the story going it will be a must see program. However, I dont see how they can write too many more shows. Might have been better as a movie.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Best pilot I've seen in a while.

If they avoid FlashForward syndrome, I'm in for the season.


----------



## DavidJL (Feb 21, 2006)

This one I thought I'd really like going in and I did. Not sure how it can go a full season much less multiple seasons but I hope it does. It seems more like a miniseries premise.

If you like Braugher, he was great in a short lived series called Thief


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I'm in. Was feeling a "Crimson Tide" flavor from the beginning.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Now that was good. Strange, but I kind of got a Star Trek vibe during some moments. Maybe it was all the times they gave someone "the conn."

I think the casting is good. It's good to see Scott Speedman and the hot girl from No Ordinary Family.

I like that the Seals know something about what's really going on. I can't see how they can sustain this show, but they did a fantastic job with the premiere, so I'm interested to see how it develops.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Watched it, really good.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

I also enjoyed it and also am wondering if/how they can sustain it.

As they take over the island while trying clear themselves ( and save the world ) I see see them going all A-Team (or Burn Notice ) and helping out the locals with their problems. 

While they're in a lagoon on a tropical island, at least with a nuclear reactor for power the first mate won't have to pedal a bamboo bicycle to power the radio.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

For those of us who missed it, are reading this thread, and are now interested......the pilot is being re-broadcast tonight at 8:01 p.m. CDT...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I liked it a lot. 

I don't know if anybody else had the same thought but I don't know how this can play out over a full season.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Needs more bass, especially on a missile launch


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I'm so in.


----------



## desaun (Mar 17, 2004)

That was good quality television!

I'm with everybody else, though, don't see how they're going to sustain this, but I'm in it for now.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I'm almost hoping it has a comic element to it. A nuclear submarine sitting out a nuclear war on a tropical paradise...if the writers can't take at least a little joy in that premise, then they need to turn in their human cards.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

caslu said:


> I haven't enjoyed a pilot this much since 'Lost'. I definitely hope they can keep this up but I really don't see how the concept plays out as a series right now.
> 
> Andre Braugher is amazing, as always... glad to see him back and in a starring role.


Agreed on all counts. SP set. This will likely be same night viewing material for me.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

This was as exciting as I'd hoped Revolution would be.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

I recorded it, but I'm hanging back. I'm afraid to get invested and have it get cancelled.

TV that's as good as you all are telling me this is doesn't stick around long.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Finally something new that is not a procedural! That is my favorite show of the season.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Lori said:


> I recorded it, but I'm hanging back. I'm afraid to get invested and have it get cancelled.
> 
> TV that's as good as you all are telling me this is doesn't stick around long.


I think ABC would be nuts to cancel this since they don't have a show as big as Lost was, and Shawn Ryan is the show runner.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> I think ABC would be nuts to cancel this since they don't have a show as big as Lost was, and Shawn Ryan is the show runner.


I'm still going to wait a couple episodes. I got burned too many times before by shows--firefly-- that the network would have been crazy to cancel.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

It was hard to see how they were going to sustain Lost, too (I'm not comparing it to Lost)...and that show very quickly proved to being nothing like what we thought it would be.


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

I really liked it! SP is staying put.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

I'm no military expert, but shouldn't Agent Dagget, errr, the Chief of the Boat be the one interviewing the females about sexual harassment? I guess it's better TV to have the young hot male officer questioning young hot females.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

The one part that strained credulity with me was how there are sailors (and marines) on that sub who are still loyal to the government that just tried to kill them.


And I don't mean the B2 strike. That one is reasonable under the scenario where a boomer sub captain goes rogue and commandeers a vessel with nuclear weapons. I mean the initial tomahawk strike for simply disobeying orders.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I'm in. Like everyone not sure how this continues but I have faith in Shawn Ryan.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> The one part that strained credulity with me was how there are sailors (and marines) on that sub who are still loyal to the government that just tried to kill them.
> 
> And I don't mean the B2 strike. That one is reasonable under the scenario where a boomer sub captain goes rogue and commandeers a vessel with nuclear weapons. I mean the initial tomahawk strike for simply disobeying orders.


Not even disobeying...just seeking confirmation through the channels through which the orders should have come in the first place.

The part that is just beginning to strain credulity with me is the sheer magnitude of the apparent conspiracy. This is X-Files/Area 51 style thinking, that large segments of our government are capable of keeping secrets this big. Which is why I hoped earlier that there will be some element of humor to it...not that I want it to be in any way a comedy, but just a sign that they're not taking themselves entirely seriously. That would go a long way towards making the inherent implausibility of the premise less significant.

In fact, after making the last post and thinking about it a little more, it strikes me that the premise and cast of the show seem perfectly suited for a sit-com. Not that I think that's what they are or should be going for; just that you could take the exact same premise, and the exact same characters, and make a sit-com about the wacky adventures of a submarine crew stranded on a tropical island with some colorful natives during a nuclear war.

But if they did the occasional X-Files style wink-and-nudge, I think that would help the show a lot.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I thought that the girls company would have been behind the attacks to show an evil corporation trying to inflate their stock price on the needs of a military under attack. I am guessing that is not the case now as she was as concerned with what was happening as others.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Anybody else get the Popa Roach song stuck in their head every time they see the title of the show?


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

mwhip said:


> I thought that the girls company would have been behind the attacks to show an evil corporation trying to inflate their stock price on the needs of a military under attack. I am guessing that is not the case now as she was as concerned with what was happening as others.


Yeah, I'm glad it is going to be something bigger than an evil company. She mentioned something about there being a test of her equipment (she didn't say equipment but I can't remember what word she used) scheduled for the next day. I thought the launch order might have been that test, but now I think it all has something to do with whatever happened with the SEALs. There is a lot of material to sustain the show. We still don't know about the SEAL mission; we don't know what the equipment the evil company has developed is, we don't know what is going on in Pakistan or how they will retaliate, what is NATO going to do now that a rogue submarine crew has taken over their early warning station, etc.

I wonder what really would be done with a sub that did not carry out a confirmed launch order.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

I liked it a lot. SP stays. I have faith in Shawn Ryan, Wasn't he involved in The Unit? That's another show I liked a lot (except for the wive's portion). 

I also wonder how they are going to keep this going for more than a season. 

I also got the same Crimson Tide Vibe as a lot of others did. This should make for an interesting ride.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Lori said:


> I recorded it, but I'm hanging back. I'm afraid to get invested and have it get cancelled.


IMHO, if everyone did this then it would kill any show worth watching. Shows get rating based on people watching. Not people recording an entire season and watching it another time.

Support the show by watching it within 3 days of it being recorded.

If it gets cancelled then it gets cancelled, the world will still move on. If you let a show's cancellation affect you more than the fleeting disappointment you might feel, then perhaps you're too emotionally invested in television.

Rant over.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

tiams said:


> we don't know what the equipment the evil company has developed is


Yes we do. It was revealed as sexposition. 

The one major vulnerability of large submarines like the Colorado is that that giant slab of metal in the ocean exhibits a distinct and easily detectible magnetic signature. The equipment in question supposedly masks that signature somehow.

Basically, it's Stealth Submarine technology.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

classicX said:


> IMHO, if everyone did this then it would kill any show worth watching. Shows get rating based on people watching. Not people recording an entire season and watching it another time.
> 
> Support the show by watching it within 3 days of it being recorded.


Or just let it play when you're not actually watching the TV. That way you accomplish both goals. Giving it ratings, while still not getting caught up in the show before you know if it will be canceled or not.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

tiams said:


> we don't know what the equipment the evil company has developed is


Yes we do - it was during that weird seduction scene with the woman talking "techie" to the guy. She mentioned that it was some kind of tech that made the sub's signature truly undetectable.

I'm guessing the captain either isn't aware of its existence, or just hasn't thought about using it until he figures out why someone wants to start a war with Pakistan.

I guess I'm the only one that can see how this will stretch for an entire season, and possibly multiple seasons.

It could be another 24 - the next season is just a new "last resort" scenario, perhaps with an entirely different cast.

I loved the show's flow, the action was great, the tension was perfect, the mystery has me intrigued, and I couldn't ask for a better pilot. I'll be recommending this show to my friends.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Best network pilot I've seen in years. I have no idea how they will manage to tell 22 hours worth of story, but I'm in no matter what.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

dtle said:


> I'm no military expert, but shouldn't Agent Dagget, errr, the Chief of the Boat be the one interviewing the females about sexual harassment? I guess it's better TV to have the young hot male officer questioning young hot females.


I'm no military expert either, but it doesn't strain credulity to me. The XO is basically in charge of day-to-day management and logistics, from what I understand, and checking off the box that sexual harassment protocols have been complied with would fall under that purview.

The COB is not an officer, and perhaps the regulations require that an officer do the interview.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Crobinzine said:


> Thought it was pretty good. I liked seeing Autumn Reese*r* again, she's a hottie.





DLiquid said:


> I think the casting is good. It's good to see Scott Speedman and the hot girl from *The OC*.


FYPs


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

I didn't think any of the women on the show were particularly attractive.

Each to his own, I suppose.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

You didn't think the weapons manufacturer sales hottie was attractive? When she was draped all over the dude in her black lingerie?

Quick - check your pulse! You might be dead!


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

classicX said:


> I didn't think any of the women on the show were particularly attractive.
> 
> Each to his own, I suppose.


Depends how long you are at sea.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

I really liked it, but was totally expecting the thread here to be people hating it and picking it apart. I'm so glad this isn't the case.

I definitely need a primer on ranks and chain of command on a naval ship.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

DLiquid said:


> I think the casting is good. It's good to see Scott Speedman and the hot girl from *The OC*.





DreadPirateRob said:


> FYPs


Don't call it that.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

DougF said:


> Don't call it that.


??? Maybe I just got zoomed (or moozed, or mozoed or zomoed or whatevs), but she was on the The OC first, and is probably better known for that, since NOF wasn't very good and didn't last very long.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Sorry. Arrested Development joke.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Ah. Need to finish working my through that show. I started it, and then got busy.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

tiams said:


> She mentioned something about there being a test of her equipment...


I'll test her equipment


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Make time! Well worth it.

As for this show, I liked it. Probably not as much as everyone else here, though. I just don't like Andre Braugher. Yes, he's talented, brilliant, etc., but I just don't enjoy watching him. Maybe this show will change that?


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> You didn't think the weapons manufacturer sales hottie was attractive? When she was draped all over the dude in her black lingerie?
> 
> Quick - check your pulse! You might be dead!


Yeah, not attractive at all. Ahem...!


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

The scene in question that I was talking about:


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

Little tidbit.

Most shows initial offering is called Pilot, this one is called Captain.

Shawn Ryan: The Shield, The Unit, Terriers, The Chicago Code, and show runner for 2 seasons of Lie to Me.

Unless ABC starts messing with things, we're in for a great ride.


phox


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> You didn't think the weapons manufacturer sales hottie was attractive? When she was draped all over the dude in her black lingerie?


My only complaint about her is that she needs to do something different with her hair so as to minimize her fivehead.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

kettledrum said:


> I definitely need a primer on ranks and chain of command on a naval ship.


http://tkdtutor.com/NavyTutor/Topics/Organization/Chain-of-Command-01.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_typical_chain_of_command_aboard_a_US_nuclear_submarine


----------



## Gromit (Nov 4, 1999)

I really liked it too. I don't mean to nitpick it, but I was curious about the speed of both the various missiles in the pilot. The incoming cruise missile, their ballistic launch on DC and the multiple warheads that hit Pakistan all seemed really fast. Have other shows and movies mislead me or did they speed things up for drama? 

I guess the inbound cruise missile makes sense. But shouldn't the others have taken a long time to reach their targets?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Gromit said:


> I really liked it too. I don't mean to nitpick it, but I was curious about the speed of both the various missiles in the pilot. The incoming cruise missile, their ballistic launch on DC and the multiple warheads that hit Pakistan all seemed really fast. Have other shows and movies mislead me or did they speed things up for drama?
> 
> I guess the inbound cruise missile makes sense. But shouldn't the others have taken a long time to reach their targets?


Back from the Cold War days of the 80's, I vaguely recall 8 minutes being the time from launch to detonation in a US/USSR strike in either direction. I'm sure speeds have improved a bit since then.

Also, keep in mind that the missiles in the show were not tracked from launch to landing. They got picked up by tracking well after their launch.

That's a pretty crappy tracking station they have on that island, considering they don't spot a missile until about 10 seconds before impact.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

I gave up half way through and read a couple recaps and reviews to fill me in on what I'd missed. I found nothing compelling or interesting or fun about it but much annoying and silly.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> That's a pretty crappy tracking station they have on that island, considering they don't spot a missile until about 10 seconds before impact.


Wasn't it launched from a ship in the Indian Ocean?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Wasn't it launched from a ship in the Indian Ocean?


True. I think it was another boomer, possibly the _Illinois_, same sub that attacked the _Colorado_.

But still... for a tracking station, it proved to be spectacularly useless.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

DLiquid said:


> Yeah, not attractive at all. Ahem...!


She just doesn't do it for me, sorry.

I feel the same way about Jessica Alba - it just doesn't happen, she looks like someone's kid sister.

And no, I'm not gay.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Favorite line had to be the drunk Navy Seal telling the local warlord exactly how fast he and his men would be dead if they didn't leave him the hell alone:

"He&#8217;s first. He&#8217;s the only real shooter in your bunch, so the first bullet&#8217;s his. Big fella&#8217;s probably gonna need two in the chest to make sure his fat ass goes down, so two he gets. And while Dopey over there fumbles for his gun in his back waistband, Grumpy gets one between the eyes and so does he. You, though&#8212;Snow White. You I&#8217;m gonna shoot clean through the neck. And that way, as the blood is gushing out your choking throat and you desperately beg me for your life, you won&#8217;t be able to make a sound. Or you could leave me in peace to enjoy my drink."

Very Jack Reacher-esque.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I also enjoyed his calm reaction to the missile going up.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

This didn't thrill me but it does have potential. I'll give it 2 or 3 episodes to try to live up to that potential.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Gromit said:


> I really liked it too. I don't mean to nitpick it, but I was curious about the speed of both the various missiles in the pilot. The incoming cruise missile, their ballistic launch on DC and the multiple warheads that hit Pakistan all seemed really fast. Have other shows and movies mislead me or did they speed things up for drama?
> 
> I guess the inbound cruise missile makes sense. But shouldn't the others have taken a long time to reach their targets?


The SLBM was a Trident, which Wikipedia tells me has a top speed of somewhere around 13,600 mph (or 226.67 miles per minute).

We don't know for sure where the sub is, but we know that they had just crossed the equator when the fire order was issued, so they can't have gone much farther than when they elected not to fire, and then were fired upon. So, looking at the map, for estimating purposes I'm putting them somewhere around the Maldives.

Google tells me that the Maldives are about 8800 miles from Washington DC, which, at 226.67 miles per minute, is almost 39 minutes of flight time.

So, yeah, it would seem like it was sped up a bit.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Gromit said:


> I really liked it too. I don't mean to nitpick it, but I was curious about the speed of both the various missiles in the pilot. The incoming cruise missile, their ballistic launch on DC and the multiple warheads that hit Pakistan all seemed really fast. Have other shows and movies mislead me or did they speed things up for drama?
> 
> I guess the inbound cruise missile makes sense. But shouldn't the others have taken a long time to reach their targets?


The _Colorado_ was in the Indian Ocean when they picked up the SEAL team. When they were fired upon from another ship in the Indian Ocean, it wouldn't be a long flight for the cruise missile. (Of course time would depend on the the distance between the ship firing and them )

I don't quite know the time of flight for the ICBM they fired on DC. If it could actually make it to D.C. time of flight should be in the 30 minutes range. Besides being a moving target a missile sub's advantage is that it can be closer to the target, minimizing the time of flight. That could mean missiles fired on Pakistan from just off the coast would take only a short time to get there.

Being curious myself, I looked around and it appears DC is not in range of a Trident missile fired from the Indian Ocean, it would could fall over a 1,000 miles short.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-133.html

I also thought I saw the missile track take it over the continental US. It had had gone that way it would have _really_ been short of the target

If the continuing premise of the show is the sub threatening U.S. targets with their missiles, they should move closer. But that would mean the sub leaving the communications outpost they're occupying. Presumably they'll be moving the around, otherwise there's no reason for their stealth experiment on board. Also remaining stationary isn't a good tactic to prevent being attacked. It would seem to make sense to have the sub move away, leaving a team at the comms outpost as their eyes and ears. The threat would be that if warned by the outpost, or contact was lost, they're retaliate from their stealthy position. (ignoring that 2-way comms from the sub harms their stealth capabilities )


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> The SLBM was a Trident, which Wikipedia tells me has a top speed of somewhere around 13,600 mph (or 226.67 miles per minute).
> 
> We don't know for sure where the sub is, but we know that they had just crossed the equator when the fire order was issued, so they can't have gone much farther than when they elected not to fire, and then were fired upon. So, looking at the map, for estimating purposes I'm putting them somewhere around the Maldives.
> 
> ...


As Idearat pointed out, the Trident doesn't have enough range to hit DC from where it was supposed to be. Its max range is 7000 miles, which is almost 2000 miles short of the distance to DC.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

I don't see how it could have been green-lighted without an outline of future episodes. 

The pilot has a beginning, a middle and an end (the ultimatum). Can a series exist with only an expansion of the latter.


----------



## kimsan (Jan 23, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I have a feeling that if I knew as much about military protocol as I do about science, this show would have annoyed me as much as Revolution.
> 
> But fortunately, I don't.


Well as a Navy vet my first nit was "1400 HOURS" (I think that was the time). Navy understands that time is gives in hours and it whould have been just plain "1400".

I *did* appreciate the realism that the senior officers tended to adress each other by first name...unlike the soldiers on "Army Wives" that are so brutally rank conscious. And the Chief of the Boat (Master Chief if I saw that correctly) would also be regarded as somewhat higher in stature than the more junior officers...despite rank structure.

I'll save rocket comment for another time...but I have been at NASA tech twice as long as I was a Navt tech 

All that said, I'm ready to NOT pick nits on this one. I flat out loved the first ep :up:


----------



## Archangel00 (Aug 25, 2006)

Way too much farcical BS here:
The sub coming up perfectly centered under the seal Zodiac. 
You can't hit a sub with a Tomahawk, unless it's on the surface.
SUBROC's were taken out of service long ago, and were nuke only to boot.(so it wasn't one of them)
A submerged sub has almost no chance of detecting an incoming rocket/missle even if it was one that could hit it. (ASROC, etc.)
As already mentioned a boomer carries SLBM's not ICBM's so no way in hell they could get anywhere near DC from the IO.
The whole MAD countermeasure thing.



busyba said:


> True. I think it was another boomer, possibly the _Illinois_, same sub that attacked the _Colorado_.


The real Illinois is a fast attack boat, that hasn't even been built yet. There is no boomer named Colorado either so......



Fool Me Twice said:


> I found nothing compelling or interesting or fun about it but much annoying and *silly*.


Yep, about 19,000 tons of silliness....


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Archangel00 said:


> Way too much farcical BS here:
> The sub coming up perfectly centered under the seal Zodiac.
> You can't hit a sub with a Tomahawk, unless it's on the surface.
> SUBROC's were taken out of service long ago, and were nuke only to boot.(so it wasn't one of them)
> ...


...therefore it must be fiction?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

danterner said:


> ...therefore it must be fiction?


Every now and then I see a show I like and come to TCF to discuss. And then inevitably this kind of nit-picking reminds me why I rarely post . . .

*sigh*


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Not that I care, as I'm enjoying the show, but I read some where it takes 15 minutes to get the missle ready to launch once the order is given.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

classicX said:


> Every now and then I see a show I like and come to TCF to discuss. And then inevitably this kind of nit-picking reminds me why I rarely post . . .
> 
> *sigh*


:Confused: My post was anti-nitpicking.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

danterner said:


> :Confused: My post was anti-nitpicking.


Yeah, you were nitpicking about people nitpicking.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Best new show so far this season.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, you were nitpicking about people nitpicking.


Well, yeah, I guess I was, if you want to get all nitpicky about it.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

GREAT PILOT!!


But I don't see how you sustain this as a multi season series.



Gimme some more Taylor Townsend/Lizzie Grant. What a hottie.


----------



## Lars_J (Feb 1, 2005)

That was definitely a pleasant surprise!

It started off rather weak, with clumsy character exposition ("racks" anyone?) - and it seemed like a very low-budget Crimson Tide. (And I saw that film recently, so the comparison is not favorable) The early effects looked iffy as well. BUT... Once that attack order came, everything got a LOT better, and it kept improving until the strong ending. (Some really great effects work as well, in particular the sub surfacing in the harbor and the ICBM launch)

My favorite moment would probably be the SEAL guy's reaction to the ICBM launch... "Well that's not good". 

This show might drive me crazy if I was a Navy/sub expert, but if this quality is kept up I will gladly overlook the points that seemed unrealistic.

This is a definite season pass for me. Best new show of the season so far.


----------



## Crobinzine (Dec 29, 2005)

QUOTE=Crobinzine;9303090]Thought it was pretty good. I liked seeing Autumn Reeser again, she's a hottie.[/QUOTE]

Duh, thinking of Person Of Interest while posting....


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

danterner said:


> :Confused: My post was anti-nitpicking.


Not your post, but the one to which you responded.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

classicX said:


> She just doesn't do it for me, sorry.
> 
> I feel the same way about Jessica Alba - it just doesn't happen, she looks like someone's kid sister.
> 
> And no, I'm not gay.


Is it the sharp knees?


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

Besides 'Crimson Tide', it also had a part of 'The Abyss' in it, with the Seals having a different agenda than everyone else.

If their threat to send their nukes out is a serious one, then there is no way the CO and XO could ever leave the boat since they have the launch keys. If either one of them are ashore then they can't launch.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

That was definitely worth watching. SP set.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Very impressed, no idea how they'll keep it going, but as others have said one of the best pilots I've seen in ages, it oozes potential and it was beautifully filmed.

I can already see how they've learned from a lot of their predecessors, they're starting to give a few answers already in the pilot, like knowing that the SEALs know more than the crew does.


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> GREAT PILOT!!
> 
> But I don't see how you sustain this as a multi season series.
> 
> Gimme some more Taylor Townsend/Lizzie Grant. What a hottie.


Seriously, did you know both of those names off the top of your head?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I had to google for Lizzie


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Worked for the Navy under NAVAIR for 32 years. Thank gawd, I don't know much about subs, so I enjoyed this. Would a nuke detonated 200 miles off shore be seen by the folks on the East Coast? Remember one degree of earth's curve for every 52 miles. Far enough away for the overpressure of the explosion not to knock down the pretty monuments in DC. I have a political question. There was a rumor that Nixon tried to order one of the air force squadrons but the order was ignored. There were no such rumors during the Clinton Impeachment and trial. Could this proposed future President be trying to start a war in order to avoid impeachment and trial?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

busyba said:


> Yes we do. It was revealed as sexposition.
> 
> The one major vulnerability of large submarines like the Colorado is that that giant slab of metal in the ocean exhibits a distinct and easily detectible magnetic signature. The equipment in question supposedly masks that signature somehow.
> 
> Basically, it's Stealth Submarine technology.


I was expecting them to use that tech, but I am sure we will see it pretty soon.

Liked the show a lot!


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Couple of things - the Cap'n might as well make Santa Elsewhere his new home. I'm pretty sure he'll be court-martialed and hung if he tries to return to the US. Or, hung, then court-martialed for launching and detonating a Trident warhead - thanks for Emily Exposition for that piece of awkward sex-talk knowledge - 200 miles from DC. 

BTW, any seafood lovers on the East coast, don't bother to cook your food. It should be nuclear stir-fried for the next 50 years or so.

When the Captain burst into the NATO station, claiming it for himself, it reminded me of something that Kirk might do.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> Could this proposed future President be trying to start a war in order to avoid impeachment and trial?


That's certainly an inference that the writers seem to have been leading the viewers to make.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

Wow, did I see the same show? It was "blah" to me for the most part. I really do not see how they sustain this for long. I get the feeling that some things must have been left on the editing room floor. The political questions are where some of the answers lay. The Missle order, was it given by the POTUS, someone loyal to the POTUS, or an opponent who is trying to set up the POTUS. Will we ever see the POTUS? The Admiral was not in on it, so how was the Missle order inserted into the backup command path? They mentioned the captain going rogue hours before the order. Who was the real target of the setup?

And the whole "who can you trust" on a US nuclear Missle sub? I am having a hard time with that.

Tom Clancey this was not...


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

DreadPirateRob said:


> The scene in question that I was talking about:


Amazing that she just had a child before this series. Sure wouldn't know it! Mmmm mmm mmm what a MILF!


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

The process for launching the nukes seems a lot more complicated than shown.

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


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Can a sub commander re-target the missiles ? 

I guess I should not really dwell on such things. Sometimes reality gets in the way of fun.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Does the deputy/assistant/whatever Sec-Def actually have the legal authority to relieve the Captain of his command? Even if he does, under the weird circumstances, I think the XO might have been more likely to refuse the order and request confirmation from the President or at least the CNO.

Would Navy Seals be willing to mutiny based on what they "heard"?

Both the Captain and the XO behaved reasonably by refusing to launch based on orders received over a "back-channel". This is one of the reasons we have people in the loop and have not gone the *War Games* route.

Would they really have used a boomer for a Seal mission?


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

jsmeeker said:


> Can a sub commander re-target the missiles ?


I read in a discussion elsewhere that they cannot. Seems reasonable.



lpwcomp said:


> Would they really have used a boomer for a Seal mission?


I wondered the same thing as I thought only newer post-Cold War submarines were retrofit or designed for special ops. I thought older Ohio class submarines wouldn't be suitable because they're not as quiet as newer models. But it turns out they have retrofitted them for special ops using space freed up from removing nuclear missiles to meet treaty obligations.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

I enjoyed the show though not quite as much as I hoped. Had a few issues having worked for Navy for much of my career, but can generally suspend disbelief for drama. My biggest complaint though was that they'd contact the Admiral and the guy's wife. Really stupid as they'd have to know they be tracked by those calls.

Also the show has a bit of a Lost vibe for me. Possibly since that was the last thing I watched on ABC. ;-)


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Best network pilot I've seen in years. I have no idea how they will manage to tell 22 hours worth of story, but I'm in no matter what.


This. And I only watched a few episodes of Lost, so I'm perhaps not the target demographic.

I would pay to watch Andre Braugher read the phone book. Homicide: Life on the Street was even better than The Wire and Braugher was the heart and soul there. It's great to see him back in action.

I almost forgot: Shawn Ryan did Terriers. That alone would have made this a SP from the start.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Best new show so far this season. 

I have always disliked Andre Braugher. 
I think he just changed my mind.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

A single cruise missile is not enough to ensure taking down a boomer - it may actually do it, but only an idiot would think it would be guaranteed to work. It would also need to be a different type than I ever heard of - on that can dive into and work underwater as a torpedo. And there would be active counter measures that would be taken (anti-missile missile) and not just duck and run.

Further, a massive nuclear response is unlikely even if the boomer is attacked and sunk (More likely the response would be a measured tactical nuclear strike, if that option was selected), even when the provocation was fraudulent. There was no mention (that I noticed) the cruise missile was nuclear, so nuclear response should not even be on the table. Further, it is also unlikely that the nuclear option - as in a massive country flattening strike - would be taken before a demand for surrender, a declaration of war or both. 

But these measures were apparently taken by rogue elements acting on (amazingly?) bad intel. So, depending on just how rogue they are, some of these events might make more sense.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

Idearat said:


> Being curious myself, I looked around and it appears DC is not in range of a Trident missile fired from the Indian Ocean, it would could fall over a 1,000 miles short.
> http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-133.html


I would not count on public information about the speed or range of a Trident missile to be accurate. That information is top secret and any public knowledge would likely be disinformation. These birds are not cruise missiles and may be able to go orbital, trading-off quickness to target for range. If that's the case, they would be able to hit anything reasonably near their orbital path, up to and including circling the Earth and hitting their own position at launch. But I doubt anyone on the boat would be able to reprogram the missiles for that.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Lars_J said:


> My favorite moment would probably be the SEAL guy's reaction to the ICBM launch... "Well that's not good".


Mine too.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Archangel00 said:


> The whole MAD countermeasure thing.


Yeah, because there's a device you can carry that would prevent a huge ton of steel from interacting with the Earths Magnetic Field. That's believable. 

'Sok, though, the whole idea that the Magnetic Field is the primary way we find them is so ridiculous as to be ignorable. Reminds me of the guy who wrote a "Letter to the Editor" pointing out that Anti-Submarine Warfare was stupid because depended upon the heat from the submarine to heat up the ocean and then rise to the surface to be tracked by IR, but that we would always be several hours behind the sub because of the time involved, and so we shouldn't bother. There wasn't anything correct in his letter, so you just shake your head and move on.



busyba said:


> The one major vulnerability of large submarines like the Colorado is that that giant slab of metal in the ocean exhibits a distinct and easily detectible magnetic signature. The equipment in question supposedly masks that signature somehow.
> 
> Basically, it's Stealth Submarine technology.


For the record, this is "TV Physics" and has only a passing resemblance to reality. Given the needs of the fiction, though, it's worth letting it pass.

It's interesting to see how far we've come, though. There's at least one shot in the show that involves information once so classified that it got Tom Clancy a stay with the FBI for several days, and we were instructed that we could not talk about "The Hunt for Red October" for risk of going to jail. When I saw it (originally in that movie) I practically lost it. Now, here we are 2 decades later, and it's on TV and not even a big deal any more. Time marches on.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Best new show so far this season.


I agree. The show had me hooked in the first 15 minutes and it stayed interesting. Hopefully this isn't a good pilot followed but a lot of meh episodes. I'm in!!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ereth said:


> For the record, this is "TV Physics" and has only a passing resemblance to reality. Given the needs of the fiction, though, it's worth letting it pass.


Yeah, I was just quoting the chick, not offering any commentary on the veracity of it.



> It's interesting to see how far we've come, though. There's at least one shot in the show that involves information once so classified that it got Tom Clancy a stay with the FBI for several days, and we were instructed that we could not talk about "The Hunt for Red October" for risk of going to jail. When I saw it (originally in that movie) I practically lost it. Now, here we are 2 decades later, and it's on TV and not even a big deal any more. Time marches on.


Stop teasing and tell us what the shot was.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

busyba said:


> Yes we do. It was revealed as sexposition.


:up: for this term coinage.

I definitely liked seeing the complexities of chain of command being shown here. One of my favorite moments is the acting captain telling the C.O.B. to get someone off the bridge, and all the C.O.B. does is a tiny little nod of his head, and the guy leaves. Because that's the path authority follows.

I don't think I've seen an hour-long premiere that was this intense in years, if ever.

Also glad to see the actress we saw in _Dollhouse_ featured -- she always stole the show with her versatile acting over in that show (and I just don't mean "compared to Eliza Dushku," she was really impressive) and she doesn't get enough work.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hunter Green said:


> I definitely liked seeing the complexities of chain of command being shown here. One of my favorite moments is the acting captain telling the C.O.B. to get someone off the bridge, and all the C.O.B. does is a tiny little nod of his head, and the guy leaves. Because that's the path authority follows.


On the other hand, I'm pretty sure those complexities don't involve a civilian outside the chain of command ordering a nuclear strike, and when the captain asks for confirmation through regular channels ordering another ship to fire on you...


----------



## steverm2 (May 10, 2005)

classicX said:


> Every now and then I see a show I like and come to TCF to discuss. And then inevitably this kind of nit-picking reminds me why I rarely post . . .
> 
> *sigh*


Agreed
I enjoyed it.If it is picked apart looking for everything to be real life doesnt it belong on the science channel?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

steverm2 said:


> Agreed
> I enjoyed it.If it is picked apart looking for everything to be real life doesnt it belong on the science channel?


*sigh* No. Willing suspension of disbelief and dramatic license only work so far. As an instance of the latter - there was absolutely no reason for them to send the missile the long way just so someone could say "it's passing over Indiana".

Just because something is fiction doesn't mean the writers can ignore reality whenever they wish. Doing so is a sign of sloppy, lazy writing and doesn't bode well for the future prospects of this series.


----------



## steverm2 (May 10, 2005)

lpwcomp said:


> *sigh* No. Willing suspension of disbelief and dramatic license only work so far. As an instance of the latter - there was absolutely no reason for them to send the missile the long way just so someone could say "it's passing over Indiana".
> 
> Just because something is fiction doesn't mean the writers can ignore reality whenever they wish. Doing so is a sign of sloppy, lazy writing and doesn't bode well for the future prospects of this series.


Yes,sending the missile the long way was beyond belief.dumb! I just mean some dramatic licence can make for better drama.I hope they can keep the show going for a while.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Yeah, but if they sent it the short route, you wouldn't have that awesome shot of a Trident missile passing behind the Washington Monument.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> Yeah, but if they sent it the short route, you wouldn't have that awesome shot of a Trident missile passing behind the Washington Monument.


Yet another stupid shot. Missiles don't work that way, particularly MIRV'd missiles like the Trident. Which brings up another question - where were the rest of the RVs?


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

Ereth said:


> Yeah, because there's a device you can carry that would prevent a huge ton of steel from interacting with the Earths Magnetic Field. That's believable.


The device doesn't have to eliminate the interaction, just make it undetectable with current magnetic anomaly detection technology beyond a given distance.

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sector...lp-submarines-evade-detection/1010407.article


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

lpwcomp said:


> Yet another stupid shot. Missiles don't work that way, particularly MIRV'd missiles like the Trident. Which brings up another question - where were the rest of the RVs?


Clearly, when the Cap'n retargeted the missile, it knew that it would be going toward the US, and calculated that it wouldn't need to MIRV. It was only a scare tactic.

Just as when the Captain and XO turned their missile keys, the weapons officer knew they wanted to target DC and accordingly had preset coordinates.

And an unsecured NATO listening station had the same software and computer interface as a US nuclear sub.

It's magic.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

Ereth said:


> For the record, this is "TV Physics" and has only a passing resemblance to reality. Given the needs of the fiction, though, it's worth letting it pass.


While TV physics or fiction physics does not have to be the real thing, it should be at least superficially plausible and self-consistent within the context of the series, e.g., if warp 7 is the normal upper limit, then a ship should show strain trying to go warp 9, unless the install new engines or new tech). Smoke and mirrors is entirely acceptable and preferable to displaying ignorance out in the open. No explanation is almost always better than an implausible explanation.

Plus any show should get bonus points for getting the physics right.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

lpwcomp said:


> *sigh* No. Willing suspension of disbelief and dramatic license only work so far. As an instance of the latter - there was absolutely no reason for them to send the missile the long way just so someone could say "it's passing over Indiana"..


Going the shortest distance from the Indian Ocean to Washington D.C would be have the Trident headed west and fighting the spin of the Earth, which at the equator is 465.1 m/s. This is a significant amount of speed.

Let's assume that, since the normal range of the missile is not far enough to get it to Washington DC, they decided to take advantage of that 465.1 m/s and go with an orbital insertion. Lets also assume that the MVR warhead was substituted with a lighter, top secret, single warhead that allowed the Trident to place its payload in orbit. A trajectory that had reentry over Indiana and passing over the Washington monument is somewhat more plausible.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Going the shortest distance from the Indian Ocean to Washington D.C would be have the Trident headed west and fighting the spin of the Earth, which at the equator is 465.1 m/s. This is a significant amount of speed.
> 
> Let's assume that, since the normal range of the missile is not far enough to get it to Washington DC, they decided to take advantage of that 465.1 m/s and go with an orbital insertion. Lets also assume that the MVR warhead was substituted with a lighter, top secret, single warhead that allowed the Trident to place its payload in orbit. A trajectory that had reentry over Indiana and passing over the Washington monument is somewhat more plausible.


You're asking me to "assume" an awful lot. You're also ignoring the fact that if you launch to the west, your target is moving toward you. Also, even if they could put it into orbit (which would be a treaty violation), it is extremely unlikely the orbit would be inclined enough to pass over Indiana, especially since you then wouldn't get the full benefit of the Earth's equatorial velocity. Sorry, just won't wash.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Only people here could make watching TV boring by taking a story about a rogue nuclear sub and turning it into a physics class.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Only people here could make watching TV boring by taking a story about a rogue nuclear sub and turning it into a physics class.


Apparently, some people are able to completely turn their brains off and accept any ridiculous premise without question.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> Apparently, some people are able to completely turn their brains off and accept any ridiculous premise without question.


Haven't been hanging out here long, have you...


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> Apparently, some people are able to completely turn their brains off and accept any ridiculous premise without question.


And some of us have more important things to worry about than the details of a tv show, it's make believe. The fact that some STILL haven't realized that tv routinely ignores or bends the rules of real life in favor of telling a story is even more confusing.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Shhhh! Stop saying the make believe in this show is nothing to worry over. If you all keep that up, you might eventually have to convince the complaining poster that there are no issues of concern with stuff such as Santa Claus is Coming to Town or Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> And some of us have more important things to worry about than the details of a tv show, it's make believe. The fact that some STILL haven't realized that tv routinely ignores or bends the rules of real life in favor of telling a story is even more confusing.


And yet you have time to complain about this. Interesting priorities.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> Apparently, some people are able to completely turn their brains off and accept any ridiculous premise without question.


Enough people understand how a bullet fired from a gun works so that if one of the SEALs shot a rifle from the shore of the island and it hit someone in D.C. everyone would call B.S.

But if some other piece of hardware is shown operating inconsistent with it's limits it will be accepted if enough people don't understand how it works in the first place. By using something like a missile the writers have created constraints on how it's supposed to work. If they exceed those constraints it's either because the writers had no clue how it works or hope that enough of the viewers didn't.

This is different than if they'd had a man in tights and a cape fly out from DC to nudge the missile off course to land in the Atlantic. That would have either had a different set of limits ( red sun / yellow sun ) or possibly no limits at all if the guy in the cape wasn't Superman.

Just because the audience calls B.S. doesn't mean it was bad television. Some things you do just because it's convenient or dramatic. It's like magic trick. You know the girl wasn't really cut in half with the buzz saw and you never pretend you did, but you still enjoy the show.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Only people here could make watching TV boring by taking a story about a rogue nuclear sub and turning it into a physics class.


yup



lpwcomp said:


> Apparently, some people are able to completely turn their brains off and accept any ridiculous premise without question.


It's freaking TV!

I think that's sorta the point when you watch stuff on it.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> And yet you have time to complain about this. Interesting priorities.


You're right, what was I thinking. I better get back to my proposal to the UN on the mid east peace process.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Idearat said:


> Just because the audience calls B.S. doesn't mean it was bad television. Some things you do just because it's convenient or dramatic. It's like magic trick. You know the girl wasn't really cut in half with the buzz saw and you never pretend you did, but you still enjoy the show.


There are a lot of shows I enjoy where I have to ignore technical violations like these (any of the CSIs, for instance) or where all computers are connected and can be hacked in 5 minutes. I understand the need for dramatic effect or having to operate within the constraints of a 1 hour (42 min w/o commercials) TV show. It's when technical details are ignored for some _*cheap*_, totally unnecessary dramatic effect or because the writer simply can't be bothered. Both are signs of a _*lazy*_ writer.

I don't expect "Julius Caesar" or "Pygmalion" when I watch a TV show, but I don't expect "Beavis and Butt-head" either, particularly when it is at least nominally a techno-thriller.

I even liked "Top Gun" in spite of the fact that Maverick took off in one aircraft and landed in a different one, although that would explain how he managed to fire 2 missiles from the same rail. 

Edit: yes, I know "Top Gun" is a movie, but the same concepts apply.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> You're right, what was I thinking. I better get back to my proposal to the UN on the mid east peace process.


I'm sure your experience here will serve you well in that endeavor. Dealing with world leaders is a much easier task than dealing with most of the denizens of this forum ( and yes, I include myself).


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I'm afraid they emptied both barrels and don't have any ammo left...


----------



## agentpaul (Feb 28, 2002)

It's amazing how it take multiples to make a thread interesting and worthy of participating/reading but only one or two persons to ruin a thread.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Ereth said:


> It's interesting to see how far we've come, though. There's at least one shot in the show that involves information once so classified that it got Tom Clancy a stay with the FBI for several days, and we were instructed that we could not talk about "The Hunt for Red October" for risk of going to jail. When I saw it (originally in that movie) I practically lost it. Now, here we are 2 decades later, and it's on TV and not even a big deal any more. Time marches on.





busyba said:


> Stop teasing and tell us what the shot was.


Was this answered and I missed it? I did some googling and I haven't been able to find an answer, just a few posts that it's a myth and never happened. So I'm kind of curious.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 4, 1999)

Is it really that big of a deal to discuss some of the technical aspects of how real-world submarine warfare works? I can't speak for everyone, but I can still enjoy the show as well as a discussion on some of the questions that come up while watching it. 

I just didn't think anyone here had gone 'Comic Book Guy' on the episode.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm nit picking, as I really enjoy the show, but I believe the intake for the condensers are on the bottom, which meant they would be sucking up mud when the sub hit bottom. Clog the condensers enough would cause the reactor to trip due to loss of heat sink.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Another nitpick, when they showed the incoming bomber tracks they were different colors. The color indicates ID (Friend, Hostile, Unknown). They should have both been green to indicate friendly (although they were hostile for the sub) since the network is still being run by the Navy. Regardless of all that they should not have been different from each other.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't mind people questioning the physics of a show. I just don't get when they say they won't watch the show any more because of the questionable physics. There'd be precious few fictional tv shows to watch if the science had to be absolutely correct.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Ah, come on, I watch Doctor Who and that is all timey-whimey. 

I assume the sub is a brand new type of boomer so anything can go as far as it is concerned. It looks like a near term future SF show. I cannot imagine either of the two present Presidential candidates doing all of this so I assume after 2016. As for launch targeting. I find it weird that the Captain or actually the technician authorized to do it, not being able to change the target of the Trident. Reason, targets change as circumstances change. If you saw 60 minutes, you know that Pakistan is no friend of America but we treat it as one. That can change. Also we could suddenly have a war with Iran (God forbid) and the missiles would have to be retargeted. What if China invaded Taiwan. We have to be nimble with our targeting strategies.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Test said:


> Was this answered and I missed it? I did some googling and I haven't been able to find an answer, just a few posts that it's a myth and never happened. So I'm kind of curious.


I did not mean to be more cryptic than I had to be.

Dealing with Classified Information is tricky. At the time I left the service, this information was Classified "Top Secret", even though it was known to have been compromised to the Soviets by the traitor John Walker. When you leave you have to sign a document that you will treat all Classified information as Classified until such time as you are aware that the classification has changed.

It's been 20 years. It's entirely possible that the classification on this information has been changed. But since I have not seen a document stating that, I am bound by law to treat it as "Top Secret" and can't discuss it in detail. I probably shouldn't have said as much as I did.

To give a somewhat related example... Tom Clancy referenced an undersea listening network in "The Hunt for Red October". He was asked where he got this highly classified information and said that he basically looked at a map and figured out where such a thing would have to be, based on choke points. He was questioned quite extensively as to the source of his intel, and was eventually let go (but not without questions remaining).

We were told this. We were shown a TV Special that aired on the BBC in which British Journalists discussed such a site with Naval Officials and security personnel off-camera giving them "yes/no" on each question they were asked. This show aired roughly a year before the briefing in which I was told that even though this show had aired, and with Naval cooperation (as little as possible, I assure you), that the word that Tom Clancy used (and which someone else will likely post in response to this) was STILL classified and that we could be imprisoned for saying it out loud in a non-secure space.

There is such a thing as plausible deniability. If an author writes a book in which he says there is a top secret facility named "something" at a specific spot on the planet, the Government can say "well, he's just a fiction writer", but if a US Navy -trained Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator were to say the same thing, then they have no deniability, it's "official" at that point (much as the NSA no longer was deniable as "No Such Agency" after Vice-President Dan Quayle publicly thanked them in a speech after Gulf War I).

So, there's a shot in this TV show, in the pilot, that shows a piece of information that was classified as "Top Secret" at the time I separated from the service. A similar shot occurs in "The Hunt for Red October". I googled and I could not find any de-classification information, though I did find an article in 2007 of a photo of a Los Angeles class submarine, that the DoD would not confirm or deny, that has a similar problem.

My information is 20 years old. I do not know which of it is still classified and I likely should have just kept my mouth shut. I was just surprised to see how casually something like that appears on TV is all.

I hate this post. It reads like I'm trying to make myself sound important. I'm not. And I wouldn't make it except that people have asked several times now and I hate to leave it hanging like that. At the very least I want you to know why I can't tell you in more detail what I was talking about.


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I did not mean to be more cryptic than I had to be.
> 
> Dealing with Classified Information is tricky. At the time I left the service, this information was Classified "Top Secret", even though it was known to have been compromised to the Soviets by the traitor John Walker. When you leave you have to sign a document that you will treat all Classified information as Classified until such time as you are aware that the classification has changed.
> 
> ...


So you still not gonna tell us huh (j/K)


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

sieglinde said:


> I assume the sub is a brand new type of boomer so anything can go as far as it is concerned.


It's an Ohio class submarine which is a 1970s design.



sieglinde said:


> As for launch targeting. I find it weird that the Captain or actually the technician authorized to do it, not being able to change the target of the Trident. Reason, targets change as circumstances change. If you saw 60 minutes, you know that Pakistan is no friend of America but we treat it as one. That can change. Also we could suddenly have a war with Iran (God forbid) and the missiles would have to be retargeted. What if China invaded Taiwan. We have to be nimble with our targeting strategies.


Targets change and new fire orders are issued over the EAM each time. The launch codes are supposedly encoded with the coordinates so changing the coordinates would require new launch codes which can only be issued remotely by a central command.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

I'd guess what Ereth is talking about has to do with the existence of an Antartica secondary network, but it's just a guess (and he can neither confirm nor deny).


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

first off to those that question autheticity...would a TV crew be allowed in a sub in this manner..nuff said 

i love when the secretary or admiral or whoever he was had the phone taken from him.combined with him not knowing what is going on should make this somewhat interesting. also the dad/daughter aspect is a bit trite but welcomed in this case. 

i dont get why the guy in the bar said that he was responsible for this when he wasnt even on the sub at the time? 

i was waiting for someone to break off the key in one of the locks, that would have been a priceless moment..cant turn the lock, no firing. 

i guess it's safe to assume the USA has no defense from its own weapons then? i sure hope no enemies ever get one of our subs then? and what about the secret controls to remotely control something when the enemy gets it (ala the codes in star trek)..poor Khan

edit forgot one thing, i'm also very happy to see a guy from the UNIT which i faithfully rewatch when all the reruns are on...the Unit guys appear regularly in other shows too..especially mac


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

newsposter said:


> i dont get why the guy in the bar said that he was responsible for this when he wasnt even on the sub at the time?


The guy in the bar was one of the SEAL team that the sub had extracted from Pakistan at the beginning of the episode. Presumably, their mission in Pakistan had something to do with Pakistan getting nuked.

The other SEAL that was in the hospital was yelling something about bad intel, which probably also has something to do with the mission that probably had something to do with Pakistan getting nuked.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

newsposter said:


> first off to those that question autheticity...would a TV crew be allowed in a sub in this manner..nuff said


Go to YouTube and search for "life aboard a submarine". You'll find tons of videos shot aboard US nuclear subs, including some by the US Navy itself.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

Hey Ereth/other military types -- how about Ms. Hottie Military Scientist just walking up to Admiral Whatshisface and blurting out a few details of her fancy gizmo installed on the Colorado?

Presumably those details are highly classified. She shoulda been frogmarched to jail for blurting out stuff like that out in the open.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Marco said:


> Hey Ereth/other military types -- how about Ms. Hottie Military Scientist just walking up to Admiral Whatshisface and blurting out a few details of her fancy gizmo installed on the Colorado?
> 
> Presumably those details are highly classified. She shoulda been frogmarched to jail for blurting out stuff like that out in the open.


Well sure, but I've come to expect this from TV shows. In real life contractors don't blurt out classified info in public. That's what Congressmen are for. 

Of course the other thing that struck me was that in real life the person running such a project would really be a middle-aged man and not a hot chick. Not that I wouldn't rather see miss hottie on TV.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Marco said:


> Hey Ereth/other military types -- how about Ms. Hottie *Weapons Lobbyist* just walking up to Admiral Whatshisface and blurting out a few details of her fancy gizmo installed on the Colorado?
> 
> Presumably those details are highly classified. She shoulda been frogmarched to jail for blurting out stuff like that out in the open.


FYP. She's not a scientist. She's a PharmaGirl for the weapons industry.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> FYP. She's not a scientist. She's a PharmaGirl for the weapons industry.


She might be a step or two up from that also though... If I heard correctly, I believe her last name is the same as the name of the company she works for (owns?).


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Was that in his office? or outside? His office could have been cleared for open discussion of classified material.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> Was that in his office? or outside? His office could have been cleared for open discussion of classified material.


IIRC it was in the lobby. There may have even been press around, I think.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

busyba said:


> IIRC it was in the lobby. There may have even been press around, I think.


She definitely confronted him in the lobby. There were other people within earshot; I don't recall specifically if they were reporters or not.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

busyba said:


> She might be a step or two up from that also though... If I heard correctly, I believe her last name is the same as the name of the company she works for (owns?).


You're probably right. She did have quite the fancy pad in DC, so she's probably a partner or principal in a lobbying firm. She's definitely a lobbyist for the weapons manufacturers, though, and *not* a scientist.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

DreadPirateRob said:


> You're probably right. She did have quite the fancy pad in DC, so she's probably a partner or principal in a lobbying firm. She's definitely a lobbyist for the weapons manufacturers, though, and *not* a scientist.


I couldn't get a handle on WHAT she is, other than way hawt. Engineer? Lobbyist? Project manager? Salesperson? Whatever it is, it's highly implausible. 

Also, I have TWoP to thank for teaching me the word "fivehead" concerning Autumn Reeser's, um, cranial feature.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Marco said:


> H... She shoulda been frogmarched to jail for blurting out stuff like that out in the open.





Dawghows said:


> She definitely confronted him in the lobby. There were other people within earshot; I don't recall specifically if they were reporters or not.


Not "out in the open"; they were not, however, in an office. No reporters that I could see. All I could see were a couple of aides. May have been an office lobby or vestibule area. But it definitely was NOT "out in the open"...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

all that matters is that she is a hottie.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

squint said:


> It's an Ohio class submarine which is a 1970s design.


Giving the lead time time to build this class of submarines, the Ohio class replacement design will be 10 to 15 years old when the first replacement is commissioned, 2029 projected date.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> FYP. She's not a scientist. She's a PharmaGirl for the weapons industry.


Wait, how do you know that? I sure thought she was hot + designed the system being tested on the sub. (In other words "hot scientist" that mostly only exists on TV and in the movies.. Though to paraphrase Adam Carolla, women in other countries are often really pretty AND have a brain-based job&#8230;.. BTW, I say this as someone who thinks a combination of Amy Farrah Fowler + Bernadette is hotter than the hot chick on Last Resort.)


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Not that I want to stir anyting up, BUT just for general information, I got these from a similar thread in another forum so I thought I'd copy them here to see what THIS forum thinks about the sentiment. The elipses (...) are NOT mine, they were in the text when I found it.



> As a submarine veteran I had no desire to watch this program. It is beyond a stretch of the imagination that something like this could take place. I normally can suspend my disbelief but not this time. I don't think too many old boat sailors will be watching. Not that it will make a difference to ABC.





> I wrote ABC an email today...about this New series "LAST RESORT" that is extremely critical and disrespectful of those who wear Dolphins...
> I'm definitely not thin skinned...but if these network entertainment entities can produce Cop Shows or Medical programs.. with some degree of accuracy... then By God they owe it to those of us who wear Dolphins.. to portray us as accurately as possible..
> To suggest we are fragile... or disrespectful of authority or to each other... to the exclusion of the Mission...the boat...and the brotherhood.. pisses me off to no end... To not even be able to get it right in terms of technical accuracy.. terminology etc... is as ridiculous as it gets... Calling a Head on a boat a Latrine.. is pathetic inaccuracy and ignorance.. Yea its only TV...but it is I feel encumbent on all of us.. in our interactions with the public... friends etc.. to always strive to set the record straight. and to continue to raise the BULL**** Flag at every oppurtunity with ABC
> To Those of us qualified on Submarines, and proudly wear our Dolphins.. This ABC program, does very little to honor, and respect Our Brotherhood... and the Submarine Force.


He seems a bit perturbed. I am not really qualified to comment on much of what was said, but do I have a question. Whan were the sailors portrayed as fragile or disrespectful of authority? The requested confirmation of launch orders through normal channels rather than back channels, which didn't seem disrespectful to me, but prudent. Was there something else I missed?

About the latrine comment, he is right, it's just as easy to get these things right.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

The only reason he thinks cop and medical shows are realistic is because he is totally ignorant of those fields.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

eddyj said:


> The only reason he thinks cop and medical shows are realistic is because he is totally ignorant of those fields.


I was actually going to say this. It's always the odd story that you actually KNOW something about that you flag as inaccurate, be it in the newspaper, 60 Minutes, or a television drama. Like cop shows that have the police shooting wildly at a suspect fleeing through a crowd, with no fear of hitting any of the bystanders.

It's merely entertainment, but some of it really annoys some people.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

A lot of people seem to be forgetting this is a TV show. It isnt really life and doesnt have to follow real life orders. Take it as it is a program to entertain you. Stop taking it so seriously.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

eddyj said:


> The only reason he thinks cop and medical shows are realistic is because he is totally ignorant of those fields.





Church AV Guy said:


> I was actually going to say this. It's always the odd story that you actually KNOW something about that you flag as inaccurate, be it in the newspaper, 60 Minutes, or a television drama. Like cop shows that have the police shooting wildly at a suspect fleeing through a crowd, with no fear of hitting any of the bystanders.
> 
> It's merely entertainment, but some of it really annoys some people.


Indeed.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that the only realistic or accurate thing about legal dramas is that they wear suits to court and the judges wear black robes. My wife is a shrink, and she similarly rolls her eyes at the depictions of therapy/counseling sessions.


----------



## vman (Feb 9, 2001)

Bierboy said:


> Not "out in the open"; they were not, however, in an office. No reporters that I could see. All I could see were a couple of aides. May have been an office lobby or vestibule area. But it definitely was NOT "out in the open"...


Doesn't matter. Unless she is in a secure environment (which is a place no cell phones etc are allowed and are small rooms) she cannot say ths stuff.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

mattack said:


> Wait, how do you know that? I sure thought she was hot + designed the system being tested on the sub. (In other words "hot scientist" that mostly only exists on TV and in the movies.. Though to paraphrase Adam Carolla, women in other countries are often really pretty AND have a brain-based job.. BTW, I say this as someone who thinks a combination of Amy Farrah Fowler + Bernadette is hotter than the hot chick on Last Resort.)


Wikipedia describes her as "Kylie Sinclair, a lobbyist for her family's weapons manufacturing company".


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Church AV Guy said:


> Not that I want to stir anyting up, BUT just for general information, I got these from a similar thread in another forum so I thought I'd copy them here to see what THIS forum thinks about the sentiment. The elipses (...) are NOT mine, they were in the text when I found it.
> 
> He seems a bit perturbed. I am not really qualified to comment on much of what was said, but do I have a question. Whan were the sailors portrayed as fragile or disrespectful of authority? The requested confirmation of launch orders through normal channels rather than back channels, which didn't seem disrespectful to me, but prudent. Was there something else I missed?
> 
> About the latrine comment, he is right, it's just as easy to get these things right.


Is he talking about the line "they have 'latrine duty' for the next week"? Is he really upset that the line wasn't "they have head duty"?


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> Not that I want to stir anyting up, BUT just for general information, I got these from a similar thread in another forum so I thought I'd copy them here to see what THIS forum thinks about the sentiment. The elipses (...) are NOT mine, they were in the text when I found it.
> 
> He seems a bit perturbed. I am not really qualified to comment on much of what was said, but do I have a question. Whan were the sailors portrayed as fragile or disrespectful of authority? The requested confirmation of launch orders through normal channels rather than back channels, which didn't seem disrespectful to me, but prudent. Was there something else I missed?
> 
> About the latrine comment, he is right, it's just as easy to get these things right.


I spent eight years in the surface Navy (aircraft carriers, ex navy nuke) and I enjoy the show. In the nuclear power field it was our duty to challenge any order we felt was improper, knowing full well the Captain could over ride any safety feature except for not violating a cold water interlock, the only safety rule that used the word "shall", as in shalll not viloate.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> As a lawyer, I can tell you that the only realistic or accurate thing about legal dramas is that they wear suits to court and the judges wear black robes. My wife is a shrink, and she similarly roles her eyes at the depictions of therapy/counseling sessions.


As a computer programmer, I don't think you'll be surprised to find that nothing anyone does on computers on TV, and especially programming them, bears any resemblance to reality too. I guess the real mystery is whether there's any professional profession that's accurately depicted.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hunter Green said:


> I guess the real mystery is whether there's any professional profession that's accurately depicted.


Well, I'm a landlord, and we're usually portrayed as greedy, money-grubbing, semi-sociopathic bastards.

So that's pretty much dead-on.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Indeed.
> 
> As a lawyer, I can tell you that the only realistic or accurate thing about legal dramas is that they wear suits to court and the judges wear black robes. My wife is a shrink, and she similarly roles her eyes at the depictions of therapy/counseling sessions.


soo mr sopranos sessions in therapy never would happen ?


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> As a computer programmer, I don't think you'll be surprised to find that nothing anyone does on computers on TV, and especially programming them, bears any resemblance to reality too. I guess the real mystery is whether there's any professional profession that's accurately depicted.


but i always wondered about the stuff on the computers..if it's ON the computer someone did SOMETHING to put it on the computer..no? or is it just CGI..but again. that IS being done..so how is it not real?



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I'm a landlord, and we're usually portrayed as greedy, money-grubbing, semi-sociopathic bastards.
> 
> So that's pretty much dead-on.


you forgot 'that installs hidden cameras to spy"


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

newsposter said:


> you forgot 'that installs hidden cameras to spy"


What a terrible, horrible, EVIL notion! What kind of twisted, evil mind do you have?!?

Need a job?


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I have a whole list of favorite mistakes in shows. My all time favorite was an episode of Six Million Dollar Man which took place in Valdevostok. They used the East German symbol instead of a Soviet symbol in the HQ of where ever he was. My remark was "Germany must have won the war." 

As for professions, yes, the computer stuff is really wrong. I wish my internet connection and computer were that fast. I wish I could do all those things on my smart phone that they do and I have a good smart phone. As a librarian, I will say that "Desk Set" with Katherine Hepburn was very accurate. All of us are like her character.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

newsposter said:


> but i always wondered about the stuff on the computers..if it's ON the computer someone did SOMETHING to put it on the computer..no? or is it just CGI..but again. that IS being done..so how is it not real?


Anyone can easily make a computer generate an animated screen that _looks_ like it's doing something, but that doesn't mean that the computer is actually doing what it looks like it's doing.

It's as if you asked me a series of difficult math questions and I would speak the correct answers, but not because I was doing the calculations in my head, but instead because I was reading the answers out loud from a script.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

vman said:


> Doesn't matter. Unless she is in a secure environment (which is a place no cell phones etc are allowed and are small rooms) she cannot say ths stuff.


Says who?....


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

busyba said:


> Anyone can easily make a computer generate an animated screen that _looks_ like it's doing something, but that doesn't mean that the computer is actually doing what it looks like it's doing.
> 
> It's as if you asked me a series of difficult math questions and I would speak the correct answers, but not because I was doing the calculations in my head, but instead because I was reading the answers out loud from a script.


Off topic for the thread, but one of my pet peeves about TV computer use (especially in police/crime shows) is "enhancing" a photo to see someone's face, a license plate, etc. A digital photo only has whatever data the camera captured, and you can try to enhance some detail to a certain degree, but you are never going to take a completely blurry photo and generate a crystal clear image of exactly what is in the photo. Instead of going through this ridiculous hoop of enhancing the photo (which always works and leads to the right suspect) why don't the writers just allow a clear photo in the first place. It's not like the 15 seconds of conversation that goes like this is compelling:

Detective, "We pulled this image from the ATM security camera, but I can't make out his face".

Tech, "Hmm.. maybe I can enhance this and get you a face..."

<insert sound of keyboard being used and a fancy CGI of blurry picture resolving itself into clear picture of suspect>

Tech, "Got it. That's your guy!"

Detective, "Thanks! You just solved the case!"

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to tonight's episode. I hope they can keep up with the promise the pilot showed.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What a terrible, horrible, EVIL notion! What kind of twisted, evil mind do you have?!?
> 
> Need a job?


just cause i have boxes of pinhole cameras and hundreds of feet of cable in my carpeted van doesnt mean i am twisted


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Flop said:


> Off topic for the thread, but one of my pet peeves about TV computer use (especially in police/crime shows) is "enhancing" a photo to see someone's face, a license plate, etc. A digital photo only has whatever data the camera captured, and you can try to enhance some detail to a certain degree, but you are never going to take a completely blurry photo and generate a crystal clear image of exactly what is in the photo.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

brianric said:


> Giving the lead time time to build this class of submarines, the Ohio class replacement design will be 10 to 15 years old when the first replacement is commissioned, 2029 projected date.


About 20 years ago I served on USS Nevada, SSBN-733, an Ohio-class boomer. It just got out of 2.5 _years_ in Bremerton, undergoing an engineering refueling and overhaul. I wouldn't be surprised to see her in service past 2029. Especially with the staggering cost of replacements.

I really enjoyed the show. I can shut my brain off and not nitpick, or, just laugh at the inaccuracies. I treat the show more as sf that takes place in the near future, like a Tom Clancy novel, and don't have much problem ignoring some technical details, like tech we don't have, or capabilities beyond the present day.

For example, who is to say Colorado isn't carrying yet to be developed D6 Trident III missiles? Or the TLAM-N has been reintroduced as a subsurface attack version that is a nuclear torpedo? Or we've got ASROCs again? Colorado has a fictional loadout as there aren't any Ohio's that carry Tomahawks and Tridents. The Ohio SSGN conversions have 2 tubes for SEAL ops, and 22 tubes with 7 Tomahawks each.

Nevada, for example, originally had C4 Tridents but just got D5 Trident IIs as part of her overhaul. D5s have a significantly longer range than C4s. Maybe a fictional D6 has an even longer range.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

newsposter said:


> but i always wondered about the stuff on the computers..if it's ON the computer someone did SOMETHING to put it on the computer..no? or is it just CGI..but again. that IS being done..so how is it not real?


I would guess that most of the time the actual screen being filmed does not have anything on it of note and they are adding the screens in later. It is annoying to film a computer monitor. Maybe it's gotten a lot better but it doesn't seem worth the effort to make a screen actually have the content we see on the screen.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> Or just let it play when you're not actually watching the TV. That way you accomplish both goals. Giving it ratings, while still not getting caught up in the show before you know if it will be canceled or not.


Surprisde nobody responded to this. That only works if you're a Nielsen household, and those people definitely know who they are. Just watching the show on your DVR sometime within 3 days after it airs won't help the ratings at all if you're not a Nielsen household.


sieglinde said:


> I have a political question. There was a rumor that Nixon tried to order one of the air force squadrons but the order was ignored. There were no such rumors during the Clinton Impeachment and trial. Could this proposed future President be trying to start a war in order to avoid impeachment and trial?


I think that's exactly what's going to be going on. Current POTUS is trying to start a war so that the impeachment folks will back off. And I think it's pretty clear the SEALs were carrying out the first part of that plan, which is what led to the nukes being fired at Pakistan.


RGM1138 said:


> BTW, any seafood lovers on the East coast, don't bother to cook your food. It should be nuclear stir-fried for the next 50 years or so.


My thoughts exactly. He's just destroyed the east-coast fishing industry for the next generation. That's not going to be taken lightly.


speedcouch said:


> I enjoyed the show though not quite as much as I hoped. Had a few issues having worked for Navy for much of my career, but can generally suspend disbelief for drama. *My biggest complaint though was that they'd contact the Admiral and the guy's wife. Really stupid as they'd have to know they be tracked by those calls.*


What was the problem with that? It's not like they were trying to hide. The Navy knew where they were (the bombers were coming for them) and then when he released that video, he clearly stated to the world where they were. No reason they should care that their calls to their loved ones were being traced.

I really enjoyed the show. My only concern is that its in a brutally-competitive timeslot where ABC hasn't had any success in years (Missing, Charlie's Angels, My Generation, Flash Forward, Threat Matrix, etc.). I really wish they would have put this show at 10 pm where it would have faced less competition. I also think 8 pm is kind of early in the evening for something that's intended to be action-packed and intense. Not that there's anything inappropriate, but that usually the 8 pm shows are a little lighter as people are still settling in from work, eating dinner, getting kids to bed, etc. I sure hope ratings for tonights episode hold up.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I agree about the 8pm thing. I was really surprised that they chose such an early time slot for this.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Agreed. It definitely seems like a 9 pm/10 pm show to me.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

justen_m said:


> About 20 years ago I served on USS Nevada, SSBN-733, an Ohio-class boomer. It just got out of 2.5 _years_ in Bremerton, undergoing an engineering refueling and overhaul. I wouldn't be surprised to see her in service past 2029. Especially with the staggering cost of replacements.


You will not see extension of life on the Ohio class due to the fact that a refuel is needed to extend their lives. The reactor core on the Ohio class was designed for twenty years, so one refueling was required for the 40 year life of the sub. Ideally there was suppose to be 12 boomers at any one time, four out at sea, four in training, and four in port/overhaul. Unfortunately Obama delayed by two years in the boomer replacement, so the first replacement won't take place until 2031. By that time the Navy will be down to 10 boomers. It will take the Navy 14 years to get back to an ideal 12 boomers, based on a 40 year life cycle of the reactor core.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

newsposter said:


> but i always wondered about the stuff on the computers..if it's ON the computer someone did SOMETHING to put it on the computer..no? or is it just CGI..but again. that IS being done..so how is it not real?


[email protected]$ Lost used an Apple II, but the screens it put out (which IIRC were a vaguely plausible text font on a green screen) used some wonky smooth scrolling thing that doesn't exist.

BLECK. Do it right or don't do it at all.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I'm a landlord, and we're usually portrayed as greedy, money-grubbing, semi-sociopathic bastards.
> 
> So that's pretty much dead-on.


You win the thread.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

tiams said:


> Is he talking about the line "they have 'latrine duty' for the next week"? Is he really upset that the line wasn't "they have head duty"?


Yes. The Navy has specific language they use. It isn't optional. There are no latrines and nobody in the Navy for any length of time would use that word. Marines also use the word "head", so nobody on that vessel would ever use the word "latrine".


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Ereth said:


> Yes. The Navy has specific language they use. It isn't optional. There are no latrines and nobody in the Navy for any length of time would use that word. Marines also use the word "head", so nobody on that vessel would ever use the word "latrine".


Marines are sailors. They speak like us Ereth.

But special ops on sups? My dad (us army mediic nam) and uncle (same) have different lingo than us squids. Are all the Seals acutally SEALs? Marine corps force recon and army rangers could be there too. DELETING STUFF.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

justen_m said:


> Marines are sailors. They speak like us Ereth.
> 
> But special ops on sups? My dad (us army mediic nam) and uncle (same) have different lingo than us squids. Are all the Seals acutally SEALs? Marine corps force recon and army rangers could be there too. DELETING STUFF.


Perhaps, but the person who used the word latrine was the Chief of the Boat, was it not? Find me a Master Chief who has ever used the phrase "latrine duty". (And I say this as the son of a Master Chief).


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Ereth said:


> Perhaps, but the person who used the word latrine was the Chief of the Boat, was it not? Find me a Master Chief who has ever used the phrase "latrine duty". (And I say this as the son of a Master Chief).


Yeah, you are right there. I can't even imagine a COB who would use that term. But that was on boomers. Other than at Annapolis, we had zero ground training. Maybe on Nimitz's it was different? You ever fly Vikings and have time on one them?

On Nevada, we just assumed that if we launched, we were all dead, and everyone we knew was dead, too. Curious, did you have orders for after the launch? I mean, I assume we had some, but I wasn't privy to that.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

justen_m said:


> Yeah, you are right there. I can't even imagine a COB who would use that term. But that was on boomers. Other than at Annapolis, we had zero ground training. Maybe on Nimitz's it was different? You ever fly Vikings and have time on one them?


Nope. No haze-gray and underway for me. I never flew in a plane that had a tailhook. (I flew with a guy who transitioned from S-3 to P-3, and he was on Nimitz during "The Final Countdown" filming, and also the crossing of the line-of-death that got the F-14s the 2 kills of Libyan fighters).



> On Nevada, we just assumed that if we launched, we were all dead, and everyone we knew was dead, too. Curious, did you have orders for after the launch? I mean, I assume we had some, but I wasn't privy to that.


I assume you've read "On the Beach".

Our orders, as ASW, were very specific and unpleasant.

I always thought it was rather appropriate that we always chased the Boomers and the S-3s and Helos chased the Fast Attacks (generally). In each case, the platform you are chasing was designed to eliminate your home, and you've have no place to land if they succeeded. Definite incentive there. 

But really, I'm sure we had the same thought. If you fired, and the Soviets fired, was there anybody who actually WANTED to survive to go home? The world was not going to be a very good place after that.

Even the nukes that went into Pakistan in this TV show (and the one offshore on the East Coast) are going to be significant issues if the writers aren't complete idiots. (Wait, we did a nuclear first strike on a nuclear capable country, without any warning or buildup... ok, the writers ARE idiots, nevermind).


----------

