Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

toonkee

Coronavirus Politics

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

 

Pointing out that Crozier likely would not welcome folks in his command going outside the chain of command is pro Trump?  This guy was not the captain of the Pacific Princess.  He was in command of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.  The one aircraft carrier forward deployed in the Pacific.  He announced to the whole world it was having problems.  Regardless of Trump, what Crozier did was bad.  It might have been for noble reasons, but he still should not have done it.  

I have not had a class in military ethics so I say this without certainty and I will defer to @sean327 to correct me.  But I believe if you receive an order that causes you to put the lives under your command under reckless endangerment you would be expected to disobey that order.  But given it is the military I am not certain if and how far that extends.  I will be interested in his answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

I have not had a class in military ethics so I say this without certainty and I will defer to @sean327 to correct me.  But I believe if you receive an order that causes you to put the lives under your command under reckless endangerment you would be expected to disobey that order.  But given it is the military I am not certain if and how far that extends.  I will be interested in his answer.

Let's assume you are right.  The crew was not facing reckless endangerment.  I read that not even one of the crew required hospitalization.  Certainly things were not going in a good direction with the number of infections on the ship.  There seems to be a huge assumption all around that the Navy planned to park the Roosevelt off the coast somewhere and let some version of the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner play out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crozier likely went up his chain of command and was ignored.

So in the interest of the lives of the men and women he was responsible for, took the next step sacrificing himself for them

He's a patriot and a hero.

 

Period 

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I have not had a class in military ethics so I say this without certainty and I will defer to @sean327 to correct me.  But I believe if you receive an order that causes you to put the lives under your command under reckless endangerment you would be expected to disobey that order.  But given it is the military I am not certain if and how far that extends.  I will be interested in his answer.

The fallacy here is that many people believe the Chain of Command was receptive to his concerns. I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t. I’m looking at this from my experience of 23 years on active duty. There were more times than I can count were I watched the Chain of Command either outright ignore valid concerns, or just dismiss them because that was the easy thing to do. Here is where it gets tricky, you have the legal responsibility to disobey an illegal order, but you will certainly feel the fallout until the investigation is concluded. You don’t have any legal remedy when your Chain of Command isn’t receptive to your concerns especially in this case. He wasn’t issued an illegal order so the only remedy he had was to fall on his sword and do the honorable thing for his crew. We don’t and probably never will know the entire story here, but I’m pretty sure the Capt knew and understood the ramifications of his actions, yet he had balls enough to take a stand for his crew. I think he made the correct call, his ship wasn’t going to be a combat effective asset within a few days, so sucking it up and driving forward wasn’t an option. Had he sucked it up and every member of his crew became ill the outcome for his career would’ve been the same. He was in a no win situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sean327 said:

The fallacy here is that many people believe the Chain of Command was receptive to his concerns. I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t. I’m looking at this from my experience of 23 years on active duty. There were more times than I can count were I watched the Chain of Command either outright ignore valid concerns, or just dismiss them because that was the easy thing to do. Here is where it gets tricky, you have the legal responsibility to disobey an illegal order, but you will certainly feel the fallout until the investigation is concluded. You don’t have any legal remedy when your Chain of Command isn’t receptive to your concerns especially in this case. He wasn’t issued an illegal order so the only remedy he had was to fall on his sword and do the honorable thing for his crew. We don’t and probably never will know the entire story here, but I’m pretty sure the Capt knew and understood the ramifications of his actions, yet he had balls enough to take a stand for his crew. I think he made the correct call, his ship wasn’t going to be a combat effective asset within a few days, so sucking it up and driving forward wasn’t an option. Had he sucked it up and every member of his crew became ill the outcome for his career would’ve been the same. He was in a no win situation.

This is a tremendously odd story and I think the bolded sentence is the most important thing.  He had a superior on the ship.  We don't know what the Navy's plan was for the ship.  I doubt they are going to share the plan for when an aircraft carrier is going to get taken out by a virus.  I find it very hard to believe the plan was to just let the virus play out on the ship.  I suppose it is possible, but I have more faith in the military than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sean327 said:

The fallacy here is that many people believe the Chain of Command was receptive to his concerns. I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t. I’m looking at this from my experience of 23 years on active duty. There were more times than I can count were I watched the Chain of Command either outright ignore valid concerns, or just dismiss them because that was the easy thing to do. Here is where it gets tricky, you have the legal responsibility to disobey an illegal order, but you will certainly feel the fallout until the investigation is concluded. You don’t have any legal remedy when your Chain of Command isn’t receptive to your concerns especially in this case. He wasn’t issued an illegal order so the only remedy he had was to fall on his sword and do the honorable thing for his crew. We don’t and probably never will know the entire story here, but I’m pretty sure the Capt knew and understood the ramifications of his actions, yet he had balls enough to take a stand for his crew. I think he made the correct call, his ship wasn’t going to be a combat effective asset within a few days, so sucking it up and driving forward wasn’t an option. Had he sucked it up and every member of his crew became ill the outcome for his career would’ve been the same. He was in a no win situation.

Considering the Chain of Command includes Trump and his lap dog SecNav, I don't think anyone feels the chain of command was receptive.  It was more a question of who in the chain of command was going to fall on his sword as you put it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BYUcougfan said:

This is a tremendously odd story and I think the bolded sentence is the most important thing.  He had a superior on the ship.  We don't know what the Navy's plan was for the ship.  I doubt they are going to share the plan for when an aircraft carrier is going to get taken out by a virus.  I find it very hard to believe the plan was to just let the virus play out on the ship.  I suppose it is possible, but I have more faith in the military than that.

Actually their have been a number of leaks on this topic.   It was clear this emanated from civilian leadership and leaks have quoted Modley as saying Trump told him to fire Crozier.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

This is a tremendously odd story and I think the bolded sentence is the most important thing.  He had a superior on the ship.  We don't know what the Navy's plan was for the ship.  I doubt they are going to share the plan for when an aircraft carrier is going to get taken out by a virus.  I find it very hard to believe the plan was to just let the virus play out on the ship.  I suppose it is possible, but I have more faith in the military than that.

Talk to @East Coast Aztec about some of the dumb shit we’ve seen and get back to me. The Chain of Command is far from infallible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

British PM Boris Johnson admitted to ICU.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RSF said:

British PM Boris Johnson admitted to ICU.

Not good for our Limey friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Actually their have been a number of leaks on this topic.   It was clear this emanated from civilian leadership and leaks have quoted Modley as saying Trump told him to fire Crozier.   

Leaks have told us lots of things that have not been true or were just one side of a story or were just lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Talk to @East Coast Aztec about some of the dumb shit we’ve seen and get back to me. The Chain of Command is far from infallible.

No doubt you have seen obscenely stupid things, but do they really do stupid things with the safety of aircraft carriers?  I think a far more likely story is that the solution had a longer time line than he liked.  I can see where the Navy's first choice would not be to dock in Guam and offload sailors to hotels.  It does the same thing Crozier's letter did.  It advertises the mission readiness of the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another issue I have with the USS Roosevelt situation is the fact their port call to Vietnam wasn’t cancelled. That is on those above Capt Crozier. They knew the risks but continued with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

No doubt you have seen obscenely stupid things, but do they really do stupid things with the safety of aircraft carriers?  I think a far more likely story is that the solution had a longer time line than he liked.  I can see where the Navy's first choice would not be to dock in Guam and offload sailors to hotels.  It does the same thing Crozier's letter did.  It advertises the mission readiness of the ship.

See my post above this one. That port call was stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...