What Did You Watch? 2012-09-27 (Thursday)

[Ubiquitous]

On Google's birthday, I watched:

CLASH OF THE GODS:
"Medusa". The myth of medusa is examined.

CLASH OF THE GOFS
The myth of the Minotaur is examined.

THE O'REILLY FACTOR
• With Obama in the lead, can the Romney campaign put the pieces
together to make a comeback? Laura Ingraham and Megyn Kelly on
campaign 2012.
• Plus, watch what they’re saying … what body language reveals about the
candidates!

REMINGTON STEELE:
"Vintage Steele". The owner of a new winery calls Laura after he
discovers a body floating in one of his wine vats.

What did you watch?

--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."

[Obveeus]

"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> What did you watch?


GLEE: This episode was the best of the season so far as GLEE got back to
doing what it does best: telling the story of a bunch of characters that
are so completely self involved that they barely notice the plight of others
around them. Class elections are upon the high school and this year there
are VP candidates for no discernible reason. Brittany's campaign platform
is to get rid of summer vacation and get rid of weekends (yes, she really
misses Santana) so the kids can stay at school with their friends. Her VP
running mate, Artie, offers up a 96 point plan that will overhaul the entire
school. Blaine runs for President promising to get rid of Brittany because
she banned hair gel last year. Sam is his VP running mate and his pavlovian
instincts kick in when he goes on stage, causing him to strip. Blaine wins,
taking the last thing Brittany had going for her, but he isn't really happy
about it because Kurt isn't there to celebrate with him. Kurt is off in NYC
living the ultimate dream of getting a great job and working for a boss that
flat out tells him that she is incapable of saying no to anyone...and he
takes advantage of that (though inadvertently). Also in NYC is Rachel, who
is evolving, blossoming, and falling in love again...no reason for Finn to
get upset since he dumped her at graduation and hasn't spoken to her in over
4 months. Meanwhile, Schuster is bored with saving his own school of misfit
toys, so he decided to head off to Washington DC and save the entire US's
GLEE clubs and other arts programming that survives off public funding.
Becky was also back (I was wondering if she had been written out), but
literally didn't do anything. The music in this episode was entirely
forgettable. The Sarah Jessica Parker medley was the most dated/NYC/stage-y
song and was choreographed to match that feel. Overall, this episode didn't
even try in the music department...and I enjoyed having more storytelling to
replace the excessive musical numbers of the past few episodes.

ELEMENTARY: Sherlock Holmes told in modern times as yet another TV show
about a quirky detective solving dead body crimes. The plot was well done,
but most of these types of shows can say the same thing. I think it is just
very easy to write a 'mystery' where the twists/clues are revealed at the
speed of plot. The cast/chemistry was good here so the only question is:
are American TV viewers already at the saturation point with this genre? If
not, this show should survive, especially in such a weak timeslot.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

I was half wondering if that was scripted or ad-libbed.

The music in this episode was entirely
> forgettable. The Sarah Jessica Parker medley was the most dated/NYC/stage-y
> song and was choreographed to match that feel. Overall, this episode didn't
> even try in the music department...

Agreed, although I did sort of like the opening number.

and I enjoyed having more storytelling to
> replace the excessive musical numbers of the past few episodes.
>
> ELEMENTARY: Sherlock Holmes told in modern times as yet another TV show
> about a quirky detective solving dead body crimes. The plot was well done,
> but most of these types of shows can say the same thing. I think it is just
> very easy to write a 'mystery' where the twists/clues are revealed at the
> speed of plot. The cast/chemistry was good here so the only question is:
> are American TV viewers already at the saturation point with this genre?

If I can watch two different shows about a ghost, werewolf and vampire
living together, then I can watch two different shows about a modern day
Sherlock Holmes. :-)

If
> not, this show should survive, especially in such a weak timeslot.
>
>

I watched:


Last Resort – Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
communications facility. I didn’t like everything about the episode (I
won’t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot. Has that ever
happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
who is far from perfect. The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing
unnecessary distraction but hopefully the first time he gets in
Braugher’s way, Braugher will put an end to him with extreme prejudice.
I just hope the show doesn’t devolve into Jericho…


The X-Factor – A lot of bad singers made it through.


The Avengers (3D blu-ray) – Excellent all around. Since the commentary
is only on the 2D version, I guess I will be forced to sit through it
again later today. :-)


(Saved for later: The rest of the Thursday night lineup)

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <k43nnb$loe$1...@dont-email.me>,

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> What did you watch?

My late lab day, so just:

football - Apparently, I do indeed now get The NFL Network (it's channel
1355! that's *really* far up the dial!!). Anyway, somehow, Cleveland
managed to not totally suck against Baltimore! They still lost. :/

The Last Resort - Discussed in the New Shows Poll thread. Bottom line: I
liked the pilot, but there are still a zillion ways this show can go
wrong as a continuing series. We'll see...

Person of Interest - Great stuff (and also discussed in the New Shows
Poll). Suffice it to say, I can't wait to see where they go with this.
And it looks like Amy Acker will be back for at least next episode...

Recorded for later: Hollywood Heights (too close to the end of this not
to view every episode!), and The Big Bang Theory.

--
"Surf-crazed aliens... Of course." - Amber, "Alien Surf Girls",
Episode #1.1, "Wipeout".
Wait a minute... "Of course"?! "*Of course*"?!! Did I miss a step here??!!

[Dano]

"Arthur Lipscomb" wrote in message news:k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me...

I watched:


Last Resort – Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
communications facility. I didn’t like everything about the episode (I
won’t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot. Has that ever
happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
who is far from perfect. The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing
unnecessary distraction but hopefully the first time he gets in
Braugher’s way, Braugher will put an end to him with extreme prejudice.
I just hope the show doesn’t devolve into Jericho…

==============================================

Yeah. It's too bad. But I can't see this lasting. I love Braugher. The
rest...meh. Patrick has become a cartoon IMO. I guess this is meant to
launch Speedman as a TV star. Handsome guy. Boring.

I can't see how this one (as with Revolution) CAN'T go the way of Jericho.
In fact...both should hope to BE that popular.

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Dano wrote:


> Yeah. It's too bad. But I can't see this lasting. I love Braugher. The
> rest...meh. Patrick has become a cartoon IMO. I guess this is meant to
> launch Speedman as a TV star. Handsome guy. Boring.
>

"Felicity" back in 1998 launched Speedman as a tv star.

Michael

[Dano]

"Michael Black" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net...

===================================

My bad. Never watched a single episode of that. I had only seen him in
that werewolf/vampire movie...when I watched bits here and there on cable
when nothing else was on.

I'm sure he's a BIG star. A lot of award nominations has he?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>,

Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> Last Resort � Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
> sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
> by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
> communications facility. I didn�t like everything about the episode (I
> won�t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot.

LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there

Has that ever
> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
> who is far from perfect.

If by "A psychopathic traitor who needs to be put down like a rabid dog"
then I agree.

The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing
> unnecessary distraction but hopefully the first time he gets in
> Braugher�s way, Braugher will put an end to him with extreme prejudice.

Yeah, that's about the only way this show can get better.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[S. Newport]

From Obv...@aol.com "Obveeus" > GLEE: This episode was the best of the

season so far as GLEE got back to
> doing what it does best

---------------------------------------
SN: Watching GLEE makes you awful.

*********************************

Pets are life enriching. TV ratings are not.

[Obveeus]

"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> On 9/28/2012 4:15 AM, Obveeus wrote:

>> GLEE:>> Becky was also back (I was wondering if she had been written

>> out), but
>> literally didn't do anything.
>
> I was half wondering if that was scripted or ad-libbed.

Me too. It did seem like Jane Lynch just gave up and ad-libbed a solution.

> The music in this episode was entirely
>> forgettable. The Sarah Jessica Parker medley was the most
>> dated/NYC/stage-y
>> song and was choreographed to match that feel. Overall, this episode
>> didn't
>> even try in the music department...
>
> Agreed, although I did sort of like the opening number.

The Tears for Fears number is the one doing best on iTunes today, though
again, not well enough to make it on Billboard.

>> ELEMENTARY:

>> The cast/chemistry was good here so the only question is:
>> are American TV viewers already at the saturation point with this genre?
>
> If I can watch two different shows about a ghost, werewolf and vampire
> living together, then I can watch two different shows about a modern day
> Sherlock Holmes. :-)

True, but I was thinking more along the lines of how many quirky detective
shows can people stand before the saturation point is reached. It must be a
really easy genre to write given how many of these shows seem to crop up.

> Last Resort – Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies sketchy
> orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked by U.S.
> ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
> communications facility. I didn’t like everything about the episode (I
> won’t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot. Has that ever
> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
> who is far from perfect.

What? Are you suggesting that crazy talk, treason, and launching nukes
towards the USA isn't in the mold of 'perfect'?

I really don't know why the writers of this show expect the audience to
swallow him as 'the good guy'.

> The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing unnecessary distraction but
> hopefully the first time he gets in Braugher’s way, Braugher will put an
> end to him with extreme prejudice. I just hope the show doesn’t devolve
> into Jericho…

I'm not so sure. After all, Braugher's character is under the deluded
opinion that he hasn't hurt anyone. So far, the only one capable of killing
as needed seems to be the Admiral's daughter.

[Obveeus]

"S. Newport" <Newpor...@webtv.net> wrote:
> From Obv...@aol.com "Obveeus" > GLEE: This episode was the best of the
> season so far as GLEE got back to
>> doing what it does best
> ---------------------------------------
> SN: Watching GLEE makes you awful.

Thanks. I appreciate that you are full of awe for me.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

On 9/28/2012 9:54 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>> Last Resort ­ Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
>> sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
>> by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO

>> communications facility. I didnıt like everything about the episode (I
>> wonıt get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I

>> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot.
>
> LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
> ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there
>
> Has that ever
>> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
>> who is far from perfect.
>
> If by "A psychopathic traitor who needs to be put down like a rabid dog"
> then I agree.
>

That's the point. They have to *believe* he'll push the button or else
his threats aren't credible. Now it's not a matter of believing he'll
do, they know for a fact, he'll do it. Kudos to the marketing
department for not showing the detonation in the commercials.

I also suspect he has had a mental break under the pressure. It will be
interesting to see where they go with it. Going forward, I think it
might be better to openly make him an anti-hero (whose stability is not
entirely clear) instead of ignoring what he did in the pilot.

> The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing
>> unnecessary distraction but hopefully the first time he gets in

>> Braugherıs way, Braugher will put an end to him with extreme prejudice.

[Obveeus]

"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 9:54 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Last Resort ­ Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
>>> sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
>>> by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO

>>> communications facility. I didn¹t like everything about the episode (I
>>> won¹t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I

>>> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot.
>>
>> LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
>> ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there
>>
>> Has that ever
>>> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
>>> who is far from perfect.
>>
>> If by "A psychopathic traitor who needs to be put down like a rabid dog"
>> then I agree.
>
> That's the point. They have to *believe* he'll push the button or else
> his threats aren't credible. Now it's not a matter of believing he'll do,
> they know for a fact, he'll do it. Kudos to the marketing department for
> not showing the detonation in the commercials.

The problem now is that *if* the world actually believed he was a dangerous
nuclear power that they could not eliminate, they would just leave him
alone. In fact, isn't it almost a guarantee that bureaucracy would cause
the submarine/island to be left alone for months? So, all action in this
pretend world would now shift to the political struggle of the President to
avoid impeachment and the military struggle between wrongly attacked
Pakistan and the USA (with India, Isreal, UK, et al likely playing roles as
well). Meanwhile, all the people on the show we are watching should now be
stuck on the sidelines tanning and 'struggling' with the island mafia. I
don't see how they are going to create a credible plotline for how this
submarine will be doing anything interesting on a weekly basis, given where
the pilot concluded.

> I also suspect he has had a mental break under the pressure. It will be
> interesting to see where they go with it. Going forward, I think it might
> be better to openly make him an anti-hero (whose stability is not entirely
> clear) instead of ignoring what he did in the pilot.

Hard to claim he had a mental break when he explained the premise of acting
crazy before he started acting crazy.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k44nfc$ukk$1...@dont-email.me>,

Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> On 9/28/2012 9:54 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Last Resort ­ Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
> >> sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
> >> by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO

> >> communications facility. I didn¹t like everything about the episode (I
> >> won¹t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I

> >> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot.
> >
> > LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
> > ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there
> >
> > Has that ever
> >> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
> >> who is far from perfect.
> >
> > If by "A psychopathic traitor who needs to be put down like a rabid dog"
> > then I agree.
> >
>
> That's the point. They have to *believe* he'll push the button or else
> his threats aren't credible. Now it's not a matter of believing he'll
> do, they know for a fact, he'll do it. Kudos to the marketing
> department for not showing the detonation in the commercials.
>
> I also suspect he has had a mental break under the pressure. It will be
> interesting to see where they go with it. Going forward, I think it
> might be better to openly make him an anti-hero (whose stability is not
> entirely clear) instead of ignoring what he did in the pilot.

I agree, and the best way to do it is to have him summarily execute the
local mob.

[shawn]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:22:09 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

Yep, other than because the writers said so I can't see the point in
kidnapping those submariners. There's not really anywhere to hide on
the island for long so it's not like the mob guys can disappear (since
I assume they don't want to live in the jungle.) Given their
interaction with the sailors and that SEAL guy they've already
established who they are and that they are pissed off about people
coming into their territory. So they think 4 guys (or maybe a few
more) are going to be able to control a sub full of people with
weapons and a bunch of SEALs? I know the mob may not be the smartest
of the crowd but this idea looks to be one of the worst.

[shawn]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:34:39 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>


>

>> Last Resort – Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies sketchy
>> orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked by U.S.
>> ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
>> communications facility. I didn’t like everything about the episode (I
>> won’t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
>> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot. Has that ever
>> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
>> who is far from perfect.

>> The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing unnecessary distraction but
>> hopefully the first time he gets in Braugher’s way, Braugher will put an
>> end to him with extreme prejudice. I just hope the show doesn’t devolve
>> into Jericho…
>
>I'm not so sure. After all, Braugher's character is under the deluded
>opinion that he hasn't hurt anyone. So far, the only one capable of killing
>as needed seems to be the Admiral's daughter.
>
>

Except that Braugher has clearly killed at least tens of people if not
many more. That area of the ocean is going to have various boats and
ships out there plus planes flying in and out of Washington that would
be directly impacted by the explosion. Then there's the issue of
radioactive fallout. Is the wind blowing in towards Washington? I
don't really expect the show to deal with the issue but I would expect
the deaths from that explosion to total in the hundreds if not
thousands within a year or two.

[Obveeus]

"shawn" <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:34:39 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>

>>> Last Resort

>>I'm not so sure. After all, Braugher's character is under the deluded
>>opinion that he hasn't hurt anyone. So far, the only one capable of
>>killing
>>as needed seems to be the Admiral's daughter.
>>
>>
>
> Except that Braugher has clearly killed at least tens of people if not
> many more. That area of the ocean is going to have various boats and
> ships out there plus planes flying in and out of Washington that would
> be directly impacted by the explosion. Then there's the issue of
> radioactive fallout. Is the wind blowing in towards Washington? I
> don't really expect the show to deal with the issue but I would expect
> the deaths from that explosion to total in the hundreds if not
> thousands within a year or two.

I know he killed lots of people and you know he killed lots of people, but
the character, himself, declared that exploding a nuclear bomb off shore was
done so that no one would be hurt.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com>,

shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:34:39 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> >> Last Resort – Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies sketchy
> >> orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked by U.S.
> >> ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
> >> communications facility. I didn’t like everything about the episode (I
> >> won’t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
> >> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot. Has that ever
> >> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
> >> who is far from perfect.
>
> >> The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing unnecessary distraction but
> >> hopefully the first time he gets in Braugher’s way, Braugher will put an
> >> end to him with extreme prejudice. I just hope the show doesn’t devolve
> >> into Jericho…
> >
> >I'm not so sure. After all, Braugher's character is under the deluded
> >opinion that he hasn't hurt anyone. So far, the only one capable of killing
> >as needed seems to be the Admiral's daughter.
> >
> >
>
> Except that Braugher has clearly killed at least tens of people if not
> many more. That area of the ocean

And by 'ocean' you mean 'Annapolis'

is going to have various boats and
> ships out there plus planes flying in and out of Washington that would
> be directly impacted by the explosion. Then there's the issue of
> radioactive fallout. Is the wind blowing in towards Washington? I
> don't really expect the show to deal with the issue but I would expect
> the deaths from that explosion to total in the hundreds if not
> thousands within a year or two.

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> Except that Braugher has clearly killed at least tens of people if not
> many more. That area of the ocean is going to have various boats and
> ships out there plus planes flying in and out of Washington that would
> be directly impacted by the explosion. Then there's the issue of
> radioactive fallout. Is the wind blowing in towards Washington? I
> don't really expect the show to deal with the issue but I would expect
> the deaths from that explosion to total in the hundreds if not
> thousands within a year or two.

They said that the explosion was 200 miles off the coast (them showing
the explosion being clearly visible from D.C. was definitely an instance
of "poetic license"). Now, while there might have been a few boats 200
miles off the coast, I wouldn't expect there to be many...

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<ijball-NO_SPAM-FFE...@news.eternal-september.org>,

"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:

> In article <c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Except that Braugher has clearly killed at least tens of people if not
> > many more. That area of the ocean is going to have various boats and
> > ships out there plus planes flying in and out of Washington that would
> > be directly impacted by the explosion. Then there's the issue of
> > radioactive fallout. Is the wind blowing in towards Washington? I
> > don't really expect the show to deal with the issue but I would expect
> > the deaths from that explosion to total in the hundreds if not
> > thousands within a year or two.
>
> They said that the explosion was 200 miles off the coast (them showing
> the explosion being clearly visible from D.C. was definitely an instance
> of "poetic license"). Now, while there might have been a few boats 200
> miles off the coast, I wouldn't expect there to be many...

The also showed that the explosion was INLAND from the Statue of
Liberty. That ain't 200 miles out to sea, that's Annapolis.

[BTR1701]

In article <c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> Then there's the issue of radioactive fallout. Is the wind blowing
> in towards Washington?

Not usually.

[BTR1701]

In article
<ijball-NO_SPAM-FFE...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:

> In article <c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Except that Braugher has clearly killed at least tens of people if not
> > many more. That area of the ocean is going to have various boats and
> > ships out there plus planes flying in and out of Washington that would
> > be directly impacted by the explosion. Then there's the issue of
> > radioactive fallout. Is the wind blowing in towards Washington? I
> > don't really expect the show to deal with the issue but I would expect
> > the deaths from that explosion to total in the hundreds if not
> > thousands within a year or two.
>
> They said that the explosion was 200 miles off the coast (them showing
> the explosion being clearly visible from D.C. was definitely an instance
> of "poetic license").

Either that or the dialog was 'poetic license' and the visual was what
really happened.

Or they just don't know what they're doing in terms of telling a
coherent story.

[BTR1701]

In article <k46v37$k10$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Well, unless the character is supposed to be god, just 'cause he says
it, doesn't mean it's true.

[Dano]

"shawn" wrote in message news:c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com...

===========================================

I thought of that too at the time. The problem is...if he DIDN'T go through
with that much...they would never have been taken seriously. Whoever the
conspirators are have just nuked another nuclear power. The greater good
HAS to be considered. Cold blooded as that may be. The goal was to
demonstrate just the right degree of crazy he really IS...as they had
discussed earlier.

BTW...how do you explode a nuke high in the atmosphere WITHOUT spreading far
more fallout? I'm no scientist...but I gotta think that would make an even
greater impact...at the very least in the long run.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-6EF876...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

And he doesn't have a clew where it went off anyway; all he knows is
where he told somebody to send it.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-71F84E...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

Well, that last part is pretty certain.

[David Johnston]

On 9/29/2012 10:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <ijball-NO_SPAM-FFE...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Except that Braugher has clearly killed at least tens of people if not
>>> many more. That area of the ocean is going to have various boats and
>>> ships out there plus planes flying in and out of Washington that would
>>> be directly impacted by the explosion. Then there's the issue of
>>> radioactive fallout. Is the wind blowing in towards Washington? I
>>> don't really expect the show to deal with the issue but I would expect
>>> the deaths from that explosion to total in the hundreds if not
>>> thousands within a year or two.
>>
>> They said that the explosion was 200 miles off the coast (them showing
>> the explosion being clearly visible from D.C. was definitely an instance
>> of "poetic license").
>
> Either that or the dialog was 'poetic license'

It wasn't. It was exposition. Next episode will not deal with the
nuking of Annapolis

[David Johnston]

> In article <c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Then there's the issue of radioactive fallout.

"fallout" is the radioactive dust kicked up by a land explosion. It
doesn't happen at sea.

[BTR1701]

In article <k47bhc$l2$1...@dont-email.me>,

You're just picking and choosing which you want to believe. The dialog
isn't any more authoritative than the visual, even though they
contradict each other.

[BTR1701]

In article <k47bm0$l2$2...@dont-email.me>,

Ummm... yeah, it does. All that water vapor that's created by the
explosion and flung up into the high atmosphere? Yep, radioactive.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

While setting aside fishermen, passenger ships and other
civilians/military vessels that may have been out there, what about
radioactive fish (and other marine lifeforms) contaminating the food chain.

[David Johnston]

I'm accurately predicting that the next episode will not include the
fallout from nuking Annapolis. Whereas you are picking interpretations
based on the maximum stupidity possible.

[David Johnston]

On 9/29/2012 10:26 AM, Dano wrote:

> BTW...how do you explode a nuke high in the atmosphere WITHOUT spreading
> far more fallout?

Pretty easily. Fallout is as I've said, radioactive dust. You get a
lot more dust when you detonate against the ground. What does happen if
you detonate high in the air is that you get an EMP. So no long term
radiation problems, but short term you cause blackouts.

I'm no scientist...but I gotta think that would make
> an even greater impact...at the very least in the long run.
>

Nope.

[David Johnston]

But it isn't fallout, and it's a good deal less troublesome.

[Dano]

"David Johnston" wrote in message news:k47f70$m7g$2...@dont-email.me...

============================================

Well I guess that's a bit reassuring. And now that I consider it more
deeply...exploding that nuke in the ocean as they did would be extremely
catastrophic for all marine life for a long time. Say goodbye to fishing
within a pretty large radius.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k47eir$l1i$1...@dont-email.me>,

Well, they apparently dropped the thing in Chesapeake Bay.

"The waters of the Chesapeake Bay are the nation's largest and most
biologically diverse estuary, yielding more seafood than any of the 840
other estuaries"

So that's going to be a problem.

Most likely killed NCIS, too.

[David Johnston]

Nope. Radioactive water (and steam) spreads out and dilutes pretty
fast. It would have killed a lot of near-by aquatic life, yes but
within a month, the difference would only be detectable by sensitive
instruments. Oh, and in the hospital wards containing any people in
near-by water traffic suffering from radiation poisoning.

[shawn]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:04:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

Hey, that's one way to get rid of JLC which should make you very
happy.

[shawn]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:26:22 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I'm not questioning whether he did the right thing or not. Just
pointing out that he was completely wrong in his declaration that he
didn't kill anyone. We don't know how many people he killed in the
immediate explosion or the radioactive fallout or in the radioactive
sea life that may be consumed later on. We just know that it's a lot
more than none.

[shawn]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:38:27 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

>On 9/29/2012 10:26 AM, Dano wrote:
>
>> BTW...how do you explode a nuke high in the atmosphere WITHOUT spreading
>> far more fallout?
>
>Pretty easily. Fallout is as I've said, radioactive dust. You get a
>lot more dust when you detonate against the ground. What does happen if
>you detonate high in the air is that you get an EMP. So no long term
>radiation problems, but short term you cause blackouts.

But what we saw was apparently a ground level blast. So it went off at
sea level which means anything in the area is toast and there's going
to be plenty of radioactive steam floating around. Given the power of
that blast the steam is clearly going up into the clouds and might
reach landfall in due time.

[Hunter]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:41:00 -0700, Arthur Lipscomb
<art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

>On 9/28/2012 9:54 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>,

>> Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Last Resort ­ Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
>>> sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
>>> by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
>>> communications facility. I didn¹t like everything about the episode (I
>>> won¹t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
>>> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot.
>>

>> LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
>> ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there

>>
>> Has that ever
>>> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
>>> who is far from perfect.
>>

>> If by "A psychopathic traitor who needs to be put down like a rabid dog"
>> then I agree.
>>
>
>That's the point. They have to *believe* he'll push the button or else
>his threats aren't credible. Now it's not a matter of believing he'll
>do, they know for a fact, he'll do it. Kudos to the marketing
>department for not showing the detonation in the commercials.
------
Agreed on both counts. And he isn't the traitor but the patriot in
the same vain as Lt. Commander Hunter (played by Denzel Washington) in
"Crimson Tide" when he defied the orders of his Captain (played by the
always brilliant Gene Hackman) who wanted to launch the missiles
without even double checking with command first even after getting a
"garbled" message.

It is the people who lied to him and said Washington was nuked who are
the traitors and murderers.
>
>I also suspect he has had a mental break under the pressure. It will be
>interesting to see where they go with it. Going forward, I think it
>might be better to openly make him an anti-hero (whose stability is not
>entirely clear) instead of ignoring what he did in the pilot.
-----
I don't think Capt. Chaplin has had a brteak down of any sort. His
first officer may have thought so when he found him in his cabin
listening to Mozart but just like with Sherlock Holmes it helps him
think.

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

[Dano]

"Hunter (Hunter)" wrote in message
news:5067666d...@news.optonline.net...

==========================================

I'd say the XO may be even more concerned about the captain saying that this
may be their home now.

[David Johnston]

It will, yes. But it'll spread out enough that the result will be a
small and temporary spike in background radiation. Actual fallout is
way worse from what I understand.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <mske68t6mno3k7sj9...@4ax.com>,

Take off and nuke JLC from orbit. It's the one way to be sure.

[Obveeus]

Yes, Shawn and I both already pointed out above that the Captain has killed
people by setting off that nuke. This is why I said that the Captain was
*deluded* when he claimed that he hadn't.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 9/29/2012 9:13 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article

> <ijball-NO_SPAM-FFE...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> Except that Braugher has clearly killed at least tens of people if not
>>> many more. That area of the ocean is going to have various boats and
>>> ships out there plus planes flying in and out of Washington that would
>>> be directly impacted by the explosion. Then there's the issue of
>>> radioactive fallout. Is the wind blowing in towards Washington? I
>>> don't really expect the show to deal with the issue but I would expect
>>> the deaths from that explosion to total in the hundreds if not
>>> thousands within a year or two.
>>

>> They said that the explosion was 200 miles off the coast (them showing
>> the explosion being clearly visible from D.C. was definitely an instance

>> of "poetic license"). Now, while there might have been a few boats 200
>> miles off the coast, I wouldn't expect there to be many...
>
> The also showed that the explosion was INLAND from the Statue of
> Liberty. That ain't 200 miles out to sea, that's Annapolis.
>
Hero Captain was ROTC.

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with caffeine
pills, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate wouldn't
tolerate.

[Dimensional Traveler]

"And there was much rejoicing!"

[BTR1701]

In article <k47fa9$m7g$3...@dont-email.me>,

It is when it falls back down.

[Obveeus]

David is playing a semantics game. Radioactive water vapor is called
'rainout' or 'washout', rather than 'fallout'. As you said, though, it is
the same. The only plus side for radioactive water vapor there is that it
will spread out over a much wider area so there will not likely be enough
concentration to kills stuff for years and years going forward...and even
better, the water vapor is likely to fall as rain while still over the ocean
given the general direction of the wind currents. This situation is much
better than having radioactive soil that will recontaminate people any time
it is tilled for farming and contaminate in higher concentration (compared
with rainfall) any food that does grow.

[BTR1701]

In article <k47tc1$f61$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "BTR1701" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/29/2012 11:58 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

> >> > Ummm... yeah, it does. All that water vapor that's created by the
> >> > explosion and flung up into the high atmosphere? Yep, radioactive.
> >> >
> >>
> >> But it isn't fallout
> >
> > It is when it falls back down.
>
> David is playing a semantics game.

No! You don't say!

Must be a day that ends in a 'y'.

[Hunter]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:34:39 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>

>"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/2012 4:15 AM, Obveeus wrote:
(snip)

>
>> Last Resort – Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies sketchy
>> orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked by U.S.
>> ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
>> communications facility. I didn’t like everything about the episode (I
>> won’t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I

>> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot. Has that ever

>> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
>> who is far from perfect.
>

>What? Are you suggesting that crazy talk, treason, and launching nukes
>towards the USA isn't in the mold of 'perfect'?
-----
The treason was done by the person or persons unknown that wanted to
launch a nuclear strike under false pretenses. And Captain Chaplin
was bluffing in that he deliberately missed by 200 miles the US. Also
if you remember when the B1s were just about top of them and looked
liked that they were ready to sink them he was about to abort the
missle anyway. It was only when they blinked that he let the missle
hit 200 miles from the coast.

And his "craziness" was right of of Ronald Reagan's playbook to make
the Soviets behave.
>
>I really don't know why the writers of this show expect the audience to
>swallow him as 'the good guy'.
-----
I don't see how you can see him as a bad guy. The Capatin smelling
someithing fishy wanted to make damn sure Washington really was
attacked checked by litterally turning on a TV and seeing everythng
was right as rain back home with the weather men forcasting blue skys
instead of nuclear winter and seeing the credits of Hanna Montana.. I
hope to god real commanders of Nuclear missle subs or anyone else in
charge of nukes will have the good sense to do the same if something
doesn't feel right.

The real crazy guy was the Chief of the Boat Chief Petty Officer
Prosser (played by Patrick) and Lt. Cahill who wanted to lanuch anyway
despite what they saw on TV.

I won't be all surprised if they are part of the conspiracy since that
doesn't make a lick of sense for them to blindly follow orders despite
what they saw and so called Command talking to the Colorado throught a
back up channel instead of the primary one.

>
>> The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing unnecessary distraction but
>> hopefully the first time he gets in Braugher’s way, Braugher will put an
>> end to him with extreme prejudice. I just hope the show doesn’t devolve
>> into Jericho…
>

>I'm not so sure. After all, Braugher's character is under the deluded
>opinion that he hasn't hurt anyone. So far, the only one capable of killing
>as needed seems to be the Admiral's daughter.

------
Compared to the people who lauched two nukes against Pakistan under
false pretenses and then tried to sink the Colorado? Yes he hasn't
hurt anyone.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

On 9/29/2012 11:29 PM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:34:39 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/28/2012 4:15 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> (snip)
>>
>>> Last Resort – Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies sketchy
>>> orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked by U.S.
>>> ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
>>> communications facility. I didn’t like everything about the episode (I
>>> won’t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
>>> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot. Has that ever
>>> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
>>> who is far from perfect.
>>
>> What? Are you suggesting that crazy talk, treason, and launching nukes
>> towards the USA isn't in the mold of 'perfect'?
> -----
> The treason was done by the person or persons unknown that wanted to
> launch a nuclear strike under false pretenses. And Captain Chaplin
> was bluffing in that he deliberately missed by 200 miles the US.

I'm wondering how did he manage to program the missile to the new
destination without anyone else knowing. If he ordered them to target
D.C. why would the crew do that and if he ordered 200 miles off the
coast how could the crew not know?

Also
> if you remember when the B1s were just about top of them and looked
> liked that they were ready to sink them he was about to abort the
> missle anyway.

Then he snapped and decided to go ahead and detonate it anyway. And if
it was always going to harmlessly detonate in the sea, why the sudden
urgency to detonate. Surely his XO knew they would detonate "safely"
200 miles out to sea, conveniently not hurting anyone.

It was only when they blinked that he let the missle
> hit 200 miles from the coast.
>
> And his "craziness" was right of of Ronald Reagan's playbook to make
> the Soviets behave.
>>
>> I really don't know why the writers of this show expect the audience to
>> swallow him as 'the good guy'.
> -----
> I don't see how you can see him as a bad guy.

He launched and detonated a *nuclear* missile, thereby killing an
unknown number of innocents and condemning other unknowns (perhaps for
generations) to radiation sickness, cancer and who knows what else.
That's bad.

The Capatin smelling
> someithing fishy wanted to make damn sure Washington really was
> attacked checked by litterally turning on a TV and seeing everythng
> was right as rain back home with the weather men forcasting blue skys
> instead of nuclear winter and seeing the credits of Hanna Montana.. I
> hope to god real commanders of Nuclear missle subs or anyone else in
> charge of nukes will have the good sense to do the same if something
> doesn't feel right.

I would also hope that a sub captain doesn't launch on sketchy orders
like that. Unfortunately, he *did* launch just at the U.S. instead of
Pakistan.

>
> The real crazy guy was the Chief of the Boat Chief Petty Officer
> Prosser (played by Patrick) and Lt. Cahill who wanted to lanuch anyway
> despite what they saw on TV.
>
> I won't be all surprised if they are part of the conspiracy since that
> doesn't make a lick of sense for them to blindly follow orders despite
> what they saw and so called Command talking to the Colorado throught a
> back up channel instead of the primary one.
>>
>>> The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing unnecessary distraction but
>>> hopefully the first time he gets in Braugher’s way, Braugher will put an
>>> end to him with extreme prejudice. I just hope the show doesn’t devolve
>>> into Jericho…
>>
>> I'm not so sure. After all, Braugher's character is under the deluded
>> opinion that he hasn't hurt anyone. So far, the only one capable of killing
>> as needed seems to be the Admiral's daughter.
> ------
> Compared to the people who lauched two nukes against Pakistan under
> false pretenses and then tried to sink the Colorado? Yes he hasn't
> hurt anyone.
>

How does that even make sense? Are you saying *no* one died from the
nuke? Or fewer people died so it's OK?

[Hunter]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:54:15 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

>> On 9/28/2012 9:54 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last Resort ­ Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
>>>> sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
>>>> by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
>>>> communications facility. I didn¹t like everything about the episode (I
>>>> won¹t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
>>>> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot.
>>>

>>> LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
>>> ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there
>>>

>>> Has that ever
>>>> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
>>>> who is far from perfect.
>>>

>>> If by "A psychopathic traitor who needs to be put down like a rabid dog"
>>> then I agree.
>>
>> That's the point. They have to *believe* he'll push the button or else
>> his threats aren't credible. Now it's not a matter of believing he'll do,
>> they know for a fact, he'll do it. Kudos to the marketing department for
>> not showing the detonation in the commercials.
>

>The problem now is that *if* the world actually believed he was a dangerous
>nuclear power that they could not eliminate, they would just leave him
>alone. In fact, isn't it almost a guarantee that bureaucracy would cause
>the submarine/island to be left alone for months?
----
The US will want its sub back and try to take it back if only because
they may fear that Caot, Chaplin will give nukes to America's enemies.
They will just try to do it in a less overt way like sneak on the
Island. NATO allies like Britain and France will likely help since
they will want the island back.
>
> So, all action in this
>pretend world would now shift to the political struggle of the President to
>avoid impeachment and the military struggle between wrongly attacked
>Pakistan and the USA (with India, Isreal, UK, et al likely playing roles as
>well). Meanwhile, all the people on the show we are watching should now be
>stuck on the sidelines tanning and 'struggling' with the island mafia. I
>don't see how they are going to create a credible plotline for how this
>submarine will be doing anything interesting on a weekly basis, given where
>the pilot concluded.
-----
As stated above, the US government will not just sit by. They will
repeatedly try to do something. if only to keep the nukes from
potentially enemy hands. And the sub itself could be a majore
intelligence coup to America's enemies and near friends like Russia
and China.

>
>> I also suspect he has had a mental break under the pressure. It will be
>> interesting to see where they go with it. Going forward, I think it might
>> be better to openly make him an anti-hero (whose stability is not entirely
>> clear) instead of ignoring what he did in the pilot.
>

>Hard to claim he had a mental break when he explained the premise of acting
>crazy before he started acting crazy.
-----
Exactly

[David Barnett]

In article <k43nnb$loe$1...@dont-email.me>,
web...@polaris.net says...
>
> What did you watch?

Yesterday I further watched:

THE LISTENER: Lady in the Lake
I liked Lisa Marcos as Det. Charlie Marks
The new blonde policewoman is getting more likable.

DOCTOR WHO: The Power of Three
Posts elsewhere.

Today, Sun Sep 30 , and now 6 pm, I have watched:

THE LISTENER: Crime Seen
Now 2 more know; count is now 10 less 2 dead ones, & less
possibly his mother.

FRINGE: Transilience Thought Unifier Model-11
I liked it.
Etta is nice eye candy.
On the minus side, I had trouble suspending my disbelief
re the Observer's power over Walter's mind.
So, how are our heroes & heroines going to win?
Will they ever win?

--
David Barnett

[Ubiquitous]

In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>, art...@alum.calberkeley.org
wrote:

>The Avengers (3D blu-ray) – Excellent all around. Since the commentary
>is only on the 2D version, I guess I will be forced to sit through it
>again later today. :-)

Why the hell would they rerelease that terrible movie in 3D, not to
mention on Blue-Ray?

--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."

[Ubiquitous]

anim...@cox.net wrote:


>LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
>ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there

So "Stargate Atlantis, SGA" is really "Stargate Atlantis, StarGate
Atlantis"?

[Obveeus]

"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 9/29/2012 11:29 PM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:34:39 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>>>> Last Resort –

>>> What? Are you suggesting that crazy talk, treason, and launching nukes
>>> towards the USA isn't in the mold of 'perfect'?
>> -----
>> The treason was done by the person or persons unknown that wanted to
>> launch a nuclear strike under false pretenses. And Captain Chaplin
>> was bluffing in that he deliberately missed by 200 miles the US.
>
> I'm wondering how did he manage to program the missile to the new
> destination without anyone else knowing.

Agreed. Whomever normally enters the targetting coordinates should have
been aware that the Captain was entering something.

> If he ordered them to target D.C. why would the crew do that and if he
> ordered 200 miles off the coast how could the crew not know?

...and why would that crew member allow him to enter coordinates just off
the coast either? Surely, whatever person should have known would find the
'200 miles off thre US coast' target just as unacceptable as the 'Washington
DC' target. I know that military people are trained to follow orders,
whatever the order, but at that point the crew knew that the Captain had
been relieved of command.

> Also
>> if you remember when the B1s were just about top of them and looked
>> liked that they were ready to sink them he was about to abort the
>> missle anyway.
>
> Then he snapped and decided to go ahead and detonate it anyway. And if it
> was always going to harmlessly detonate in the sea, why the sudden urgency
> to detonate.

Yep. That scene made no sense at all for multiple reasons. It made no
sense that the crew went along with a launch on the US in the first place.
It made no sense to act like they had control to abort the missile long
after they had been launched. It made no sense that the Captain was going
to abort the missle, then suddenly changed his mind. It was nonsense on
every level.

> Surely his XO knew they would detonate "safely" 200 miles out to sea,
> conveniently not hurting anyone.

Maybe the XO wouldn't have coordinates memorized/understood (or even see
where the missle was targetted), but I would think that someone would have
known. I never did see a scene where the Captain snuck up to a
missile/console and entered the new target coordinates while whomever should
have been at that station was on a 'potty break'. In general terms, I can
fully believe that the entire nuclear missile system in the US is designed
such that the people firing the missiles have no knowledge of where they are
actually targetted as the lack of specific knowledge would cut down on the
number of people refusing to follow orders. However, someone had to be able
to enter the target (determine the coordinates) and that person isn't going
to just be the Captain doing so from an unobservable location.

>>> I really don't know why the writers of this show expect the audience to
>>> swallow him as 'the good guy'.
>> -----
>> I don't see how you can see him as a bad guy.
>
> He launched and detonated a *nuclear* missile, thereby killing an unknown
> number of innocents and condemning other unknowns (perhaps for
> generations) to radiation sickness, cancer and who knows what else. That's
> bad.

Yep...and that was after he refused to accept valid orders from command.
Just the fact that he questioned his orders is a big enough problem, even
before he added rouge nuclear terrorist to his resume.

> The Capatin smelling
>> someithing fishy wanted to make damn sure Washington really was
>> attacked checked by litterally turning on a TV and seeing everythng
>> was right as rain back home with the weather men forcasting blue skys
>> instead of nuclear winter and seeing the credits of Hanna Montana.. I
>> hope to god real commanders of Nuclear missle subs or anyone else in
>> charge of nukes will have the good sense to do the same if something
>> doesn't feel right.
>
> I would also hope that a sub captain doesn't launch on sketchy orders like
> that. Unfortunately, he *did* launch just at the U.S. instead of
> Pakistan.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US military is not a defense
only entity. The US is just as likely to launch a first strike nuclear
attack as anyone else and its personanel are specifically trained to follow
orders and launch a first strike if asked. The fact that Hanna Montana was
still on the air does not in any way preclude the order from being valid.
Even the fact that it came through a secondary system does not preclude the
order from being valid. I didn't see anything in this show to suggest that
the Captain was following procedures by checking to see if the primary order
delivery channels were still running before deciding if he was going to
accept orders through the secondary system.

What if the actual scenario in place was that the US had gotten early
warning that rouge elements in Pakistan were about to launch nuclear weapons
at India and Israel and the President of the USA (along with military
support/experts) had determined that the only way to take out Pakistan's
nuclear threat was to launch a first strike and 'disarm them'? Moreover,
the US military intelligence had determined that Pakistan had infultrated
and was able to monitor the primary US communications system so that system
could not be safely used to transmit orders. The same set of commands would
have been sent to this sub and their failure to follow orders (and follow
them quickly) would have resulted in Pakistan having time to launch their
own attack and kill millions of US allies.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k493pq$uql$5...@dont-email.me>,

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> anim...@cox.net wrote:
>
>
> >LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
> >ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there
>
> So "Stargate Atlantis, SGA" is really "Stargate Atlantis, StarGate
> Atlantis"?

Same as Stargate SG1 is really Stargate Stargate 1.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k493jv$uql$4...@dont-email.me>,

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>, art...@alum.calberkeley.org
> wrote:
>
> >The Avengers (3D blu-ray) – Excellent all around. Since the commentary
> >is only on the 2D version, I guess I will be forced to sit through it
> >again later today. :-)
>
> Why the hell would they rerelease that terrible movie in 3D, not to
> mention on Blue-Ray?

Silly bad Ubi.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k48q67$no7$1...@dont-email.me>,

Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> On 9/29/2012 11:29 PM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:34:39 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/28/2012 4:15 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> > (snip)
> >>
> >>> Last Resort ­ Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies sketchy
> >>> orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked by U.S.
> >>> ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO

> >>> communications facility. I didnąt like everything about the episode (I
> >>> wonąt get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I

> >>> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot. Has that ever
> >>> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
> >>> who is far from perfect.
> >>
> >> What? Are you suggesting that crazy talk, treason, and launching nukes
> >> towards the USA isn't in the mold of 'perfect'?
> > -----
> > The treason was done by the person or persons unknown that wanted to
> > launch a nuclear strike under false pretenses. And Captain Chaplin
> > was bluffing in that he deliberately missed by 200 miles the US.
>
> I'm wondering how did he manage to program the missile to the new
> destination without anyone else knowing. If he ordered them to target
> D.C. why would the crew do that and if he ordered 200 miles off the
> coast how could the crew not know?

Yep. That was terrible writing. Plus, there was no possible reason to
keep the crew in the dark about it, especially once the bird was in
flight.

>
> Also
> > if you remember when the B1s were just about top of them and looked
> > liked that they were ready to sink them he was about to abort the
> > missle anyway.
>
> Then he snapped and decided to go ahead and detonate it anyway. And if
> it was always going to harmlessly detonate in the sea, why the sudden
> urgency to detonate. Surely his XO knew they would detonate "safely"
> 200 miles out to sea, conveniently not hurting anyone.
>
>
> It was only when they blinked that he let the missle
> > hit 200 miles from the coast.
> >
> > And his "craziness" was right of of Ronald Reagan's playbook to make
> > the Soviets behave.
> >>
> >> I really don't know why the writers of this show expect the audience to
> >> swallow him as 'the good guy'.
> > -----
> > I don't see how you can see him as a bad guy.

yeah, 'cause treason and murder are such stirling qualities. Not to
mention taking over this nice little island by military force on his own
merit.

>
> He launched and detonated a *nuclear* missile, thereby killing an
> unknown number of innocents and condemning other unknowns (perhaps for
> generations) to radiation sickness, cancer and who knows what else.
> That's bad.

He dropped it in Chesapeake Bay, probably killing millions and
contaminating an enormous food supply.

>
>
> The Capatin smelling
> > someithing fishy wanted to make damn sure Washington really was
> > attacked checked by litterally turning on a TV and seeing everythng
> > was right as rain back home with the weather men forcasting blue skys
> > instead of nuclear winter and seeing the credits of Hanna Montana.. I
> > hope to god real commanders of Nuclear missle subs or anyone else in
> > charge of nukes will have the good sense to do the same if something
> > doesn't feel right.
>
> I would also hope that a sub captain doesn't launch on sketchy orders
> like that. Unfortunately, he *did* launch just at the U.S. instead of
> Pakistan.
>
>
> >
> > The real crazy guy was the Chief of the Boat Chief Petty Officer
> > Prosser (played by Patrick) and Lt. Cahill who wanted to lanuch anyway
> > despite what they saw on TV.
> >
> > I won't be all surprised if they are part of the conspiracy since that
> > doesn't make a lick of sense for them to blindly follow orders despite
> > what they saw and so called Command talking to the Colorado throught a
> > back up channel instead of the primary one.
> >>
> >>> The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing unnecessary distraction but

> >>> hopefully the first time he gets in Braugherąs way, Braugher will put an
> >>> end to him with extreme prejudice. I just hope the show doesnąt devolve
> >>> into JerichoŠ

> >>
> >> I'm not so sure. After all, Braugher's character is under the deluded
> >> opinion that he hasn't hurt anyone. So far, the only one capable of
> >> killing
> >> as needed seems to be the Admiral's daughter.
> > ------
> > Compared to the people who lauched two nukes against Pakistan under
> > false pretenses and then tried to sink the Colorado? Yes he hasn't
> > hurt anyone.
> >
>
>
> How does that even make sense? Are you saying *no* one died from the
> nuke? Or fewer people died so it's OK?

Why are we even talking to this idiot?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <anim8rfsk-AF9E5...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <k493jv$uql$4...@dont-email.me>,
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>, art...@alum.calberkeley.org
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The Avengers (3D blu-ray) – Excellent all around. Since the commentary
> > >is only on the 2D version, I guess I will be forced to sit through it
> > >again later today. :-)
> >
> > Why the hell would they rerelease that terrible movie in 3D, not to
> > mention on Blue-Ray?
>
> Silly bad Ubi.

BTW, I got an ad from Amazon trying to get me to buy the horrible Uma
Thurman flick ...

[BTR1701]

In article <k49cpu$kci$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> Yep...and that was after he refused to accept valid orders from command.
> Just the fact that he questioned his orders is a big enough problem, even
> before he added rouge nuclear terrorist to his resume.

Those rouge terrorists are the worst. He'd have been a much more
sympathetic character if he'd chosen a nice teal or even puce.

> What if the actual scenario in place was that the US had gotten early
> warning that rouge elements in Pakistan were about to launch

Pakistan has rouge terrorists now, too?!?

Does no one have any fashion sense anymore? God help us all!

> The same set of commands would have been sent to this sub and
> their failure to follow orders (and follow them quickly) would
> have resulted in Pakistan having time to launch their own attack
> and kill millions of US allies.

Or the U.S. could have been attacked and the enemy missiles were still
in the air headed for America. The sub's order to launch a retaliatory
strike could easily come *before* the enemy's missiles arrive and
detonate, so everything back home would indeed still look normal...
until it didn't, while Captain Dumbass sits there watching TV instead of
doing his duty and firing when ordered to.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Don't you already own it? :P

[anim8rFSK]

In article <5068bbe2$0$71186$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 9/30/2012 9:19 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <anim8rfsk-AF9E5...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <k493jv$uql$4...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>, art...@alum.calberkeley.org
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The Avengers (3D blu-ray) ­ Excellent all around. Since the commentary
> >>>> is only on the 2D version, I guess I will be forced to sit through it
> >>>> again later today. :-)
> >>>
> >>> Why the hell would they rerelease that terrible movie in 3D, not to
> >>> mention on Blue-Ray?
> >>
> >> Silly bad Ubi.
> >
> > BTW, I got an ad from Amazon trying to get me to buy the horrible Uma
> > Thurman flick ...
> >
> Don't you already own it? :P

LOL, God know, I wouldn't watch that again, even with your eyes!

[Arthur Lipscomb]

On 9/30/2012 9:19 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-AF9E5...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <k493jv$uql$4...@dont-email.me>,
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>, art...@alum.calberkeley.org
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>> The Avengers (3D blu-ray) � Excellent all around. Since the commentary

>>>> is only on the 2D version, I guess I will be forced to sit through it
>>>> again later today. :-)
>>>
>>> Why the hell would they rerelease that terrible movie in 3D, not to
>>> mention on Blue-Ray?
>>

On the commentary, Joss spends a lot of time pointing out shots and
scenes specifically composed with 3D in mind. Actually, when I watched
it again in 2D, which was the first time I had seen it in 2D, it felt
like something was missing.

3D is definitely the best way to view it IMO. I read a review that
complained about the 3D during the first half of the movie, saying it
was too dark. I watched with that review in mind but the 3D never felt
to dark to me. I've seen plenty of other 3D movies where it was too
dark, but the night scenes were fine as far as I was concerned. The 3D
was excellent (not shot in 3D excellent but as good as converted gets)
and as I said makes for a better viewing experience than in 2D.

>> Silly bad Ubi.
>
> BTW, I got an ad from Amazon trying to get me to buy the horrible Uma
> Thurman flick ...
>

I own a ridiculous number of movies. Many of which I will openly admit
aren't that good. But even I, who's looking forward to the day when I
can buy "Howard the Duck" on blu-ray, won't buy *that* movie. It's
below even my minimal standards.


I noticed it's been airing on cable recently. It's going to cause a lot
of confusion when people tune in expecting to see Hulk and Thor and see
James Bond in a bear suit instead. :-)

[Ubiquitous]

In article <k47f70$m7g$2...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net wrote:
>On 9/29/2012 10:26 AM, Dano wrote:

>> BTW...how do you explode a nuke high in the atmosphere WITHOUT spreading
>> far more fallout?
>
>Pretty easily. Fallout is as I've said, radioactive dust. You get a
>lot more dust when you detonate against the ground. What does happen if
>you detonate high in the air is that you get an EMP. So no long term
>radiation problems, but short term you cause blackouts.

Short term? Try permanent.

[Ubiquitous]

In article <k47gcu$ri$1...@dont-email.me>, janea...@yahoo.com wrote:
>"David Johnston" wrote in message news:k47f70$m7g$2...@dont-email.me...

>On 9/29/2012 10:26 AM, Dano wrote:

>>> BTW...how do you explode a nuke high in the atmosphere WITHOUT spreading
>>> far more fallout?
>>
>>Pretty easily. Fallout is as I've said, radioactive dust. You get a
>>lot more dust when you detonate against the ground. What does happen if
>>you detonate high in the air is that you get an EMP. So no long term
>>radiation problems, but short term you cause blackouts.
>

>Well I guess that's a bit reassuring. And now that I consider it more
>deeply...exploding that nuke in the ocean as they did would be extremely
>catastrophic for all marine life for a long time. Say goodbye to fishing
>within a pretty large radius.

Umm, no.

[Steve Bartman]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:09:33 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>Agreed. Whomever normally enters the targetting coordinates should have
>been aware that the Captain was entering something.

You'd think. :)

>> If he ordered them to target D.C. why would the crew do that and if he
>> ordered 200 miles off the coast how could the crew not know?

"The crew" doesn't know anything about targeting. Only a few enlisted
members participate in re-targeting, along with several officers. For
obvious reasons it's never one person, it's never in secret, and it's
not as easy as punching in a lat-long on a keyboard.

I will not discuss if the CO is one of those officers who participate
in a re-targeting. But it ain't whomever is available that hour.

>Yep. That scene made no sense at all for multiple reasons. It made no
>sense that the crew went along with a launch on the US in the first place.
>It made no sense to act like they had control to abort the missile long
>after they had been launched. It made no sense that the Captain was going
>to abort the missle, then suddenly changed his mind. It was nonsense on
>every level.

Too true.

>Maybe the XO wouldn't have coordinates memorized/understood (or even see
>where the missle was targetted), but I would think that someone would have
>known. I never did see a scene where the Captain snuck up to a
>missile/console and entered the new target coordinates while whomever should
>have been at that station was on a 'potty break'.

This is pretty funny.

In general terms, I can
>fully believe that the entire nuclear missile system in the US is designed
>such that the people firing the missiles have no knowledge of where they are
>actually targetted as the lack of specific knowledge would cut down on the
>number of people refusing to follow orders.

Umm . . .

If you have to rely on that to get people to follow orders you have a
pretty bad system. I once accidentally, for less than three seconds,
saw what I was told was the current targeting map. It was very hard to
accidentally see, but I managed to. I got debriefed afterward. The
target package changed later that week after we moved, and I never got
close to knowing something like that again. Didn't want to.

>> He launched and detonated a *nuclear* missile, thereby killing an unknown
>> number of innocents and condemning other unknowns (perhaps for
>> generations) to radiation sickness, cancer and who knows what else. That's
>> bad.
>
>Yep...and that was after he refused to accept valid orders from command.
>Just the fact that he questioned his orders is a big enough problem, even
>before he added rouge nuclear terrorist to his resume.

If you accept the string of howlers up to and including the attacks on
his boat, they have a point. He's in command of a national strategic
asset, a rare beast. He has evidence that the US has used offensive
strategic missiles on an ally. He has been ordered "relieved" by an
undersecretary who is not in the chain of command. Still doesn't let
him launch on his own authority, but he has cause to take action to
verify the situation ashore.

If you buy the chain of events. Which can't happen.

>I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US military is not a defense
>only entity. The US is just as likely to launch a first strike nuclear
>attack as anyone else

No, it isn't. For lots of reasons.

and its personanel are specifically trained to follow
>orders and launch a first strike if asked.

If the orders are valid. The show tries to sketch a case where they
don't know that, but they're ham-handed in doing so. What the writers
really care about is getting to the island. The pilot stuff is pretext
for mafia and bikinis and sexy SEALS with big guns and need of a
shave. SIOP procedures are so boring.


Steve

[Steve Bartman]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 07:40:46 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

>He dropped it in Chesapeake Bay, probably killing millions and
>contaminating an enormous food supply.

200 miles due east of D.C. is open ocean. It probably/maybe killed
some mariners. It didn't contaminate any food chains. The steam would
have dissipated in a matter of minutes. I doubt there would have been
above background radiation levels six hours later. Ocean water moves,
and there is an immense amount of it. Airborne water and steam would
have gone east for the most part. There's no soil to irradiate. No
surface fires with smoke.


Steve

[David Johnston]

On 9/30/2012 5:50 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <k47f70$m7g$2...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net wrote:
>> On 9/29/2012 10:26 AM, Dano wrote:
>
>>> BTW...how do you explode a nuke high in the atmosphere WITHOUT spreading
>>> far more fallout?
>>
>> Pretty easily. Fallout is as I've said, radioactive dust. You get a
>> lot more dust when you detonate against the ground. What does happen if
>> you detonate high in the air is that you get an EMP. So no long term
>> radiation problems, but short term you cause blackouts.
>
> Short term? Try permanent.
>

Obviously not. We had such a blackout when the effect was discovered.

[Ubiquitous]

Which is permanent, since the EMP destroyed the equipment and had to be
replaced.

[Obveeus]

"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:09:33 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>>Yep...and that was after he refused to accept valid orders from command.
>>Just the fact that he questioned his orders is a big enough problem, even
>>before he added rouge nuclear terrorist to his resume.
>
> If you accept the string of howlers up to and including the attacks on
> his boat, they have a point. He's in command of a national strategic
> asset, a rare beast. He has evidence that the US has used offensive
> strategic missiles on an ally. He has been ordered "relieved" by an
> undersecretary who is not in the chain of command. Still doesn't let
> him launch on his own authority, but he has cause to take action to
> verify the situation ashore.

He first defied orders when he refused to launch the missle as per the
'Antarctica command system'.
Then he defied protocol by surfacing (really close to it) to make the call
back to base and ask for verification through the main system.
It was only after those acts of defying orders that he was ordered relieved
of command and only after his replacement also refused to follow orders that
the sub was fired upon.


After the sub was fired upon, I can certainly see why he (and most of the
crew) would stop following any orders given over the satelite/radio systems
until they could establish who was really in power and what was really going
on. Still, evne with that, firing on the USA with a nuclear missile of
their own goes well beyond establishing a command structure.

>>I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US military is not a defense
>>only entity. The US is just as likely to launch a first strike nuclear
>>attack as anyone else
>
> No, it isn't. For lots of reasons.

The US is the only country that has ever, in the history of mankind,
actually done so. We remain the most militarily agressive country on the
planet. Call it 'peacekeeping' if you want, but the USA is on offense
clearly and regularly, in reality.

> If the orders are valid. The show tries to sketch a case where they
> don't know that, but they're ham-handed in doing so. What the writers
> really care about is getting to the island. The pilot stuff is pretext
> for mafia and bikinis and sexy SEALS with big guns and need of a
> shave.

Yep...and I'm still not sure how the writers are going to shoehorn in any
further plotlines for why this sub would keep having interactions with the
rest of the world rather than being isolated to their island 'resort'.

[Obveeus]

"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 07:40:46 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>He dropped it in Chesapeake Bay, probably killing millions and
>>contaminating an enormous food supply.
>
> 200 miles due east of D.C. is open ocean.

I think that Anim8r is working off a 1/2 second of film footage showing the
direction of the blast in comparison to the orientation of the Statue of
Liberty. For obvious reasons, accepting the '200 miles offshore' detonation
point makes more sense, but it still is not a place to set off a nuclear
bomb and declare that no one would be hurt as the writer's (through their
Captain's dialog) claimed.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <6bnh689050ltkqur0...@4ax.com>,

Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 07:40:46 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >He dropped it in Chesapeake Bay, probably killing millions and
> >contaminating an enormous food supply.
>
> 200 miles due east of D.C. is open ocean.

That's what he SAID, but it's not what they showed. They showed it
visible from DC, due east of the Capital, and southwest of Liberty
Island, visible from the Statue of Liberty, and it hit water. That's
Chesapeake Bay.

And how would he know where it hit? They didn't have any tracking on
it. He knows where he SENT it, or thinks he did.

It probably/maybe killed
> some mariners. It didn't contaminate any food chains. The steam would
> have dissipated in a matter of minutes. I doubt there would have been
> above background radiation levels six hours later. Ocean water moves,
> and there is an immense amount of it. Airborne water and steam would
> have gone east for the most part. There's no soil to irradiate. No
> surface fires with smoke.
>
>
> Steve

[David Johnston]

On 9/30/2012 7:10 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <k4amqd$ba8$2...@dont-email.me>, davidjo...@block.com wrote:
>> On 9/30/2012 5:50 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> In article <k47f70$m7g$2...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net wrote:
>>>> On 9/29/2012 10:26 AM, Dano wrote:
>
>>>>> BTW...how do you explode a nuke high in the atmosphere WITHOUT spreading
>>>>> far more fallout?
>>>>
>>>> Pretty easily. Fallout is as I've said, radioactive dust. You get a
>>>> lot more dust when you detonate against the ground. What does happen if
>>>> you detonate high in the air is that you get an EMP. So no long term
>>>> radiation problems, but short term you cause blackouts.
>>>
>>> Short term? Try permanent.
>>
>> Obviously not. We had such a blackout when the effect was discovered.
>
> Which is permanent, since the EMP destroyed the equipment and had to be
> replaced.
>

My fair heart weeps for the equipment that had to be replaced.

[BTR1701]

In article <phmh685v2a4nu8gjf...@4ax.com>,

Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:09:33 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

> >I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US military is not a defense
> >only entity. The US is just as likely to launch a first strike nuclear
> >attack as anyone else
>
> No, it isn't. For lots of reasons.

Well, considering the U.S. already *has* done that, yours is a somewhat
dubious statement.

Your assertion is that the president can't order a first strike?

[Steve Bartman]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:40:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <phmh685v2a4nu8gjf...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:09:33 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US military is not a defense
>> >only entity. The US is just as likely to launch a first strike nuclear
>> >attack as anyone else
>>
>> No, it isn't. For lots of reasons.
>
>Well, considering the U.S. already *has* done that, yours is a somewhat
>dubious statement.

I was responding to a present tense. Seventy years ago is not
relevant.

>Your assertion is that the president can't order a first strike?

How do you begin to get that from what I said?

Steve

[Steve Bartman]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:26:39 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:09:33 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>Yep...and that was after he refused to accept valid orders from command.
>>>Just the fact that he questioned his orders is a big enough problem, even
>>>before he added rouge nuclear terrorist to his resume.
>>
>> If you accept the string of howlers up to and including the attacks on
>> his boat, they have a point. He's in command of a national strategic
>> asset, a rare beast. He has evidence that the US has used offensive
>> strategic missiles on an ally. He has been ordered "relieved" by an
>> undersecretary who is not in the chain of command. Still doesn't let
>> him launch on his own authority, but he has cause to take action to
>> verify the situation ashore.
>
>He first defied orders when he refused to launch the missle as per the
>'Antarctica command system'.

Did he?

The reason there are multiple keys in the launch sequence--and there
are more than two--is that the system relies on each officer,
independently, to be convinced that they have a valid launch order. It
is not a matter of rank. One reason "Crimson Tide" was so wrong is
that the CO cannot order a subordinate key-holder to turn his key.
That is an illegal order. Each officer must independently decide. It's
a key safeguard built in, which the show went around by showing the
"guy on the radio" (whomever he was) to shop for someone who WOULD
turn the key.

But what is a valid order? That's the basis for the show's string of
events after the EAM is received ("Crimson Tide's" as well.) The
officers may not fail to turn out of moral qualms; a valid order to
launch is a legal order from the NCA which all officers are bound to
obey under their oath. But if they suspect the order is in error, is
false, is incomplete, is a counterfeit, was mis-decrytped, etc. they
may, and in fact have a duty to, not turn their key.

Taken as a whole the events in the show "might" justify that.
Impeachment proceedings showing a constitutional crisis in play.
Admirals being relieved. No crisis underway with Pakistan; SSBN COs
get intel briefings in the daily message traffic. A limited launch
order which would not be sufficient to take out Pakistan's strategic
arsenal even if there were a crisis. And finally the use of a
secondary system (ignoring that Antarctica is demilitarized and has
been for decades.) So, he might have been justified.

But after he decided not to turn his key he was free lancing. I agree
with that. All I want to emphasize is that there are multiple keys for
a reason, and officers aren't robots.

The real security and reliability in the system is built into the
mechanisms which generate valid EAMs. The show hand-waved that away.
In reality they are very, very secure and rely on a lot of independent
players doing things out in the open. A conspiracy to circumvent them
would need to be vast.

>>>I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US military is not a defense
>>>only entity. The US is just as likely to launch a first strike nuclear
>>>attack as anyone else
>>
>> No, it isn't. For lots of reasons.
>
>The US is the only country that has ever, in the history of mankind,
>actually done so.

Not relevant today. We were in a declared war seventy years ago.
Nuclear weapons had no overhanging geopolitical aura; they were just a
bigger bang. No one else had them. We were then engaged in burning
down Japanese cites every night with incendiaries. The fire bombing of
Tokyo killed more civilians in a single night than died at Hiroshima.

We remain the most militarily aggressive country on the
>planet.

Really? More than Syria? More than North Korea? Canadians fear an
invasion or the shelling of Toronto?

Call it 'peacekeeping' if you want, but the USA is on offense
>clearly and regularly, in reality.

We have one "formal" war underway, and NATO is there with us.

A nuclear first strike is orders of magnitude bigger than anything
we've done militarily since 1945. In a real sense it's not even "war."
Of the known nuclear powers I would not put us in the top five most
likely to engage in a first strike. A big reason is we don't need one.
We have the biggest conventional force in the world and contrary to
what many think nuclear weapons cause far more problems in a military
sense than they solve. I don't expect we'll have any in fifty years.

>Yep...and I'm still not sure how the writers are going to shoehorn in any
>further plotlines for why this sub would keep having interactions with the
>rest of the world rather than being isolated to their island 'resort'.
>

I think it'll be 80-20 action on the island (cheap to film) versus
action in D.C. I think any action on threatening warships will be less
than 1%. It's a soap.

Steve

[Steve Bartman]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:55:11 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>

>And how would he know where it hit? They didn't have any tracking on
>it. He knows where he SENT it, or thinks he did.

Tridents go where they're told, very accurately. I didn't have any
problems with that part.

Steve

[BTR1701]

In article <ul1j68dsqj91qk8jp...@4ax.com>,

Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:40:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <phmh685v2a4nu8gjf...@4ax.com>,
> > Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:09:33 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US military is not a defense
> >> >only entity. The US is just as likely to launch a first strike nuclear
> >> >attack as anyone else
> >>
> >> No, it isn't. For lots of reasons.
> >
> >Well, considering the U.S. already *has* done that, yours is a somewhat
> >dubious statement.
>
> I was responding to a present tense. Seventy years ago is not
> relevant.

When comparing likelihood to strike first with nuclear weapons among
nations, it's rather impossible to ignore the history of the matter.

> >Your assertion is that the president can't order a first strike?
>
> How do you begin to get that from what I said?

Obveeus said the US military is not solely a defensive entity and you
said that it isn't. Double negatives aside, it seems pretty clear to me.

[Steve Bartman]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:16:57 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <ul1j68dsqj91qk8jp...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:40:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <phmh685v2a4nu8gjf...@4ax.com>,
>> > Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 08:09:33 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US military is not a defense
>> >> >only entity. The US is just as likely to launch a first strike nuclear
>> >> >attack as anyone else
>> >>
>> >> No, it isn't. For lots of reasons.
>> >
>> >Well, considering the U.S. already *has* done that, yours is a somewhat
>> >dubious statement.
>>
>> I was responding to a present tense. Seventy years ago is not
>> relevant.
>
>When comparing likelihood to strike first with nuclear weapons among
>nations, it's rather impossible to ignore the history of the matter.

Forty years ago I was afraid to kiss a female. I kissed a woman this
morning. The past is irrelevant.

>> >Your assertion is that the president can't order a first strike?
>>
>> How do you begin to get that from what I said?
>
>Obveeus said the US military is not solely a defensive entity and you
>said that it isn't.

No, I said the US is not just as likely to launch a first strike as
anyone else. I failed to snip.

>Double negatives aside, it seems pretty clear to me.

The NCA launches a first strike. The military merely executes the
order.

Steve

[anim8rFSK]

In article <a33j68lnvsfh99gfh...@4ax.com>,

Okay, then, we're stuck with that either the Captain is lying to his
crew, or they showed entirely the wrong thing in the visuals.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <on1j68dp6vbndqhp2...@4ax.com>,

Of course, he's not privy to most of that.

>
> We remain the most militarily aggressive country on the
> >planet.
>
> Really? More than Syria? More than North Korea? Canadians fear an
> invasion or the shelling of Toronto?

That would be justified for The L.A. Complex alone.

[Obveeus]

Most of the 'anyone elses' can be eliminated because most countries have no
nuclear weapons at all. I'll agree with you that the US is less compelled
to use nuclear weapons simply because they have the ability/practice to lay
waste to other countries without resorting to such weapons. Still, when you
look at what is at stake, the US is one of a very few nuclear powers with
the ability to use the weapons without bringing about the end of their own
country. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India...any use of a nuclear weapon
by countries like these is going to end their government and end their
military completely and permanently. That alone gives them more incentive
not to use nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the US remains capable of laying
waste with or without nukes and will decide which option to pursue based
upon expected popularity/political fallout. The chances of the US ever
resorting to first strike with a nuke are extremely low, but less low that
for other countries.

[David Johnston]

On 10/1/2012 9:57 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <a33j68lnvsfh99gfh...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:55:11 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>>> And how would he know where it hit? They didn't have any tracking on
>>> it. He knows where he SENT it, or thinks he did.
>>
>> Tridents go where they're told, very accurately. I didn't have any
>> problems with that part.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Okay, then, we're stuck with that either the Captain is lying to his
> crew, or they showed entirely the wrong thing in the visuals.
>

And what exactly the problem with "they showed the wrong thing in the
visuals"?

[Obveeus]

I haven't noticed Syria or North Korea invading other nations left and
right, so they clearly are not more aggressive than the US. However, you
are correct about Canada (as portrayed on THE L.A. COMPLEX) as they are
clearly trying to invade the USA and destroy its entertainment industry.

[~consul]

'tis on this 9/30/2012 2:51 AM, wrote Arthur Lipscomb thus to say:
> On 9/29/2012 11:29 PM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
>> launch a nuclear strike under false pretenses. And Captain Chaplin
>> was bluffing in that he deliberately missed by 200 miles the US.
> I'm wondering how did he manage to program the missile to the new destination without anyone else knowing. If he ordered them to target D.C. why would the crew do that and if he ordered 200 miles off the coast how could the crew not know?
>> if you remember when the B1s were just about top of them and looked
>> liked that they were ready to sink them he was about to abort the
>> missle anyway.
> Then he snapped and decided to go ahead and detonate it anyway. And if it was always going to harmlessly detonate in the sea, why the sudden urgency to detonate. Surely his XO knew they would detonate "safely" 200 miles out to sea, conveniently not hurting anyone.

I wonder if he was going to bluff either way so that the TV audience and the sub crew were in suspense with everyone else, why not just let the missile fall into the ocean without detonating? It couldn't it have just hit the water and sink? I could see if he didn't want an enemy to get a hold of a nuclear material, but it's the USA, we've got plenty.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[BTR1701]

Well, that they're putting wrong visuals into the show in the first place
seems like a problem in and of itself.

[~consul]

'tis on this 9/30/2012 8:06 PM, wrote Steve Bartman thus to say:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 07:40:46 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>

>> He dropped it in Chesapeake Bay, probably killing millions and
>> contaminating an enormous food supply.
> 200 miles due east of D.C. is open ocean. It probably/maybe killed
> some mariners. It didn't contaminate any food chains. The steam would
> have dissipated in a matter of minutes. I doubt there would have been
> above background radiation levels six hours later. Ocean water moves,
> and there is an immense amount of it. Airborne water and steam would
> have gone east for the most part. There's no soil to irradiate. No
> surface fires with smoke.

I do think it would cause a lot of panic and problems, as folks over on the West Coast were up in alarms about the radiation from the Japanese reactor that collapsed after the tsunami. We got daily reports on the levels of radiation. Now it was neglible, but it was as if any moment t would somehow coalesce into a giant bubble and blow up again! And many folks wondering if they should eat the fish if it had the radioactive tag from those reactors.

[David Johnston]

<shrug> It's not like it's an ongoing problem. These guys are going to
be beached and nonnuclear for the rest of the series.

[shawn]

Don't forget the UK. They seem to have an inordinate number of actors
coming over to take American jobs. They even pretend to be Americans
with fake accents.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:54:04 -0700:
> In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
> > Last Resort � Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
> > sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
> > by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
> > communications facility. I didn�t like everything about the episode (I
> > won�t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
> > can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot.
>
> LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
> ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there
>
> Has that ever
> > happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
> > who is far from perfect.
>
> If by "A psychopathic traitor who needs to be put down like a rabid dog"
> then I agree.

If you ignore geography and math and just take this as an example of a
good man doing a "harmless" thing for all the right reasons sort of
deal, then you'll probably be better off and have less ulcers. :)

As for him disobeying his orders, I thought that the writers did a good
job of giving him plenty of justification. It seems pretty clear that
something was wrong with that picture, and I would hope that our real
sub commanders would do the same sort of questioning if faced with those
circumstances.

> > The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing
> > unnecessary distraction but hopefully the first time he gets in
> > Braugher�s way, Braugher will put an end to him with extreme prejudice.
>
> Yeah, that's about the only way this show can get better.

Two words: shark bait.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Get down off the cross. We need the wood." -- Pete Lattimer, WAREHOUSE 13

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:15:57 -0700:
> In article <c1id68t0hhrdpicl5...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:34:39 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> Last Resort – Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies sketchy
> > >> orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked by U.S.
> > >> ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
> > >> communications facility. I didn’t like everything about the episode (I
> > >> won’t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I

> > >> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot. Has that ever

> > >> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
> > >> who is far from perfect.
> >

> > >> The local crime boss looks to be an ongoing unnecessary distraction but
> > >> hopefully the first time he gets in Braugher’s way, Braugher will put an

> > >> end to him with extreme prejudice. I just hope the show doesn’t devolve
> > >> into Jericho…
> > >
> > >I'm not so sure. After all, Braugher's character is under the deluded
> > >opinion that he hasn't hurt anyone. So far, the only one capable of killing
> > >as needed seems to be the Admiral's daughter.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Except that Braugher has clearly killed at least tens of people if not
> > many more. That area of the ocean
>
> And by 'ocean' you mean 'Annapolis'

Heh. At some point, you have to go with what the writers *intended*
instead of what was actually shown on screen in cases like this one.
Unless you really *like* ulcers. :)

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 09:44:14 -0700:
> In article <k49cpu$kci$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
> > Yep...and that was after he refused to accept valid orders from command.
> > Just the fact that he questioned his orders is a big enough problem, even
> > before he added rouge nuclear terrorist to his resume.
>

> Those rouge terrorists are the worst. He'd have been a much more
> sympathetic character if he'd chosen a nice teal or even puce.

Heh. That's what happens when you let chicks on subs. Pretty soon
everyone is walking around with cotton balls between their toes because
they all just painted their toenails. And don't even get me started on
tampons jamming up the head or the fishnet stockings being worn by the
guys off-duty.

> > What if the actual scenario in place was that the US had gotten early
> > warning that rouge elements in Pakistan were about to launch
>
> Pakistan has rouge terrorists now, too?!?

I'm not liking that demographic makeup.

> Does no one have any fashion sense anymore? God help us all!
>
> > The same set of commands would have been sent to this sub and
> > their failure to follow orders (and follow them quickly) would
> > have resulted in Pakistan having time to launch their own attack
> > and kill millions of US allies.
>
> Or the U.S. could have been attacked and the enemy missiles were still
> in the air headed for America.

In which case the news would be reporting on it.

> The sub's order to launch a retaliatory
> strike could easily come *before* the enemy's missiles arrive and
> detonate, so everything back home would indeed still look normal...
> until it didn't, while Captain Dumbass sits there watching TV instead of
> doing his duty and firing when ordered to.

You missed the point that the order came did not come through the
primary chain of command, which would only happen if DC et al had
already been wiped out. That was the lie that was shown to us by having
the captain tune in to various live TV feeds, none of which were
reporting on the annihilation of Washington.

Of course, that just speaks to the fact that whoever is behind this
either didn't know or didn't care that the captain could tune in a
television station on the sub, which suggests some really stupid people
behind what's going on.

[Jim G.]

Ubiquitous sent the following on Fri, 28 Sep 2012 04:36:23 -0400:
>
> What did you watch?

LAST RESORT (ABC, 7 PM) / Captain
[After questioning orders to fire at a foreign country, Capt. Marcus
Chaplin and the crew of the world's most powerful nuclear submarine find
themselves under attack and declared enemies of the United States.]

This one has been talked to death, so I'll just throw out a few bullet
points and mention a few things I missed if they were discussed
elsewhere.

* This was not as bad as it could have been, but I suspect that, in
retrospect, the table-setting will prove to have been the best part of
this thing.
* That's one roomy boat.
* Why would generals be dressed as admirals? (This is right up there
with getting flag patches wrong on almost every show out there.)
* The admiral's daughter is appealing on a number of levels.
* I also liked the weapons contractor gal for less wholesome and less
pure reasons. That is one fit gal. It's a darn shame that this is a 7 PM
network show. :)
* I like the layers here. "Good" crew and "bad" crew, "good" DC denizens
and "bad" DC denizens, "good " islanders and "bad" islanders ... and the
SEALS seemingly playing a wild card role.
* Speaking of SEALs, that one had quite a gut on him.
* Dichen doesn't look quite so skeleton-y here, but she is still looking
much more haggard these days. And it's not just a makeup thing.
* On the crazy Reagan front, I didn't come away with the impression that
this was any slam on Reagan, but the whole bit about firing lawbreakers
remains valid.
I was impressed with the production values and with most of the acting,
but I'd be very happy to see Major Island Thug dying a quick and painful
death.

Grade: B- (after disengaging the brain)

[Obveeus]

"shawn" <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:34:21 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> That would be justified for The L.A. Complex alone.

>> you
>>are correct about Canada (as portrayed on THE L.A. COMPLEX) as they are
>>clearly trying to invade the USA and destroy its entertainment industry.
>>
>
> Don't forget the UK. They seem to have an inordinate number of actors
> coming over to take American jobs. They even pretend to be Americans
> with fake accents.

Sure, but the people from the UK aren't trying to destroy the US
entertainment industry, they are trying to make it better.

[Obveeus]

"David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:

REVOLUTION:

I hope you are correct, but my fear is that this show is going to find a way
to have the submarine in perilous combat/rescue situations all the time.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<925447716370807436.0...@news.giganews.com>,

Yeah, I mean "they showed a hydrogen bomb go off on Annapolis while the
dialog said it was safely out at sea" seems to be an obvious problem.

[Hunter]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:44:07 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Hunter (Hunter)" wrote in message
>news:5067666d...@news.optonline.net...
>
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:41:00 -0700, Arthur Lipscomb
><art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>>On 9/28/2012 9:54 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <k44hbh$mh1$1...@dont-email.me>,

>>> Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last Resort ­ Andre Braugher plays a submarine captain who defies
>>>> sketchy orders to launch nukes at Pakistan. After his ship is attacked
>>>> by U.S. ships in retaliation, he takes over a small island with a NATO
>>>> communications facility. I didn¹t like everything about the episode (I
>>>> won¹t get into spoilers) but overall, I liked the pilot quite a lot. I
>>>> can hardly believe Robert Patrick survived the pilot.
>>>

>>> LOL, yeah, I was having Stargate Atlantis SGA (the 'A' stands for:
>>> ATLANTIS!) flashbacks there
>>>

>>> Has that ever
>>>> happened before? Braugher came off as a complex interesting character,
>>>> who is far from perfect.
>>>

>>> If by "A psychopathic traitor who needs to be put down like a rabid dog"
>>> then I agree.
>>>
>>

>>That's the point. They have to *believe* he'll push the button or else
>>his threats aren't credible. Now it's not a matter of believing he'll
>>do, they know for a fact, he'll do it. Kudos to the marketing
>>department for not showing the detonation in the commercials.
>------
>Agreed on both counts. And he isn't the traitor but the patriot in
>the same vain as Lt. Commander Hunter (played by Denzel Washington) in
>"Crimson Tide" when he defied the orders of his Captain (played by the
>always brilliant Gene Hackman) who wanted to launch the missiles
>without even double checking with command first even after getting a
>"garbled" message.
>
>It is the people who lied to him and said Washington was nuked who are
>the traitors and murderers.
>>
>>I also suspect he has had a mental break under the pressure. It will be
>>interesting to see where they go with it. Going forward, I think it
>>might be better to openly make him an anti-hero (whose stability is not
>>entirely clear) instead of ignoring what he did in the pilot.
>-----
>I don't think Capt. Chaplin has had a brteak down of any sort. His
>first officer may have thought so when he found him in his cabin
>listening to Mozart but just like with Sherlock Holmes it helps him
>think.
>
>==========================================
>
>I'd say the XO may be even more concerned about the captain saying that this
>may be their home now.
----
They can't go home right now because they would be hunted by the US
Navy, probably with help from the Russians and Chinese as well. And
right now there is no evidence for his story other than some of the
crew testimony. If they aren't killed many of them is headding off to
prison, perhaps even Guantanomo as terrorist.

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

[anim8rFSK]

In article <glqj68dsc7ksad32g...@4ax.com>,

FOX would, but CNN and MSNBC wouldn't.

>
> > The sub's order to launch a retaliatory
> > strike could easily come *before* the enemy's missiles arrive and
> > detonate, so everything back home would indeed still look normal...
> > until it didn't, while Captain Dumbass sits there watching TV instead of
> > doing his duty and firing when ordered to.
>
> You missed the point that the order came did not come through the
> primary chain of command, which would only happen if DC et al had
> already been wiped out. That was the lie that was shown to us by having
> the captain tune in to various live TV feeds, none of which were
> reporting on the annihilation of Washington.
>
> Of course, that just speaks to the fact that whoever is behind this
> either didn't know or didn't care that the captain could tune in a
> television station on the sub, which suggests some really stupid people
> behind what's going on.

Was there actually some doubt!?!?!?

Oh - wait, you meant ON screen, didn't you?