Pentagon bloat, etc. thread

[Vrede too]

Arkhipov saving the world was kept secret for 40 years. We can't have the public knowing how reckless the US is with nuclear weapons.

The US?

Russia, too, but their secrecy is on them. The entire Cuban Missile Crisis was recklessness provoked by our putting nuclear missiles in Turkey. In fact, JFK's "victory" was really his secret agreement to remove the nuclear missiles from Turkey, which he did a few months later.

I was thinking of the shoddy command and control the Soviets had where two guys could launch without orders.

It was fortunately 3 in this episode and I think that's been true for all nuclear armed subs, depending on world conditions when they go deep and radio silent.

[Ulysses]

Yep. Right now I'm reading "Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis" by Serhii Plokhy so a lot of that is fresh in my mind. It's a scary tale. Lots of comments from some of the ones who participated in it on both sides; at the time and years later in their memoirs. One thing I never heard of or knew about was that a Russian submarine came very close to launching a nuclear armed torpedo on a US Navy destroyer in the Caribbean during October 62. The only reason they didn't is because the Russian commanding officer of the sub just happened to see a US sailor signalling with a light apologizing for American planes dropping flares and dummy depth charges on the sub. The incident occurred at night while the sub was on the surface. If they had launched, it would have destroyed the destroyer as well as the sub and severely damaged the other US task force ships by the generating of waves about 90 feet high. The nuclear warhead on the torpedo was rated at a little less kilotons than the Hiroshima bomb. If that US sailor hadn't sent that morse code signal to the Russians there would have been nuclear war.

It was around that time (1962) I remember in grammar school (5th grade) having to go through nuclear attack safety drills. Things like get under your desk (not easy, since the desks and chairs were one piece) and later linking hands behind head with face to the wall in the corridor outside the classrooms. It was serious stuff.

Less than a year later we emigrated to San Francisco where nobody seemed to care about the USSR any more. Then JFK was shot in Dallas, LBJ took control, Vietnam spiraled out of control, the Summer of Love hit the Haight, and things got kind of interesting for a while.

[GoCubsGo]

Arkhipov saving the world was kept secret for 40 years. We can't have the public knowing how reckless the US is with nuclear weapons.

The US?

Russia, too, but their secrecy is on them. The entire Cuban Missile Crisis was recklessness provoked by our putting nuclear missiles in Turkey. In fact, JFK's "victory" was really his secret agreement to remove the nuclear missiles from Turkey, which he did a few months later.

I was thinking of the shoddy command and control the Soviets had where two guys could launch without orders.

It was fortunately 3 in this episode and I think that's been true for all nuclear armed subs, depending on world conditions when they go deep and radio silent.

Read the wiki, it's normally two.

[Ulysses]

Would three be considered to be contributing to Pentagon bloat?

[Vrede too]

Would three be considered to be contributing to Pentagon bloat?

3 Russian sub officers. If you're going for witty it pays to not be an idiot.

[Vrede too]

I was thinking of the shoddy command and control the Soviets had where two guys could launch without orders.

It was fortunately 3 in this episode and I think that's been true for all nuclear armed subs, depending on world conditions when they go deep and radio silent.

Read the wiki, it's normally two.

My bad for being unclear. I meant that the launch officers, whether 2 or 3, often have autonomy under certain conditions. Then, orders are merely a comm. The launch officers have the physical ability to ignore them.

[Ulysses]

Vfool wrote:

"It was fortunately 3 in this episode and I think that's been true for all nuclear armed subs, depending on world conditions when they go deep and radio silent."

All nuclear armed subs would logically include US subs, which are funded by the Pentagon.

Another Vrudy Fooliuninny faceplant!

[Vrede too]

(Vrede too) wrote:

"It was fortunately 3 in this episode and I think that's been true for all nuclear armed subs, depending on world conditions when they go deep and radio silent."

All nuclear armed subs would logically include US subs, which are funded by the Pentagon.

Another (Vrede too) faceplant!

You're actually whining about something that's already been explained, but you're too dense to comprehend. Perfect. Plus, neither of us know what's most safe and efficient for submarine launch officers, duh. You are a double failure on this one, no surprise.

[Ulysses]

A double-vrudy face plant!

It's an embarrassment of twitches!

[Vrede too]

A double-(Vrede too) face plant!

It's an embarrassment of twitches!

Get a 4th grader to explain the posts above to you. You're embarrassing yourself, again.

[Ulysses]

Vrudy needs to get a life.

[Vrede too]

(Vrede too) needs to get a life.

Project much, pussy? You are the one that invaded a serious discussion with a silly, off-topic quip. Man-up and own your poor choices for once in your miserable, ass-kicked life.

[neoplacebo]

I was thinking of the shoddy command and control the Soviets had where two guys could launch without orders.

It was fortunately 3 in this episode and I think that's been true for all nuclear armed subs, depending on world conditions when they go deep and radio silent.

Read the wiki, it's normally two.

My bad for being unclear. I meant that the launch officers, whether 2 or 3, often have autonomy under certain conditions. Then, orders are merely a comm. The launch officers have the physical ability to ignore them.

Normally it is two officers; the commanding officer and the executive officer. That's the US navy protocol. Arkhipov would not normally have been on that submarine. I forget the reason he was there at all. But he was senior to the commanding officer.

[Vrede too]

Normally it is two officers; the commanding officer and the executive officer. That's the US navy protocol. Arkhipov would not normally have been on that submarine. I forget the reason he was there at all. But he was senior to the commanding officer.

Wiki, the book you're reading may vary on the details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Ar ... ile_Crisis

... Unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, three officers on board B-59 had to agree unanimously to authorize a nuclear launch: Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and the chief of staff of the flotilla (and executive officer of B-59) Arkhipov. Typically, Soviet submarines armed with the "Special Weapon" only required the captain to get authorization from the political officer to launch a nuclear torpedo, but due to Arkhipov's position as chief of staff, B-59's captain also was required to gain his approval. An argument broke out, with only Arkhipov against the launch.

Even though Arkhipov was second-in-command of the submarine B-59, he was in fact chief of staff of the submarine flotilla, including B-4, B-36 and B-130. According to author Edward Wilson, the reputation Arkhipov had gained from his courageous conduct in the previous year's K-19 incident also helped him prevail. Arkhipov eventually persuaded Savitsky to surface and await orders from Moscow. This effectively averted the general nuclear war which probably would have ensued if the nuclear weapon had been fired. The submarine's batteries had run very low and the air conditioning had failed, causing extreme heat and high levels of carbon dioxide inside the submarine. They were forced to surface amid the American pursuers and to return to the Soviet Union as a result.

[neoplacebo]

Normally it is two officers; the commanding officer and the executive officer. That's the US navy protocol. Arkhipov would not normally have been on that submarine. I forget the reason he was there at all. But he was senior to the commanding officer.

Wiki, the book you're reading may vary on the details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Ar ... ile_Crisis

... Unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, three officers on board B-59 had to agree unanimously to authorize a nuclear launch: Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and the chief of staff of the flotilla (and executive officer of B-59) Arkhipov. Typically, Soviet submarines armed with the "Special Weapon" only required the captain to get authorization from the political officer to launch a nuclear torpedo, but due to Arkhipov's position as chief of staff, B-59's captain also was required to gain his approval. An argument broke out, with only Arkhipov against the launch.

Even though Arkhipov was second-in-command of the submarine B-59, he was in fact chief of staff of the submarine flotilla, including B-4, B-36 and B-130. According to author Edward Wilson, the reputation Arkhipov had gained from his courageous conduct in the previous year's K-19 incident also helped him prevail. Arkhipov eventually persuaded Savitsky to surface and await orders from Moscow. This effectively averted the general nuclear war which probably would have ensued if the nuclear weapon had been fired. The submarine's batteries had run very low and the air conditioning had failed, causing extreme heat and high levels of carbon dioxide inside the submarine. They were forced to surface amid the American pursuers and to return to the Soviet Union as a result.

I don't remember what the book said the reason for his presence on that submarine was but do remember the book mentioned that he was senior to the regular commanding officer. The Soviets always assigned a "political officer" to all their military commands, so in a normal situation I think it would be the captain and the political officer having to agree on interpreting and executing a launch order. But in this case they received no launch order. Edit; I will look for his name in the index and go back and find out why he was even there.
Double bubble edit: from the book: "The Soviet officers whom Gary Slaughter had seen on the bridge of the submarine on the night of October 27 were its captain, Valentin Savitsky, and the commander of a task force of four Foxtrot class submarines lurking in the warm waters of the Atlantic on the approaches to Cuba, Vasilii Arkhipov. They were of equal rank, with their parade uniforms displaying the shoulder boards of captain second grade, equivalent to lieutenant colonel in the army. Savitsky was in charge of the submarine, but Arkhipov was his superior."

[Vrede too]

I don't remember what the book said the reason for his presence on that submarine was but do remember the book mentioned that he was senior to the regular commanding officer. The Soviets always assigned a "political officer" to all their military commands, so in a normal situation I think it would be the captain and the political officer having to agree on interpreting and executing a launch order. But in this case they received no launch order. Edit; I will look for his name in the index and go back and find out why he was even there.
Double bubble edit: from the book: "The Soviet officers whom Gary Slaughter had seen on the bridge of the submarine on the night of October 27 were its captain, Valentin Savitsky, and the commander of a task force of four Foxtrot class submarines lurking in the warm waters of the Atlantic on the approaches to Cuba, Vasilii Arkhipov. They were of equal rank, with their parade uniforms displaying the shoulder boards of captain second grade, equivalent to lieutenant colonel in the army. Savitsky was in charge of the submarine, but Arkhipov was his superior."

Apparently, being the "chief of staff of the submarine flotilla" made him the XO on the sub he was physically on.

[GoCubsGo]

Apparently, being the "chief of staff of the submarine flotilla" made him the XO on the sub he was physically on.

If I'm understanding this correctly, he was XO in addition to "Chief of Staff ", which seems equivalent to "Commodore" or in overall command of the fleet.

Unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, three officers on board B-59 had to agree unanimously to authorize a nuclear launch: Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and the chief of staff of the flotilla (and executive officer of B-59) Arkhipov. Typically, Soviet submarines armed with the "Special Weapon" only required the captain to get authorization from the political officer to launch a nuclear torpedo, but due to Arkhipov's position as chief of staff, B-59's captain also was required to gain his approval. An argument broke out, with only Arkhipov against the launch.[9]

Even though Arkhipov was second-in-command of the submarine B-59, he was in fact chief of staff of the submarine flotilla, including B-4, B-36 and B-130.[10] According to author Edward Wilson, the reputation Arkhipov had gained from his courageous conduct in the previous year's K-19 incident also helped him prevail.[8] Arkhipov eventually persuaded Savitsky to surface and await orders from Moscow. This effectively averted the general nuclear war which probably would have ensued if the nuclear weapon had been fired.[11] The submarine's batteries had run very low and the air conditioning had failed, causing extreme heat and high levels of carbon dioxide inside the submarine.[10] They were forced to surface amid the American pursuers and to return to the Soviet Union as a result.[3]

[Ulysses]

Sodden question: If the Pentagon were to take over the Soviet Navy, would the new budget reclassify all the top brass as... wait for it...








VOLGA BLOATMEN

.

[neoplacebo]

I don't remember what the book said the reason for his presence on that submarine was but do remember the book mentioned that he was senior to the regular commanding officer. The Soviets always assigned a "political officer" to all their military commands, so in a normal situation I think it would be the captain and the political officer having to agree on interpreting and executing a launch order. But in this case they received no launch order. Edit; I will look for his name in the index and go back and find out why he was even there.
Double bubble edit: from the book: "The Soviet officers whom Gary Slaughter had seen on the bridge of the submarine on the night of October 27 were its captain, Valentin Savitsky, and the commander of a task force of four Foxtrot class submarines lurking in the warm waters of the Atlantic on the approaches to Cuba, Vasilii Arkhipov. They were of equal rank, with their parade uniforms displaying the shoulder boards of captain second grade, equivalent to lieutenant colonel in the army. Savitsky was in charge of the submarine, but Arkhipov was his superior."

Apparently, being the "chief of staff of the submarine flotilla" made him the XO on the sub he was physically on.

Well, the whole thing has to do with the concept of a naval task force. I use US naval terminology in this; Soviet policy may be slightly different. If the submarine is operating on patrol, alone, Arkhipov would not have been on that boat. It would have only been the commanding officer (Savitsky) and the political officer. But once a task force is established, someone is charged with being in overall command of it. In this case, it was four Foxtrot class Soviet subs. Because of the altered situation (being part of a group of boats instead of operating alone) Arkhipov was designated the task force commander which means he has command of all four subs even though he can obviously be present on just one of them. Just like when I was part of the US 7th fleet, most times my ship operated alone but sometimes we'd be out with a group of ships. The commander of the 7th fleet, who is an Admiral, is in overall command of all 7th fleet forces. His flagship was the USS Oklahoma City. When he is on that ship, he is senior to the CO of Oklahoma City. But just like with my ship, most of the time Oklahoma City operated alone and the Admiral stayed in his office on shore. But if the Admiral is on board, he's in overall command. Aside: the USS Oklahoma City actually had wooden deck on top of the steel on the deck in front of the bridge. Here's a history of the ship.
https://www.hullnumber.com/CLG-5

[Ulysses]

I wasn't aware that Oklahoma had a big naval presence.

Learn something every day!