Well yes, the Court probably wouldn't buy a squid story at all. But a squid story is not the issue of my inquiry. I do indeed agree with pheilman and Lindy that a sea mount could be the case, and specifically to pheilman, a "new" sea mount could be possible. And, as we've witnessed with the recent Indian Ocean thing, sub-sea geography does indeed change. They say the whole island of Sumatra was moved a 100 feet or so. That's not a small "island". And, 100 feet (or was the news reports in "yards") could mean a lot of error correction if driving ahead, full speed, underwater.
Some have even suggested that the whole Earth's daytime was changed by this event, by some fraction of a second. The power required for that to happen is not measured in all the world's combined (relative by comparison) puny nuclear arsenal.
The point of my inquiry, thusly, is how much responsibility a commander must assume for cataclysmic events. Or, even if world geography isn't the case, what a "long run" might do, if extension of such is a contributing factor. Since I know nearly nothing of Naval protocol, I'm just trying to understand from the POV of people who have actually been there. |
