Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (94653)	1/11/2005 6:46:55 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793790

The point of my inquiry, thusly, is how much responsibility a commander must assume for cataclysmic events. Bill, This may help clarify your thoughts. In the US Military, a commander is always responsible for everything his unit does and everything it fails to do. That responsibility remains fixed even if the unit's actions or inactions were counter to his direct orders. Unavoidable accidents happen and this may have been one. In that case the Commander should not be found liable, but, in our system, he will still be considered responsible. uw

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (94653)	1/11/2005 8:45:57 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 793790

..>>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.>>> Am hoping the inquiry will be nothing resembling Rathergate. The Navy must find what actually went wrong and will be blunt with the questioning. As with most accidents, I suspect a series of smaller or unexpected events led up to the grounding. A new man on Sonar, a defective instrument, an error in the GPS system or reading, a trainee on a posting, an error in charts or depth lines, an overshoot in a dive. Island shifting up to 100 feet ? Hard to conceive of that much power produced except by seeing what ruinous power was left in the waves as they traveled ashore a thousand miles away. I think we hope for an "out" for the officers involved,so a new seamount would help provide that. Regards Sig@hopeforthebest.com

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (94653)	1/11/2005 8:45:58 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 793790

..>>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.>>> Am hoping the inquiry will be nothing resembling Rathergate. The Navy must find what actually went wrong and will be blunt with the questioning. As with most accidents, I suspect a series of smaller or unexpected events led up to the grounding. A new man on Sonar, a defective instrument, an error in the GPS system or reading, a trainee on a posting, an error in charts or depth lines, an overshoot in a dive. Island shifting up to 100 feet ? Hard to conceive of that much power produced except by seeing what ruinous power was left in the waves as they traveled ashore a thousand miles away. I think we hope for an "out" for the officers involved,so a new seamount would help provide that. Regards Sig@hopeforthebest.com