u/Otherwise-Bad-7352

I was an enlisted submariner and I'm trying to figure how the other half lived.

I'm reading various things about infantry and infantry officers, and trying to understand what platoon commanders do. Obviously on the boat, junior officers led really tiny divisions, and when they were on watch, orders were to get the boat to do specific things.

Reading the book on what platoon commander's are supposed to do, it seems really wishy washy? Like they have to evaluate, give mission tactics, and adjust......okay. Sure. That is a lot different than if you want to make the boat go faster you have them tell maneuvering to make the boat go faster and it goes faster.

I get they are supposed to give mission tactics to infantry squads using the specific structure of roles with enough flexibility for the squad leaders to adjust and then make changes

1. how hard is it to come up with orders?
2. how frequently do they need changes?

I see a lot of travel advice that says you will be fine if you are not an idiot and keep your wits about you.

Here's the thing. I have enough self awareness to know I am an idiot, am very inattentive, and won't be describe as having wits.

What parts do I need to avoid FOR SAFETY REASONS?

Test

Is it unfair because of the procedures or are they also getting the legal decisions wrong?

I get accused of defending bad people a lot and that I must be part of that side. And I feel like I'm the only sane person maintaining a standard of evidence.

A ton of bad things powerful people are accused of requires evidence of intent. And we have systems for proving intent. Granted, you are probably not going to get access to the emails and memos of high level politicians until decades from now to prove intent. But difficulty in getting evidence is not a basis to lower the standard of evidence of a claim.

I have two examples, one from both sides.

1. we don't actually have evidence that Pelosi engages in insider trading. I have read a lot of insider trading cases. The SEC regularly produces communications of insider traders showing a plan to trade on information on their cases.

2. for most war crimes by Western powers, we don't actually have the evidence to prove the intent requirements. There is just too much wiggle room and we probably won't have the evidence until the perpetrators are dead, the information is released, and we actually see their deliberations.

I was watching a video on TMA because I was a nuke for 6 years and was too busy to learn a lot about it when I was in. I thought I would ask my nuking it out questions

1. the mark 48 has active sensors. How close does the fire solution actually needs to be?

2. how many data points with modern technology does it take to actually establish range, speed, and bearing? Both to be extremely accurate and for a less accurate firing solution?

3. why does fire control do underway? Do you just develop solutions against everything you get a contact against? Since we are below the water, there isn't a risk of hitting ships? And on the surface people on the bridge are watching out? What is TMAs role in avoiding collisions?

On one hand, I'm sure they are happy that people get paid. On the other big contracts make it harder to win.

I always wondered how these things would have fought if someone like the British attacked in 1904. A few were stationed at Norfolk armed with Whitehead torpedos capable of only 800 yards.

Do you think they could have done anything in that era? Maybe hide out in the bay until night and set out to damage blockading ships? Or would they have failed incredibly and be written off before the technology could develop?

Hello,

Our fifth grader has been procrastinating on a final project in their advanced program so much so that we have had to take significant measures and supervision for them to complete the project.(after already having a lot of discussion and planning of the project leading up to it). We have even implemented some related consequences regarding fun before responsibilities.

Today, we saw what little progress they made at school on it and admitted they basically played video games during the time for the project.

At this point, partner and I are discussing revoking their permission to attend the fifth grade amusement park trip and having them stay at school doing iready all that day.

Would this be too severe a punishment? The trip means a lot to them, but a) they already had responsibility consequences and b) they would be in jeopardy of not even passing the fifth grade and in jeopardy of not being allowed on the trip without the major intervention

I have so many conversations about Trump that follow this pattern.

Trump does some action ABC

them: Trump's actions can be classified as X

Me: Trump's actions cannot be classified as X

Them: why are you defending Trump?

But here is the thing....what bucket something is placed in doesn't define if it is good or bad. Whether ABC is good or bad is not dependent on if it is classified as X or non X.

Suppose I have classification of either 1 or 2. Currently everything in bucket 1 is good, and currently everything in bucket 2 is bad, but the buckets are not classified based on goodness or badness.

Now suppose I think Y is good but you convince me that it meets the criteria for bucket 2. Well, I don't now think Y is bad. Instead, bucket 2 now contains bad thing plus one good thing.

And this is why I will debate what I classify Trump's actions as... because what category we place it in doesn't affect the underlying immorality of the act.

This is just like the pedophile/Ephebophilia point. (Funnily enough, also applies to Trump). People can't accept that saying something isn't pedophilia but is Ephebophilia is not a defense, because it doesn't change the immorality of the unethical act.

When someone says political violence is not acceptable, I think it is appropriate to ask if political violence against hitler was acceptable. People will either say that is off topic, or that is different.

What they don't do is articulate the line. But it seems you need to have a rule to then assess if the situation does or does not meet that rule. Or accept that most people don't have a self developed moral theory and shouldn't pass judgement on the moral question.

What is everyone else's thoughts?

20 years ago I served on a 688.

I was looking up details about diesel boats and WW2 boats like the Thresher and I wondered things like what were there watch stations, what was watch rotation, how long was a sea tour, how did passive sonar work, what was their electrical setup, etc

Are there any good submarine history or non fiction books that go into the details submariners would care about that a general reader would find pointless or excessive?