The fire response read like a clownshow, and this article doesn't even highlight the worst of it. There was a Sailor who saw the smoke and walked by it, thinking nothing of it!
Another officer thought the smoke might have been coming from the diesel generator. Why tf would the diesel generator be running???
It's hard for me to think of the software equivalent of these fundamental errors. Maybe something like finding a spike in network traffic and assuming it's load testing on prod, when you're actually getting pwned?
(Based on a quick search of that report for "DCA"...let me politely suggest that you do NOT read the report. Ever.)
You can't expect respect by fiat, it must be earned.
This are 100's of military memes everywhere on this so what's your real question?
It's a 100% logical thought process, people are learning to kill other human beings, how is that compatible with Wokeness? The Woke can't even code, they can only bikeshed other peoples time away.
RT comment on pretty girls who love their parents and beaches and weddings - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEnxmzqXJN8 Any idiot can see the point here.
Russian soldier leaks on social media are them killing civilians. The USA 'leaks' on social media are soldiers complaining they have to remove their nail polish. These meme's are common.
It also follows the corollary, that unlike the Cold War where countries tried to outdo each other, now they try and put the other one down. Play down Chinese space tech rather than improving our own.
Rationally, it's absurd to ignore a fire. But I've seen organizations and situations where I would expect it.
Also, isn't fire on a submarine far more critical than fire on a surface ship in port?
There have basically been no naval conflicts between fairly matched forces since WWII and the story goes that no one knows how to run a navy anymore. I say running a navy in such a conflict is mostly irrelevant because the weapons which may destroy ships (particularly large ones) are so much more effective now that your fleet would be quickly destroyed.
Submarines exist to keep the peace. Their real purpose is that they exist and operate in the dated service of mutually assured destruction. Even here the accidents seem to mount lately though as these wandering souls of the doomsday device have seemingly nothing to do
The us navy is in the midst of an identity crisis fuelled by octogenarian politicians that have pedalled the institution into treading cold-war era water with no real direction.
Carriers don't go anywhere alone, and they never stop moving except when in port. They are part of a carrier strike group which includes extensive anti-missile capabilities, both from escorting ships and patrol aircraft (LAMPS.)
> Submarines exist to keep the peace. Their real purpose is that they exist and operate in the dated service of mutually assured destruction.
Submarines are not only for launching nuclear ballistic missiles, as indicated by the relatively large number of submarines that are not designed to carry them. They're used for patrol, surveillance, special ops, escort, etc.
That sounds very nice but I think whatever is on the land side can store more missile than anti-missile missile on ships.
The reality is that the protection of the ship came from the desire to not have a full out war with the US. Once that is out of the picture, and given the adversary is not a punching bag like Iraq, all of them have the potential to rapidly sink on a massive attack. Though if it comes to that, the survivability of the fleet isn't the very first concern...
Can’t say I’m super surprised it’s reached this point though, we’ve been running our military like schizophrenic kids on adderall for the last 20+ years.
Maybe. The reports are very clear that most of the problems are lessons learned but not implemented from the Miami in 2012.
> It’s certainly better than pinning this entire event on whatever E-3 started the fire.
Does this ever happen? I've never seen it.
> we’ve been running our military like schizophrenic kids on adderall for the last 20+ years.
Can you explain?
It does. In this specific case, even. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/29/1022514854/sailor-charged-ars...
“The U.S. Navy charged a sailor Thursday with starting a fire last year that destroyed the USS Bonhomme Richard docked off San Diego, marking the maritime branch's worst warship blaze outside of combat in recent memory.”
I was once interrogated by NIS for 3 days and in the end I almost signed a false statement to get it over with.
NCIS is not a believable policing agency. They use very questionable methods for getting confessions.
In my case they provided a false statement from my roommate and then when I asked for representation they escorted me to a Flag Officer who told me I should tell them everything I know.
Turns out the flag officer was a prosecuting not defense lawyer. One agent was kind enough to mention that.
With that information I ran out of NIS headquarters never to hear from them again.
They are not to be trusted.
Now I work in a shipyard and my simple question is:
How did MARMAC allow a ship to not have fire stands in a shipyard.
Utter failure on thier part.
They are the US Navy contract representatives.
That makes them a very believable policing agency, since that's basically an universal trait of such agencies.
But an example of a police department in one city run by one corrupt political party is not proof of the claim that any agency that does such a thing is a "believable policing agency"? Nor of the claim that this is "basically an universal trait of such agencies"?
I know there are policing agencies that behave poorly, the poster in this thread talking about NCIS gave another anecdote of it happening. That's not what I was questioning.
Persuasive interrogation like this is widely used across the United States to elicit confessions or convince people to accept plea bargains, even in cases where they are innocent, because our justice system does not actually have the capacity to provide everyone an actual trial. The risk of carrying a case to trial, even if you're innocent, can be significantly higher than entering a guilty plea and accepting a bargain.
An infinitesimal amount of cases actually go to trial in America: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-f...
I realize you are just trying to help here, so thanks anyway. Let's wait for the original poster to reply.
Charged with arson, so without more details it’s hard to say if they’re just a patsy.
Probably incompetent throughout.
It sure used to. Iowa turret explosion?
In absolute terms, they are very well funded of course. But what I read over and over is that there isn't time for training, because the demand we put on them - the world is a very large place - is much higher. They are told to cut training and deploy. After the collisions, they decided that officers (at least some positions) were too overworked and discussed (maybe implemented) limiting their workweeks to 100 hours.
Think of any organization; when the choice is product or training, many managers will cut the latter, even at the obvious long-term cost. The pressure and immediate demand are too great. If someone is working over 100 hours per week, if they can get a break by cutting training, that actually seems like a valid choice - they need to function.
Look at the US Navy: ~400,000 active duty personnel operating ~400 ships (~250 combat, ~150 aux).
Compare to the Chinese PLAN: ~250,000 active duty personnel operating ~750 ships (~500 combat, ~250 aux).
A huge portion of that difference is due to aircraft carriers (11 USN, 2 PLAN), average tonnage per ship, and specifically the USN's lack of frigates.
This arrangement optimizes for the USN's mission of international power projection, where logistics requirements are like an iceberg, with the deployed forces being the above water volume.
However, it does leave a problem of training and experience. If no numerous smaller vessels exist for SWOs and crew to come up through, how do we expect them to have a deep reservoir of experience by the time they're commanding and crewing a destroyer+?
The retirement of the Perry class, subsequent botching of the LCS program (and finally recent selection of a Constellation class design, to be built) left the current USN with ~50 less commands for officers and crew to cut their teeth on.
The Zumwalt class are 610 feet long, with 130 crew. Similarly sized WWII cruisers had over a thousand.
If you think it's bad now, wait until there's a war.
The military needs to be able to operate under conditions of overwhelming workload and lack of resources, because that's what it will be like if it ever actually has to fight.
> If someone is working over 100 hours per week, if they can get a break by cutting training
Then someone has the wrong definition of "training". Training is properly done as part of actual operations. You don't "train" to do something and then do it. You train by doing it, while others more senior to you are watching you while they're doing their part of the operations. For example, the officers who made the bad decisions that caused the collisions you refer to should have been training on ship handling and navigation as part of transiting the ship from place to place, routinely. You shouldn't have to set aside special "training" time for those things.
Firefighting is actually an exception to the above rule, for obvious reasons, so there is a good reason to have special training time for that. But you can do that while other things are going on as well.
> when the choice is product or training, many managers will cut the latter
Your use of the word "managers" suggests to me the root cause of the problem: our military doesn't need "managers", it needs leaders. You don't "manage" a military organization; you lead it. And the collisions several years ago and this fire point to a lack of leadership in our military.
Funny, that's exactly what I said 40-plus years ago when I got out. (Naïve youth that I was, I even wrote a letter to Admiral Rickover about it; IIRC, the response was a bland thank-you letter from some functionary — but Rickover was famous for having said about certain managers, there but for the grace of God goes God.)
I saw many of the same problems when I was in the Navy 30-ish years ago. But some seem to have gotten worse; from the report to Congress that was linked to upthread, what jumped out at me was the increasing micromanagement from flag officers and the lack of teaching basic ship handling and warfighting skills.
I have a hard time understanding that. We all know that enormous amounts (maybe most) training is done outside actual operations, both in the military and otherwise. Obviously you are aware of that, so do you mean this in a specific context? Is the US Navy somehow different (and are you in the USN)?
The fact that this happens to be the case now does not mean it's right, or that it was always done this way.
> Is the US Navy somehow different
I would imagine that all branches of the US military have similar issues, but the article that prompted this thread only discusses the Navy.
> (and are you in the USN)?
I was, years ago, but I'm not now.
This ship was not at sea. It was docked, and partially disassembled for maintenance. Only 118 of the normal crew of 1000 were on board. On the other hand, they had assistance from the shipyard, other ships nearby, and civilian fire departments. Despite that, the ship burned for days and had to be scrapped.
Exemption 6 protects information about individuals in "personnel and medical files and similar files" when the disclosure of such information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
There's some interesting parallels with the HMS Stark, which burned after being hit by an Exocet missile in the Falklands War. Their electronic communications and radar systems weren't working properly, they couldn't fight the fire, and the captain was recently assigned from subs. So it was more of an overal systemic failure like the BR than specific to a missile attack - the Exocet was an ignition source, but the failures afterward were leadership-related.
You can watch YT videos on the Forrestall carrier fire, started by electrical faults in Zuni missiles on John McCain's airplane. The Navy supposedly raised fire-fighting skills as a priority after that, but I guess not.
During WW2, the Franklin carrier burned and when around 100 sailors got blocked off by smoke and flames, they jumped overboard to save their lives. Sadly the captain blacklisted them, and they were interned as deserters in Hawaii.
2) No lives, but multiple billions of dollars, lost.
3) There's a scenario that China could occupy Australia with 10,000 soldiers using their existing troop carriers. The US actually needed the ship that burned.
NTD Media - How China Might Win a War with the US (Dr. Robert D. Eldridge) @4:41
4) My understanding is the fire involved a love triangle. If so, wokeism set back the US military, as expected. I've also heard recently that in time of war, many female personnel are expected to "accidently" get pregnant before deployment, affecting readiness. I bring this up because our current military leadership seemingly can't.
Source: I study WW2, and to a lesser extent, other wars.
I've not heard much good about the USN on this front.
And a juicy (and damning) tidbit from the parent's second link - the San Diego (local civilian) Fire Dept, arriving at the ship's pier 30 minutes after FedFire, and at least 45 minutes after the ship's crew knew of the fire, and knowing nothing of the ship's layout or systems, and having to (in effect) ask passing sailors for directions - was the first organization to actually get a hose to the fire, and start doing something useful - before the fire grew out of control.
jwithington's comment about the whole fire response (presumably outside of the municipal crews) being a "clownshow" is profoundly understated.
Is crew retention decreasing? It is hard to imagine people putting up with conditions in the Navy while there are so many stories like this going around.
The leadership problems in the USN have been endemic since Tailhook.
Now the leadership that created the circumstances and conditions for this mismanagement to flourish, rushes to fix a problem they allowed to create?
Also extremely toxic to morale.
How exactly did you reach this conclusion?
If you don't have time to verify/consider something then sure, probably don't get your advice from hitler. But in an argument its a cheap and disingenuous dismissal which doesn't actually bring you any closer to truth/resolution.
In this case it's a compendium of interviews from current personnel. Maybe the implication is that the data is fabricated but the only evidence provided is in the form of "the author has opinions I don't like".
Awfully convenient to automatically class anyone with an opinion contrary to your own as "unreliable". An excellent manufactured reason to avoid content produced by anyone from outside of your bubble.
For two, consistent anecdata from personal acquaintances and forum posts. The demographics are also completely changing. The military was until recently carried primarily by white men from small town America. Now white maleness is effectively a career handicap when genitals, skin color, and sexual orientation are considered for promotion.
I think the recent army advertisements are a valid proxy for the negative value that current leadership places on white-maleness. A military which is still majority white and male is releasing recruitment videos which exclusively feature minorities, females, and a healthy sprinkling of homosexuality. Here's a nice illustration, comparing recent US ads to those from Russia and China. Only two of those forces are actually interested in recruiting competent soldiers, if these ads are any indication. China is laughing.
Edit: the sister post by jimmygrapes found one of the reports/letters I was looking for. I urge you all to read it to see, among other things, what happens to morale when demographic considerations are added to promotion evaluations. What is reported is consistent with what I've been hearing from former servicemember acquaintances.
The military has disproportionately been non-White for a long time (largely, because even while actively racist for most of its history, it was less racist than the rest of American society), despite the White segment of it being disproportionately small town.
Its been disproportionately male, because it has been actively sexist and, unlike its racism, more actively sexist than the rest of society.
> Now white maleness is effectively a career handicap when genitals, skin color, and sexual orientation are considered for promotion.
Genitals, skin color, sexual orientation, and conformity with social norms of alignment of sex assigned at birth with gender presentation have always been a factor in military assignment, promotion, and discipline in the US.
For most of the history of the US military being White was a commanding advantage in that, being male was a commanding advantage in some areas, and a bright-line legal requirement everywhere else, and until very recently not being a cisgender heterosexual was grounds for being excluded from the service and drummed out (and criminally prosecuted) if already in.
The idea that these factors only started to matter when they stopped being a trump card for White cishet men is...amusing.
How do you define recent? This was not the case when I was in the military almost 30 years ago.
There seems to be a lot of cognitive dissonance or just ignorance about the fact the U.S. has singular counties, essentially close to singular cities, that have the same population of 13 states combined.
And, statistically, those in the lower population 13 states are more and more unable to meet the simple physical requirements of the U.S. military. To my knowledge, the past 5 or so years, the military has had serious recruitment issues because of things as simple as obesity metrics.
That's literally an important technique for fighting fire, so you are literally wrong.
Are white men not allowed to expect meritocratic, equal treatment in a society where they are a minority-majority?
>Secondly, society is inherently unequal. Congress has attempted to redress some of this equality through affirmative action
Yes, the debate is whether or not this inequality is actually due to racism, and whether codified racism is somehow an appropriate vehicle for correction. Sidestepping this necessary discussion with accusations of white supremacy is not an argument.
>And third, you're saying the quiet part out loud when you yet again show concern about being a minority-majority
I'm not saying anything quiet out loud. I've been loud and clear that I am worried about the fact that whites, today, are already a majority-minority in multiple institutions, rapidly approaching such status in the military and the nation in general, and most importantly, are already being treated unfairly in a misguided attempt to correct perceived racism with actual racism, and being slandered with dehumanizing comparisons to nazis for even attempting to question whether such discriminatory policies are justifiable.
>Are you afraid of being treated the same way non-whites have been treated for the last 100 years, or do you think they've been treated just fine?
First, I really don't appreciate the bigoted implication that only a white male could possibly be concerned with mistreatment of whites. I am a Jewish immigrant. Second, yes, I am indeed concerned that the only socially acceptable view appears to be that today's white people deserve to be mistreated because some white people mistreated others in the past.
I am arguing against literal systemic racism and yet my posts are being flagged. This is the most toxic sort of groupthink and, now that we have successfully convinced 1-2 generations that the only contributions that white people have made to civilization are racism and colonialism, yes, you're god damn right I'm worried that the foundations have been laid for mistreatment of whites, who are a tiny minority with respect to global demographics. Your argumentation is generally dishonest and you appear to be supporting bigotry in the form of some petty revenge fantasy.
Equality of opportunity != Equality of outcome. If you think the meritocratic system is broken, fix the process, don't penalize whites for the perceived sins of some of their ancestors.
*It is was signed by Lyndon B Johnson, as the daughter post points out.
It was advertised as just being a small reform and not as something profound. Here is Ted Kennedy:
""The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants,” lead supporter Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate. “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
Thanks for the correction. Seems the advertisement wasn't quite accurate.
The fact that you wrote "perceived sins" clearly shows your real perspective.
Of course, that in a nation with a majority white populace, its military will also be majority white
Anyways, you're just here to argue in bad faith.
He first started talking to me about this "perceived issue" you speak of back in the beginning of 2019.
Has repeatedly stated is the most hilariously stupid white nationalist and incel-esque shit he's ever had to hear about or deal with
Along with the fact that everybody he's observed as a marine and a Navy BN spouting off about it is typically an obnoxious douche who everybody hates and is generally incompetent at some of the easiest jobs our government provides citizens.
So, after reading what you've posted, the theme of it seems to line up with his, his families, and all of his higher ranking friends observations - just another person butthurt about females and people who aren't white, likely because you feel you've somehow been wronged by them in life or have other issues you need therapy for.
But go on about this being the issue, and not many of the clearly observered, defined, and reported on issues that the Navy/US Military in general is facing. Hint: one of them is white nationalists, and the poor quality of service/general incompetence and questions about loyalty that typically come with them.
Losers is something I can recall him repeatedly referring to them as, but I'm not sure how appropriate that is for HN.
And, since we're in the thread about the Bonhomme - I'll mention he has some very nice footage of the fire from Coronado bridge.
Step back for a moment and consider what psychological effect such explicitly discriminatory policy may have on any demographic on the receiving end. Explicitly assigning disadvantages according to immutable characteristics fuels so called "white nationalism", as do blithe dismissals such as yours. You can't have it both ways - either you attempt to hire by merit or you acknowledge that you are motivating self-preserving movements in demographics which perceive discrimination.
There's also a certain selection bias among those willing to complain. Generally those with good career prospects are far more likely to keep their heads down rather than risk repercussions for speaking against top down D&I pressure - so the fact that the loudest may not be stellar examples of good soldiering does not imply that this perceived discrimination is not more widespread among otherwise competent personell.
This is pretty cut and dry. You may be supportive of D&I but by definition it is an exclusionary, discriminatory, a-meritocratic, and illegal policy. The fact that these quotas tend to be implicit does not change the legality (or morality) of the widespread practices.
Can you see any value in making sure the army is diverse to make sure it still can recruit, integrate, and retain people from all over the US and not just people from one specific background?
This is honestly a very grey area and could be taken too far, but there seems to be clear benefits to having armed forces that everyone feels represents them. And that's worth at least some impact on effectiveness, right?
Class is so much more important than race yet the Western world, especially the US, is obsessed by race.
The African-Americans I've talked to and whom I've read often say the opposite, and I haven't heard any agree. What I hear is, 'it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, you are always just Black in the eyes of the police (and society)', and that there is often no way for an observer to distinguish rich from poor (as if that should matter anyway).
For example, African-Americans driving expensive cars are pulled over and suspected of being drug dealers. I've read many stories of African-Americans being pulled over for nothing - an experience I've never had.
But that is not the point. A black man that went to Harvard and is now working for Goldman Sachs has more in common with a white Goldman Sachs employee than with a black factory worker. They read the same kind of books and newspapers, drive the same kind of car, live in the same kind of neighborhood, …
I've never heard anything about this. The point isn't the color of the person holding the gun, and its weird that you think it is.
It's very well covered, researched, and discussed; ignorance doesn't relieve the problem or dismiss it.
> There is a lot of race-baiting going on in the press which may give a skewed perspective of reality.
That's your claim, a trendy one in some circles to blame 'the media', but it's not really substantiated, even by one study. African-Americans - the people with direct experience of it - have been telling the world about it for generations. Racism is getting worse as many people openly embrace it, including rapidly increasing hate crimes, overt statements by national leaders and other 'influencers', and far more. And every time, throughout history, the problem of racism is met with the same response - an effort to shut down the complaints.
If you want to challenge your views you could read some of Thomas Sowell’s work or from other black conservative thinkers.
Probably not when they're pulled over, but ignoring the difficulty getting to that point is a bit silly.
"Inside Goldman Sachs Group Inc., 1,548 U.S. executives, senior officials and managers run the bank. Of that group, 24 are Black men and 25 are Black women."
3%, versus about 15% of the US population.
It's entirely plausible that a white person who was accused of breaking into their own home would not be arrested for disorderly conduct afterwards, because they wouldn't view the event as being part of a larger narrative against their race. All of that could happen without anyone actually doing anything wrong.
> The average net worth of Black families is $142,330 — or just one-seventh of the $980,550 in wealth accumulated by white Americans, according to a new study from LendingTree that draws on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2020 Economic Policy Institute report, and various Federal Reserve reports.
> The median net worth of both shows similar disparities. The median wealth for Black families is $24,100, or about one-eighth of that for white families at $189,100, according to the study.
The odd thing is a lack of concern for the decades and centuries of discrimination that continue today, and only focusing on criticizing remedies for it. When do we see posts on HN addressing the former?
This is borderline disingenuous. In the vast majority of institutions accused of discrimination because of disproportionate representation, the underrepresented groups are already underrepresented among applicants. Especially in the military - what proportion of military applicants have historically (or contemporaneously) been female?
More importantly, your repeated justification for discrimination against white males is predicated upon the dangerous and ubiquitous conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. There is absolutely no reason to expect one to imply the other in a diverse, even perfectly meritocratic civilization. Culture heavily influences career/employment goals.
That's one of the major issues with the entire diversity movement. The bulk of evidentiary support for reverse racism comes from statistical underrepresentation, which is effectively impossible to conclusively blame on discrimination.
Equal representation is not a viable goal at least because, ignoring other reasons, not all demographics are equally interested in all jobs.
Let's do something about it.
An important question is, why are people looking for every theoretical possibility instead of where the evidence clearly points: plain prejudice.
The logic in your comment implied the discrepancy was enough to assume discrimination w/o any reference to evidence.
> why are people looking for every theoretical possibility
Are you talking about my comment? Your own comment ("if for a job we have 100 candidates in group A and 100 in group B...") is a theoretical, so that's why I countered with one. Present evidence of prejudice specific to the topic at hand and I can comment more tangibly one that.
What, exactly? "Racism" and it's very existence, or specifically it's effect on the topic at hand
You haven't really established what it is you are arguing, let alone any of the facts/research specific you allude to, specific to that argument.
And no, soft science subjects like this are not like hard-science topics like global climate or gravity. It feels like you only include this to paint me as some kind of "Racism denier" or something. I don't deny racism exists, I just don't accept that as an argument that means it must be the cause of every unequal outcome.