[HN Gopher] Nukes, nubs and coners: The unique social hierarchy ... ___________________________________________________________________ Nukes, nubs and coners: The unique social hierarchy aboard a nuclear submarine Author : ColinWright Score : 170 points Date : 2022-04-25 14:24 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com) | AlgorithmicTime wrote: | sgarland wrote: | I'm a former propulsion plant operator (AKA reactor operator, but | we got renamed) on a Virginia-class (the newest fast-attack | class) sub. A correction to some stereotypes: | | Machinist's Mate AKA Mechanic: Often the burliest, but also on my | boat the MMs had the highest percentage of WoW players. For | reference, this was during BC and WotLK. | | Engineering Laboratory Technician: A subset of the Mechanic, | they're the ones who handle the water chemistry of the reactor, | and monitor radiation levels. They're generally hated by | mechanics since although they technically are capable of doing | their job - and thus could/should be supporting their watches - | they usually claim the need for independence. They're also | generally liars. | | Electrical Operator AKA Electrician: While in theory their job is | to run and maintain the electric plant, in reality their job is | anything that other people don't want to do/can't manage. They're | masters at adaptation. I have personally assisted the Electrical | Leading Petty Officer (as Reactor Leading Petty Officer) in | troubleshooting and repairing the diesel generator control panel, | various sonar equipment, heaters, etc. What also infuriates the | electricians is that due to weird rules, while they're allowed to | babysit the reactor while it's shutdown (called, appropriately, | Shutdown Reactor Operator), they can't operate it at power. This, | despite the Reactor Operators frequently being of lower | intelligence and ability. | | Electronics Technician AKA Reactor Operator / Propulsion Plant | Operator: Basically God's gift to mankind, except for the dumb | ones. Definitely the twitchiest of the bunch, and a solid amount | of us are almost certainly on the spectrum. The job alternates | between utter boredom (as it turns out, nuclear reactors are | extremely stable at steady-state conditions), excitement (drills | involving recovering the reactor following an emergency | shutdown), and hatred (any maintenance activity involving the | steam generators). | jedc wrote: | oh, man, this is so spot on! "They're also generally liars." / | "God's gift to mankind, except for the dumb ones" | ncmncm wrote: | What do they have cause to lie about? | | (Also: how do you pronounce "coners"? Does it have an | etymology?) | brandmeyer wrote: | Cone - er | | But its spelled differently. The correct spelling is `conr` | for Can't Operate Nuclear Reactor. | jedc wrote: | I'm jaded because I was in charge of the ELTs division for | a while, and during that time, I had one guy pop positive | on a drug test (but he said he didn't take anything) and | another guy submit a letter saying he was a drug user (even | though he never popped positive for anything.) | | And this was out of a division of ~5-6 people. So... | 51stpage wrote: | I have spent many happy hours listening to Aaron talk about his | experiences serving on submarines on YouTube and Twitch. He used | to go by JiveTurkey then rebranded to SubBrief. | | Watching him play Cold Waters is a delight. | Rebelgecko wrote: | Side note, if anyone has watched The Hunt For Red October and | thought "why can't I do this in a video game?" definitely pick | up Cold Waters. The core gameplay loop isn't for everyone | (depending on difficulty and era it can involve a lot of slow- | paced stealthing around) but for me it's a ton of fun. | photochemsyn wrote: | Interesting article, although as with most military write-ups of | this nature perhaps a bit thin on the introspection. Ever wonder | just how much damage one nuclear submarine could do? | | > "Rising between levels in the missile compartment, 24 large | orange trunks fill the nuclear ballistic submarine like an | apocalyptic orchard." | | Probably (wiki) these are: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II | | Each probably (wiki) carries four of these independently targeted | warheads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88 | | Now, if you want to basically wreck human civilization with one | nuclear submarine, drop one of each warhead over each of the 100 | largest nuclear reactor sites on the planet. Fukushima for | example had six reactors and >1500 tons of fuel rods on hand at | the time of that disaster. | | This will cause a complete meltdown and aerosolization of much of | the fuel, it'll go into the atmosphere and rain down for | thousands of miles downwind from the site, creating no-go | conditions for human beings (unless you want massive radiation | poisoning and birth defects etc.) Multiply that by 100x around | the planet and you can see what a mind-boggling disaster it would | be. | | Now, that's just one nuclear submarine; there are many in | operation. Plus the land-based and bomber-based nukes. And this | is all done because otherwise, every single international | conflict since Hiroshima would likely have escalated into the | kind of crazy WWII tank battles and aerial bombardments of cities | that took millions of lives. Probably has prevented full-on | land/air/sea battles between India and Pakistan, for example. And | yet... all it takes is some accident, some breakdown, some | misunderstanding and the nukes start flying. | | Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Some people will argue that this is | why there are no alien civilizations, they all torched themselves | once they reached our level of technological development. | titanomachy wrote: | "This is the American Submarine crew. On their own, they may be | goofy and socially awkward, but as a crew, this band of misfits | becomes the best warfighters I have ever had the honor of | serving with. [And the couple dozen people in this picture | could at any time unilaterally choose to end all human | civilization.]" | solveit wrote: | > perhaps a bit thin on the introspection | | Surely the one thing you don't want these people to do is to | think for themselves about whether they should kill tens of | millions of people! (the joke is that I'm completely serious | and that's morbidly hilarious) | robocat wrote: | > [A nuclear blast] will cause a complete meltdown and | aerosolization of much of the fuel [of the reactor and storage] | | Cann the blast from a nuclear warhead realistically be | positioned such that it would aerosolise significant amounts of | nuclear fuel? And given the location of nuclear reactors, would | it matter in a full nuclear war? Your comment sounds like a | good fictional story, but does it actually make any sense? | photochemsyn wrote: | It's the secondary effects that would likely cause this. | Having read a good deal about the Chernobyl (Rhodes, Arsenals | of Folly) and Fukushima disasters, basically it's the loss of | coolant in the reactor cores and the evaporation of water | from the cooling ponds for the 'spent' (i.e. too hot to | handle) reactor fuel that lead to a runaway meltdown event | and associated fire. | | So, a 500kt blast over a reactor site will destroy all the | surrounding infrastructure, evaporate the water from the | cooling ponds, and while perhaps the steel reactor | containment shell itself might not be completely | obliterated/vaporized at once (or it might), the whole zone | is going to be unapproachable, and the kind of heroic efforts | employed at Chernobyl (notably a graphite core reactor that | burned, Fukushima having no flammable graphite) and Fukushima | are not going to happen. So, total meltdown of reactor core, | hydrogen explosion, venting to atmosphere, some fraction of | the core liquifies the rest vaporizes. The spent fuel in the | ponds, all the water flashes to steam, they burn / melt. | Nobody comes rushing in to manage the situation, it's full-on | runaway. | | So Chernobyl IIRC lost about 1% of one of its reactor mass to | the atmosphere, and that was one of four reactors at the | site. This resulted in significant fallout across Europe and | a 30-km radius long-term exclusion zone. Now let's say | instead oh, at least 50% of each reactor mass + spent fuel | goes into the atmosphere, the rest melts into the ground... I | don't know how this would scale. A 300-km radius exclusion | zone perhaps at minimum? To get accurate estimates you then | have to do a bunch of modeling, atmospheric fluid dynamics, | etc. | | I can't imagine there aren't top-secret studies in some | military branch or other on how this would all pan out, but | they've never been publicly released to my knowledge. | aerostable_slug wrote: | There's a fellow on Reddit who has been doing some | interesting work modeling a notional RISOP -- basically, | what the Russians would do to us in various counterforce & | countervalue scenarios. He cannot comment on SIOP planning | as he used to work on it (civil engineer by training), but | he can conjecture a RISOP based on open sources. | | This person makes a point of targeting American dry cask | nuclear waste storage sites. It takes out the power plant | they're next to and ruptures the casks, resulting in | Prolonged Suck downwind of the site. He also targets dams | in a cascading manner, so even if we did "win the war", | certain major cities would have been underwater for a | sustained period of time. | | FWIW, when asked where he'd go to hide out he said he | wouldn't, that the loss of food supplies, medicine, etc. | would be catastrophic no matter where you ended up in | CONUS. Re: food, even if the grain fields of the midwest | were intact, you've got no transportation, no power to | process the grain into food products, no antibiotics to | take care of that scratch you got from the combine, no fuel | for the combine, etc. Many would survive but it wouldn't be | fun. He lives in San Francisco, FWIW. | 323 wrote: | Yes. The so called "fireball" of a nuclear explosion is the | spherical region of space where everything is completely | vaporized in miliseconds. It's between 500 m - 5 km diameter | depending on yield. | | At the same time, the long term danger of nuclear winter was | supposedly overstated to scare the politicians into not using | nukes. | ThinkBeat wrote: | >The Radioman is the most elusive of the Coners. He spends his | time locked in his >'Radio Shack' both off watch and on. This | limited access space offers a small >amount of privacy not seen | anywhere else outside | | I dont understand this. Is there one and only one radio person, | and that person sleeps, and works in the same "office". | | Since messages might need to go out at any time, would it not | require a shift change? A different nicely rested radio person? | | I suppose in most cases when you can send messages is limited and | thus scheduled ahead of time. (When the sub is close enough to | the surface?) Yet the persons constant presence would indicate | that a message might have to go out at any time. | | I just feel bad for the person who has to be on guard 24/7. | | Also is there then only one radio person per crew? Seems like a | role that would require a backup. But then so does docs, and | there is only one of that person? | yamazakiwi wrote: | I wasn't on a submarine, I was on a ship stationed outside the | US but I have some insight into that life. They combined | Radioman and IT into one role so you end up managing quite a | lot of systems. I slept in the radio shack more often than I | slept in my bed while at sea. | | My crew was 12 people IT/Radio for a 300 person ship. There are | so many different responsibilities within this role, satellite | communication systems especially, that usually 6/12 people | would be glued to one area of the radio shack for hours and | hours working or waiting on one system but the radio shack was | at least half full at all times. | | We had varying schedules for coverage throughout my 4 years | including: 12 on | 12 off, or my least favorite, 6 on | 6 off. | In addition to your normal job you must also perform hardware | maintenance on your own time and you have a tertiary job | related to warfare (mine was firefighter) so you end up doing | constant drills/training on top of that. Everyone on my ship | lived on Monsters and Pre-workouts. | | While on shore every 6 days you have what is called "Duty". | Duty is a 24 hour work window where I did my job for 10 hours | and then did one or two 4-hour roving shifts. Roving is | essentially just surveying the ship with armor and an m-16. Me | and a colleague hated these roving shifts so we would | purposefully set systems to alarm at opportune times to get us | off those roving shifts so we could do our 4-hour duty shifts | in the radioshack, where we work on personal projects or just | watch anime off an external hdd. | | A Submarine's crew is about half the size so I'd guess they | have around 5-6 radioman/IT but I could be wrong. | gumby wrote: | I just want to call out the blog host (thedrive?) for not | resorting to clickbait and substituting "secret" for "unique" in | the title. | | Title abuse is so bad this is worth acknowledging. | InTheArena wrote: | Wow. The word captain is only in there twice. | | Compare and contrast with the rest of the Navy. | rcurry wrote: | The only thing I really miss about the Navy was the night sky | when you're in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. You don't see | stars, you see galaxies, it's truly breathtaking when there is no | light pollution from anywhere. | rdtwo wrote: | Interesting but seems absolutely dismal way to spend a decade | robonerd wrote: | Except for the standard 'being in the military' aspect of it, | modern submarines seem very comfy to me. I hear they're climate | controlled these days, and have pretty good food. | KineticLensman wrote: | > modern submarines seem very comfy to me. | | RAF fast jet pilots have it pretty good, a.k.a. the Chair | Force. Why dig in when you can check in? | imwillofficial wrote: | Ahahahahahahahahahha, that was good. | | No, not comfy at all. Too cold, too hot, never just right. | robonerd wrote: | Huh, I thought they kept the temperature in modern subs | tightly controlled for the sake of the missiles. Maybe just | the missile tubes receive this care? | imwillofficial wrote: | Not today FBI! | | If you're not joking, that's a No no topic. | robonerd wrote: | Fair! | imwillofficial wrote: | It was both the best and worst time of my life. Wouldn't trade | it for the world. | ColinWright wrote: | Easy response ... if that's how you feel, don't do it. | | I know/knew several ex-submariners. For them it was an | absolutely fascinating job. Of _course_ it won 't suit | everyone, and most people absolutely should not do it, but for | them it was a _great_ way to spend a decade or two. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | I know a current submariner, she's 5 years into a 6-year | minimum commitment and hates it. Unfortunately, once you're | at the point where you can experience whether it will suit | you or not, it's too late to change your mind: the Navy owns | you. | kevinskii wrote: | I'm a former U.S. submariner. Probably 90% of my shipmates | who had served at least 3 years would have said the same | thing. They hated the Navy, hated sea duty, hated all of | it. | | And then towards the end of their commitment, with a | several thousand dollar re-enlistment bonus on the table, | most of them would sign up for another 6 years. The bonus | would usually be blown in a week on a new vehicle. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | Huh, looking at [1] and [2] she's looking at a $100k | bonus...I can see how that would be tempting in spite of | feelings that have dissipated with some shore leave. | | Fortunately, I think she's connected enough to find | employment worth that much in private industry, | disciplined enough to be wise in how she spends the money | if she does take it, and rational enough to make a good | decision (kinda hard to drive the new Tesla when you're | underwater as much as she is), but I can understand how a | lot of sailors might look at a number with a lot of zeros | and make an impulse decision. | | [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.militarytimes.com/ass | ets/pdf... | | [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/NavyNukes/comments/d1z8s1/nu | ke_reen... | jedc wrote: | My boat used to deploy to the Persian Gulf, and for many | years as long as the boat spent at least a little time in | certain areas, pay for that month was tax-free. A LOT of | re-enlistments (with those 6-figure bonuses) were done to | take maximum advantage of those rules. | ummwhat wrote: | I guess she's hit a new low. | hansthehorse wrote: | I found that once underway after the first week passes | staying out for 6 more months or 6 more days doesn't matter, | it feels the same. Normal time stops and is now measured in | watch rotations, preventive maintenance schedules and off | time. The hardest thing for me was the complete lack of | privacy. You are never alone. | dylan604 wrote: | It's one of the reasons that sub duty is a double volunteer | system. You volunteer to be in the Navy, then you volunteer | to be a submariner. You really need to want to do it. | samstave wrote: | Disclaimer: I love everything about submarines, aside from | actually living in one, as I haven't experienced that. | | What I HAVE experienced is working under an engineering | manager/CTO/CIO that WAS a submariner and experienced first hand | how a submariner manages a clouod-scale engineering team... | | + & - | | -=-=-=-=- | | He was reall sound, technically, and a good person. But an | overbearing asshole when he was convinced he was correct, even | when he wasn't. | | Which was OK, because he would admit when he was wrong, but when | he was in the moment of being wrong, was an asshole. | | The funny thing was, this was my manager at two different | companies, spaced abut ~10 years apart between when we had worked | together. | | He is a great guy and a great manager - (he's an EVP at Cisco now | (again)) -- but you can REALLY see the submariner attitude come | across in tense stand-ups in the morning if we have an issue... | | Imagine a submariner engineering manager yell at a (not me) - | blue/green-dyed-mohawk, gay steampunk engineer who wears vibram | five fingers and a top hat and vest and sits on an inflatable | ball during standup in sanfrancisco's mission district about | scaling AWS spot instances... | | Yeah... that was a time. | | I love submarines, but submariners are weird. | geoffeg wrote: | About twenty years ago I had a boss that was a submariner, one | of the guys that operated the reactor (I think they call | themselves "nukes"?). He was quite odd but wickedly smart and | it always seemed like he could engineer his way out of any | situation, which I greatly admired. But yes, this guy was very | down to earth, some odd combination of prepper and nature- | loving hippie. Great guy to work for, I knew he always had my | back. | | A few years ago I worked with another reactor operator and saw | some similar personality traits. Exceedingly calm, independent | and quirky with an engineering/problem solving-oriented mind. | | I've always been fascinated by submarines and knowing both of | those people only deepened the fascination. | tristor wrote: | I've worked with submariners who were colleagues when I was in | engineering and I found them great colleagues. They documented | their work carefully, were precise in their language (although | colorful), and didn't accept anything less than excellence on | their team. Never had one as a boss, but I feel like I'd get | along fine. | | That said, I would never make it on a submarine myself. | EricE wrote: | Indeed - I have a very good friend who was a reactor operator | on a sub - and I still can't visualize him doing that. He's | pretty much the opposite of descriptions like these which I | guess proves the point that generalizations are just that - | generalizations and not hard or fast rules. | | And nope, I would never make it on a sub either. Two years of | ROTC pretty much ruled out any military service for me - let | alone on a sub. But I'm grateful for those who are willing | and choose to serve in those roles. | DoreenMichele wrote: | _the Navy's universal cure, Motrin_ | | 600mg Motrin is nicknamed _Ranger candy_ in the US Army because | Rangers eat them like candy. | | I was told by a submariner that there is only one bunk for every | three crew members on board, so you learn to sleep _anywhere_. | When he was unable to make his flight home and his parents drove | to the airport he was stuck at about 90 minutes from home, they | couldn 't readily find him because he was curled up around his | bag sleeping under some chairs. | jedc wrote: | Former submariner here. | | Re: bunking - that's largely untrue. The majority of crew | members on board do get their own bunk. But there aren't enough | bunks for everyone, so people have to "hot rack" (aka, share). | On my boat, this typically meant 3 people sharing 2 beds - if | three people that share the same watchstation are hot-racking, | at least one of them _has_ to be on watch at any given time, so | the other two have a bed if they need it. | | Also, a decent number (maybe 10-ish) of the beds/racks tend to | be in the torpedo room. Those guys just need to be comfortable | sleeping next to big underwater bombs. :) | | It's changed a bit, but the thing that made everyone fatigued | is that your body is used to a 24-hour day, but your work day | was an 18-hour day: 3 sections of 6 hour watches. | sparker72678 wrote: | Any idea what motivated the decision to run on an 18 hour | day? You mentioned the drawbacks (widespread fatigue), but | there must be some (many?) benefits. I'm curious what those | might be. | jedc wrote: | There's only enough space to have 3 sections of | watchstanders on board. So then it becomes a matter of | length of watches. 6 hour watches aren't too long, and | match up to meals every 6 hours. It's easy/straightforward, | and no one gets screwed with always having watch on the | midwatch and then also running drills during the day | (meaning _very_ little sleep). | | 8 hour watches could be a bit long, and more problematic is | that crew members would always be on the same watch: | 0000-0800, 0800-1600, etc. That's potentially even more | disruptive. | sparker72678 wrote: | Got it - thank you! | nradov wrote: | Back during the age of sail it was common to divide the | ship's day up into seven watches with five four-hour | watches plus two two-hour afternoon "dog" watches. That | way no one had to stand the same watch every day. But | fatigue was still a problem, especially on vessels that | were short handed and only had two watch sections; | crewmen were frequently punished for falling asleep on | watch. | krisoft wrote: | > crew members would always be on the same watch: | 0000-0800, 0800-1600, etc. That's potentially even more | disruptive. | | Does that really matter underwater? After a few days it | is just as if you moved to a different time zone. It's | not like one watch would get more sunshine than the | other. | jedc wrote: | You're not just standing watch, though. There's training | (SO MUCH TRAINING), drills (SO MANY DRILLS), meals, and | at least a little time for movies/relaxation. Trying to | fit all this in is more complicated with 8 hour watches. | (With 6 hour watches, you do all training/drills in the | 0600-1200/1200-1800 time periods, and it works out | easily.) | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | 8 hours is a ridiculous length for something like sonar. | Sonar, even if you are just steaming from one location to | another, you are constantly working, thinking, checking, | updating. I'm not sure how it has changed since my time, | but it was exhausting, and we had to do 8's a number of | times when we were short operators. | | For me though 6's were worse. You lose your sense of | which direction 'up' is in time. | DoreenMichele wrote: | Thank you for serving. | | And thank you for updating my apparently inaccurate or out of | date knowledge. | hammock wrote: | I recently watched Last Resort (streaming on Plex), which gives | an entertaining account of life on a nuclear submarine. I | recommend it. | | It also scratches my itch for tv shows and movies where nukes are | actually fired/detonated. If there is a comprehensive list | somewhere, I'd love to see it. | ramses0 wrote: | Have you seen the movie "Failsafe"? It's an old black-and-white | "non-action" movie about nukes during the cold war. Fascinating | movie. | hammock wrote: | I haven't, it's going on the list. The plot sounds remarkably | similar to By Dawn's Early Light (also good, from a | psychological point of view). | DocTomoe wrote: | Failsafe is based on the same novel that Dr. Strangelove | was based on - but while the (imho vastly superior) Kubrick | movie was a comedy, Failsafe is more a warning. | ramses0 wrote: | https://www.crackle.com/watch/8196/2483291 (via google, but | have fun with it... popcorn and turn down the lights ;-) | imwillofficial wrote: | Proud owner of a pair of silver dolphins. | jedc wrote: | Former submariner here (on the officer side). This article is fun | and largely true, but also only scratches the surface of the | weird culture of US submariners. Some other things to consider: | | * submarines deploy for 3-6 months at a time, often-times rarely | pulling into ports. Imagine being stuck with 130-150 of your | closest friends for that period of time in close quarters. It | gets weird. | | * Law of Conservation of Happiness: Once you're submerged, | happiness can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only be | taken from others. Easy for the CO/XO to be happy: they run | drills & have cleaning days for the crew. But everyone learns | other crew members' weaknesses and ruthlessly exploits them if | necessary. | | * Fatigue. I understand it's changed but when I was a submariner | the boat operated on an 18-hour cycle: 3 sections of 6-hour | watches. Humans aren't meant to operate on an 18-hour day, and so | within a day or two of getting underway you just get into this | permanent semi-fatigued state. | | As for me, looking back on my time I enjoyed it and learned a | lot. (Maybe more importantly, I learned a lot about myself.) That | said, while I was on board it was a lot more difficult experience | - it's a challenging life. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | _> But everyone learns other crew members' weaknesses and | ruthlessly exploits them if necessary._ | | This is literally my worst nightmare. Highschool bullying 2.0 | except with no escape. I know for sure I'm not military | material. | jedc wrote: | It's really not that bad the majority of the time. However, | you train yourself not to have a reaction to stuff... because | if you are particularly offended by {extreme porn, seeing | penises, people criticizing your favorite team, taking "your | mom" jokes to heart} that's an easy button for someone to | press if they get bored. | | Submarines are pretty unique places in that every person is | pretty critical in an emergency. So while it can be brutal at | times, it's also pretty collegial. | daenz wrote: | How do fights and conflicts work out? Surely under the | stressful conditions of a sub, people have conflict. And | keeping that conflict hot can't be good for everyone. Are | the personality types less prone to conflict, or is there | some general way it gets resolved? | SkyMarshal wrote: | It seems perma-fatigue could be a serious problem on a warship. | Any idea why the Navy doesn't restructure the working/waking | hours to better optimize crew alertness and focus? | Blackthorn wrote: | It has been a serious problem, you read in the news about | some warship crash every few years! It's likely that the Navy | hasn't restructured things because they simply do not need to | and have no incentive to do so. We're not exactly in a peer | conflict. | newsclues wrote: | I think it's similar to doctors: a combination of traditional | and demands of the job/flow of work based on existing | process. | OzCrimson wrote: | One story that still haunts me about the culture onboard the | submarine. | | We were dropping the trash and one requirement is that an | officer be present. I was told to go get an officer. I found | the Chief Engineer sitting in his room reading his Bible. I | asked if he could come and be the required officer. He said, | "sure." | | When people saw the Chief Engineer behind me they mocked, "Hey! | Couldn't you have gotten someone more senior?" | | I didn't know that "officer" in this role meant to go find an | Ensign or Lieutenant JG, not the officer who's 3rd in command | of the whole boat. Folks got a lot of laughs out of that one. | | Overall, though, life on a submarine is infinitely better than | a surface ship. I served on a fast attack sub and a frigate. | The people on a submarine help make life better because most of | the jobs on a submarine are advanced and require clearances | that people can't get if they're on drug waivers or dropped out | of school. | jedc wrote: | That Chief Engineer sounds like a good dude. (And he said | "sure", so...) | | 100% agree that submarine life is better than a surface ship. | I personally would have had a much harder time with the | officer/enlisted relationship on a surface ship, in | particular. | daenz wrote: | Sounds like he knew he was about to be part of this | person's all-in-good-fun humiliation. Entertainment like | that cannot be passed up! | philihp wrote: | Haha, exactly! Ultimately harmless and it'll make for a | good story that would one day be immortalized on HN. Good | judgement call on their part! | dctoedt wrote: | > _100% agree that submarine life is better than a surface | ship._ | | Maybe it's different now, but I spent a week riding an SSN | as an NROTC midshipman, when I had orders to nuke school a | few weeks later (I was commissioned right after first-class | cruise and had already gone through The Interview with the | KOG; long story). In nuke school I switched to surface, | asked for and got sent to the Enterprise, and was pretty | happy to be there at the center of the action with great | port calls. Standing OOD underway on a carrier -- the | officer on watch who's in charge of the entire ship, and de | facto of the task force -- was the most rewarding thing | I've ever done professionally, especially during evolutions | such as night flight ops. And you deal with (and learn to | lead) sailors of all educational levels and from all walks | of life, not just the cream of the crop as on subs. | jedc wrote: | Oh, interesting! I thought that the sub community got all | the nukes fresh from school, and the surface nukes all | had a sea tour under their belt before getting sent to | Power School / Prototype. | | You make a compelling case - OOD on a carrier has got to | be a hell of an interesting job! Personally I liked the | smaller team on a sub, getting to do TS missions, etc. | But I can definitely see where you're coming from. (And | frankly, I still think submarine life is better than | traditional non-nuke SWO life, still.) | alliao wrote: | I was looking into the ventilation rate of things and not sure | if it was a misprint but submarines apparently have 8000ppm of | CO2 when submerged, which to me sounds insane as we know for | sure 1000ppm is when it starts affecting your mood, judgements, | and decision making capability.. | jedc wrote: | There are CO2 scrubbers on board, the crew turns them on/off | to control concentrations. It's one of the things I checked | before I went on every watch as OOD (officer of the deck): | the CO2/O2 concentrations. (One of our weapons officers was | really sensitive to CO2 concentrations and would s*t all over | any OOD who let them get too high.) | solveit wrote: | I'm led to believe that the CO2 concentrations still | routinely go above 2000 ppm though. Is that right? | [deleted] | solveit wrote: | I'm also interested in the cognitive effects of CO2, and I | have a great deal of skepticism in the studies that say small | amounts cause noticeable deficits precisely because we know | people can carry out complex tasks for months on end inside a | submarine. I know other people have also remarked on this | (absurd!) inconsistency but haven't seen it satisfactorily | resolved. | | I will say that it's much easier to believe that the studies | are somehow flawed and people don't get seriously impaired by | 8000 ppm than it is to believe that we've gone nearly seventy | years without noticing that the people who are supposed to | launch nuclear strikes in the event of WW3 have been retarded | all this time. | bloomingeek wrote: | I'm what's called a Stationary Operating Engineer, which is a | fancy name for a boiler operator. We're the ones who keep all | large buildings from hospitals to factories to nuke plants online | usually by operating boilers and chillers. Over the years (I'm | close to retirement) I've worked with many former Navy men, some | of whom were on subs, both diesel and nuke. Listening to their | stories has always been interesting, but what always got me was | the amount of training school they went through. When they hire | in I'm the one who "trains" them for our plants and I always find | them very competent. | roomey wrote: | I gotta ask, I'm a bit of a submarine novel buff... | | Could I get submarine book recommendations please!! | | Bewarned however, I've read (listened) to a good few already. ;) | mardifoufs wrote: | The most accurate, currently used ICBMs can have a CEP ranging | from 10 to 130 meters so they can probably be used that way. | Most ICBMs also have a configurable "detonation" height, | meaning they can probably be set low enough to severely damage | a nuclear plant reactor containment building. Not sure if they | are powerful enough to vaporize the fuel rods though. | | But as you said, at that point, it wouldn't really matter | anymore. | imwillofficial wrote: | Funny and accurate article: https://www.cracked.com/personal- | experiences-1276-6-things-m... | gwbennett wrote: | Spent 3.5 years on a LA Class Fast Attack sub and 3 years on a | Ohio Class Ballistic Missile sub (aka boomer) as Nuke MM & ELT. | 10 years total in the Navy. Article put a smile on my face. Not a | bad job for being written by a "Sonar Girl". :-) | jedc wrote: | ELT? I was the RCA on my boat. Had some of my notorious stories | of my time on board happen when I was the RCA... | TehShrike wrote: | If you found this post at all interesting you will enjoy Destin's | series on Smarter Every Day spending time on a US fast attack | submarine talking to everyone and poking at lots of weird | corners: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d6SEQQbwtU&list=PLjHf9jaFs8... | ridgeguy wrote: | Second this, an excellent series. | sandworm101 wrote: | Aboard a US nuclear submarine. What is missing from this article | is the context of how much the boat impacts the culture. A | Russian or British submarine will have a different training | system not just because they have a different military culture | but also because the boat is physically different. Communications | pathways, be them electronic or physical, dictate how decisions | are made. A Russian submariner probably won't make a move without | orders not because he doesn't know what to do but because there | might not be a direct electronic report back at the command as to | what is happening. Doing things without orders on a Russian boat | can result in command loosing awareness of a situation. A US | submariner can have better confidence that his actions will be | automatically reported back to command via various sensors and | monitoring systems. | | This article focuses on the fact that the US submarine experience | special because everyone is expected to have a working knowledge | of every system. That is different than the rest of the US | military where people remain very specialized. But mandating | generalist knowledge is actually a norm in other countries. The | Brits/Canadians tell a joke about US soldiers: Whereas each | member of a british or canadian gun crew is expected to | understand and perform all the jobs associated with firing a gun, | an American is likely to respond "I pull the rope." Such hyper- | specialization just doesn't work in a submarine because people | are not able to physically move around. The environment, the | submarine, dictates the culture. | kodah wrote: | The US military actually has various perspectives on this | statement by branch: | | > But mandating generalist knowledge is actually a norm in | other countries. The Brits/Canadians tell a joke about US | soldiers: Whereas each member of a british or canadian gun crew | is expected to understand and perform all the jobs associated | with firing a gun, an American is likely to respond "I pull the | rope." | | For instance, the Marines encourage a lot of cross-training. | First and foremost, it shoots operational cost to the bottom if | you have, say, a Corporal that's formally trained in | electronics, but also knows their way around MEPDIS gear, HVAC, | guns, and troop movement. The reason you'll hear the most | touted though: "What if someone dies; who can take their | place?" It's like a right of passage in a way. Green Berets, | Navy SWIC, and SEAL/S work in under similar lines of thought | from what I know. This all aligns to their mission though: | seizing forward positions. | | The line company Army, however, focuses on specialization. The | reasoning is pretty simple: their mandate is to occupy. imo, | the way people organize around knowledge is based on the | challenges they perceive in the mission ahead. I've yet to | figure out how to replicate this in software. | pixiemaster wrote: | > I've yet to figure out how to replicate this in software. | | while substantially different in nature (defined by mission), | both marines and army have the same principle: it's your job | to learn the job of your superior (because if they die, you | need to be able to take over) - a principle that applies at | every rank. | | I think that applies quite well to SWE. | jacquesm wrote: | Too bad then when someone who doesn't have any underlings | but whose job is crucial dies. | munk-a wrote: | If a single person is the sole bearer of incredibly | critical information it's a failure of the organization | to insure itself against risk and possibly a failure of | the individual to properly express the amount of | specialized knowledge. | | I think tech companies are pretty good about this though, | since the whole meme around "bus factor" is well | understood and broadly discussed. | SkyMarshal wrote: | The Army may prefer specialization simply because they're | large enough to be able to, eg have enough redundancy that if | one specialist dies there are more to replace him. | | The Marines, subs, and the other examples you give are | smaller units, and simply may not have that size-based | redundancy. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> First and foremost, it shoots operational cost to the | bottom | | Operational costs yes, but not training costs. Make that | general knowledge a minimum standard and you have to train | the people in all manner of things before they are useful. | The marines, from my outside perspective, are still very | specialized in terms of basic riflemen training but are open | to cross-training once someone is at an operational unit. | Each marine doesn't need a sniper qual from day one, but the | corps will certainly help them get it later. The navy | submariner is different because of the number of mandatory | quals before you are considered usable on a boat. | kodah wrote: | The Marines do have a baseline of knowledge you have to | obtain. There's actually two phases to it: | | 1. Bootcamp. You're learning all the basics, from history | to troop movement, and basic weapons qualification. | | 2. Infantry Training Battalion. A primer on top of bootcamp | for navigation, shooting, troop movement, and weapons | qualification. (These are required of every Marine in order | to join "The Fleet") | | 3. Primary/Secondary school. This is your a-billet training | (your primary job). | | Where most of the other training occurs is once you're _in_ | the fleet, which occurs in your first unit _after_ Step 3. | There 's a moderately high attrition baseline to get to the | fleet, which signifies a minimally deployable Marine. | mechanical_bear wrote: | Found the Marine. ;-) | | > ...two phases... | | > proceeds to list 1... 2... 3... | pclmulqdq wrote: | Startups are the marines and FAANGs are the army. There are | so many parallels. | aerostable_slug wrote: | That there are! | | As a quasi-related aside, at a startup I worked on a DARPA | contract where the Marines were the theoretical end | customer (FANG / Adaptive Vehicle Make). There are few | cooler people in the world to chew the fat with than Marine | warrant officers. YATYAS! | golergka wrote: | > A Russian submariner probably won't make a move without | orders not because he doesn't know what to do but because there | might not be a direct electronic report back at the command as | to what is happening. | | I don't know that much about submarines, but culture of | following orders and not showing any initiative is so hardly | entrenched in Russian military that it might be the other way | around: culture influencing boat design. | dekervin wrote: | I am taking advantage of this comment to ask a general | question hoping to read some insights into it. | | On different occasions after doing some casual war history | reading, I ended up with the diffuse belief that the ability | to delegate initiative to low ranking soldiers was one of the | key attributes of the winning side ( for example during | different israelo-arab wars ). | | Then I stumbled upon a military evaluation of how the german | army performed during WWII. It spent time stressing the point | that german officers were constantly encouraged to show | initiative and independant thinking, more so than other | western european armies. Supposedly, it was a cultural trait | dating back from the prussian army. It shattered my cliche | view of the german army as first and foremost an organization | built on discipline. | | So here is my question: Is is possible there is a | tendency/bias to simply view ourselves as more independant | and any adversary we face as more "drone" like ? ( The same | way ancient kingdoms would simply label their opponents as | savages ? ) | LanceH wrote: | >It shattered my cliche view of the german army as first | and foremost an organization built on discipline. | | Discipline is not orthogonal to creative thinking. Wartime | activities are not like they read after the fact. As the | saying goes, "no plan survives first contact with the | enemy". This means that junior officers and NCO's and even | soldiers are expected to assess their changing situations | and needs in order to satisfy (or retire from) the mission. | | What kind of discipline is needed to start following the | platoon sergeant when the platoon commander is down? It's | even more critical at this point. | | Fielding troops in a fight where they have incomplete | knowledge requires empowering them with the authority to | act in order to fulfill their potential. | | Then there are militaries militaries where officers are | chosen by some system of prestige (like a watery tart | lobbing scimitars). These require absolute adherence to | structure so as not to undermine the authority of those | with the divine right/political connections. | | Now, while this is all idealized, there comes a rank, above | which promotion tends to be political as well as about | success. The German military certainly had their issues | with this, where there was a very real fear that went | beyond merely not getting promoted. | sandworm101 wrote: | Initiative always sounds great but it only works in a | proper information environment. This is where the | officer/ncm divide comes into play. Showing real initiative | means apparently disobeying "orders". To do that you have | to understand both your commander's intent when giving | those orders and your commander's commander's (your 2-up) | intent. That means knowing about other units and their | roles in the operation. That's the stuff of officers. | Supporting initiative means pushing information down, | keeping lower-level officers aware of what is happening in | other units. A senior NCM will spend time with his | subordinates getting and keeping them ready. The officer | will spend time way from his subordinates at | meetings/briefs learning about what other units are doing. | Long-winded chats with senior officers is how junior | officers come to understand their intent. WWII Germany was | very good at pushing that information down to junior | officers. Russia, recently, has not. | | Example: A platoon sergeant may know that the platoon has | been ordered to be at X location at Y time. They can do | lots of interesting stuff to make that deadline. But they | don't have eyes on the entire reason for being at that | location because they weren't in the planning meetings at | the HQ. The LT was. The LT may "show initiative" by | deliberately being late/early to the location because he | perhaps sees that the operation is progressing more | slowly/quickly than anticipated. The sergeant's job it to | know everything about his subordinates in order to get them | to do what is needed. The officer's job is to understand | everything about how his platoon fits into the larger | picture and, occasionally, adapt orders to support that | vision. | izacus wrote: | Acoup (acoup.blog) has a few really nice posts about this | topic (in relation with current Ukraine conflict no less.) | | Basic takeaway is this - yes, everyone wants to run their | army using (googlable keyword) Auftragstaktik. But that's | very similar to saying that everyone in software business | wants to run their software company like Netflix, Apple or | Google at it's best - with responsible senior engineers | that own their mistakes, show initiative, are skilled and | don't let performance or power spats influence their | ability to achieve goals. | | But the reality is, that shaping such an organization (or | company!) is exceedingly hard and requires massive culture | shifts within people of the organization (which bring their | own baggage from outside) and incentives. It's easy to say | you want to be Apple, but hammering a 3rd tier company | filled with backstabbing juniors into a highly performing | machine is going to be an impossible task. | | That's what many nations are facing when shaping their | armies into better performing units - command-oriented | hiearchies can be more effective when your people are | poorly skilled and not culturally prepared to work | together. Even US had some famous massive fails in WW2 | where generals let many Americans die due to their dumb | branch power struggles and egos. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | I think the Germans did have more independent thinking. It | helped them. They frequently out-fought larger enemy | groups, and the independence helped. | | They eventually got buried in numbers (Russia) and buried | in materiel (US). The US also eventually got around to | allowing the same independent thinking, and the German | independent thinking got eroded as Hitler meddled more and | more in the war. | dekervin wrote: | Interesting ! If I read your answer correctly, there was | a time when German Army had more independent thinking | than US Army. Is it common knowledge in military circles | ? Did you always knew it or was there a time or a reason | your worldview changed on that topic ? I am asking to | compare with my "epiphany" experience. | InTheArena wrote: | As a german history student, I think this is the pretty | commonly held view. I think the best German example was | Ludendorff. Early in the war, as a fairly junior officer, | he bluffed the citadel at Liege into surrendering all by | his lonesome. It set him up for the eastern command with | Hindenberg and then later as the proto-Hitlerian dictator | of Germany at the end of World War I. | | That said - the word on initiative and discipline is | right. Prussian military tradition gave German officers | very wide latitude to make their own decisions, until it | interfered with the political state or their superiors | commands. | | That said, even great officers can't win against | overwhelming odds and opponents with dramatic material | superiority. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Well, if you look at Kasserine Pass, for instance, you | see a US army that is poorly commanded and can't respond | fast enough to the German attack. That may purely be bad | leadership, but I see it as at least partly lack of | independent thinking. | | Don't read too much into my answer. I'm not an expert, | and I hadn't even thought about the question until my | first reply on this thread. It's an off-the-cuff | impression, not a well-thought-out position. | mardifoufs wrote: | That is largely a myth. The nazis routinely got beaten up | even when they were outnumbering their enemies. The | Battle of Normandy is a good example of that. The allies | dominated Germany after the landing despite the fact that | the germans allocated more Panzer divisions to France | than to the eastern front (!!!). | | Also, While the soviets were overall outnumbering the | germans , Operation Bagaration is another example of | superb strategic and tactical out maneuvering. The | domination was total and the entire army group center was | anhilated, in such a way that the mere numerical | superiority couldn't really account for. | | And even when local numerical superiority favored the | germans, the soviets were able to win. | | Plus, the "hitler overruled his generals" is another very | persistent exaggeration that mostly came from post war | nazi generals memoirs. As you might expect, those memoirs | were very self serving and were a convenient way to wash | away responsibility and incompetence. In reality, most of | the bad decisions were taken by the army command, and | hitler only became more dominant after the German army | had already suffered huge defeat. And even at that point, | he wasn't exactly overruling the brightest plans. Most of | those generals in the army command didn't even support | the plans that ended up being massive victories for the | nazis, like the invasion of france for example. | dralley wrote: | The structure of the German high command also encouraged | infighting and squabbling for resources between the | Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and SS | ncmncm wrote: | Famously, "Germany" had cracked literally all the ciphers | the Allied armies were using, but each was cracked by one | outfit that would not talk to any other. The Postal | Service had cracked one of them, e.g., but nobody in the | army wanted to hear anything from the post office. | bsedlm wrote: | I can sense this is written to make it sound cool and appealing. | | i.e. this is clearly a form of advertising. | ufmace wrote: | Seems like a bit of a hostile interpretation. I'd say it's | written to sound interesting to readers. Nobody would click to | read and share an article where half the word count was | technical details or moralizing about how they're all potential | mass murderers. | Terry_Roll wrote: | Recruitment in the military is becoming more difficult. Here in | the UK, you get BBC's TopGear doing "cool things" with | different parts of the military. | | Both USUK have various motor sport racing teams to make things | seem cool, but its also an attempt to boost recruitment and the | bleeding obvious is criminals can now sign up and join the | forces, so the bar has been lowered, but I'm sure it can be | spun another way! | | I know there are a lot of less fortunate who took advantage of | educational programs and sponsorship, like prisoners get, to | further their educational qualifications, and its a cheap way | to see parts of the world if you want to travel. | | Saving that, you do meet some odd people in the military and | PTSD is a big problem. | | Thing is Govt's make sure the Military PR is always the best so | you never hear about those who have been mentally destroyed by | the military, either directly or by being related to military | personnel. | | Everything you hear Putin or China being accused of, goes on in | your country as well, the so called free press are not that | free! | goodpoint wrote: | ...and pretty gross. | paganel wrote: | > i.e. this is clearly a form of advertising. | | Which in this particular instance (i.e. the military and the | business of killing other people) can be called propaganda | without a second thought about it. Someone linked to a Smarter | Every Day YT video above which was filmed on a board of a US | nuclear submarine, that was also blatant propaganda. | LanceH wrote: | Just because someone doesn't share your negative view of the | military doesn't make it propaganda. | | There is a certain arrogance in assuming the only way other | people could possibly choose to do this is by being | brainwashed. | | Military people write about their fond memories of weird | situations they have lived in/through that civilians can't | relate to. This doesn't make it all propaganda. | | This whole article writes like someone trying to explain the | weird lives of submariners, and he's just scratching the | surface. | hackyhacky wrote: | Propaganda doesn't mean that it's fake, or that it's | brainwashing. It's just "primarily used to influence or | persuade an audience to further an agenda." [0] In this | case, the agenda is to recruit for the armed forces. In | other words "government marketing." | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda | [deleted] | beeboop wrote: | If you click to zoom an image and then zoom in more using a mac | touchpad, the website throws an error and ceases to display any | content. I miss the internet of the 90s | gennarro wrote: | This started interesting but then devolved into lines like: | | " Despite his excitement, he is the smoothest Reactor Operator in | the nuclear program and can catch a power spike like he's dimming | the bedroom lights next to his waifu body pillow." | | Is this a serious article or not? | OldManAndTheCpp wrote: | This is something like a "culture" article, answering not "what | does a Reactor Operator do?" (operate the reactor, duh), but | "what is a Reactor Operator like?". | | Describing them in this joking, colorful way give readers more | of a feel of the Reactor Operator archetype than a bland "they | were the people who scored highest on the standardized test for | the navy". It's trying to convey the feeling that "these are | the nerdiest people on boat full of nerdy people". ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-25 23:01 UTC)