Who was in the wrong here?

>>83721537
this movie was stealthy comfy.

And the Cap'n was fucking retarded.

Gene Hackman by a mile

In US naval protocol, even at the time the book was written and the film made, it's stated a partially intercepted order completely invalidates the previous one with regards to nuclear launch.

Hackman would have been violating navy protocol by continuing on despite a garbled message

This movie was made about a non-issue. US strategic protocol has thought of literally every scenario.

File: Keith_Olbermann_57246_V-3000.jpg (29KB, 560x373px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 560x373px

>>83721537
THE RUSSIANS

>>83721662
>Hackman would have been violating navy protocol by continuing on despite a garbled message
>a partially intercepted order completely invalidates the previous one

uh?

>>83721667
They deserved to get nuked. Plus it was just Vladivostok they targeted. No one cares about that backwater.

Hunter / Denzel Washington was wrong.

In an organization, especially the military, you don't get to decide which orders you are going to follow; and you certainly don't get to have a mutiny because you don't like the fact that you're in charge.

They had a properly formatted and validated attack order. They have a job to do; and it got all fucked up because Hunter decided he knew better than everyone else in the chain of command what was happening.

In fact, I think Hunter could be a millennial he's so fucked up in the head.

was the underwater combat realistic? I was under the impression that Torpedoes float and are meant to hit surface vessels.

>>83721766
>he hasn't seen The Hunt for Red October

File: Sean_C.jpg (375KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1920x1080px

>>83721781

He was probably listening to his rock and roll music while we were doing missile tests.

>>83721781
I have seen it actually but can't remember much, except being lazy about the language,the 2IC wanting a titfu and Jack Ryan boarding a Russian submarine in a fucking suit.

>>83721860
Top kek read it perfectly in Sean Connery's voice.

>>83721893
It's so good, definitely rewatch it. But yeah, torpedoes have running depths set, they don't just run on the surface.

Funnily enough, the US navy had a major pain in WWII with their torpedoes running too low. As a result, captains set them for 0 feet of depth just to hit the bottom of hulls.

what are some similar movies? not necessarily about submarines but about tension between two authorities about some what seems a non-issue from the outside as some anon said (there was no real threat, nukes were not launched) but for them is life or death.

>>83721757
Even though I could see his point and you're rooting for him, his whole character gave me this impression of "fuck you I won't do what you tell me"

do they really have firearms on a sub? isn't that dangerous?

>>83722395
Rush is kind of like that. Not authorities per se, but the stakes are high for them.

>>83722423
I thought he was "too by the book", while the old captain was more about guts and experience.

>>83722443
also can you smoke on a sub? seems weird

>>83722443
Everything's dangerous on a nuclear sub.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11037096/Royal-Navy-alcohol-consumption-curbed-after-fatal-submarine-shooting.html

>>83722504
bizarre they have rifles on a sub. for a lot of reasons

>>83722590
Obviously to beat the Barb's record for ballsiest landing party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_B._Fluckey#World_War_II

Put it this way, if Hackman got his way, there would be MILLIONS of dead civilians