Nuclear annihilation VS. Temporarily strong

Yvette 2021-12-10 08:01:24


Melancoly

http://killamangiro.blogbus.com/logs/75230516.html on September 18, 2010.


There must be one party who is wrong and one party is right.

From a large perspective, it is a role

that must be sacrificed for the country at any time. not in the sense of any moral

old captain for young sailors reliance on war out of fear of death

no one more than anyone else away from the destruction



precisely because of terrible weapons only need to have more cold system bound to it

I do not To say that the most terrifying thing in any corner of the world is that the human heart

’s desire to control power is self-fulfilling without other people’s considerations.



Then it seems that stubbornness can be singular and pedantic, and it can be forgiven.

This is not a trap set by yourself. ?



History has always been driven by crazy people. It’s



true that people who truly believe in authority continue to provide cannonballs for authority

and then let those who don’t believe in authority ascend to the throne



. If it’s just a dispute, there will be no right or wrong

. People who hold the legal provisions can say

it grandiosely, but at the seabed of 1,000 feet, it is an environment where it is easy to lose their minds.

Repeated thinking is natural above



the reckless impulse. For the so-called masculinity, discarding responsibility is an action without masculinity.

Of course, silently pay. in the words of the military system does not make sense

there must be appropriate checks and balances of power in a centralized structure

has nuclear weapons who is not even a little self-restraint



under pressure environment to maintain sanity is the real strong

will to muzzle The moment of quasi-owner's crew


http://killamangiro.blogbus.com/logs/75230516.html

View more about Crimson Tide reviews

Extended Reading

Crimson Tide quotes

  • Rear Admiral Anderson, Board of Inquiry President: Now, based on the testimony from personnel on board the Alabama and, in no small measure, to that of the senior officer, Captain Ramsey, I am prepared to make my recommendations to SUBPAC.

    Hunter: Without my testimony, sir?

    Rear Admiral Anderson, Board of Inquiry President: You have a problem with that?

    Hunter: I might, sir.

    Rear Admiral Anderson, Board of Inquiry President: I have known Captain Ramsey for almost 30 years. We served together on more than a few occasions. If he is lying this will be the first I've heard of it.

    Hunter: Yes, sir.

    Rear Admiral Anderson, Board of Inquiry President: My primary concern here is the breakdown in the system. In this instance the system failed because the two senior officers did not work to resolve their differences, while preserving the chain of command. Now you may have been proven right, Mr Hunter, but insofar as the letter of the law is concerned, you were both right, and you were also both wrong. This is the dilemma that will occupy this panel, this navy, and this country's armed forces as a whole, long after you leave this room. Off the record... you've both created one hell of a mess: a mutiny aboard a United States nuclear submarine, violation of nuclear launch protocol.

  • [repeated lines]

    Zimmer: Message is authentic.

    Lt. Darik Westergard: I concur, sir.