Debate Now Final Countdown (the movie) and the Ultimate Question

[WorldWatcher]

Interesting. But sooner or later the Nimitz would have to be resupplied. And they knew where all the mistakes would be made for the next 40 years. Wouldn't they want to be able to educate the U.S. government and military on that?

(That is one of the arguments from the movie by a character who wanted to destroy the Japanese fleet.)

Resupplied with what?

Food? Sure.

Techologically advance parts to keep the aircraft and ships systems running? No so much. They didn't exist and the military complex at the time couldn't produce replacements. Sure it would have thrown technology development into overdrive but it still would have taken 10-20 years to develop the manufacturing systems capable of making the computer system and advanced weaponry used by the ship and aircraft.

The biggest impact (IMHO) would have been the point in time pertaining to Pearl Harbor.

WW

 

[Foxfyre]

Resupplied with what?

Food? Sure.

Techologically advance parts to keep the aircraft and ships systems running? No so much. They didn't exist and the military complex at the time couldn't produce replacements. Sure it would have thrown technology development into overdrive but it still would have taken 10-20 years to develop the manufacturing systems capable of making the computer system and advanced weaponry used by the ship and aircraft.

The biggest impact (IMHO) would have been the point in time pertaining to Pearl Harbor.

WW

The point being that it would be hard not to share the technical and scientific knowledge they had with the people of 1941 and steer them away from the mistakes that didn't have to be made and such. That and stopping the massacre at Pearl Harbor would have had much further reaching consequences than just Pearl Harbor. How that might have played out, we have no way of knowing.

 

[westwall]

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION DEBATE:

This has nothing to do with current politics so leave current politics out of it please. No Trump/Biden/Obama or another current political figure bashing, no mention of what modern day Republicans or Democrats would do. Let's focus on ourselves and what we would do given the authority in the situation.

The 1980 movie "Final Countdown" is probably closer to sci-fi genre than anything else but it didn't feel like sci-fi.

The basic premise is that a 1980 aircraft carrier on routine maneuvers gets caught in a weird storm that is actually a time warp and they find themselves moved 40 years back in time to December 6, 1941.

Once they figure out what happened, and knowing the history, they sent out a plane to determine if the Japanese fleet was out there. And when they determined that it was, they had their own debate aboard ship. What to do?

1. They were sworn to defend the United State of America, and a 1980 Aircraft carrier had enough fire power on that one ship to take out the entire Japanese fleet. That would have prevented the USA from getting into WWII and saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.

BUT history always includes many unexpected consequences.

2. It also likely meant that the U.S. never would have gotten into WWII or would have waited too long. Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito would likely have prevailed and how many nations would have fallen under their power? Almost certainly they would not have been brought to unconditional surrender and would not be the peaceful democratic nations they are now.

Knowing the history, if you were the captain of the U.S.S. Nimitz and could have taken out the Japanese fleet and prevented the attack on Pearl Harbor, would you have given the order to do that?

The poll allows you to change your vote:

Nope. Knowing the outcome would prevent me from interfering. You interfere, and you have no idea what chain of events you would set off

 

[Foxfyre]

Nope. Knowing the outcome would prevent me from interfering. You interfere, and you have no idea what chain of events you would set off

Intellectually I agree with you. But emotionally thinking about all those people being senselessly killed. . .

I still can't change my vote from I don't know what I would have done in that particular situation.

 

[westwall]

Intellectually I agree with you. But emotionally thinking about all those people being senselessly killed. . .

I still can't change my vote from I don't know what I would have done in that particular situation.

I know, but how many more might die because you interfered? That's the question.

 

[Foxfyre]

I know, but how many more might die because you interfered? That's the question.

That is the big question for sure. And because we can't know all the consequences of altering history is what makes it so gut wrenching a decision.

 

[westwall]

That is the big question for sure. And because we can't know all the consequences of altering history is what makes it so gut wrenching a decision.

Correct. Far better to go with the history you know.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The point being that it would be hard not to share the technical and scientific knowledge they had with the people of 1941 and steer them away from the mistakes that didn't have to be made and such. That and stopping the massacre at Pearl Harbor would have had much further reaching consequences than just Pearl Harbor. How that might have played out, we have no way of knowing.

Agreed.

Nimitz at Pearl Harbor would have altered history.

So would the technology they brought with them.

I’m just pointing out that without that technology, which would take decades to replicate even with Nimitz as an example, that Nimitz combat capabilities would be measured in months, maybe a year.

But it works surely been worked changing.

WW

 

[Foxfyre]

I voted to not intervene due to the paradox do so would have created.

I think it's human nature for us to think that our acts would produce a better outcome, but the possibility always exists that it could make for a worse outcome.

Final Countdown has been one of my favorite movies. Here's another of my favorites:

Millennium (1989)

Millennium (1989)

www.imdb.com

Their dilemma was that they were in a time when Carter was not yet President and Franklin Delano Roosevelt was. From which President did they take command? On December 6, 1941 we were not at war with Japan or Germany or anybody else. Do we start one knowing 40 years in the future that such was Japan's intent but without the history we had, we couldn't have known that on Dec 6, 1941?

Then again what if your father was on the Arizona or otherwise would have been killed that day. You might have had a chance to know him. We might have gotten into the war anyway.

But meddling with history with all the very many variables involved and potential consequences is also a dangerous thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Agreed.

Nimitz at Pearl Harbor would have altered history.

So would the technology they brought with them.

I’m just pointing out that without that technology, which would take decades to replicate even with Nimitz as an example, that Nimitz combat capabilities would be measured in months, maybe a year.

But it works surely been worked changing.

WW

I wonder. There would be wealth of knowledge and science aboard the Nimitz that the 1941 world did take decades to develop. Good thing or bad thing to speed up that process? I don't know. I just know the more far reaching ramifications of altering history that would make that a tough call.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wonder. There would be wealth of knowledge and science aboard the Nimitz that the 1941 world did take decades to develop. Good thing or bad thing to speed up that process? I don't know. I just know the more far reaching ramifications of altering history that would make that a tough call.

Correct, there would be a wealth of knowledge about how the systems work and how to maintain them.

But that doesn't translate into a wealth of information about how to manufacture them. I'm thinking microchips, advanced materials compositions, etc.

Would the knowledge jump start the process? Sure. Would it be quickly reproduceable? Doubt it.

Would it change the world? Absolutely.

WW

 

[westwall]

I wonder. There would be wealth of knowledge and science aboard the Nimitz that the 1941 world did take decades to develop. Good thing or bad thing to speed up that process? I don't know. I just know the more far reaching ramifications of altering history that would make that a tough call.

If you want to follow that route go back to Rome. They had steam power, but realized it would completely alter their slave based economy, so passed a law that steam power could only be used for entertainment.

Just imagine if Rome had industrialized back then? 1500 plus years before it eventually happened...

 

[HikerGuy83]

Why hide the ship though? The Nimitz transferred to 1940 had the fire power to take out the entire Japanese fleet long before it ever got to the Nimitz.

It also was a nuclear propelled craft. If it somehow came to light.....the U.S. would have been way ahead of the game.

Additionally, think of the historical knowledge that would have been available.

We might have built bombs and toasted Mao and Stalin right off the bat.

Then who knows where we would have gone.

Man would haver found a way to screw this up too.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It also was a nuclear propelled craft. If it somehow came to light.....the U.S. would have been way ahead of the game.

Additionally, think of the historical knowledge that would have been available.

We might have built bombs and toasted Moa and Stalin right off the bat.

Then who knows where we would have gone.

Man would haver found a way to screw this up too.

oops!

 

[Foxfyre]

Nope. Knowing the outcome would prevent me from interfering. You interfere, and you have no idea what chain of events you would set off

That was the position of Commander Owen, pilot and flight leader on the Nimitz--played by James Farentino while Warren Lasky, guest and efficiency expert on that deployment of the Nimitz(played by Martin Sheen)--took the pragmatic view that we could avoid all the mistakes for the next 40 years.

Think how many lives could be saved if we had known at the beginning of the war how each battle was going to turn out?

Or what would have happened had there been no attack on Pearl Harbor? Would we have gotten into the war at all? Would the British now be speaking German?

The Ex-O was even more conflicted that a U.S. warship was obligated to protect the USA from an obvious enemy intending to attack, but did the Constitution apply to situations in time travel and such?

The concepts in the movie for those able to set aside the obvious technical issues that would apply are provocative and even mind boggling a bit.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Warren Lasky, guest and efficiency expert on that deployment of the Nimitz(played by Martin Sheen)--took the pragmatic view that we could avoid all the mistakes for the next 40 years.

But once you avoided the first mistake, history would have been on a whole new course. The second mistake might not have happened, but would have been replaced by another mistake that no one would know about.

Taking that technology back and giving it to the U.S. would have been a big deal.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Think how many lives could be saved if we had known at the beginning of the war how each battle was going to turn out?

The battles would haver shaped up differently.

You would hope the Iron Curtain would never have been allowed to exist.

 

[Foxfyre]

But once you avoided the first mistake, history would have been on a whole new course. The second mistake might not have happened, but would have been replaced by another mistake that no one would know about.

Taking that technology back and giving it to the U.S. would have been a big deal.

That's for sure. That was 'Owens" argument too. That playing "God" could have serious unintended consequences. And he also had the sense that history could not be changed from what it is. All we can do is learn from it to do better from this point on.

Well as it turned out, Owens was both right and wrong but I don't want to elaborate on how lest I spoil the movie for those who have not seen it and might choose to do so now.

And the point of Lasky was that now that they were in 1941, this WAS 'from this point on."

Anyhow the concepts were fascinating.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just remember.

Captain Yellend ordered his Cruiser/Destroyer escort back to Pearl as the fist votex appeared. The Nimitz was on her own. There was no mention (IIRC) about the anti-sub, sub that normally accompanies. Since it was going out for "Exercises", she probably wasn't carrying a full combat load of stores.

Now don't get me wrong, a US Carrier by it self as some pretty impressive air defense capabilities - but they mostly rely on the escorts for long range detection and engagement of air and sub sea threats. The Nimitz air defense would mostly have come from airborne Hawkeye detection and F-14 CAP for engagement.

Then there is the techology aspect. Having been in the Navy for 20 years and been aircrew on the Hawkeye (Airborne Early Warning and Air Control), keeping the aircraft in flight ready condition was a constant process of maintenance. That means spare parts (some in stock, but finite), some supplied via UNREPS, and some supplied via COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) aircraft flying in parts from shore. The Nimitz would have had only what was onboard.

The more you fly the aircraft the more they break, the more you leave them sitting without flying the more they break. In other words aircraft and ships systems will degrade over time to the point where you are canabilizing one aircraft/system to keep others flying/working.

The tecnology of the 1980's didn't exist in the 1940's, so over time (depending on operations) the value of the Nimitz would deteriorate as it was unable to provide that big "bunch" that it could on first arrival. Not only would aircraft and ships systems degrade for lack of parts, modern missile systems would be expended with no replacements as industry at the time would be unable to replace them.

And it would have been a prime BFT (Big Freak'n Target) for Japanese subs and any replacement escorts would have been 1940's versions without advance ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) suits on moder escorts.


WW

The destroyers were turned back to Pearl because the Nimitz intended to return to Pearl to get out of the bad weather they were experiencing before they saw the vortex of the worm hole. The Nimitz was waiting for one Corsair that was in trouble and late returning to the ship from routine patrol.

They were not concerned about a submarine as the Japanese fleet had no way to know they were there. In another twist of plot unimportant to this debate, they had already taken out the two Japanese Zero scout planes that might have inadvertently spotted them.

One editing blip in the movie was that there was no indication that the Japanese were concerned or any thught that they would be that those two scout planes never came back but that was not essential to the plot so. . .

The nitty gritty of the technicalities of maintaining a nuclear aircraft carrier and jet fighter planes for the next 40 years was also not an issue in the movie. The issue was the real life accurate knowledge that there was enough fire power on that one nuclear aircraft carrier to take out the entire 1941 Japanese fleet approaching Pearl Harbor. And it had the huge advantage of efficient radar which the Japanese did not. So the Nimitz fighters and bombers would take the Japanese fleet by complete surprise before they could even launch a plane.

The dilemma was whether to use that power.

 

[Foxfyre]

No proof of that.

Francisco Franco - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spanish transition to democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Chilean transition to democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And yet Russia was and remains totalitarian. And none of the nations you mentioned were engaged in world domination. So we're comparing apples and oranges in this I think.

It will comes back to the dilemma of whether to intervene in the attack on Pearl Harbor or allow history to play out as we know it already has.