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

[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

When you were in the navy though, all naval vessels, aircraft etc. were of comparable technology to ours.

In the movie you are pitting a fully equipped, armed, capable modern nuclear aircraft carrier equipped with efficient radar and with jet aircraft and impressive modern weaponry against 1941 Japanese technology with no radar and slow prop fighters and bombers and no clue what they were up against.

So again pretty much comparing apples and oranges there.

 

[Foxfyre]

But this is akin to the question of going back to kill baby Hitler.

And what about Obama and Trump? What would they do?

Also, paradoxes.

Again politics isn't an issue in this discussion except for the command on one nuclear carrier to decide what their constitutional and moral responsibility was in that particular situation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

When you were in the navy though, all naval vessels, aircraft etc. were of comparable technology to ours.

In the movie you are pitting a fully equipped, armed, capable modern nuclear aircraft carrier equipped with efficient radar and with jet aircraft and impressive modern weaponry against 1941 Japanese technology with no radar and slow prop fighters and bombers and no clue what they were up against.

So again pretty much comparing apples and oranges there.

Think over time.

Yes, a one time battle.

Long term... There would be problems not possible to "fix" with 1940's technology.

WW

 

[Foxfyre]

Think over time.

Yes, a one time battle.

Long term... There would be problems not possible to "fix" with 1940's technology.

WW

The point in the movie though--in order to fully understand concepts we need to be able to focus on the particular concept addressed--is that the Nimitz was not limited to 1941 technology. They already had the amazing technology that would be developed in the next 40 years.

Which is why, in the movie--it IS a movie so we should allow for some creative license there--they had the ability to change the course of history. And the moral dilemma of whether they should.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The point in the movie though--in order to fully understand concepts we need to be able to focus on the particular concept addressed--is that the Nimitz was not limited to 1941 technology. They already had the amazing technology that would be developed in the next 40 years.

Which is why, in the movie--it IS a movie so we should allow for some creative license there--they had the ability to change the course of history. And the moral dilemma of whether they should.

Oh don't get me wrong conceptually I get the movie.

The USS Nimitz could have easily suck the fleet attacking Pearl Harbor.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, I'll be honest. "Suck" wasn't the right word.

Maybe "sunk" would have been better.

WW

 

[HikerGuy83]

Anyhow the concepts were fascinating.

Agreed.

Found the whole scene at the end to really through provoking.

 

[Foxfyre]

Agreed.

Found the whole scene at the end to really through provoking.

Yes. I would love to discuss that here but again would be a terrible spoiler for those who haven't seen the movie and might decide to do so now.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Given how Japan become a global aggressor in the first place, they had a history of emulating the most successful global powers on the planet.

Gunboat Diplomacy - The National Museum of American Diplomacy

The first Japanese delegation to the U.S. included 77 representatives led by three samurai. Japanese Embassy, Navy Yard, Washington, D.C., Mathew B.

diplomacy.state.gov

If the most successful nations followed a "rules based," approach to global behavior, likely Japan would have eventually followed suit, WWII or no.

Comparing them with Russia is the apples and oranges comparison IMO.

 

[Foxfyre]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Given how Japan become a global aggressor in the first place, they had a history of emulating the most successful global powers on the planet.

Gunboat Diplomacy - The National Museum of American Diplomacy

The first Japanese delegation to the U.S. included 77 representatives led by three samurai. Japanese Embassy, Navy Yard, Washington, D.C., Mathew B.

diplomacy.state.gov

If the most successful nations followed a "rules based," approach to global behavior, likely Japan would have eventually followed suit, WWII or no.

Comparing them with Russia is the apples and oranges comparison IMO.

Okay we can agree to disagree. Most especially when it is immaterial to the question being in the situation of having to choose to take out or not take out an approaching Japanese fleet when you knew the history and what they intended to do.