Sat Apr 4 00:46:57 2020
<5547a085> It was inappropriate for that captain to release any material to the public, the navy takes chain of command very seriously
<5547a085> He answers to his superiors and no one else and was rightfully stripped of his command
<5547a085> That the navy is handling outbreaks on their ships is another issues, its not a new phenomenon and I’m sure they have protocal
<5547a085> He had COMMAND of that vessel and could have ordered his crew to quarantine at any medical facility the navy maintains at every major port
<5547a085> There were 99 other options for handling the situation, now he’s out and another qualified person will be promoted lol
<6707bcd9> Ok, let me ask you this
<6707bcd9> Why do you think he did what he did rather than one of these 99 other options?
<5547a085> I dunno, maybe he was frustrated with the slow response, but it was a very naive action
<5547a085> .mil crucifies anyone who breaks rank or chain of command, that’s just the way it is
<8f79fcda> In one phrase: “bad judgement”
<6707bcd9> Ok, so if he were frustrated with the slow response, were those 99 other options really options?
<8f79fcda> Which also happens to be reason for relieving a captain of his command
<5547a085> It doesnt matter, there is no other entity that could habe helped except the navy, or even other branches
<6707bcd9> It does matter
<6707bcd9> That’s the premise of your argument
<6707bcd9> If you premise cant be proven, what good is your argument?
<5547a085> “It doesnt matter … [What his rationale/judgement were]”
<8f79fcda> He should have been relieved of command based on the premise that he compromised the mission
<8f79fcda> .
<8f79fcda> He broke rank, compromised the lives of 1500 sailors
<8f79fcda> That’s the premise.
<8f79fcda> What if China launched an attack against the carrier because of intel that could be gathered from him sending an unsecure email
<8f79fcda> He sent an unsecure message. That’s a break in protocol
<6707bcd9> We may not all agree with what he did. I think we can all agree that he must have had a good reason for doing what he did
<6707bcd9> We don’t know his motivations, and we can’t read his mind
<6707bcd9> We are not credibly entities to pass judgement in this scenario
<6707bcd9> There are several premises we can agree on though:
<6707bcd9> – he knew the risks (getting fired)
<6707bcd9> – he had a vetted career (capt of an aircraft carrier)
<6707bcd9> Presumably he is a rational actor, and made what he considered the best choice given the options
<6707bcd9> That’s all I am saying.
<8f79fcda> If that’s the case, then he should accept the consequences. Which will probably include a court martial.
<6707bcd9> Agreed :100:
<6707bcd9> Is anyone saying he shouldn’t accept the consequences?
<5547a085> No
<6707bcd9> We all probably agree on basic points here, that he went outside the chain of command and that’s verboten
<6707bcd9> I think we should give the guy the benefit of the doubt, I don’t see him personally benefiting from this
<6707bcd9> If anything, I argue don’t crucify the guy for making what must have been a hard decision
<6707bcd9> Heaven forbid any of us is ever in such a situation