3 ms·

Sailors spin dits (that's "tell stories" to mere mortals), especially to baby sailors. There are plenty of "we thought we were going to die" stories about subma

by cmdkeen 11y ago

Sailors spin dits (that's "tell stories" to mere mortals), especially to baby sailors. There are plenty of "we thought we were going to die" stories about submarines, yet for some reason the RN doesn't actually lose them. Perhaps it is because highly experienced personnel, whose lives are equally on the line, know more than someone doing a 3 month training patrol. AB McNeilly went onboard with the intent of "whistleblowing" - the effect of this can be seen in the biased way he reports on the concept of trainees being onboard. People have to be trained on submarines, the V boats are excellent platforms to do it, and the people he was "distracting" are a) used to it and b) would have no compunction about telling a trainee to go away if things got busy. Finally - you don't need to smuggle a bomb on board to sink a submarine, any member of the crew can do it, in just the same way that you could sink a surface ship without explosives.

cloakandswagger 11y ago
I agree, the author's tone makes it obvious that he's a rabble-rouser who went in with the explicit goal of finding a scandal.
GunterGiggidy 11y ago
Your criticisms: 1. William McNeilly is an inexperienced trainee, 2. William McNeilly is not preceded by other whistleblowers from the same field, 3. William McNeilly is a whistleblower who intended to blow the whistle, 4. William McNeilly does not have good writing skills, 5. William McNeilly cannot prove that the world will end. You need to carefully investigate your own motivations behind these criticisms. According to this logic, the only legitimate whistleblowers are those who have been in their industry for 15+ years, have the writing skills of a well-versed journalist, and have blown the whistle after a series of other whistleblowers (with the above qualifications, of course) from the same industry. This is piss poor (or convenient, your choice) criteria to dismiss whistleblower revelations. It is however an excellent way of reframing the issue by focusing on the whistleblower rather than the issue itself, effectively avoiding the debate on the revelations and their implications. My advice is that you watch Citizenfour, in which a lengthy scene describes whistleblowers' and journalists' valid anxieties and experience with shills, commentators, and the public, all of whom are more interested, for a multiplicity of reasons, in delegitimizing a whistleblower's persona rather than the content of the leaks s/he provided.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Always nice when a newly registered account pops up talking of shills and Citizenfour. I didn't mention 2, 4 or 5 at all in my post which undermines you a tad. The point is that a "top of class" trainee is making basic factual errors (65m as the "safe depth" for a submarine) and accepting every second hand story he heard as the gospel truth. Anyone who has spent any time in any military will tell you that service personnel, especially those cut off from the world for 3 months, like to tell exciting stories which get embellished with the retelling. Submariners, even more so than the rest of the Navy, are "all in the same ship" when it comes to safety. Incidents like the fire on HMS TIRELESS which killed two submariners are drilled into young personnel as examples of the dangers involved. I'd prefer to side with the rest of the crew, all far more experienced, over a trainee conducting his own crusade. As for the concept of material defects - nuclear submarines are probably the most complicated machines in the world, operating in a hostile environment, things break all the time. Patio11 is still fixing bugs in Bingo Card Creator, I think we can accept that there might be problems on a submarine, that's why they embark engineers.
  - GunterGiggidy 11y ago
    > Always nice when a newly registered account pops up talking of shills and Citizenfour. A habit of yours, I see. For all you know, I'm a pink pony who devours dickbutts and pukes rainbows; deal with it. Now go back to the original text, which you can find here[1], and see if you can bring yourself to talk about the content. You can do it; we believe in you. [1] https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/ https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/

by cmdkeen 11y ago

cloakandswagger 11y ago

I agree, the author's tone makes it obvious that he's a rabble-rouser who went in with the explicit goal of finding a scandal.

GunterGiggidy 11y ago

Your criticisms: 1. William McNeilly is an inexperienced trainee, 2. William McNeilly is not preceded by other whistleblowers from the same field, 3. William McNeilly is a whistleblower who intended to blow the whistle, 4. William McNeilly does not have good writing skills, 5. William McNeilly cannot prove that the world will end. You need to carefully investigate your own motivations behind these criticisms. According to this logic, the only legitimate whistleblowers are those who have been in their industry for 15+ years, have the writing skills of a well-versed journalist, and have blown the whistle after a series of other whistleblowers (with the above qualifications, of course) from the same industry. This is piss poor (or convenient, your choice) criteria to dismiss whistleblower revelations. It is however an excellent way of reframing the issue by focusing on the whistleblower rather than the issue itself, effectively avoiding the debate on the revelations and their implications. My advice is that you watch Citizenfour, in which a lengthy scene describes whistleblowers' and journalists' valid anxieties and experience with shills, commentators, and the public, all of whom are more interested, for a multiplicity of reasons, in delegitimizing a whistleblower's persona rather than the content of the leaks s/he provided.

cmdkeen 11y ago
Always nice when a newly registered account pops up talking of shills and Citizenfour. I didn't mention 2, 4 or 5 at all in my post which undermines you a tad. The point is that a "top of class" trainee is making basic factual errors (65m as the "safe depth" for a submarine) and accepting every second hand story he heard as the gospel truth. Anyone who has spent any time in any military will tell you that service personnel, especially those cut off from the world for 3 months, like to tell exciting stories which get embellished with the retelling. Submariners, even more so than the rest of the Navy, are "all in the same ship" when it comes to safety. Incidents like the fire on HMS TIRELESS which killed two submariners are drilled into young personnel as examples of the dangers involved. I'd prefer to side with the rest of the crew, all far more experienced, over a trainee conducting his own crusade. As for the concept of material defects - nuclear submarines are probably the most complicated machines in the world, operating in a hostile environment, things break all the time. Patio11 is still fixing bugs in Bingo Card Creator, I think we can accept that there might be problems on a submarine, that's why they embark engineers.
- GunterGiggidy 11y ago
  > Always nice when a newly registered account pops up talking of shills and Citizenfour. A habit of yours, I see. For all you know, I'm a pink pony who devours dickbutts and pukes rainbows; deal with it. Now go back to the original text, which you can find here[1], and see if you can bring yourself to talk about the content. You can do it; we believe in you. [1] https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/ https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/