Talk:Crimson Tide (film)

A note on the realism of this film

As a former Trident strategic weaponeer - I should point out that US policy has been simple and straight to the point for decades: If any doubt exists about your authority to release your weapons - you do not launch. Period.

Hunter pointed that fact out to Ramsey, but Ramsey is a bit Racist and won't listen to Hunter.

Bullshit. There was a valid launch order confirmed by EAM. The fragmented recall order was not validate. YOU LAUNCH.TCO (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I should remind you that this is not a forum.  Xihr  08:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

QUESTION about the realism - when the ship was sinking and had no propulsion, why didn't they do an emergency blow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.141.209 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Grow a brain. The launch order was unambiguous. That was never in dispute by anyone. The EAM fragment created doubt on the authority to launch. As a result, there should not have been a launch. The policy doesn't say it's effective only there is doubt on the initial launch order. It says that if there is ****ANY**** doubt, then you don't launch. That being said, as  Xihr  said, this is not a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.81.63 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ramsey's actions

To kinda piggy back on what the previous user stated, the film makes both characters out to be equally right in their actions. Not sure about that. I think Hunter's actions were by the book. Ramsey threatening to blow a man's head off, strike a fellow officer, and not follow US policy is unacceptable. The guy was a wacko plain and simple. He was out of order and Hunter's actions were in order. Panda

To put it simply, Ramsey was acting on an old outdated invalid message based on the intelligence provided from a previous time. You cannot in those situations ignore information no matter how quickly it comes, information is paramount. Ramsey was making assumptions of what the situation was, which was both beyond his command and beyond his knowledge. He cannot choose which messages he wants to obey and which ones he doesn't, cut off or not the message was still sent and must be authenticated like all the others. Both officers should have worked toghether more and had those discussions in private. Whether that would have worked as Ramsey was an old dog and neither respected Hunter's position or his authority in the chain of command i doubt it would have worked. Given the situation Hunter did what he had to do and showed examplary leadership and guts in a situation that most men would have shyed away from. I can't think of too much else Hunter could do dealing with Ramsey other than to arrest him for being in breach of command and procedure. I can't imagine Washington sending a message that said the same thing twice, but even if the message said to fire the missiles or it had been a fake radio transmission Hunter was still right to check it and should have been given his own command as he was at the end of the movie.

It should be pointed out that at no point did Ramsey choose not to authenticate a message. The message was cut off in transmission. I received the impression that there was nothing to authenticate, i.e. the authentication line was part of what was lost. In addition, I feel that he had part of the right idea; attempting to figure out what part of a message means can be more harmful than simply ignoring it. HOWEVER, I also strongly agree with Hunter, inasmuch as an effort should be made to reestablish contact, as HQ was trying to tell them SOMETHING. Additionally, it is utterly unacceptable for Ramsey to violate procedures as he did. The two-key system exists for a reason.

Yes, the first EAM ordering launch was quickly followed by a second EAM which got cut off during the attack to the point that they not only couldn't authenticate it, but they couldn't tell what it said, as it was only the header. I think it's pretty clear that receiving an unauthenticated or incomplete message obviously is not grounds to consider a change in your orders, but as you say -- presuming the message wasn't spoofed, which would mean it wouldn't authenticate properly -- obviously Naval Command was trying to tell them something, so it would be prudent to find out what that was. In that sense, both Cpt. Ramsey and Lt. Cmdr. hunter are both being at least somewhat reasonable. Obviously, when Ramsey decides to start replacing the XO because he won't repeat his orders, and then the mutiny and countermutiny that follow do not show much reasonableness. But I thought that the plausible set up was one of the things that made it an enjoyable movies -- both men are doing what they think is right and appropriate, at least in principle, whether their actions to achieve their goals are warranted.  Xihr  21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that there are additional details in the plot that make Ramsey's apparent lack of interest in receiving the second message seem more reasonable. First, they've just been ordered to launch, and he's probably worried about being spoofed. Second, he already accidentally unwillingly initiated an Akula attack on the Alabama by attempting to float the buoy for the VLF antenna so they could receive the second message, which malfunctioned and caused a sound short, and he's probably not too thrilled about repeating that accident. Finally, at the time he retook control, the communications equipment was damaged and no one knew how long it would take to repair, they knew that there were other hunter-killers around looking for them, and they were running out of time to launch their missiles before the Russian missiles would have already been in the air, defeating the entire purpose. His tactics were at times (quite) inappropriate, but his motivations were actually quite believable and understandable. Remember well that when the recall message was cut off during one of the Akula attacks, Ramsey had no problem at all with allowing Hunter's request to float the VLF antenna buoy when they receive it. He wasn't trying to avoid getting the second message, he just thought that the circumstances didn't give him the luxury.  Xihr  21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this wasn't supposed to be a forum. Now, where did I read that...In any case, there's a plot hole here so big that it makes this discussion rather pointless. This late in the game I doubt anyone with a nuclear arsenal of significance was still using missiles that didn't utilize storable propellants, either liquid or solid. The reason is obvious - your forces are sitting ducks. If you have to sit and wait for your missiles to be fueled before launching and, even worse, if you opponent can sit and watch via satellite or whatever that you have begun the process, fist fights aside - he's going to go preemptive and hit you before he gets hit. They might have salvaged this by claiming that the rebel forces had to reprogram the guidance systems or some such instead, but unfortunately they didn'tJmdeur (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Race allusions

User:Films addicted just made some modifications to the article that declare racial aspects between Hunter and Ramsey. I saw no such thing, and I've watched this movie a dozen times. A little too much non-neutral POV from the user? I think this warrants a copyedit notice placed on the article, or it should just be removed. --Sasoriza 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was an exchange in the film between Hunter and Ramsey that touched, albeit vaguely, on racial tension. It comes when they're waiting for the radio to be fixed (Ramsey gives Hunter "three minutes"). Ramsey is talking about the Lippizaner stallions, and how intelligent they are, and adds, pointedly, "they're all white." Hunter responds, "at birth, they're not white. They're black."

Again, it only lightly touches on racial tension, but it's definitely there. Crazed actor 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is there. Also, the title is not Red Tide, but "Crimson Tide" referring to a very specific shade of red. I believe this is also related to race and the color of the stallions.

The submarine is called the USS Alabama, and Crimson Tide is related to the Alabama collegiate team. - user:USS Noob Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.222.210 (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards --> Trivia

It seems like the awards section should just be a bullet item under Trivia; the Awards section doesn't actually talk about any of the awards given to the film and the people involved with it but just talks about awards the actors received for other films. Theshibboleth 05:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

launch order

I may be wrong, but I read somewhere that it is impossible to rescind a nuclear launch order once it has been properly given, because in a situation such as the one in the film, only one sub/bomber/silo launching would negate the attacking country's initial advantage in a massive nuclear strike. Perhaps this doesn't apply to a limited strike, or I may be completely wrong. AlexiusHoratius 04:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry you are completely wrong, it would make no tacticall sense for there not to be a procedure that would ensure the death of millions. However, bombers, after passing a certain point are instructed to ignore all abort orders. This is due to that as the planes pass the point where they can not abort the enemy will be certain of their intent and may form a fake abort message.

grammar

"While the elder Ramsey voluntarily retires and the young Hunter is given a command, the movie aims to present the intractably uncertain nature of the launch scenario, in essence placing full blame on neither character

this appears to be 2 sentence fragments. also, intractably uncertain is a double negative.

Awards inaccuracies

This mentions movies that have had 3 actors or actresses that had already won or went on to win two Academy Awards for acting. However, it does not appear that The Good Shepherd, The Godfather, or The Godfather Part II meet this criteria. For instance, of the mentioned actors and actressed, Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall and Al Pacino have not won two Academy Awards for acting.

Fair use rationale for Image:Crimson Tide.jpg

Image:Crimson Tide.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Coincidental Tom Clancy Reference?

Maybe I'm just a bit paranoid, but the characters' names seem to be a reference to Tom Clancy's books-specifically Ramsey and Hunter. Marko Ramius, of Red October fame, is given the alias "Mark Ramsey" in the sequel, The Cardinal of the Kremlin. "Captain Hunter" is a minor character in Hunt-he is a senior officer on board the HMS Invincible. The submarine theme of the stories seem to affirm that connection-but then again, it could just as easily be coincidental. Any opinions? Sandy of the CSARs 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The linkage is tenuous at best. With all the charcters that Clancy uses to populate is universe, it is not surprising that two names pop up in other works. Now, had the Captain and his exec been named Ryan and Mancusco, that would be another thing entirely. For the purposes of the article, unless you can find a reference for this, it would be OR in any event. -Seaphoto^Talk 06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the typical ability of human brains to find patterns that aren't there. Even if this were intended, one would need reliable, third-party references to document and identify it in order for it to avoid being original research. Xihr 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

However, the plot bears some resemblance to the submarine elements of The Sum of All Fears (in the book, but did not make it into the film). Set aboard an Ohio-class submarine with a captain (Cpt Ricks) who is not very good at his job, with a black XO (Cdr Claggart) who seems a lot more suited to his role than the captain is. They are involved in a DEFCON 1 standoff and shot at by a Russian Akula-class attack boat. Coincidence or plagiarism?--128.240.229.7 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like coincidence and/or just not that uncommon of a pattern to be noteworthy. Akula class submarines are a pretty standard attack submarine, so being fired on one isn't in and of itself a significant detail to suggest copying. Further, Cpt. Ramsey in Crimson Tide is by no means incompetent; he's following a confirmed order to launch and is just not willing to risk exposing himself to further submarine attack in order to confirm a message that was cut off during an initial attack. The story of Crimson Tide is about Lt. Cmdr. Ramsey (XO)'s insistence on confirming the message and his refusal to consent to launch authority. (The actual thing Cpt. Ramsey clearly does wrong is attempting to relieve the XO because he won't consent to launch authority.) As summarized at the end of the movie by an Admiral that is reviewing the case, they were both right, and they were both wrong. The only obvious comparisons here between Clancy's work sound like combat conditions on submarines with the Soviets/Russians, as any such story would involve; that doesn't make a very convincing case for plagiarism.  Xihr  05:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

condition 1SQ

In the movie the various states in the launching process are ordered by the conn with "set condition 1SQ" and later "set condition 2SQ". Are these terms actually used anywhere in the Navy or Armed Forces or are they fictitious? Google didn't find any hits but the movie. --AchimP 13:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Short answer is that they are real. A longer explanation can be found hereSeaphoto^Talk 06:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask for a little elaboration, since that's now a dead link (at least for me). But i found some pages discussing this, including: a "Technically Speaking" article about this movie at EW.com; and a forum post about it too. None of the results was fully satisfactory IMO, but it's better than nothing. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

PS For the "1MC" term that i also wasn't familiar with, wikipedia already has an article. :">

I googled "condition 1sq" without the quotes and found quite easily a glossary of naval jargon with the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.113.3 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

From the perspective of submarine based strategic systems, 1SQ, 2SQ, and 4SQ are all a set of conditions used to describe the configured state of a ballistic missile system. Condition 4SQ was configured to essentially disable the missile system. Used mainly when in-port or not on strategic patrol. Condition 3SQ is the transitional state between 4SQ and 2SQ and is not normally referenced. Condition 2SQ is a state of readiness where the system can be quickly brought up to launch the missiles. This is typically set when leaving port and preparing for strategic patrol and remains in that condition until returning to port (setting 4SQ) or preparing to launch (setting 1SQ). Setting condition 1SQ makes the weapons system ready for launch. This is the last step before initiating any launch sequences for strategic launches or drills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.246.226 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Typo

I fixed a typo in the article. 68.46.238.121 12:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Denzel crimson.jpg

Image:Denzel crimson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken links

In the Plot section, the link "period of instabilities" to Post Soviet Russia - Clashes of Powers is broken (It links to Post Soviet Russia, but not to the specific section Clashs of Powers). Mdob | Talk 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So why not fix it? Xihr (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time, sorry. The Post soviet russia article is too big and I cound't find that section in it. But even if I cannot fix it, just giving a notice here helps other people. Mdob | Talk 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You were talking about changing a link. It would have taken less time to go ahead and fix it than to have written that reply. Xihr (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Tarantino

I removed Quentin Tarantino from the screenwriters in the infobox. Although Tarantino has often been credited with writing some of the dialogue for Crimson Tide [1], he does not receive an on screen credit. IMDb uses the WGA screenwriting credit system and ideally Wikipedia should as well. There are many examples of uncredited rewrites, and it may be worth pointing out the Tarantino link in the article as long as it is not too anecdotal. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Quentin Tarantino (uncredited) in the infobox. There are contractual issues behind official film credits that Wikipedia is not subject to. There are for example films where major parts or even directors go uncredited, but we (as an encyclopedia) should still report the actual actor/director etc. (See Alan Smithee) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is sourcing. The "I read it somewhere" type of cite tends to get challenged, so although I have no objection to putting Quentin Tarantino (uncredited) in the infobox, the article should provide a citation. The one mentioned above is passable, but perhaps someone could find another one, eg [2]. There are also reports of uncredited rewrites by Robert Towne and Steven Zaillian on IMDb [3], but the purists often challenge IMDb as a WP:RS. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with always needing a source in such a situation, and that IMDb (as incredibly useful as it is) not being a valid source by itself due to it's trivia etc. being user supplied without credited sources (just as Wikipedia itself, is not a citable source, although better because it has listed sources). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The viewing of the film shown on Sky Movies last night (Monday 24 May 2011) clearly showed Mr Tarantino listed in the introductory credits. as a writer - Xelous, 16:01, 25 May 2011 (BST). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelous (talk • contribs)

Tarantino writing credit

I forgot to log in when I made my last change. I removed Quentin Tarantino from the writing credits of this movie. The citation that was given did not actually verify this fact. So if someone finds a source that does really verify it, feel free to put it back in. Otherwise, it stays out. ask123 (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added him back in under writers(listed as uncredited), valid sources have been added.WackoJacko (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jason Robards role

Robards plays the admiral convening the investigation board after the incident at sea. He wears submariner dolphins over the ribbons for the Navy Cross and Silver Star. That would be impossible because no U.S. submarines have been involved in sufficient combat for those decorations since 1945. Maybe it's an insider joke based on the false reports that Robards received the Navy Cross for his service aboard a cruiser in World War II. </ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Robards#cite_note-5</ref>

68.106.6.222 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)B Tillman Sep 3, 2011

And?  Xihr  00:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ramsey characterization

Captain Ramsey is described in the article as an officer of the 'fly by the seat of his pants' mold as opposed to Hunter's cautious 'by the book' manner. While I disagree with both of these, I think that characterization of Ramsey is not accurate. Rather I would say Ramsey is an officer of a wartime mold. The scene of the officers having dinner in the wardroom is key to the officers' mentalities and why they do what they do. I would be interested in reading any justifications for the current description of Ramsey's personality. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Be bold. I agree that the characterizations are inaccurate, but I see what the original author(s) was trying to get at.  Xihr  00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Real information in Crimson Tide?

Is this real: "Three most powerful men in the world: The President of the United States..., The President of the Russian Republic... and... The Captain of a U.S. nuclear missile submarine" and "As of January 1996, primary authority and ability to fire nuclear missiles will no longer rest with U.S. submarine commanders... Principal control will reside with the president of the united states." ? Devwebtel (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dated information - I recall statement in the 1980s that the Commanding officer of a SSBN was the highest paying job in Military- Sea pay, sub pay - then there are legal caps on how much Admirals and Generals make. Partial hearsay without proof. Wfoj3 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crimson Tide (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716025014/http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/features/zimmer.asp to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/features/zimmer.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Parallels to Cuban Missile Crisis

The film bears a striking resemblance to events onboard Soviet submarine B-59 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Denzel Washington's character mirroring second-in-command Vasili Arkhipov. I could not find sources that I felt to be sufficiently reliable for this connection, however, so I've instead placed this in a section called "Historical parallels. In the talk section of the Arkhipov page, it is mentioned that Arkhipov did not become widely known in the west until 2001, well after the film's release, suggesting that the similarities between the two might be coincidence. Davearthurs (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)