Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 206 posts

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#171

Post by hilbert42 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #58
hilbert42 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago I did a bit of speleology so I'm not afraid of confined spaces but as a male I'd be scared to spend time on a submarine in cramped conditions and in mixed company. I reckon I'd be under constant stress in case I accidentally said something out of place unlike in all-male work environments I've worked in the past where banter and certain types of comment pass without thought. The nature and politics of the t…

The dynamic is completely different in mixed company. It used to be common for men and women to attend different universities. In fact, learning outcomes tend to be better in single sex education [0] and its not really surprising - everyone is more productive and focused. What’s surprising is how we don't realize the effectiveness of single sex education despite research, common sense, and tradition all pointing towa…

"What’s surprising is how we don't realize the effectiveness of single sex education despite research"

Whether this is true or not, which I doubt except perhaps at the very edges, I am very glad I went to a coeducational school. I ha no female sibling at home so being at school and mixing with girls made me comfortable to be around them.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#172

Post by waffleiron »

tpmx wrote: post #57
vkou wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you know the next leader of Russia will also be rational? How do you know the next leader of the US will be? It's not like people get elected to the position, or appoint their subordinates based on their rationality . That's the beauty of sovereign countries with enough nuclear weapons to kill the world, you don't. Maybe we should look into this bilateral arms reduction thing.

Bi lateral, you say? SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute): Countries with an increase in stockpiled nuclear warheads from Jan 2022 to Jan 2023: China: +60 Russia: +12 Pakistan: +5 North Korea: +5 India: +4 https://www.statista.com/chart/30173/the-countries-expanding...

This would be a more interesting statistic with the full stockpile amount. Now it seems misleading, as if the US and Russia don’t have vastly more nukes than the others.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#173

Post by Balgair »

dumah wrote: post #84
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #9

>TCPO ‘Tug’ Wilson in the weapons room (AKA ‘bomb shop’). Crew members often hug the cruise missiles to stay cool while they sleep. Is it that hot in the submarine that you have to sleep naked and hug torpedoes to stay cool while you sleep? Is there no form of climate control? On US submarines it must be much cooler as everyone is wearing thick overalls[1] and even winter clothing in the torpedo bay. [1] https://yout…

Navy coveralls are pretty thin. Submariners (except especially hot watchstanders like engineroom upper level) wear non-uniform sweaters and survival jackets because of how cold it can get due to heat loss to deep cold water. When submarines are in warm water, it’s not nearly as bad. There is climate control and small heaters, but a submarine is not going to be designed with massive heaters in the HVAC system because…

I've read a little bit about life on ships during the age of sail.

One common theme is that the enlisted men's lives are basically thought of much like the wooden planks: Not at all, and if so, only when it's affected the mission, in which case it's beaten back into shape. The sleeping quarters and conditions, the rations, the toilets, etc, all just terrible. Officers had it a smidge better at that time.

Navies are very traditional things. They do things like they always have. Mostly that's because the sea is so dangerous and these methods are tried and tested. But also, that's kinda just the way they are.

So, my null hypothesis is that modern navies, being very traditional, just don't really care all that much about enlisted men.

I would love to be told off here so I can update my priors. If any servicepersons are on HN and would liek to rip me a new one about life aboard a ship, please do!

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#174

Post by snowwrestler »

duxup wrote: post #32
tpmx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Putin is insane. If he were we'd all be dead by now. Also: Suicidal people don't go to lengths to murder former threats to make a point, like he did today with the Wagner Group leadership.

I don’t know if he is. I’m more generally concerned that the system we have now doesn’t cover insanity.

Deterrence works broadly across a population.

If a suicidally insane leader ordered a broad first strike nuclear attack, every officer and soldier involved with executing those orders would understand, individually, the retaliation they would create against themselves, their friends, and their families.

I’m not saying it’s perfect, and I agree that the world would be way safer if zero nuclear weapons were on standby status.

My point is just that the concept of deterrence is ultimately based on the self-interest of the many many people who make up a nation and its military forces. Not just a few leaders.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#175

Post by mcpackieh »

snypher wrote: post #87
mcpackieh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, such malicious interpretations of casual remarks are probably the sort of thing hilbert42 is worried about. Walking defensively on eggshells in the office is one thing, at least at the end of the day you can go home and breath easy, but sealed in a metal tube under the ocean, where you have to guard what you say at all times even in your sleep? No thanks, not for me.

It seems to be indicated in the subtext of your wording, even in this comment you stated "eggshells"/"breathe easy"; if your natural behavior does not align with your workplace policy wrt not devaluing someone of the opposite sex, then yes you should seek some behavior modification. Edit; to address the original comment >Similarly, I wouldn't expect my employer to allow me to work for eight hours per day under such r…

Good demonstration of what I'm talking about, thank you.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#176

Post by mcpackieh »

gcheong wrote: post #79
mcpackieh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you call "lizard brain" is actually normal human physiology and psychology. Expecting adult humans to behave as sexless victorian vulcans, cool creatures of pure rationality and suppressed emotion, is asking quite a lot. People can put on this kind of act for a time, but when the farce slips you shouldn't be surprised. For better or worse, people on these ships are going to have sex (even when it's just men.. do…

Sex is normal - making rape lists and sexual harassment/abuse is not. There’s quite a bit of consensual middle-ground between “sexless Victorian vulcans” and outright sexual harassment/abuse and the latter shouldn’t be tolerated regardless of who it is.

The suggestion I responded to was that humans turn off their "lizard brain" and to stop thinking about their coworkers in any sort of sexual way. Obviously making "rape lists" is very far over the line and should not be tolerated (who said otherwise?!) but to ban people from even thinking about their coworkers in a sexual way is patently absurd. We're humans, you would have to chemically neuter people to accomplish that goal.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#177

Post by mcpackieh »

dghughes wrote: post #144
bArray wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I reckon I'd be under constant stress in case I accidentally said something out of place unlike in all-male work environments I've worked in the past where banter and certain types of comment pass without thought. Using banter for high-stress situations is quite a British thing. There's a story I was told about British troops during WWII in wet rat ridden trenches, cold and low on rations, having banter to keep mor…

>Using banter for high-stress situations is quite a British thing. There's a story I was told about British troops during WWII in wet rat ridden trenches, cold and low on rations, having banter to keep morale high - much to the Americans surprise. I've been reading and watching videos on European cultures. Many say in European cultures small talk is not a thing. I know UK is not Europe in that sense but are geographi…

A Finnish friend once told me a joke from his country, that went something like this: Two old childhood friends meet for the first time in many years at a bar. They both order drinks and sit in silence for several minutes drinking. One of them says, "So, how has your life been?" The other says "Are we here to talk or to drink?"

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#178

Post by duxup »

snowwrestler wrote: post #174
duxup wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if he is. I’m more generally concerned that the system we have now doesn’t cover insanity.

Deterrence works broadly across a population. If a suicidally insane leader ordered a broad first strike nuclear attack, every officer and soldier involved with executing those orders would understand, individually, the retaliation they would create against themselves, their friends, and their families. I’m not saying it’s perfect, and I agree that the world would be way safer if zero nuclear weapons were on standby…

Military personnel aren't trained to take time to consider their self-interest.

MAD also only works if your side is willing to push the button.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#179

Post by mcpackieh »

Floegipoky wrote: post #170
Gareth321 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a male, I can assure you that the types of comments that you think “pass without thought” isn't considered desirable by all of your fellow male colleagues either. Sure they won't necessarily complaint about it publicly, but they'll still see you in a negative way. You seem to have missed his point. It isn't whether his comments are considered desirable. He doesn't care, and neither do I. It is whether comments a…

* "I am very careful never to be alone in a room with a woman" * "I don't 'banter' with women because I am worried that one of my comments, however harmless in intent, will be perceived poorly" Don't you think these behaviors are negatively impacting the careers of these women?

> He doesn't care, and neither do I. It is whether comments are raised to HR, management, or for personal lawsuits. This is potentially career ending

Obviously his first priority is his own career. How can you expect it to be any other way? Get real.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#180

Post by hilbert42 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #115
hilbert42 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago I did a bit of speleology so I'm not afraid of confined spaces but as a male I'd be scared to spend time on a submarine in cramped conditions and in mixed company. I reckon I'd be under constant stress in case I accidentally said something out of place unlike in all-male work environments I've worked in the past where banter and certain types of comment pass without thought. The nature and politics of the t…

> I reckon I'd be under constant stress in case I accidentally said something out of place unlike in all-male work environments I've worked in the past where banter and certain types of comment pass without thought. As a male, I can assure you that the types of comments that you think “pass without thought” isn't considered desirable by all of your fellow male colleagues either. Sure they won't necessarily complaint…

"isn't considered desirable by all of your fellow male colleagues either."

True, and I was one of them (and one of the few, but it never bothered me that much even if I didn't partake—as it was the cultural norm).

It's amazing how people read meanings into comment that was never said let alone meant as subtext. That 'teenager' reference I consider offensive because many of the things you presume I must have been saying I likely never thought let alone ever did say out loud.

You clearly aren't of the same generation as me, it's a shame we don't have hidden recordings of those times so you could fully appreciate how truly different they were to the present.

Moreover, even then, the ethos was very different depending on what part of society one was in. Such comment was from my experience more common in the military but it was still pretty much accepted the norm in 'polite' all-male company.

Post reply on HN