They could have defeated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and they could have been effective for a while but then wha
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Final Countdown
Hanz-Willhelm — 12 years ago(August 21, 2013 10:22 AM)
They could have defeated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and they could have been effective for a while but then what? They'd run out of jet fuel, they'd have no high-tech, sophisticated parts for the Nimitz and for all of the aircraft so they couldn't have been at fighting mode for very long.
How long would it take the U.S. to study and analyze the ship, plane, computers and electronics and try to catch up? With the technology of the day could they have even duplicated these technologies, the new metals in the jet engines and that make up the skin of the jets, all of the electronics that are so minaturized, the reactors on the Nimitz and so much more.
What would have happened? Could the Nimitz have even stayed combat ready long enough to shorten the war? They probably couldn't have helped in Europe at all. The ship that is part of the fleet that re-stocks the carrier is now gone so they don't have replacements for any 1979 materials. Now Japan would have reacted differently with their attack being crushed and they may not have been as bold with their Pacific attacks with this new U.S. weapon. They don't know it is the only one and it is a short term weapon. How would Japan have reacted with the defeat against an almost invincible ship and planes?
Lot's of questions. What do others think would happen? Are there any weapons/technology specialists who may guess as to how the U.S. in 1941 with 1941 technology could make use of this new technology? How long catch up and produce more of what the Nimitz has? How long could the Nimitz fight? How long of a jet fuel supply does the ship carry? How often do the jets need major maintenence? -
tea-rex — 12 years ago(August 22, 2013 09:09 AM)
What you forget there, it wasn't just Pearl Harbour that got attacked that day. With the sun rising in the Philippines a few hours later (but due to the international dateline, Monday the 8th), the Philippines and other lands were attacked. So the war wouldn't be averted by repulsing the attack on Pearl alone and no matter how much firepower the ship has, it can't cover half the Pacific Ocean.
I think jet fuel as well as ammunition for the various guns would be the least problem.
Reverse-engineering the technology isn't that easy. It's one thing to analyse the alloys used for a fan-disk in a jet-engine. The real trick is making them. There are a few special methods involved and even if some of the crew have general knowledge about such methods, the specifics are closely held company secrets.
For the electronics; back then they could have taken a look at integrated circuitry with a visible light microscope. Unfortunately, that doesn't even give enough resolution to really see the details. And again, some of the crew might have general knowledge about how such circuitry is made, but not how to actually do it, how to design complex pieces like CPUs, or even simple ones.
In the end, it might give such fields a boost of a few years, but the war would still be over long before that would lead to usable results.
I did not save the boy, God did. I only CARRIED him. -
CGSailor — 12 years ago(August 22, 2013 04:25 PM)
You are applying a theory of time travel that does not apply to this film as it uses a different theory altogether.
The Events of the film took place
in
1941.
Therefore the events were already a part of Nimitz's past before they ever went back. Already a matter of history.
The events you describe as a what-if, could not have happened because they were NOT a part of the historical record.
this is like the ONE FILM that does not subscribe to the typical Hollywood mindset on time travel and every time someone has to try and make it into it.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
CGSailor — 12 years ago(September 12, 2013 10:28 PM)
Either you are being exceptionally dense, or intentionally dense.
You just don't get it do you?
Nimitz's actions took place in the past. NOT in some side pocket dimension or alternate parallel universe or split timestream.
Therefore those actions they took in the past were IN THE PAST and therefore were always a part of the history of their present. Since in their present, the Japanese were NOT stopped by some supercarrier from the future, then it never happened.
This film is not about altering history and CANNOT BE about altering history. From this films take on time travel, history cannot be "altered"
A time traveler can take part in and affect events in the past, but those events he/she affects, are not Changes or alterations from something else into something different. It is the very actions that shaped the history as they already know it from the future.
Go watch Butterfly effect if you want a history altering version of time travel.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(July 10, 2016 11:32 PM)
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with sub detection. Nothing at all.
Statements like that is why you are such a moron.
Tell me HOW is it supposed to detect Subs.
Using sound to detect subs is SONAR you fraking idjit.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(July 11, 2016 04:28 AM)
Lol.. typical response from an idiot without an argument.
You don't know.
Its not that you won't answer.
You CAN'T answer.
If you could answer, if you had any actual facts you would not hesitate to put this sailor in his place.
But you cannot. Your position is unsupportable bullsh!t and you know it.
How stupid to keep attacking a man in the right simply because you refuse to admit you're wrong and don't know wtf you're talking about.
You're pathetic.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
kurt-2000 — 9 years ago(July 11, 2016 12:02 PM)
You already confirmed part of the argument that sonar kills and neither you or the navy could care less. I'd be interested in seeing the list of technology, including radiation damage, that killed sea life. That's the part I find pathetic.
-
CGSailor — 9 years ago(July 11, 2016 01:11 PM)
What's pathetic is your assertions.
ACTIVE Sonar Not PASSIVE Sonar.. CAN kill, not DOES kill. And then only at close ranges.
Passive sonar does nothing at all to them and 99% of the time Passive sonar is all that's used.
You know how often we use active sonar? Almost never.
You know how many Whales have actually KNOWN to have been killed by active sonar?
None. Zero, Zip, Nada.
it can kill them. We know this because we know what Active is capable of.
But there are no known incidents if a whale actually being killed by one.
Whales tend to steer clear of Subs for the most part (though there is an incident of a Sub ramming into and killing a whale)
We rarely use active sonar and when we do, the odds of a Whale being around and close enough to be killed is slim to none.
And it is not that we don't care. It's just a necessity where the needs outweigh the risk.
Of course you are just an anti-military jackass so.
They sure as hell not causing whole pods of whales to beach themselves when there is not even a Sub nearby, much less using active sonar.
And again.. HAARP has nothing to do with it.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
kurt-2000 — 9 years ago(July 11, 2016 09:06 PM)
I don't believe any of the assertions claiming the Navy is a victim of false information. The navy has a long history of polluting the oceans with toxic hazards. From dumping garbage into the oceans, and unwanted equipment before the environmental revolution, to huge amounts of lead and toxins that ended up in the oceans. So no, I don't believe your take on alleged harmless technology. I prefer independent sources, and it's going to be a long time before history coughs up the truth about the navy.
They sure as hell not causing whole pods of whales to beach themselves when there is not even a Sub nearby, much less using active sonar.
And again.. HAARP has nothing to do with it.
HAARP is deemed by many to be a black project with classified aspects that aren't presented to the public. The description you're attempting to sell is the public face. And the navy sells the program just like you do.
"It's totally harmless so don't worry about it."
So as far as I'm concerned, you're a navy lap dog, and an admiral should feed you a treat for being a team player.
Of course you are just an anti-military jackass
Your hysterical comments are the reason people here consider you to be an antagonist. Copy and paste where I stated that I'm anti-military. The sentence doesn't appear anywhere.
But since you want to bring it up, I'm certainly not the "Guns before butter" type that you are. As the nations infrastructure ages and falls apart, the military continues to get increases, and just like you, they have tantrums that no amount of money is enough. Time for the U.S. to stop being the international police officer of planet Earth when the tax payers can't afford you ingrates. Trump is right: the international community needs to take on the responsibility of policing the planet and the U.S. military needs to be scaled back.
20 carriers needed? No - too expensive
F-35 program at over $1.5 trillion? - Totally senseless when F-15's and F-16's still rule the skies. Not to mention Raptors for stealth missions. Unless you'd like to share your theories on how America will someday go to war with our trading partner China, which makes no sense. I love that fear mongering because then you kooks have to explain why you wanted China to be a preferred trading partner in the first place.
The examples are endless, but do I hate the military or want it to disappear? Wrong, and please be a grown up for a change sailor. Scaling back on the pork isn't "anti-military". it's called 'budgeting for civilian needs' as well.
They sure as hell not causing whole pods of whales to beach themselves when there is not even a Sub nearby,
I find it interesting that you know where all subs are at any given point in time, admiral. lol Do the Joint Chiefs send you coded emails? -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(July 11, 2016 09:15 PM)
Copy and paste where I stated that I'm anti-military. The sentence doesn't appear anywhere.
Your very first paragraph:
I don't believe any of the assertions claiming the Navy is a victim of false information. The navy has a long history of polluting the oceans with toxic hazards. From dumping garbage into the oceans, and unwanted equipment before the environmental revolution, to huge amounts of lead and toxins that ended up in the oceans. So no, I don't believe your take on alleged harmless technology. I prefer independent sources, and it's going to be a long time before history coughs up the truth about the navy.
}}}Drops Mic{{{
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
kurt-2000 — 9 years ago(July 12, 2016 02:58 AM)
I don't believe any of the assertions claiming the Navy is a victim of false information. The navy has a long history of polluting the oceans with toxic hazards. From dumping garbage into the oceans, and unwanted equipment before the environmental revolution, to huge amounts of lead and toxins that ended up in the oceans. So no, I don't believe your take on alleged harmless technology. I prefer independent sources, and it's going to be a long time before history coughs up the truth about the navy.
}}}Drops Mic{{{
That's not anti-Navy, those are environmental facts.
I think you expect people to agree with everything the Navy has done, and that's not going to happen in reality.
If you truly want to see an anti-navy comment it would be from the far left that wants the navy nearly put entirely on dry dock, and charged with crimes against people and the environment, which I'm not calling for.
Maybe you should put away your mic and soap box. -
CGSailor — 9 years ago(July 11, 2016 09:23 PM)
F-35 program at over $1.5 trillion? - Totally senseless when F-15's and F-16's still rule the skies. Not to mention Raptors for stealth missions.
Most of the rank and file in the navy are against the crap F-35. Just as we are against the LCS (which we call the Little Crappy Ship)
These are programs unwanted, being foisted upon us by Politicians, Defense Contractors, and their politically correct lapdogs in the upper reaches of the Flag Ranks of the military.
LCS is a deathtrap which is going to get sailors killed.
Scaling back on the pork isn't "anti-military". it's called 'budgeting for civilian needs' as well.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.. Yeah. no one denies we needed to be scaled back and scale back we did.
The problem, is that Clinton, scaled us back TOO FAR. A situation that was halted but not reversed under Bush, then accelerated again under Anti-Military Obama.
Right now we are so "scaled back" that we cannot even meet daily operational requirements.
And Budgeting for Civilian Needs
You mean all the "Occupy" freeloaders wanting to live off government handouts without working for or earning one damned dime.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
kurt-2000 — 9 years ago(July 12, 2016 03:06 AM)
Most of the rank and file in the navy are against the crap F-35. Just as we are against the LCS (which we call the Little Crappy Ship)
These are programs unwanted, being foisted upon us by Politicians, Defense Contractors, and their politically correct lapdogs in the upper reaches of the Flag Ranks of the military.
LCS is a deathtrap which is going to get sailors killed.
I won't argue with the point regarding LCS, and you might be correct regarding (most) admiral perceptions of the F-35 program, but the Joint Chiefs aren't fighting the F-35 program either. But many people like myself see wasted tax dollars, which is a shame. I don't have any chance of stopping it.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.. Yeah. no one denies we needed to be scaled back and scale back we did.
The problem, is that Clinton, scaled us back TOO FAR. A situation that was halted but not reversed under Bush, then accelerated again under Anti-Military Obama.
Right now we are so "scaled back" that we cannot even meet daily operational requirements.
I won't argue against that point, since the operational budget has been sadly cut back.
And Budgeting for Civilian Needs
You mean all the "Occupy" freeloaders wanting to live off government handouts without working for or earning one damned dime.
Agreed. I don't defend those people. But I'd like to see roads and bridges repaired. The national electric grid is in need or major investment, and underground water and sewer problems are extensive nationally. This will come back to haunt everyone. -
Jack_rabbit — 12 years ago(December 04, 2013 10:25 AM)
america joining the European war shortened it, but the Allied forces were already in the ascention and would have won anyway.
However without the actions of the Allied forces keeping the forces of Japan occupied on several fronts, america would almost certainly have lost to a more focused foe.