Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Tankman and 8 guests

The politics of short-stopping firepower

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by cthia   » Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:10 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8112
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

The politics of commandeering.

In my day, to "short-stop" was to "head-off" something or someone...

"Son, go and short-stop your father before he leaves for the beach and send him my way."

"Yes, mom."

I suppose in the manner it is meant in this discussion is simply "commandeering." I can put my memory on an incident but not my finger, so if anyone'll be so kind as to help. Some officer commandeered something of someone else's fleet train for their own duty. It is rather interesting to ponder the rules for this. When can an officer tell another that he's requisitioning some or all of his forces and or ammo? This seems as if it could become a bag of snakes. Does the commandeerer have to be of higher rank than the commandeered?

Odds would certainly have it that Honor would almost certainly be outranked, yet odds would also have it that she would also most likely be the one who is bare-ass and deeply naked in a hornet's nest and in need of the firepower. And at what point would it have become insane to commandeer Honor's ship?

Take the Basilisk System, if some wholeass of a Captain or Admiral had come hypering into the system wanting to commandeer Fearless but not have been willing to believe Honor's sixth sense, could she have rejected his "friendly take-over?"

Think of someone like Pavel Young or Elvis Santino whom—if they had outranked her at the time—commandeering Eighth Fleet? Admirals can simply commandeer and transfer flags. Can you imagine an Elvis Santino of an Admiral commandeering Eighth Fleet for something Honor feels is quintessential "Santino-stupid" and is likely going to cost her her fleet?

What are the rules, the politics?

I suppose this doesn't come up in today's navy, since communication circumnavigates the globe. (Unless communication has been neutralized planet-wide?) But in the Honorverse...


Can the Police Commandeer Your Car?

http://www.slate.com/id/2118263/ Yo, hand over that Miata

A pilot from central Kansas almost died last Friday after being asked by the local sheriff to help out with a manhunt. He had just located the suspect from his Cessna 150 airplane when a gunshot fired from below hit him in the forehead. The pilot (who somehow managed to avoid serious injury) has told police, "You need me again, you call me." Could he have refused to help the cops or to let them use his vehicle?

It depends on the local laws, but in many places the answer would be no. Many states and cities have laws on the books that make it a misdemeanor offense to refuse aid to a police officer. And legal precedents suggest that the obligation to help out with an arrest extends to giving cops the use of your plane, your car, or anything else that might come in handy.
Policemen used to commandeer cars more often. As recently as 40 years ago, New York City cops on foot would routinely flag down taxis when they needed to bring arrested criminals back to the station house.


In the 1920s, a New York cop hopped on the running board of a yellow taxi and demanded that its driver chase another car. The cabbie took off, but another car cut in front of him, and he was killed in the crash. A legal battle ensued over the extent of the obligation to aid a police officer and over the question of whether the cabbie's widow deserved payment under workers'-compensation law.

The New York state court referred to English common law in its discussion of the case. At least as far back as the 13th century, the "hue and cry" system compelled private citizens to join in the pursuit of a criminal, and the Statute of Winchester from 1285 even requires that every man keep appropriate instruments on hand, in case he's called to action. Among the tools listed are "a Breastplate of Iron, a Sword, a Knife, and a Horse."

The court ruled that the taxi was analogous to the horse mentioned in the Statute of Winchester: "The horse has yielded to the motorcar as an instrument of pursuit and flight. … We may be sure that the man who failed to use his horse … would have had to answer to the King." Courts in other states with similar laws have often cited this decision.

Another important case involved a store-owner in Alabama who, in the 1890s, refused to help a police officer make an arrest because he feared for his life. The court ruled that a citizen cannot refuse to aid a police officer simply because the request involves some form of danger: "The fact that there is danger involved is the very thing which calls for and makes obedience a duty." Provided that the police officer has not made a reckless or unreasonable request for aid, a citizen must comply.

What happens if you refuse to help the cops, and you live in a state with one of these laws on the books? You'll probably have to pay a fine.
Anti-commandeering :lol:
Although the anti-commandeering doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to protect state sovereignty from federal overreach, nothing prohibits flipping the doctrine in the opposite direction to protect federal sovereignty from state overreach. Federalism preserves a balance of power between two sovereigns.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by 19chickens   » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:48 pm

19chickens
Ensign

Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:32 am

I've just finished The Short Victorious War and in it the minelayers used to lay a trap for the Havenites were on route to another system when the war warning from Manticore arrived, so Admiral Parks stopped them at Hancock.
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by cthia   » Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:10 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8112
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

19chickens wrote:I've just finished The Short Victorious War and in it the minelayers used to lay a trap for the Havenites were on route to another system when the war warning from Manticore arrived, so Admiral Parks stopped them at Hancock.


That was probably the incident in question, because istr weapons being short-stopped and not ships.

Make you wonder how badly they might have been needed where they were headed. Can't you just hear some arrogant officer on station?...

"Where the bloody hell are my minelayers?!"

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by saber964   » Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:13 pm

saber964
Admiral

Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:41 pm
Location: Spokane WA USA

cthia wrote:The politics of commandeering.

In my day, to "short-stop" was to "head-off" something or someone...

"Son, go and short-stop your father before he leaves for the beach and send him my way."

"Yes, mom."

I suppose in the manner it is meant in this discussion is simply "commandeering." I can put my memory on an incident but not my finger, so if anyone'll be so kind as to help. Some officer commandeered something of someone else's fleet train for their own duty. It is rather interesting to ponder the rules for this. When can an officer tell another that he's requisitioning some or all of his forces and or ammo? This seems as if it could become a bag of snakes. Does the commandeerer have to be of higher rank than the commandeered?

Odds would certainly have it that Honor would almost certainly be outranked, yet odds would also have it that she would also most likely be the one who is bare-ass and deeply naked in a hornet's nest and in need of the firepower. And at what point would it have become insane to commandeer Honor's ship?

Take the Basilisk System, if some wholeass of a Captain or Admiral had come hypering into the system wanting to commandeer Fearless but not have been willing to believe Honor's sixth sense, could she have rejected his "friendly take-over?"

Think of someone like Pavel Young or Elvis Santino whom—if they had outranked her at the time—commandeering Eighth Fleet? Admirals can simply commandeer and transfer flags. Can you imagine an Elvis Santino of an Admiral commandeering Eighth Fleet for something Honor feels is quintessential "Santino-stupid" and is likely going to cost her her fleet?

What are the rules, the politics?

I suppose this doesn't come up in today's navy, since communication circumnavigates the globe. (Unless communication has been neutralized planet-wide?) But in the Honorverse...


Can the Police Commandeer Your Car?

http://www.slate.com/id/2118263/ Yo, hand over that Miata

A pilot from central Kansas almost died last Friday after being asked by the local sheriff to help out with a manhunt. He had just located the suspect from his Cessna 150 airplane when a gunshot fired from below hit him in the forehead. The pilot (who somehow managed to avoid serious injury) has told police, "You need me again, you call me." Could he have refused to help the cops or to let them use his vehicle?

It depends on the local laws, but in many places the answer would be no. Many states and cities have laws on the books that make it a misdemeanor offense to refuse aid to a police officer. And legal precedents suggest that the obligation to help out with an arrest extends to giving cops the use of your plane, your car, or anything else that might come in handy.
Policemen used to commandeer cars more often. As recently as 40 years ago, New York City cops on foot would routinely flag down taxis when they needed to bring arrested criminals back to the station house.


In the 1920s, a New York cop hopped on the running board of a yellow taxi and demanded that its driver chase another car. The cabbie took off, but another car cut in front of him, and he was killed in the crash. A legal battle ensued over the extent of the obligation to aid a police officer and over the question of whether the cabbie's widow deserved payment under workers'-compensation law.

The New York state court referred to English common law in its discussion of the case. At least as far back as the 13th century, the "hue and cry" system compelled private citizens to join in the pursuit of a criminal, and the Statute of Winchester from 1285 even requires that every man keep appropriate instruments on hand, in case he's called to action. Among the tools listed are "a Breastplate of Iron, a Sword, a Knife, and a Horse."

The court ruled that the taxi was analogous to the horse mentioned in the Statute of Winchester: "The horse has yielded to the motorcar as an instrument of pursuit and flight. … We may be sure that the man who failed to use his horse … would have had to answer to the King." Courts in other states with similar laws have often cited this decision.

Another important case involved a store-owner in Alabama who, in the 1890s, refused to help a police officer make an arrest because he feared for his life. The court ruled that a citizen cannot refuse to aid a police officer simply because the request involves some form of danger: "The fact that there is danger involved is the very thing which calls for and makes obedience a duty." Provided that the police officer has not made a reckless or unreasonable request for aid, a citizen must comply.

What happens if you refuse to help the cops, and you live in a state with one of these laws on the books? You'll probably have to pay a fine.
Anti-commandeering :lol:
Although the anti-commandeering doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to protect state sovereignty from federal overreach, nothing prohibits flipping the doctrine in the opposite direction to protect federal sovereignty from state overreach. Federalism preserves a balance of power between two sovereigns.



It also depends on the rank of the backstopping officer. RADM Santino could request a backstop but if he couldn't give a damn good reason why he needed to do so. (with supporting evidence) FADM Harrington would go on her merry way. Remember CarDiv 7.1 was passing through Spindle on it's way too deliver LAC's to 2 or 3 other systems. VADM Gold Peak would have explained to CarDiv CO that she expected SLN fleet units in short order and had the intelligence information to back it up. She also probably had the backing of the station commander too. Who had overall command of any units in his command area.

As a RW example right after 9/11. A CVSG was about 12 hours from pulling into Diego Garcia when the towers fell. On the CVSG CO's own authority he turned his entire TF north and headed to the Pakistani coast at flank speed. By the time the JCS and President figured out what to do. The CVBG had been heading north for close to eighteen hours. The NCA had actually sent the message to head north to Diego Garcia directing him to pull out. The TF CO actually received commendation for his initiative.
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by cthia   » Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:27 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8112
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Differences in firepower has to figure in their too. Eighth Fleet.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by kzt   » Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:13 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8788
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

If you are not in their chain of command they can tell you to pound sand. General military authority doesn't allow you to commandeer units belonging to another command that have an assigned mission.
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by Theemile   » Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:48 pm

Theemile
Admiral

Posts: 2709
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio USA

kzt wrote:If you are not in their chain of command they can tell you to pound sand. General military authority doesn't allow you to commandeer units belonging to another command that have an assigned mission.


Perhaps we should look at what happened in "Shadow of Saganami" - Terekhov, a senior Full Captain absconded with 12 ships (plus his own) from Adm. Khumalo's command and used them to send his own messages and invade a foreign power without orders to do so. Senior officers in the RMN (probably due to the long lead time of communications) are able to react on the spot to issues and contradict orders given to junior officers.

Of course, we can also assume that such behavior is subject to strigent review after the fact and court martial (depending on the outcome of the review) and is not considered the norm, but is expected from senior officers when necessary.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just about as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by cthia   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:01 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8112
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Theemile wrote:
kzt wrote:If you are not in their chain of command they can tell you to pound sand. General military authority doesn't allow you to commandeer units belonging to another command that have an assigned mission.


Perhaps we should look at what happened in "Shadow of Saganami" - Terekhov, a senior Full Captain absconded with 12 ships (plus his own) from Adm. Khumalo's command and used them to send his own messages and invade a foreign power without orders to do so. Senior officers in the RMN (probably due to the long lead time of communications) are able to react on the spot to issues and contradict orders given to junior officers.

Of course, we can also assume that such behavior is subject to strigent review after the fact and court martial (depending on the outcome of the review) and is not considered the norm, but is expected from senior officers when necessary.


The stringent review sounds a given. But a court martial only in case of failure or acidic assininity... hinging on the ability to scrape enough of your remaining DNA, indicative of your failure, off the bulkheads of torn and twisted metal.

In the Basilisk system, the powers that be were holding Young to prevent him from returning to the system and transferring his flag aboard Fearless. Which is a sort of commandeering.

What do you suppose the outcome would have been had that commandeering happened?

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by Annachie   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:02 am

Annachie
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Wouldn't suprise me if those mine layers had orders to check in just in case the situation changed in the area they were heading too.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: The politics of short-stopping firepower
Post by pnakasone   » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:20 am

pnakasone
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:21 pm

When it finally comes down to it success is the best defense for any actions a commander can take.
Top

Return to Honorverse