My middle kid just got all four wisdom teeth pulled this afternoon; this got me thinking back to when I got two of mine pulled at the Naval Dental Clinic in Charleston. I had kept all my wisdom teeth intact through all the pre-submarine screening and my first sea tour, but then ran into a Navy dentist who wanted to pull as many submariner's wisdom teeth as he could. I didn't want to lose any, so he decided he'd only pull the two that were partially impacted.
I had them pulled on the day before the "four-off" started because I was the only qualified Shift Engineer on my shift and couldn't miss any work. (This situation persisted for 11 months.) A few days after the teeth were pulled, I noticed some pus coming from one of the wounds. I went into the Weapons Station Clinic, where they took an x-ray and noted that there was still a piece of tooth in there. I came in before the last night of swings to have it removed; it turns out they had to do essentially the same procedure as pulling the tooth! He gave me a prescription for pain meds and I said, "I can't take these; I'm working in 2 hours." He said, "Good luck with that".
I lasted about halfway through the shift before I had to pop one. I went back to Maneuvering at the MTS to tell the EOOW to "ignore me if I give any stupid orders". Luckily, it was a quiet night, and I didn't get too stoned. (I did check the bottle to see if it said I couldn't operate nuclear reactors, but it only mentioned "heavy machinery".)
Did any of you Submariners get through your whole career with all your wisdom teeth intact? Are the Navy dentists still militant about pulling the wisdom teeth of Submariners as a preventative measure? Do any of you have any good Navy dentist stories?
Russian Subs Off East Coast Of U.S.
This article in the New York Times says that there have been two Russian Akula-class submarines hanging off the East Coast in international waters this summer. Excerpts:
Personally, I think it's great that the Russians are bringing such an excellent training opportunity so close to our shores. We have to be careful that we don't waste it; I'm hoping we have most of our ASW assets in the area practicing their craft on the visitors (who, let's face it, probably have their hands full just keeping their boats on station without too many things breaking). Since the Russians have indicated a willingness to return to playing at the varsity level with this deployment, I say we don't disappoint them; we need to remind them how the game is played. If a surface ship gets an indication that the sub is close to them at PD, I say they kick it up to a flank bell and head straight down the bearing of the contact. No kneeling on the ball... let's run up the score. The lesson learned from this opportunity is not "how could the Navy let the Russians get so close to our shores" -- what do you expect us to do, blow them out of the water for sailing in international waters? The lesson learned should be, "There are still submarine threats out there, so now is not the time to cut back on our ASW assets, the most formidable of which are our own submarines".
In discussing this topic, please avoid anything classified, including any other possible times Russian subs may or may not have come close to the U.S. in the last 10 years or so.
Update 1722 05 Aug: Here's a CNN story on the Russian deployment; check out this line:
Update 1044 06 Aug: Since I'm getting visits by people looking for information on "surface-loaded cruise missiles", I suppose I should explain what the reporter really meant (since they haven't corrected it yet). It seems that what most likely happened is that the reporter Googled for info on Akula-class submarines, and saw they carried "SLCMs". The reporter then asked their source what an "SLCM" was, and the source didn't know, so he/she made up something, instead of the correct "submarine-launched cruise missile". The reporter then printed what they were told without verifying it.
Update 1044 12 Aug: Now even the Canadian media has picked up the phrase "surface-loaded cruise missiles".
According to Defense Department officials, one of the Russian submarines remained in international waters on Tuesday about 200 miles off the coast of the United States. The location of the second remained unclear. One senior official said the second submarine traveled south in recent days toward Cuba, while another senior official with access to reports on the surveillance mission said it had sailed away in a northerly direction.In case the NYT article goes behind a firewall, here's another article with pretty much the same information. And here's an article where a Russian general is trying to sound all blustery.
The Pentagon and intelligence officials spoke anonymously to describe the effort to track the Russian submarines, which has not been publicly announced...
...One of the submarines is the newer Akula II, officials said, which is quieter than the older variant and the most advanced in the Russian fleet. The Akula is capable of carrying torpedoes for attacking other submarines and surface vessels as well as missiles for striking targets on land and at sea...
...The official said the Navy was able to track the submarines as they made their way through international waters off the American coastline. This can be done from aircraft, ships, underwater sensors or other submarines.
Personally, I think it's great that the Russians are bringing such an excellent training opportunity so close to our shores. We have to be careful that we don't waste it; I'm hoping we have most of our ASW assets in the area practicing their craft on the visitors (who, let's face it, probably have their hands full just keeping their boats on station without too many things breaking). Since the Russians have indicated a willingness to return to playing at the varsity level with this deployment, I say we don't disappoint them; we need to remind them how the game is played. If a surface ship gets an indication that the sub is close to them at PD, I say they kick it up to a flank bell and head straight down the bearing of the contact. No kneeling on the ball... let's run up the score. The lesson learned from this opportunity is not "how could the Navy let the Russians get so close to our shores" -- what do you expect us to do, blow them out of the water for sailing in international waters? The lesson learned should be, "There are still submarine threats out there, so now is not the time to cut back on our ASW assets, the most formidable of which are our own submarines".
In discussing this topic, please avoid anything classified, including any other possible times Russian subs may or may not have come close to the U.S. in the last 10 years or so.
Update 1722 05 Aug: Here's a CNN story on the Russian deployment; check out this line:
The Akula-class nuclear-powered submarines, which are normally equipped with surface-loaded cruise missiles and surface-to-air missiles, have stayed in international waters, the source said.What the hell is a "surface-loaded cruise missile"? Idiot journalists...
Update 1044 06 Aug: Since I'm getting visits by people looking for information on "surface-loaded cruise missiles", I suppose I should explain what the reporter really meant (since they haven't corrected it yet). It seems that what most likely happened is that the reporter Googled for info on Akula-class submarines, and saw they carried "SLCMs". The reporter then asked their source what an "SLCM" was, and the source didn't know, so he/she made up something, instead of the correct "submarine-launched cruise missile". The reporter then printed what they were told without verifying it.
Update 1044 12 Aug: Now even the Canadian media has picked up the phrase "surface-loaded cruise missiles".
Submarine Escape Trainer Pictures
Some pictures of the new Submarine Escape Trainer in Groton can be found in this topic post over at Nuke Warriors.
Personally, I never went through the ascent part of the training; I just did the pool trainer they used to have where you "ascend" about 3 feet. Have any of you done the full-blown thing?
Personally, I never went through the ascent part of the training; I just did the pool trainer they used to have where you "ascend" about 3 feet. Have any of you done the full-blown thing?
Congratulations To The New Chief Selectees!
The CPO list came out for this year, and, as usual, Submariners were well represented.
About this time of year, I get several requests for the words to the "Submarine Song" from people who find me via Google searches. Unfortunately, the volume of E-mail precludes me from answering everyone, so here's a YouTube clip of some Submariners singing it at a wedding reception ( ! ) for those who want to learn the words. The alternate last line is "We're submariners, who the f**k are you".
About this time of year, I get several requests for the words to the "Submarine Song" from people who find me via Google searches. Unfortunately, the volume of E-mail precludes me from answering everyone, so here's a YouTube clip of some Submariners singing it at a wedding reception ( ! ) for those who want to learn the words. The alternate last line is "We're submariners, who the f**k are you".
"Birthers" Get More And More Unhinged
"Birthers", including formerly relevant Idaho blogger Clayton Cramer, were orgasmic this week when nutcase lawyer Orly Taitz produced a forged Kenyan "Birth Certificate" for President Obama. Cramer went so far as to say he would "need some serious proof that it isn't a forgery".
Hey, Clayton, will this proof do? Finding the document on which the forgery is based seems like some pretty serious proof to me. Seriously, if you want to find what you're looking for in Africa, I suggest you respond to some E-mails from some helpful Nigerian public servants. Here's a clue to tell is something is forged or not in the computer age: if you really, really want to find a document that is unlikely to exist, and it just conveniently falls into your lap from an anonymous source, there's a good chance it's forged.
(Yes, I realize I'm tilting at windmills, and the "Birthers" will be just as undissuaded from their beliefs as the 9/11 "Truthers" by any actual facts. Still, it's fun to mock and belittle them as they continue to marginalize themselves with their stubborn refusal to understand how the world really works. Do they honestly believe that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have used this angle if it had any chance of working?)
Update 1520 06 Aug: Birther Clayton Cramer has another post up on the "Kenyan Birth Certificate"; of course, he doesn't address the proof of forgery provided above, but he repeats the Birther claim the President Obama has spent "a million dollars" defending himself from the Birthers. Of course, he provides no link to that claim, because there is absolutely no proof that President Obama has spent even a small fraction of that amount defending himself against the frivolous lawsuits. I challenge Cramer to come up with any proof other than "other Birthers said so" to back up this new claim of his.
Update 0905 07 Aug: Now even WorldNetDaily is admitting that the "Kenyan Birth Certificate" is a fraud. Interestingly, when they were first flogging the story, they claimed that they had been "able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical". It now appears that they were lying when they said that, since they now admit the form is not at all the same.
Hey, Clayton, will this proof do? Finding the document on which the forgery is based seems like some pretty serious proof to me. Seriously, if you want to find what you're looking for in Africa, I suggest you respond to some E-mails from some helpful Nigerian public servants. Here's a clue to tell is something is forged or not in the computer age: if you really, really want to find a document that is unlikely to exist, and it just conveniently falls into your lap from an anonymous source, there's a good chance it's forged.
(Yes, I realize I'm tilting at windmills, and the "Birthers" will be just as undissuaded from their beliefs as the 9/11 "Truthers" by any actual facts. Still, it's fun to mock and belittle them as they continue to marginalize themselves with their stubborn refusal to understand how the world really works. Do they honestly believe that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have used this angle if it had any chance of working?)
Update 1520 06 Aug: Birther Clayton Cramer has another post up on the "Kenyan Birth Certificate"; of course, he doesn't address the proof of forgery provided above, but he repeats the Birther claim the President Obama has spent "a million dollars" defending himself from the Birthers. Of course, he provides no link to that claim, because there is absolutely no proof that President Obama has spent even a small fraction of that amount defending himself against the frivolous lawsuits. I challenge Cramer to come up with any proof other than "other Birthers said so" to back up this new claim of his.
Update 0905 07 Aug: Now even WorldNetDaily is admitting that the "Kenyan Birth Certificate" is a fraud. Interestingly, when they were first flogging the story, they claimed that they had been "able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical". It now appears that they were lying when they said that, since they now admit the form is not at all the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
