Posted on 06/22/2023 6:39:42 AM PDT by Red Badger
Of course…but he ignored how to work with/resolve risks that were pointed out to him. Stupid. His analysis was “then don’t drive a car if you don’t want risks”. Mine is I wouldn’t drive a car he designed using his stupid logic.
You are right to a degree. However I believe other actions and remarks by him also show a alarming disregard about the safety measures for the sub.
An old soldier told me long ago that most of the “rules” we don’t like have a story and name associated with them. The rules are imposed to protect the larger group or organization.
An old cop told me the same thing later in life.
As I get older I can see the truth in this.
I believe in freedom and if people want to take a risk like this that is on them as long as it does not impact others. However, the taxpayers are footing millions of dollars in the search so now we must engage in the unsolvable debate.
People who choose to summit high mountains who have to be rescued put military personnel or search and rescue crews at great risk to rescue them (Mt Rainer is a great example). What happens when one of those CH-47’s is hit by the extreme winds and crashes killing all those onboard?
If an American engages in very risky sexual behavior and they contract HIV or another disease the taxpayers shell out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of their lifetime for drugs to suppress the disease. What if that person continues to engage in risky behavior and infects others who also get treated by taxpayers the rest of their lives?
If a person on welfare and food stamps eats to the point that they are 500# with all the accompanying health risks what does that cost society?
If a person chooses to use fentanyl non-stop should the taxpayers foot the bill for dozens of emergency responses, Narcan, and ambulance rides with subsequent treatment? We just put them back out on the street and they repeat the same behavior over and over. We keep saving them. They keep screwing us financially.
I support the right of adults to make decisions but it gets far more murky if there is an expectation that the rest of us will pay for poor decisions and risky behavior.
This is always an interesting ethical and moral debate about what “limits” should be on the “government” to pay for personal choices.
It’s kind of like our banking system isn’t it? They get to privatize profits and publicize the losses and its not sustainable unless there are “limits” to what the taxpayers will assume or not assume.
You may be correct.
We may never know.
The risk and likely catastrophe show he probably miscalculated. When you are operating in a high risk environment such as 2 miles below the surface of the ocean, what would otherwise be small errors can be catastrophic.
However, his statement about the existence of risk in everyday life is merely pointing out the obvious.
I find the absurdity of much of the risk/benefit analysis (or lack thereof) in modern society to be common and costly.
It would be informative it someone competent and qualified, with access to the necessary information, could figure the costs of the various frutiless rescue efforts.
I know nothing of Stockton’s company but I suspect sending it a bill for recsue services would be a waste of paper or electrons.
The lawyers will line up to clean the bones of his company and family. I suppose to government would have to get in line at this point.
Oops - I suppose the government will have to get in line
The EPA CO2 rules are an excellent example.
That should have been GK not GL
I agree.
The Titanic is sitting ~12,500 ft below the surface.
That’s in excess of 5000 lbs/in^2 on the Titan.
That’s a lot of pressure stress on any craft.
And this was it’s what - fourth dive? - to that depth?
Hmmm...
I don’t doubt what you say a bit.
We hired some when they were discharged / retired. Mostly top shelf people. All were capable.
I believe in the video somewhere they gave the wrong attribution to “FK” and not the correct Gl as you say.
This is stupid thinking and led to the deaths of five including himself. The question is not “risk-reward,” the question is risk assessment and management. No reward is attained when you die trying.
Everybody dies.
Captain needs to protect passengers, not kill them.
Your point is certainly not without merit, I make the same point at work all the time.
Leadership is so risk averse as to be afraid to do almost anything. If an accident does happen it’s a full on hostile investigation to figure out who didn’t do the paperwork to make sure that thing didn’t happen.
In Rush’s case though... I think he would have some ‘splaining to do had he survived. The bad thing about it is this incident will not advance his dreams of dialing the safety factors back.
More is coming out to indicate this is the case.
Reality has a way of overwhelming wishful thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.