Welcome to Writing Forums, one of the fastest growing writing communties on the web.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and photo galleries. By joining our free community you will
be able to talk with other writers, get feedback on your work to improve your writing skills, discuss ideas, share tips & tricks, network and make friends!
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support.
| Research Research for your story or poem. Ask about history, technology, language etc. |
04-03-2008, 07:42 PM
|
#1
|
|
Addict
Join Date: Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 123
|
Military Reaction To This Situation
GENERAL BACKGROUND: I'm writing a series of action/adventure stories that will in essence satirize the genre: the main character is a lonely, nerdy birdwatcher (henceforth, birder; hardly a ladies' man, but not a total geek) who, while vacationing at various places around the world, inadvertently gets mixed up in the plots of various criminals, and becomes the reluctant hero. Along the way, he meets/reunites with various women and woos and/or is wooed by them. (Again, satirizing the genre.) In addition to the action/adventure and romance elements, there will also be plenty of comedy, as well as a social/political consciousness. Expect homages and references to an assortment of action films - mostly the Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer type - and chapter titles named after (mostly) classic rock songs. The latter applies to many of my other stories as well, many characters getting a "theme band" (again, mostly classic rock). Keep in mind that the stories are set in the next decade, as the primary characters are teenagers in other, more contemporary stories of mine. With that said...
SPECIFIC BACKGROUND: In the second book, the birder, Kent, goes on a 2-week Alaskan cruise (departing from Vancouver) with two high school friends, Rick and his girlfriend Iris. Onboard, Kent runs into an old crush of his, Terra. The "villain" (perhaps "anti-hero" is a better description) is a disgruntled veteran of both Iraq Wars, General Steinbacher (I don't have a first name for him yet) who, halfway through the cruise, overthrows the ship with his men and takes the c.1000 passengers and crew hostage. Kent manages to avoid being captured. Steinbacher has smuggled several missiles (?) onboard, and because he has control over the ship, he is mobile. His demands: the government is to repeal the Patriot Act and other freedom-restricting acts it has put into effect since 9/11, or else he will fire the missiles at one or more of the nearest major cities (Anchorage, AK, or Vancouver, BC). As additional leverage, a very right-wing politician and his family are also onboard, and Steinbacher threatens to kill him as well. In case it wasn't obvious already, this story takes its cue from a combination of Die Hard and The Rock. Themes here are the ironic idea of taking hostages to in order to secure freedoms, and the true definition of a "patriot."
So, my questions are (please suspend your disbelief as necessary):
1) what types of weapons could Steinbacher smuggle onto the ship that he could fire at these cities? Yes, The Rock had VX gas rockets, but there's got to be other options that are equally destructive (perhaps the explosive "bomb" kind as opposed to the toxic "poison" kind)?
2) what would be the "official" reaction - not necessarily military - to this kind of situation? Steinbacher's whole plan rests on the idea that the politicians act as though the Consitution is "just a piece of paper", and as such, it shouldn't be so hard to simply pass more papers to restore the freedoms detailed therein back into effect - appealing to their logic. They could sent a military unit in to stop Steinbacher, but wouldn't it be easier to just pass more papers? Why risk lives?
With that in mind, what do you think the government would do? What kind of military or other unit(s), if any, would they send in? How would they take back the ship? How would knowing that someone else (Kent) is also onboard, singlehandedly trying his best to restore order (without knowing Steinbacher's motives himself), affect their decisions?
3) if/when word got out to the media about the hostage situation(s), how would their decisions change?
Any other factors you can think of that might affect things for any side (Kent, Steinbacher & his men, the hostages [onboard or in the cities], the government/military, etc.), please share.
Remember, this is supposed to be somewhat over-the-top (with the pop culture references being fully intentional and even acknowledged by characters), but at the same time carry a serious message.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
04-04-2008, 03:06 AM
|
#2
|
|
Ink Slinger
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Crossmaglen, Ireland.
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,695
|
1) what types of weapons could Steinbacher smuggle onto the ship that he could fire at these cities? Yes, The Rock had VX gas rockets, but there's got to be other options that are equally destructive (perhaps the explosive "bomb" kind as opposed to the toxic "poison" kind)?
A: Firstly, your entire story sounds like the plot of Under Siege, so be careful with that. Surface-launched harpoons and tomahawks would work.
2) what would be the "official" reaction - not necessarily military - to this kind of situation? Steinbacher's whole plan rests on the idea that the politicians act as though the Consitution is "just a piece of paper", and as such, it shouldn't be so hard to simply pass more papers to restore the freedoms detailed therein back into effect - appealing to their logic. They could sent a military unit in to stop Steinbacher, but wouldn't it be easier to just pass more papers? Why risk lives?
With that in mind, what do you think the government would do? What kind of military or other unit(s), if any, would they send in? How would they take back the ship? How would knowing that someone else (Kent) is also onboard, singlehandedly trying his best to restore order (without knowing Steinbacher's motives himself), affect their decisions?
A: No, the policy of any country is no negotiation with terrorists, even if what they're asking is the easiest thing in the world. If you start negotiating with one, more attacks will happen. The team they would send in would be the Navy SEALs. Kent's position onboard would have no bearing on the military leaders. You said he was an ordinary Joe. They're not going to risk lives on the assumption that he might be able to do something. As for the people outside the military, I think all the generals and the President and his aides would be either in the Situation Room in the White House, or the Joint Chiefs Gold Room in the Pentagon. They will make the decision of whether or not to retake the boat.
The way it will be done is by a SDV (Swimmer Delivery Vehicle). Much like The Rock, the SEALs will approach the boat under the water in these powered machines. They'll then gain access to the boat and retake it.
3) if/when word got out to the media about the hostage situation(s), how would their decisions change?
They would have to take more measured steps. They couldn't go all gung-ho and risk the peoples' lives, simply because the media would destroy them if they found out. So every move would be thought out in detail. Then, they might even consider giving your main character a chance.
Sam.
__________________
THE ODDVILLE PRESS
Do you think you have what it takes to be published in our e-zine? If so, click on the link above.
Last edited by Sam Winchester : 04-04-2008 at 03:10 AM.
|
|
|
04-04-2008, 12:22 PM
|
#3
|
|
Adept Writer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 880
|
Something you could have happen is have your general board the ship with a group of his followers in the normal method, without any advanced weaponry (missile(s) etc...), and have another group meet up with the boat after it's been overtaken. To me this would seem more plausible then being able to smuggle the components to any significant WMD on board right from the get go.
As Sam said, the US's policy is not to negotiate with terrorists. There is always a certain amount of "ha, yeah right, you're bluffing" when involving a terrorist situation like this. That being said the General should have sufficient WMDs to "prove" his willingness to destroy innocent/military lives for the good of his cause.
Depending on the set of rocks hanging between the president's legs at the time, there's a chance that like in The Rock, an air strike would be ordered on the boat, sacrificing the hostages in favor of the greater populated areas being targeted.
__________________
24,372/50,000
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 AM. Powered by vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
|
|
Newsletter |
 |
|
Subscribe to Majestic the official newsletter of Writing Forums and lit.org
|
|
Link to Us:
|
|