I have three space ships travelling in a convoy. They reach a point in their journey where a decision needs to be made about what course of action to take.
Ship one: Captain and First Officer (Commmander)
Ship two: same as above
Ship three: Admiral and First Officer (Captain)
My question is: What level of etiquette is required between these six officers? Would First Officers refer to their superiors as "sir" or "ma'am" in this setting? Captains to the Admiral?
About the only template I have to really work from is Star Trek and it has never really struck me as having a particullary strict military. Maybe I'm just babling and aught to go crazy. Blah, blah. Blah blah blah. Blah-blah.Ack!
However, as this is happening in space, in your imaginary world, it's all up to you
I say, it's your world, your time period. Create your own etiquette (sp?).
Edit: That sounded a bit harsh, so let me add: Have fun!
Adding smiley to show goodwill.
[This message has been edited by Keeley (edited August 13, 2004).]
I think it's a case of "if in doubt" where you pick the safest method, just in case.
Whether or not you choose to keep that "tradition" of respect for your story is entirely up to you.
There is a long history of military tradition. If anyone has the inclination and the time, it would be well worth your effort to research it. Or you can just ask me, I'd be glad to help make your military characters more believable.
Even still, in closed quarters (private meetings), first names or last names (and even nicknames) will prevail among the senior officers. The reason is simple: They are still human, still people, just like us -- they are no different than any of us. In "lesser" company, military etiquette is STRICTLY observed, and Sirs and Ma'ams will be used profilicly.
That's how it works now.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited August 13, 2004).]
Makes sense I guess.
One thing to consider, is this admiral's flagship his regular command? If not, then he should probabaly include his current ship's regular XO.
For purposes of this meeting, it would be highly unusual for the Admiral to fail to open it with a short briefing and then give everyone permission to speak freely. After that point, everything would probably be first name (unless they are all named Bruce).
Some of the books are even available for free at http://webscriptions.net/free/
The Admiral is not in command of a ship, but a fleet. Therefore he has a captain, called Flag Captain, in comand of his Flag Ship, and a ship's XO. Plus, he would have his own staffers, ie his own XO. Decisions pertaining to the flag ship but not to the fleet are under the direct order of the captain, not the admiral.
If the admiral's XO has the RANK of captain, he cannot be called Captain, as that title is reserved for the skipper of a vessel. In fact, any officer with the rank of captain gets an unofficial "promotion" so as not to demote him (Commodore, Rear Admiral or Vice Admiral--if my memory serves me correctly.) If there are Marines, or any form of ground troops, on board and one of the Marines has the rank of captain, he becomes a Major to avoid any confusion. To complicate matters, on smaller ships the ranking officer might be a Commander in rank, but is adressed as Captain. Complicated enough for you?
Proper address in public would be sir or ma'am, or rank, taking the above into account.
In an informal setting, during senior staff meetings or in the officer's mess, last names are usually used, but that depends on the admiral (or senior officer present). Generally speaking first names are avoided except in one on one conversation if the captain and admiral know each other well enough. Once again it depends on the admiral.
I could be wrong on some of those points however, but I think it works like that. If anyone knows differently, feel free to tell me.
Speaking of the E-word, we really shouldn't be making fun of HSO for not understanding the practical limits of conversational etiquette being applied to a bulletin board. A flame war consisting of polite phrases would be neither new nor instructive (amusing...possibly, but you know my sense of humor).
quote:
Well, most of what I know about space fleet etiquette comes from reading the Honor Harrington series by David Weber. You might want to read one of the Honor books to get a feel for it.
Actually, I've been meaning to ask a question about that series for a while. In it, there is a tradition that when a number of officers eat at the captain's table, the most junior one proposes the toast. I've also seen this tradition in another book (could have been The Mote in God's Eye by Niven & Pournelle), so I'm wondering if its a real one, and if so where it comes from. Anyone know anything about it?
And wetwilly, for future reference: I am completely untrollable. The reason is simple: I don't care, and you can't troll a troll. So keep going if you feel like wasting your energy. I'll have a laugh, too. I'm already laughing.
Besides, I see your from Ohio, wetwilly. From my nearly five years spent living in Ohio (Cleveland and Kent), I know you just can't control those urges... Ohio just happened to be the worst state I've ever lived in. Hated every day of it. Too many reasons to list them out.
Now, do we want stop acting childish and stay on topic, or do we want to continue this until it reaches levels of stupidity that has never before been known by mankind?
Your choice.
Leo Mehalic mehalic@usna.edu
The Naval Academy website, btw, is http://www.nadn.navy.mil/
I would explain nicely what I needed and why, and ask to be directed to an appropriate officer if this individual cannot answer.
You might also try getting information from Britain's navy, too. After all, they were the world's top naval power long before the U.S. was, and have centuries of tradition behind them!
Susan
Officers close in rank to each other may often drop "customs and courtesies." As a LT, I've been "instructed" by a Capt and a Maj to call them by first name. It's perfectly acceptable to call members by their call signs. I would never refer to a senior officer by just their last name, or first name unless given permission. Call signs is a different story though.
Also, in the event that I can call a senior officer by their first name, it is ONLY in appropriate situations. That depends on nature of the meeting (how formal or not it is) and who's present... In your situation, it would be HIGHLY inappopriate because of the inclusion of the admiral. Such an apparent sign of disrespect would likely earn a stiff backlashing if you know what I mean.
An admiral is the equivalent of a general. I can't imagine ANYONE calling a general by their first name unless they too were generals. He on the other hand, would use their first names depending on the tone of the meeting. If he's pissed at them, it's probably rank only. If he's in a good mood, anything goes.
Hope that helps.
Sili
Enlisted Personnel, including NCO's (Pay grades E1 - E5 -- or Private thru Sergeant)
Last names typically used, no rank unless you're around people who care about rank. Sergeants (E5's) are almost always called by their rank by E1's through E3's. Corporals (E4's) are the middle guys and, usually excited about just becoming a NCO, will call everyone with their rank regardless of who it is, and often insist on being called with their rank. This lasts for approximate 1 year until they've tired of doing it or somebody gave them a "blanket party" for being an idiot.
Staff NCO's (E6-E9) are your senior vets. When around junior personnel, they will almost always call the junior by their rank leaving off the last name. If they don't like you much, they might not even bother with your rank and just say "Hey Soldier" or "Hey Airman" or "Hey Marine" and so on. When amongst Staff NCO's only, it's first name basis all the time. By then you've been in around 10 years and you don't have time for all the BS that you used to. Besides, by this time, you should know quite a few people and have many friends that you've gotten drunk with, etc.
However, Staff NCO's will always refer to other SNCO's by their rank when talking to a junior enlisted or officer. It is a sign of respect for the chain of command and the person.
Now, in your stories, you can ignore all of this. You can do whatever you like. And in real life not all of these things apply exactly like I've said. We're all indivduals and we all respond differently.
If you've seen Saving Private Ryan, that's a pretty fair assessment of how enlisted and officers interact, sometimes breaking the rules of fraternization. It's often friendly, congenial and light hearted between E's and O's. It needs to be during a war, to some extent. But it can also be a living nightmare and... well, it's your story, you tell it.
I'm no longer in the military and most people wouldn't know I ever had been a soldier to look at me. But in entirely informal conversation with a general or admiral with whom I had some personal but non-familial relationship, I would se Admiral/General or Sir rather than the first name. I wouldn't use a last name if there was only one person of that rank present, that would be a bit weird.
And for myself, the same is going to be true of anyone that achieved a rank of O-6 or higher (O-3 and up may get that if I deem it appropriate, but I'm not going to refer to O-2s and under by rank unless I'm trying to put them in their place or something--which isn't my place).
But for officers themselves, it would probably be an agreeable informality for any higher ranking officer to call a subordinate by name rather than rank. Using the first name rather than the last implies a sense of personal recognition (this is particularly true for members of military families). For someone of the same rank, it would depend on the situation.
But for the situation described, I would guess that everything would be on a first name basis, with the caveat that an admiral's first name is always Admiral, whether you're military or not.
And if all they are doing is exploring, then why not have a more civilian hierarchy, like NASA has? Picture the astronauts and flight controllers in Apollo 13 and you've got a viable model for exploration.
But Star Trek created a tradition of military space explorers, and we are stuck with it. I think Roddenberry based his Starfleet on a combination of Horatio Hornblower and the U.S. Navy in World War II. You could do something similar and invent your own military protocols.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited August 15, 2004).]
There's an infinite number of ways to handle your spacefarers and their organization. You can create your own psuedo-militaristic clan, or you can go for something based off of current military tradition -- whether it be Naval or Air Force or Marines (Like "Aliens" and other recent movies).
I find it a shame that Joss Whedon's television program "Firefly" was cancelled. If ever a network "skiffy" show had any promise for originality and quirkiness, then that was it (completely discounting Farscape, my favorite SF show of all time... tho' the Muppet-like aliens bothered some people... can't imagine why, really.). It [Firefly] had some sort of military-like organization, but it was also informal due to them being smugglers and outlaws and such. "Wild West in Space" was the theme -- it almost worked.
Trust me, we'll be taking war with us to the stars if (when) we get there, and trust me, there'll be humans at the controls. The ideal of the war that doesn't claim lives is almost Roddenbery-like idea in itself (reminds me of the ST:TOS episode where super-computers played virtual wars and the designated victims were "cleanly" desintegrated.
Beyond that, I do not see us trusting computers in total control of massive engines of war capable of raining death on planets from orbit. One determined hacker could too easily control a ship that way. And before you say "that's impossible, you could firewall the ship blah blah blah," think of the famous cases of hackers getting in top secret Pentagon computers, government websites and the like. No matter how tight your computer security is, someone will get into your system files. Add to that the need for human creativity in matters of tactics and maintenance, and you are getting a serious crew. Finally, like no war can be won through air power alone, no war can be won through space power alone. You WILL need troops to occupy the ground. Look at Iraq. Despite our vast technological superiority, we need marines on the ground.
Using robots to fight wars for us? Won't happen. Sad as it is, humans fight. It's our nature, and no level of technology will ever be able to bury that.
The film's due out in April, I believe.
Space wars with no people on the ships? Only if you have AIs more capable than humans or FTL communication that can't be interrupted.
Speaking of AI fighting wars on our behalf: Can anyone tell me what the name of that story was that had two supercomputers (one for each human country at war) battling it out, and fighting a completely simulated war? Then, when the results of each battle were tabulated, the requisite number of human (I think) casualities for each side were required to go to extermination chambers?
Maybe that was a Twilight Zone or Outer Limits show... Can't remember.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited August 16, 2004).]
Looking forward to seeing it...
About the story I asked about above, the more I think of it, the more I think it was an Outer Limits thing... still a good many of those shows were based on published short stories.
)This is a lot of food for thought and a lot to process first thing in the morning when you don't drink coffee!
Thanks for all the info.
babylonfreek, So if the Admiral is on the Flag Ship he would still have a Captain in charge of the ship (the Captain would have a first officer under him or her) and the Admiral would have an XO? I guess I probably need eight people at my meeting. Unless I don't bring the XO or FO from the flagship. No I probably need to have the FO there. What rank would be appropriate for an XO?
I guess I need to start watching JAG again.
Sili and Survivor, My instincts were leaning in this direction. I figured anyone under an Admiral would probably keep some form of formality even in a "speak-freely" situation. Thanks for the confirmation.
While I don't need all this info for the story at hand, this is all good resource info.
I like where some of this has been going. I think it's a good idea to discuss ideas about military in the future.
[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited August 16, 2004).]
HSO, that show was from the old StarTrek, as BBYF noted. There might have been other shows that explored the idea earlier, but Kirk blows up the computer of one side to force them to fight a real war or give it up already.
RH, as I said above, whether or not it would be appropriate for the Admiral to include his own XO's XO at the meeting would mostly depend on whether he was on his regular flagship or whether his flag is only there temporarily. If the latter, it would be obtuse (but not impossible) to exclude the XO under his flagship's Captain. In the former case, it could go either way, but would probably be unnecessary.
Just an aside note, I think that it would pretty funny if you had human officers but everything else was done by machines. So you would have a Captain, his XO, and a third guy in case somebody gets killed. Everything else would be done automatically. The all brass military, realized at last!
quote:
HSO, that show was from the old StarTrek, as BBYF noted. There might have been other shows that explored the idea earlier, but Kirk blows up the computer of one side to force them to fight a real war or give it up already.
I must've glossed right over BBF's post an subconsciously picked up on it... because I know I didn't read that before. All right, that's a bit daft of me.
Still, I don't recall that Trek episode... The imagery in my head doesn't match up with Kirk, Spock, and Bones... but, the old noggin' ain't what it used to be when a-recallin' such thin's.
All brass military?! It would definitely make more sense to have it the other way around, don't you think? 
Two planets have been waging a computerized war for 500 years, and the designated victims are cleanly desintegrated. Kirk destroys the computer on one planet, and tells them that only by knowing the true price of war can you learn to overcome it, or something to that extent.
As to the meeting: If the Admiral conducts a full staff meeting, yes. The captain of his flag ship, the ships XO and his own chief of staff would be present IMHO. Maybe you can drop all the XO's, though I don't know how realistic that would be. The captain's job is to command the ship, the XO's job is to manage it. The rank of the chief of staff? Could be a captain himself, hence the whole problem with ranks. Though since they are in a meeting with so many captains (rank or position) last names without rank would probably be used, instead of Captain Who, Captain What and so on.
[This message has been edited by babylonfreek (edited August 16, 2004).]
quote:
If you're using manufactured troops, you can always step-up production on your canon-fodder,
In the informal meeting, the Admiral's flagship's Captain's XO's presence wouldn't necessarily be required, but it would be impolite to exclude him unless the Admiral had already (informally) discussed the issues with him and his Captain.
If this is a temporary flag, then it would be a bit unusual for the Admiral to do anything to interfere with the chain of command like that, thus, he would go ahead and call the XO in with all the other XOs. If this is his regular flag, then the Admiral would be quite likely to regularly converse with all the officers on board, and thus it would be strange for him to not discuss this briefly with his flaghip's Captain and XO before the meeting. In that case, there wouldn't be very much reason for the XO to attend the meeting, but it would still be weird for the Captain to miss it.
So this is a two part question, basically. Are they going to discuss something that would require a formal staff meeting, and if not, is this the Admiral's regular flagship?
In three cases out of four, the answer is that the flagship's XO should be present. Only in the case that the meeting is informal and the Admiral has already gotten the XO's input would it be likely that the XO wouldn't be present.
MR has a good point (hello there!) about humans being fairly cheap. With a cross note from that thread about teenaged warriors and a lesson taken from history and current events, you don't even need to get your own people killed. Just kidnap little kids, brainwash them, and throw them into battle. Somebody's bound to do it, at least one side does this in most modern wars, after all.
(Hi back, Survivor-san. I'm trapped at the JFK airport.)
Survivor, The meeting is about a specfic course of action. It is pretty important so I guess by that standard all the XOs should be present. I'm just not sure it is efficient for the story (3K limit). And yes, this is the Admiral's Flag Ship.
quote:
the Admiral's flagship's Captain's XO's presence
There are altogether too many possessives in that sentence. Using "flag Captain" rather than "flagship's Captain" would help. I would also rephrase to "presence of ..." rather that "...'s presence".
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited August 23, 2004).]
Oh, the mortal injury 
Susan
Drip. Drip.
You t'ink I feenesh, I no feeneesh
I...I am
still...Em por er.
I...ah-ahck!
It's been ages and ages since I've been here. I'll try and touch base again soon.And we haven't even touched on the real disadvantage of humans on a spacefaring warship. Humans simply can't handle edge-of-the-envelope spaceflight. We require too much life support, we can't pull enough gees. When it comes to reasonable weapons, like nukes, our bodies can't even tolerate the side effects, let alone the weapons themselves.
No one has ever portrayed realistic high-tech combat in the movies. I can think of two that came close:
In Dr. Strangelove, when we saw a human B-52 crew get lucky against a Soviet SAM with a nuke warhead. I think this missile was ficticious, as I've never heard of a real SAM with a nuke warhead.
In Dark Star, when the bombs were more powerful, and arguably more intelligent, than the humans. Not only were the humans unable to win a fight against the bombs, they couldn't even win a conversation.
quote:
You t'ink I feenesh, I no feeneesh
Trial by stone!
OK, imagine a confrontation between a human armed only with a toolbox and a present-day ICBM armed with several thermonuclear MIRV warheads, but without any human intelligence to initiate or guide any action.
I'd bet on the human with the toolbox as being more likely to survive the confrontation intact.
Even if we start talking about far-future technology, there is no guarantee that trans-human artificial intelligence is possible. It may be possible to create the hardware capable of sustaining such an intelligence, but unless humans are capable of designing the software for an intelligence greater than their own (or designing the software capable of creating such software, recursively), then trans-human intelligence will remain impossible.
Even if it is possible, problems with the earliest AI's may lead to prohibiting the creation of such entities.
So while it is possible the human brain may become completely obsolete, it is not inevitable.
As for edge-of-the-envelope spaceflight, technology may allow humans to tolerate far more than they can now. After all, if we're talking about a civilization with FTL travel, there's no reason they might not have inertial compensators and artificial gravity. In David Weber's Honor Harrington series, the humans don't even blink at the idea of manned warships accelerating at hundreds of gees.
Similarly, technology can shield humans from near-misses by weapons such as nukes, grasers, and antimatter warheads.
The first time it happens might be the last time for any number of reasons. But presuming that we survive, it will probably be the last time anyone views creating a true AI as a less serious crime than premeditated genocide.
Also, there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't be just as easy to "harden" a human as to create an equally "hard" intelligent system from scratch. And humans are very cheap (and surprisingly hard, particularly against things like nukes). For ordinary exploration, it well might be the case that automated probes will be more cost effective. But for real wars...human life may be priceless in some remote philosophical sense, but the truth is that on a battlefield, lives are worth very little.
Most humans don't like to think of their lives as being cheap, but such is the case when hard facts are examined.