How To Be a Bad Nuke

[sovbob]

This list is a small sampling of what NOT to do as a navy nuke.  Suggestions, comments, and additions are always welcome.

HOW TO BE A BAD NUKE

• Don't take responsibility for your actions.  Blame others. Deny everything.
• Take credit for other people's work.  It's what they would want.
• Take shortcuts. It's not like it really matters if you do it right or not anyway.
• Show up late.  Blame traffic, lack of parking, engine troubles, family emergency, natural disasters, sleeping through your alarm clock, and your roommate keeping you up at night.
• Don't bother following the procedure.  You know how to operate and maintain the plant better than the engineers who wrote the procedure.
• Take naps on watch.  You need your beauty rest, and the plant will take care of itself.
• Act cocky, especially when you aren't fully qualified.  People love self-confidence.
• Don't bathe regularly.  Living on a ship in close proximity to others allows them to appreciate your natural body fragrances more.
• When somebody asks for help, ignore them.  They don't deserve it, and you've got better things to do.
• Backdoor your supervisor.  If it's not a crisis, he doesn't need to know what you're doing.
• Ignore your quals.  Being dink isn't that bad.
• Learn the fine art of Hide-and-Seek.  If they can't see you, they can't task you.
• Cheat on your exams.  If you're not cheating, you're not trying.
• Ignore Danger/Caution tags.  Those are just suggestions, right?
• When you discover a material deficiency, cover it up.  You'll just end up making more work for yourself if you report it.
• Mess around with your shipmates' wives/girlfriends/fiancees.  What could possibly go wrong with that?
• Backstab your co-workers.  It's the only way to get ahead.
• Arrange the watchbill so that you get the best deal.  You're better than everybody else and so consequently you deserve the best deal.
• Your uniform doesn't have to look good.  In fact, it can be wrinkled, torn, stained, and missing patches and nobody will care.  And oh yeah, don't bother to shave or cut your hair.  Appearances don't matter.
• Don't take duty on the weekend.  For Saturdays, say that you're Jewish and you can't work on the sabbath.  For Sundays, say that you need to attend christian services with your spouse.  When they protest, scream about how they're "infringing on your religious beliefs" and threaten to file a grievance.
• Don't document your work.  If there's no paper trail, they can't blame you when something goes wrong.
• Maintain a bad attitude.  Especially around your superiors.
• Don't clean up after yourself.  Somebody else will take care of it.

And finally...

• Don't use the search function.  It's better to just start a new thread.

[Hraesvelg]

Don't have flat feet... (got me turned down at MEPS)

[Golly Orby]

So, how do you become a Good Nuke?

[HydroDave63]

So, how do you become a Good Nuke?

Orby, from reading your posts, I'd say you are on the right track, just keep on doing what seems right!

[JustinHEMI05]

Part of which would be doing the opposite of the original post. 

[Cycoticpenguin]

You are awfully presumptiuous sovbob.

A bad nuke is 99% of the time created by his work environment. If his chief or LPO or whomever is allowing the actions to occur, thats just as much their fault as the "bad nukes".

What comes first... the chicken or the egg? 


Golly, orby -> to answer your question ... Do your job... You are a sailor, and therefore must fullfill the actions and requirements of a sailor first. IMHO, Sailor first, nuke 2nd. we have different priorities of course, but whatever. Pay no regards to my negative karma. I ruffle feathers here, but to put things in perspective... I am senior in rate after 8 months in the plant, I am a 3m WCS, in quals for QAI (finishing my school), I have a 2nd NEC (safety), and I am standing chief reactor watch... Oh yeah, I've been on the boat for less then 2 years... hmm.

[Gamecock]

You are awfully presumptiuous sovbob.

A bad nuke is 99% of the time created by his work environment. If his chief or LPO or whomever is allowing the actions to occur, thats just as much their fault as the "bad nukes".

What comes first... the chicken or the egg? 


Golly, orby -> to answer your question ... Do your job... You are a sailor, and therefore must fullfill the actions and requirements of a sailor first. IMHO, Sailor first, nuke 2nd. we have different priorities of course, but whatever. Pay no regards to my negative karma. I ruffle feathers here, but to put things in perspective... I am senior in rate after 8 months in the plant, I am a 3m WCS, in quals for QAI (finishing my school), I have a 2nd NEC (safety), and I am standing chief reactor watch... Oh yeah, I've been on the boat for less then 2 years... hmm.

[JustinHEMI05]

Ya, wasn't he medically broken for a long time? I have lost track of his stories.

Justin

[HydroDave63]

A bad nuke is 99% of the time created by his work environment. If his chief or LPO or whomever is allowing the actions to occur, thats just as much their fault as the "bad nukes".

Always the victim

I understand your position, but please try to look at mine. I spent 5 months in boot camp because someone couldnt do their job. I had friends spend years on t track because someone couldnt do their job, I spent a year a prototype because someone couldnt do their job, my sea dad told me straight up he didnt have time for me and that I needed to "figure S**t out on my own",  I didnt get my tld for 10 months on board because someone couldnt do their job....   so yes, I am a bit bitter towards certain aspects of the navy.

Pay no regards to my negative karma. I ruffle feathers here, but to put things in perspective...

bottom line, it seems like 99% of you read to deep into my posts, and thats my fault really. So in the future I will convey my thoughts more accurately and more politically correct so you guys dont have smiting frenzies on me

In summary, it's all about being a victim and 99% of the time...

[JustinHEMI05]

[DLGN25]

That list is not nuke limited, it can be found in any branch of the service or public or private sectors.  It matters not how well trained an individual is, there are always some who will try to skate.   With the exception of not ironing your uniform, the rest is a leadership issue and only exists or persists due to lack of leadership or a misdirected sense of what is important.

The nuclear navy I knew as an RO was all about engineering skills and knowledge, nearly everything was driven by watch qualifications.  Whether you were an E4, E5, or E6, once qualified as an RO, there were no differences in watch assignments or rotation or other assignments.  Although as an E6 you did not have to partake in field days and you got head of the line privilege in the mess, but other then that, there was little differentiation on how you were treated.  The Chiefs, when not standing watch as a watch officer, or at quarters, were no where to be found.  The engineering environment was not about the navy, it was about engineering.  The nukes seldom interacted with the rest of the crew, and most had no idea of what the world outside the hole was all about.

After about two years on Bainbridge, I was transferred to the conventional fleet.  What a different world.  There military bearing was part of life, and E6's were expected to lead, something I never saw as a nuke. 

The nuke world I knew was all about competition and intimidation.  Because of the structure of engineering qualifications, you knew where you stood in the division.  Slackers, scrounges, backstabbers and other misguided individuals where usually taken care of late at night when accidents seemed to happen a lot.  Had there been more emphasis on leadership, those late night activities would not have been necessary.

But then again, this was life on a nuke cruiser in the early 70's, I have no idea what life on a bird farm with 5,000 sailors would be like, or what life on a boat would be.  Just memories of DLGN-25

[Cycoticpenguin]

you have connections to the ship... go ask... Went on deployment, a lot has changed.

Apparently silly lists on forums dictate the way things go in real life.



Hydro-> what does my medical history have to do with anything? And why are you trying to keep track of my so called "stories"? 

[JustinHEMI05]

OOOOHHHHH well suddenly it becomes so clear. You're salty now. 

[rumrunner]

That list is not nuke limited, it can be found in any branch of the service or public or private sectors.  It matters not how well trained an individual is, there are always some who will try to skate.   With the exception of not ironing your uniform, the rest is a leadership issue and only exists or persists due to lack of leadership or a misdirected sense of what is important.   After about two years on Bainbridge, I was transferred to the conventional fleet.  What a different world.  There military bearing was part of life, and E6's were expected to lead, something I never saw as a nuke. 

Sounds like a bad command in general, from the CO down to the Engineering officers and Chiefs.  While some of what you described was true on the Texas (CGN39) and the Nimitz during my tours, we very much maintained the military discipline with routine personnel inspections, respect for rank regardless of quals, and an understanding that we were part of a bigger thing than the engineering spaces.  It helped that some of us had GQ stations in CIC and on the bridge (phone talkers with Main Control/EOS). 

[deltarho]

Sounds like a bad command in general, from the CO down to the Engineering officers and Chiefs.  While some of what you described was true on the Texas (CGN39) and the Nimitz during my tours, we very much maintained the military discipline with routine personnel inspections, respect for rank regardless of quals, and an understanding that we were part of a bigger thing than the engineering spaces.  It helped that some of us had GQ stations in CIC and on the bridge (phone talkers with Main Control/EOS). 

Ahem!

Having served on both the left and right coasts, (in order of assignment: CGN-37, CGN-35, CGN-25; right, left, right, respectively)... I must say, and I'm sure HydroDave will give a witness, that the commands were different because of the fleet of operation and home port.

Having served on the right coast first and then transferring to the left coast, I was in complete culture shock when I was on the left coast. One example, the berthing lights were on after revellie on the right coast, the berthing lights were on for only sweepers or XO's inspection on the left coast. Nooners on the right coast were during lunch, nooners on the left coast were in effect whenever your LPO didn't have something for you to do or you were on watch. The chief was expected to be in your $h:t on the right coast, the chief was expected to be in the goat locker on the left coast. I was an E-6 trying to be the leader that was modeled from the right coast, which was not well received. (HydroDave insert rants here).  It took me more than five hours to get my bunk mattress out of the laundry bin one day...long story.

Now, fathom this... when I was on CGN-25, it had just changed coasts about a year before. So, the crew morale was the worst. They were used to the left coast routine but forced to conform to the right coast regimen. I was a successful LCPO in the eyes of my division on this ship; I treated them as left coasters. On the other hand, I was threatened to have my career ruined by the chain of command; I ran my division like they were still on the left coast. I learned a slew gob about leadership from my left coast tour, which I applied at my final right coast tour. Mostly, military leadership that is oppressive is not leadership at all...it is a caste society trying to maintain the gulf of separation between the khaki pants and the blue shirts. If it weren't for the fact that I was already an E-8 (and fully bulletproof in my eyes), my career would have been ruined in retribution. On one hand I was lauded by the Surface Nuclear Power Mobile Training Team for infrastructure and programs I allowed my folks to develop that were going to be shared with the other skimmers; however, I was given a negative evaluation by my command for not playing their game while in the sandbox.  I am one of few khaki pants invited to the nuc reunions that the blueshirts from my circa throw every two years or so. (HydroDave--did you faint?)

I do want to add that when I was on the SoCar--CGN-37--we did not have this respect for rank regardless of quals that was on the Texas. We had one WCS who was an E-4 that had E-5s and one E-6 working for him. They were not senior in rate like he was. He was the best choice for the job. It was not his fault that the E-5 selection score was abnormally high from all the STAR babies taking the E-5 billets.

[Cycoticpenguin]

OOOOHHHHH well suddenly it becomes so clear. You're salty now. 

Are we 12 years old here? Go pick fights elsewhere. 


Deltarho -> sounds like you were a good LCPO. Can I get a khaki perspective on my point? (I.e. bad sailors are made, not born?)

[deltarho]

Are we 12 years old here? Go pick fights elsewhere. 


Deltarho -> sounds like you were a good LCPO. Can I get a khaki perspective on my point? (I.e. bad sailors are made, not born?)

First of all, I don't think you've read enough of my previous posts to make such a bold statement about me or request my backup. But because you asked...

Your assertion is both true and false. 

I always thought that a perfect doctorate paper could be, perhaps should be, written about the the relationship of the military environment compared to the home of origin of the military member. My gut says one thing, but I wonder what true research would find. 

That said, I had sailors that I believe were born and bred to fail in a military environment. According to me (without the purposeful research to back me up), these military misfits come from what most would call a Leave It to Beaver home environment--no extreme stressors: parental alcoholism, marital affairs, mothers or fathers with bipolar disorder, pregnant teenaged sisters, etc.

The antithesis of this would imply that those who can tolerate the military environment come from a home environment where diversity was present; moreover, lifers choose the military environment because of the steady diet of extreme stressors that mirror what they grew up with.  In these extreme cases, the persons have adroitly honed and adapted their living skills and coping techniques in morbidly dysfunctional homes. It follows that a subsequent absence of dysfunctional environments obviates these life skills, which creates unbearable anxiety. These poor souls cannot cope without the continuous dysfunction and stress that triggers chemical reactions to their brains, keeping it in steady state or in equilibrium--so to speak. Are you sorry you asked yet?

So, whether a bad sailor will be made depends on the character and moxie of the individual sailor. According to me (without the purposeful research to back me up), some need only an excuse to whine because of their pampered and coddled upbringing. Yet, some never whine, confident in the knowledge that steel sharpens steel; they have a pilot light that diversity never seems to blow out.

To sum it up. According to me (without the purposeful research to back me up), if someone can tolerate the military and chooses to get out with less than 20 years, he or she probably came from a typical home environment that falls well within the best part of a bell or Mae West curve (wink, wink; nudge, nudge; say no more) for experiencing diversity or adversity. The extremes--no adversity and associated stressors or mass amounts of dysfunction and stressors will probably mean he or she may not cope or he or she stays in for the long haul, respectively. The variables for the former case are character and moxie.

What are you made of?

DISCLAIMER: The information and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author--not of Nukeworker.com or its associates--and may be denied or disregarded at a later date. Reading of this paragraph constitutes as agreement on part of reader not to hold author responsible for any damaging effects resulting from reading and agreeing with anything printed on this site; furthermore, reader waives all future claims resulting from changes in law which may render this disclaimer null and void. This disclaimer is valid in all states with the exception of those states which have laws forbidding the existence of this disclaimer, and in states where such laws exist, the reader agrees to read this disclaimer in a state where this disclaimer is binding.
The preceding was the opinion of the poster and does not express the blah, blah, blah .

[Motown homey]

First of all, I don't think you've read enough of my previous posts to make such a bold statement about me or request my backup. But because you asked...

Your assertion is both true and false. 

I always thought that a perfect doctorate paper could be, perhaps should be, written about the the relationship of the military environment compared to the home of origin of the military member. My gut says one thing, but I wonder what true research would find. 

That said, I had sailors that I believe were born and bred to fail in a military environment. According to me (without the purposeful research to back me up), these military misfits come from what most would call a Leave It to Beaver home environment--no extreme stressors: parental alcoholism, marital affairs, mothers or fathers with bipolar disorder, pregnant teenaged sisters, etc.

The antithesis of this would imply that those who can tolerate the military environment come from a home environment where diversity was present; moreover, lifers choose the military environment because of the steady diet of extreme stressors that mirror what they grew up with.  In these extreme cases, the persons have adroitly honed and adapted their living skills and coping techniques in morbidly dysfunctional homes. It follows that a subsequent absence of dysfunctional environments obviates these life skills, which creates unbearable anxiety. These poor souls cannot cope without the continuous dysfunction and stress that triggers chemical reactions to their brains, keeping it in steady state or in equilibrium--so to speak. Are you sorry you asked yet?

So, whether a bad sailor will be made depends on the character and moxie of the individual sailor. According to me (without the purposeful research to back me up), some need only an excuse to whine because of their pampered and coddled upbringing. Yet, some never whine, confident in the knowledge that steel sharpens steel; they have a pilot light that diversity never seems to blow out.

To sum it up. According to me (without the purposeful research to back me up), if someone can tolerate the military and chooses to get out with less than 20 years, he or she probably came from a typical home environment that falls well within the best part of a bell or Mae West curve (wink, wink; nudge, nudge; say no more) for experiencing diversity or adversity. The extremes--no adversity and associated stressors or mass amounts of dysfunction and stressors will probably mean he or she may not cope or he or she stays in for the long haul, respectively. The variables for the former case are character and moxie.

What are you made of?

DISCLAIMER: The information and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author--not of Nukeworker.com or its associates--and may be denied or disregarded at a later date. Reading of this paragraph constitutes as agreement on part of reader not to hold author responsible for any damaging effects resulting from reading and agreeing with anything printed on this site; furthermore, reader waives all future claims resulting from changes in law which may render this disclaimer null and void. This disclaimer is valid in all states with the exception of those states which have laws forbidding the existence of this disclaimer, and in states where such laws exist, the reader agrees to read this disclaimer in a state where this disclaimer is binding.
The preceding was the opinion of the poster and does not express the blah, blah, blah .

I was going to complain that you were off topic, but your disclaimer and then disclaiming the disclaimer are exactly how to be a Bad Nuke.  Well played.

[RDTroja]

First of all, I don't think you've read enough of my previous posts to make such a bold statement about me or request my backup. But because you asked...

Your assertion is both true and false. 

I always thought that a perfect doctorate paper could be, perhaps should be, written about the the relationship of the military environment compared to the home of origin of the military member. My gut says one thing, but I wonder what true research would find. 

That said, I had sailors that I believe were born and bred to fail in a military environment. According to me (without the purposeful research to back me up), these military misfits come from what most would call a Leave It to Beaver home environment--no extreme stressors: parental alcoholism, marital affairs, mothers or fathers with bipolar disorder, pregnant teenaged sisters, etc.

The antithesis of this would imply that those who can tolerate the military environment come from a home environment where diversity was present; moreover, lifers choose the military environment because of the steady diet of extreme stressors that mirror what they grew up with.  In these extreme cases, the persons have adroitly honed and adapted their living skills and coping techniques in morbidly dysfunctional homes. It follows that a subsequent absence of dysfunctional environments obviates these life skills, which creates unbearable anxiety. These poor souls cannot cope without the continuous dysfunction and stress that triggers chemical reactions to their brains, keeping it in steady state or in equilibrium--so to speak. Are you sorry you asked yet?

So, whether a bad sailor will be made depends on the character and moxie of the individual sailor. According to me (without the purposeful research to back me up), some need only an excuse to whine because of their pampered and coddled upbringing. Yet, some never whine, confident in the knowledge that steel sharpens steel; they have a pilot light that diversity never seems to blow out.

To sum it up. According to me (without the purposeful research to back me up), if someone can tolerate the military and chooses to get out with less than 20 years, he or she probably came from a typical home environment that falls well within the best part of a bell or Mae West curve (wink, wink; nudge, nudge; say no more) for experiencing diversity or adversity. The extremes--no adversity and associated stressors or mass amounts of dysfunction and stressors will probably mean he or she may not cope or he or she stays in for the long haul, respectively. The variables for the former case are character and moxie.

What are you made of?

DISCLAIMER: The information and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author--not of Nukeworker.com or its associates--and may be denied or disregarded at a later date. Reading of this paragraph constitutes as agreement on part of reader not to hold author responsible for any damaging effects resulting from reading and agreeing with anything printed on this site; furthermore, reader waives all future claims resulting from changes in law which may render this disclaimer null and void. This disclaimer is valid in all states with the exception of those states which have laws forbidding the existence of this disclaimer, and in states where such laws exist, the reader agrees to read this disclaimer in a state where this disclaimer is binding.
The preceding was the opinion of the poster and does not express the blah, blah, blah .

Look, if you are going to post in this Forum, at least take a little time to think out what you are going to say, OK? 

Excellent post, and I love the disclaimer... I think.

[HydroDave63]

Having served on both the left and right coasts, (in order of assignment: CGN-37, CGN-35, CGN-25; right, left, right, respectively)... I must say, and I'm sure HydroDave will give a witness, that the commands were different because of the fleet of operation and home port.

Dear Mr. δ ρ 

   Yes, I can testify that at first "we" didn't quite get your style, but knew you were doing what in your perspective was correct, as you have described pretty much spot-on above. As time went on, those that had ears to hear listened.

Does the surrounding morale/ethic/peer pressure contribute to the delinquency of a nub.... it can. Is it a valid reason to get sucked in, no. You and I have mutual friends who as nubs were tormented something fiercely (including an et2 honeybutt...but I digress) who made a conscious decision to buck up and learn the job well, if for no other reason than to spite those damn #2 plant guys. Now those same "nubs" are SROs in all 4 NRC regions, or grid operators across the US, a professor of Theology and corporate execs at Fortune 100 companies.

It's not because those of us in the class of late 70s-late 80s were so much more special, it's because there wasn't (for most of us) a safety net back home or at the P-type. We didn't spend time in CIC working with the topside guys, or give in-plant and SWO knowledge runtime to the O-1s and O-2s because we were sucking up to the khakis, but because we spent most of that one special WestPac at real GQ with real Soviets aiming real missiles and radars at us. For those posters who weren't yet spawned in those days of lore, wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 for a sampling of what might spice up a deployment.

So, along the same lines as your previous excellent posts, I'll add this: Steel sharpening steel summed it up nicely. I believe that, if we could use the way-back machine and insert the modern generation of recruits through the same process, the vast majority of them would learn the expectations and rise to them. They would be proud of the real achievements, and those of us curmudgeons that curse how the program has slid (IMHO) would be proud that the new generation kept "our" Nuclear Navy traditions in good shape. Currently there appears to be a lot of chaff left in the wheat...

[deltarho]

Thanks HydroDave...anyone got a hanky?

[Neutron Whisperer]

This list is a small sampling of what NOT to do as a navy nuke.  Suggestions, comments, and additions are always welcome.

...

• Mess around with your shipmates' wives/girlfriends/fiancees.  What could possibly go wrong with that?

...
[/list]

Damn electricians

[Content1]

I notice so many are unhappy and feel mistreated in the Navy as I did, but when I got out in 1980 I still watch Navy movies and feel they all do a good job, from Captial to recruit when you realize it is a difficult job for all and our freedoms depend on them.   

I find, when compared to other services, the Navy individual ships are often separate units, like a giant football team that does best when they work together, compared with other branches that are somewhat more autonomous and individualistic.   That is what serving on a boat is like, in spite of your differences, in war it is in your best interest to work together when you are "All in the same boat."

So maybe there are not as many "bad Nukes" or they would be transferred.