a judicial action does not “contest the wisdom of broad mili tary policy,” the Feres doctrine requires courts to reject actions which are “the type of claims that, if generally permitted, would involve the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness.” Shearer, 473 U.S. at 59, 105 S.Ct. 3039. If a suit requires deep inquiry into military decisions or would strongly impact military discipline, the Feres doctrine will bar it. These considerations that prohibit servicemen’s suits against the government also prompt the extension of the Feres doctrine to prohibit non-servicemen’s suits against the government which are derivative of or ancillary to servicemen’s injuries. See Kendrick v. United States, 877 F.2d 1201, 1206-07 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Gaspard v. United States, 713 F.2d 1097, 1102
holding that burnett and its justification of uniformity is equally applicable to admiralty actions holding that the govemment is not liable under the federal tort claims act for injuries to service members where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service holding that the united states is immune from monetary damages for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service holding that feres doctrine is equally applicable to family member claims derivative of a service members injuries recognizing doctrine