Trump tells Duterte of two U.S. nuclear subs in Korean waters - Polidicks

Reading these news is like watching a trainwreck happen Its not even my country and I'm so uncomfortable yet i can't look away.

[QUOTE=Selek;52269624]Secondly, did we know about these submarines being assigned to Korea before Trump spilled the beans? I figured ship locations are usually readily known available information since I see them in the news a lot but these are submarines so I'm not sure.[/QUOTE] Official US policy is to [I]never[/I] confirm the presence of nuclear submarines at any time. Less than an hour's drive north of me is one of America's most important submarine bases in Canadian waters (a shared port operated by Canada's navy). The US Navy will not even confirm the presence of nuclear submarines there. There will obviously be submarines visible at the docks if people are able to spot the facility from the highway, but the US will never confirm that they are or are not nuke-carrying subs. Revealing where the nuclear weapons are makes them vulnerable. Vulnerable submarines are dead submarines as soon as hostilities break out. MAD goes out the window if one side can disable the other's offensive capabilities, and MAD doctrine is the only thing keeping the world from being consumed in mushroom clouds.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52269666]I'm really eager to see how people will justify this fuck-up. That free entertainment is the only good thing to come out of this.[/QUOTE] They'll just keep exploiting the Manchester attack. That's how they'll justify it: by completely ignoring that this happened.

I heard talks of a "Wew's law" [QUOTE]we must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything. We’re sending troops. We tell them. We’re sending something else. We have a news conference. We have to be unpredictable. And we have to be unpredictable starting now.([URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/transcript-trump-foreign-policy.html"]source[/URL])[/QUOTE]

GJ, Drumpf. While you're at it, snapchat a selfie from the silo door of a land based nuclear facility! And facetime a tril down the top secret subway built to keep you safe when nukes fly~! /s

[QUOTE=TestECull;52269722]GJ, Drumpf. While you're at it, snapchat a selfie from the silo door of a land based nuclear facility! And facetime a tril down the top secret subway built to keep you safe when nukes fly~! /s[/QUOTE] I expect him to take a Turkish diplomat on a tour of a top-secret classified facility or something, just to boast about how great America is while revealing all sorts of national security info.

[QUOTE=Selek;52269624]Okay first off, how do we know these are in North Korean waters? It says 'Korean' Waters so I assumed it was in South Korea's and I can't actually find the part where it says it's in NK, am I blind?[/quote] North and South Korea are on a thin peninsula, so North and South Korean waters are essentially the same thing as far as positioning is concerned. [quote]Secondly, did we know about these submarines being assigned to Korea before Trump spilled the beans? I figured ship locations are usually readily known available information since I see them in the news a lot but these are submarines so I'm not sure.[/QUOTE] No, the only people who are supposed to know about the location of nuclear submarines are those who actually need to know the location. Their locations are not readily available, and cannot be readily available without compromising the purpose of a nuclear submarine to begin with. They are supposed to be a hidden offshore nuclear arsenal capable of launching first strikes without warning or adequate time for preparation or retaliation should the situation demand it, and to act as a nuclear platform that cannot be discovered and disabled in the event that other launch sites are destroyed or compromised. Revealing the location of nuclear submarines to foreign nations, especially those who have close diplomatic relationships with our potential enemies, is [B]extremely[/B] foolish.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52269506]1) This leak was not provoked -- Trump offered it willingly to the leader of a foreign nation, despite the fact that it's extremely sensitive information that endangers both national and global security. He did the exact same thing with Russia. It's a big deal. Our president does not seem to be capable of understanding or responsibly handling the sensitive information his position requires him to be exposed to. This isn't information you share with your closest allies, unless necessary, and he's spilling our national secrets to both openly hostile foreign governments and those which have ties to hostile foreign governments. That's concerning, to say the least. 2) The Philippines are pretty rapidly transitioning to a Chinese ally, not a US ally. While we have historically had a very strong relationship with them, they have been distancing themselves from the US in favor of China under the leadership of Duterte. Given that our relations with China are icy, at best, revealing classified information relating to the positioning of our most dangerous naval assets is incredibly foolish. That is to say nothing of the alliance between China and North Korea. If Duterte leaks the info to China, China leaks it to North Korea, and suddenly the very threat those subs are intended to counter becomes aware of their existence and approximate location. Advantage lost.[/QUOTE] Okay, I can see how it would be an problem. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52269506]3) Trump did not tell Duterte that our nuclear submarines would be "passing by their land," he told them that we had nuclear submarines [I]in North Korean waters.[/I] That is a significant difference. Don't misrepresent that nature of the conversation to better fit your personal agenda.[/QUOTE] I apologize, that wasn't my intention.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52269686]Official US policy is to [I]never[/I] confirm the presence of nuclear submarines at any time. Less than an hour's drive north of me is one of America's most important submarine bases in Canadian waters (a shared port operated by Canada's navy). The US Navy will not even confirm the presence of nuclear submarines there. There will obviously be submarines visible at the docks if people are able to spot the facility from the highway, but the US will never confirm that they are or are not nuke-carrying subs. Revealing where the nuclear weapons are makes them vulnerable. Vulnerable submarines are dead submarines as soon as hostilities break out. MAD goes out the window if one side can disable the other's offensive capabilities, and MAD doctrine is the only thing keeping the world from being consumed in mushroom clouds.[/QUOTE] Ye, well said.

[video=youtube;j83bGaauRXw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j83bGaauRXw&app=desktop[/video] "The whole point of a nuclear submarine is to keep it a secret. WHY DID YOU TELL THE WORLD!?"

He's like the evil villain in movies who reveals his evil plan before failing at putting it into practice

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52269686]Official US policy is to [I]never[/I] confirm the presence of nuclear submarines at any time.[/QUOTE] Can you source this? I'm interested in seeing where the US publishes official US military policy on the topic.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52269876]Can you source this? I'm interested in seeing where the US publishes official US military policy on the topic.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The following are examples of information classified at least confidential and should be disclosed only to authorized individuals: 1. Discussion of ongoing or future operations to include details of specific combat missions, bomb damage assessments, force movements, and employment schedules. 2. Precise current location of forward-deployed units (i.e., latitude and longitude) The following are examples of unclassified information, some of which may be sensitive. The decision to release this information should be made only after a risk assessment is completed on the effects such a disclosure would have on the forces involved: 1. Disclosure of a specific date 48 hours in advance of arrival/departure of individual units to/from U.S. bases. While disclosure prior to this time may be necessary to support maintenance, logistics, and PA, this disclosure shall be kept to the minimum required for the coordination of unit arrival/departure. 2. Disclosure of a specific date seven days in advance of return/departure of a unit to/from deployment. The advance disclosure time frame (seven days vice 48 hours) is in the recognition of the inherent logistics support and intense family interest in the movements of a combat unit. As discussed above, disclosure prior to this time should be limited and evaluated based on the risk such disclosure may have on the units involved. For further information on classifying information see OPNAVINST S5510.XX series of instructions. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/OPSEC/docs/Policy/NTTP_3-54M_MCWP_3-40.9_(Mar_2009).pdf"]US Navy Operations Security (OPSEC) (this edition is 2009)[/URL], Appendix I Now, that does not specifically state that submarine locations are classified. I do not have a source for that except for Canadian local news reports during the protests in the 90s against the (likely) presence of US nuclear submarines in Canadian communities that were officially declared Nuclear-Free Zones. So, I suppose you can say it isn't "official" US policy, but it's the [I]de facto[/I] policy I've seen my whole life.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52269896][URL="http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/OPSEC/docs/Policy/NTTP_3-54M_MCWP_3-40.9_(Mar_2009).pdf"]US Navy Operations Security (OPSEC) (this edition is 2009)[/URL], Appendix I Now, that does not specifically state that submarine locations are classified. I do not have a source for that except for Canadian local news reports during the protests in the 90s against the (likely) presence of US nuclear submarines in Canadian communities that were officially declared Nuclear-Free Zones. So, I suppose you can say it isn't "official" US policy, but it's the [I]de facto[/I] policy I've seen my whole life.[/QUOTE] It seems a little odd to make claims about non-specific generalized policies and apply them as fact to extremely specific scenarios like the president having diplomatic talks with other national leaders

[0] days since last Trump embarassment.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52269904]It seems a little odd to make claims about non-specific generalized policies and apply them as fact to extremely specific scenarios like the president having diplomatic talks with other national leaders[/QUOTE] There's also the notion of the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike"]second strike[/URL] as part of MAD. [QUOTE]Submarine-launched ballistic missiles are the traditional, but very expensive, method of providing a second strike capability, though they need to be supported by a reliable method of identifying who the attacker is. Using SLBMs as a second-strike capability has a serious problem, because in retaliation for a submarine-launched ICBM, the wrong country could be targeted, and can cause a conflict to escalate. However, implementation of second strikes is crucial to deter a first strike. Countries with nuclear weapons make it their primary purpose to convince their opponents that a first strike is not worth facing a second strike.[/QUOTE] Disclosing the locations of nuclear submarines is voluntarily giving up some degree of second strike capability, which weakens the US' position on maintaining MAD. There is no reason to tell Duerte that the US has nuclear subs around Korea. Just as there was no reason for Trump to blab Israel's secrets to the Russians, [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1565151"]prompting them to change how they share info with the US.[/URL] He just has no understanding of how to do his job, or more properly what not to do.

[B][I]Lock him up[/I][/B] And I actually fucking mean it, despite the ironic phrasing. Mike "Zap the Gays" Pence may be no better in terms of policies but jfc maybe he knows how to keep is fucking mouth shut when talking to foreign leaders. [editline]a[/editline] I wonder how many people he can get away with endangering through the sharing of information before the house and senate go "hm, maybe we should get rid of him?"

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/O2m3cIJ.png[/IMG]

Sorry, someone will have to run something by me again, I'm lost. How was Clinton a "more dangerous" person again? I mean, unsavoury sure, but so is Trump so that's a moot point. So far he has done basically everything every expert who didn't have the GOPenis rammed down their throat as predicted he would do. Reneged on a number of his key campaign promises, either because "it was good for the campaign, but nobody cares now" or they proved straight up unconstitutional, he's appointed nothing but cronies and close friends to key governmental positions despite them not having the credentials to do their fucking jobs, he's not actually been DOING his job much either with all the time off he's taking, he's almost certainly funnelling taxpayer money into his businesses, and he keep spouting of national secrets "because he felt like it". The man is actively ruining the relationship between the USA and it's allies in favour of currying interest with countries that until he came to power despised the US. Remind me again why Clinton was more dangerous?

emails )))))

No no no you fucking buffoon. Threw OPSEC right out the fucking window.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52270002]Remind me again why Clinton was more dangerous?[/QUOTE] Because you'd be getting screwed and you [I]wouldn't[/I] know about it.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52270002]Sorry, someone will have to run something by me again, I'm lost. How was Clinton a "more dangerous" person again? I mean, unsavoury sure, but so is Trump so that's a moot point. So far he has done basically everything every expert who didn't have the GOPenis rammed down their throat as predicted he would do. Reneged on a number of his key campaign promises, either because "it was good for the campaign, but nobody cares now" or they proved straight up unconstitutional, he's appointed nothing but cronies and close friends to key governmental positions despite them not having the credentials to do their fucking jobs, he's not actually been DOING his job much either with all the time off he's taking, he's almost certainly funnelling taxpayer money into his businesses, and he keep spouting of national secrets "because he felt like it". The man is actively ruining the relationship between the USA and it's allies in favour of currying interest with countries that until he came to power despised the US. Remind me again why Clinton was more dangerous?[/QUOTE] nah man he's just legally exercising his power as president. uhhhhhhh give me the source on the official US policy that says it's stupid to reveal the location of our nuclear submarines to an unhinged madman? that's right you can't maybe learn to play some 174D chess sometime scrub

[QUOTE=sgman91;52269904]It seems a little odd to make claims about non-specific generalized policies and apply them as fact to extremely specific scenarios like the president having diplomatic talks with other national leaders[/QUOTE] It seems a little odd to demand classified nuclear intelligence procedures as proof that revealing the locations of nuclear submarines is a bad idea, and then to go grasping for technicalities when somebody actually manages to drum up something relevant that goes against the point you're trying to make. You make demands for proof that can't realistically be provided, and then nitpick the details when people attempt to humor you. It's not the first time I've seen you do this. Just the same: I really don't think there's an easier way to explain this. Revealing the location of our nuclear submarines to other nations is fucking stupid, and particularly so when those nations have [I]direct ties[/I] to potential global security threats like China, Russia, or North Korea. Several people have already explained why. If you choose to ignore the [I]extremely simple[/I] concepts behind those arguments, then I guess that's your problem. Either way, at least quit being so fucking persnickety. [I]Heh well [B]technically[/B] you can't actually [B][U]prove[/U][/B] that this was stupid. Checkmate, liberals. :cool:[/I]

One of the main abilities of submarines is stealth and he partially revealed the location of the US' NUCLEAR submarines If that's not bad then fuck me silly

Another thread about how Trump apparently likes talking with our enemies more than our friends. Under the assumption that this and with Russia are exactly as they sound like they went - this is a mess. Hell that whole election was a mess. Neither were good. Hillary just had a natural gift of making people dislike her. That's how it was with me at least.

[QUOTE=Mr. Sarcastic;52269817][video=youtube;j83bGaauRXw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j83bGaauRXw&app=desktop[/video] "The whole point of a nuclear submarine is to keep it a secret. WHY DID YOU TELL THE WORLD!?"[/QUOTE] Great, now I have an uncontrollable urge to re-watch Dr. Strangelove for the billionth time since I first saw it a few years ago. Thanks buddy.

The fact that there's any argument at all about whether Trump blithering about the locations of US strategic assets is that bad at all is kind of unsettling, really. Especially considering the fact that we're learning about this from leaked cell phone transcripts from the nation he was blithering to

[QUOTE=Selek;52269624]Okay first off, how do we know these are in North Korean waters? It says 'Korean' Waters so I assumed it was in South Korea's and I can't actually find the part where it says it's in NK, am I blind? Secondly, did we know about these submarines being assigned to Korea before Trump spilled the beans? I figured ship locations are usually readily known available information since I see them in the news a lot but these are submarines so I'm not sure.[/QUOTE] -poof

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52269506]1) This leak was not provoked -- Trump offered it willingly to the leader of a foreign nation, despite the fact that it's extremely sensitive information that endangers both national and global security. He did the exact same thing with Russia. It's a big deal. Our president does not seem to be capable of understanding or responsibly handling the sensitive information his position requires him to be exposed to. This isn't information you share with your closest allies, unless necessary, and he's spilling our national secrets to both openly hostile foreign governments and those which have ties to hostile foreign governments. That's concerning, to say the least. 2) The Philippines are pretty rapidly transitioning to a Chinese ally, not a US ally. While we have historically had a very strong relationship with them, they have been distancing themselves from the US in favor of China under the leadership of Duterte. Given that our relations with China are icy, at best, revealing classified information relating to the positioning of our most dangerous naval assets is incredibly foolish. That is to say nothing of the alliance between China and North Korea. If Duterte leaks the info to China, China leaks it to North Korea, and suddenly the very threat those subs are intended to counter becomes aware of their existence and approximate location. Advantage lost. 3) Trump did not tell Duterte that our nuclear submarines would be "passing by their land," he told them that we had nuclear submarines [I]in North Korean waters.[/I] That is a significant difference. Don't misrepresent that nature of the conversation to better fit your personal agenda.[/QUOTE] 1: The American President can share extremely confidential information with countries he can deem trusted. This also goes for delicate matters such as nuclear weaponry. For example, during the Cold War, American presidents shared intel on their nuclear plans, including nuclear missile placements on European soil even during the most heated-up moments, such as Kennedy discussing nuclear missile placements with Adenauer at the high of the Berlin Crisis, when the Berlin Wall was being built. Of course, such matters had to be left out of the media's sight at all costs, given how high the stakes were, and how big the pressure was on both Kennedy and Adenauer at that time. Any word of it leaking out could potentially cause World War III right there and now, let alone cause massive political fallout in both countries. Which Ulbricht, the East German leader during the Berlin Crisis, was trying to achieve. The one thing I do wonder about though, is why today, a very sensitive topic such as that would get leaked. In that whole example I gave (Concerning the Kennedy-Adenauer meeting on 21 November 1961, you can look for it on the Declassified Documents Archive yourself), what I found interesting is how parts of it were declassified at later dates. In a paperback version of those sources, from 1993, the part about nuclear weapon placement was still classified then, and wouldn't apparently get declassified until 1999. And even then, parts of it were apparently stricken from the record at Kennedy's request. So here we are a few decades later, and somehow, important phone-calls like this get leaked to the media within a month. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Trump lets Sessions and some of his other confidants really clean house in the last few months. And looking at the full transcripts, those two nuclear submarines are somewhere in Asia. Most of the phonecall is about the Trump and Duterte discussing about North Korea's threat to the entire region, and that China's Jinping should prevent North Korea from actually being able to launch nuclear missiles. Geo-politically seen, all parties except North Korea are trying to avoid escalation. And Trump has given Jingping the hint already in their meeting a month ago that he isn't the one to shy away from pulling the trigger if North Korea oversteps its boundaries at last. So there is some oblivious pressure on China as well to keep North Korea more on a leash before they attack another country. 2: Maybe that was under Obama's last months. If Trump manages to keep Duterte on America's side during his presidency, maybe he can keep America's influence and partnership far above whatever China and Xingping can offer the Philippines. The Philippines are, geopolitically seen, in a fairly important position in Southeast Asia. A bit like how Turkey, is in a very strong geopolitical position for pretty much every other big force around them. (Sadly enough for anyone remotely civilised, as Erdogan is abusing that like crazy to keep both the NATO and the EU hanging while openly having Russia's support as well), albeit the reasons behind that is far more shadier than the situation in the Philippines. And given how China is claiming more and more of the South China Sea, and is creeping closer and closer to the claimed waters of the Philippines, I think Duterte does realise that Trump and America could be the right kind of allies to let the Philippines keep the claims for those waters. China already did take parts of the South China Sea by force from other countries, such as Vietnam, but if Duterte can manage to keep Trump and America close, I doubt that China is going to risk more aggressiveness towards the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea. Which would also be in Duterte's interest, as that would seriously hurt his image and reputation in the Philippines if China would continue treading into the Philippines' territory in the South China Sea. Geopolitics are just a very complicated matter, which cannot be focused at just one single issue. A lot of issues and interests are at play most of the time, and as long you aren't the weakest party involved, there is a lot you could negotiate. And Duterte is not only the President of the Philippines, but also the Chairman of the ASEAN, which is being referred to shortly at the end of the call's transcript. So it isn't just about the Philippines either, ASEAN would also be happy if Trump and America can halt China's aggressiveness in the South China Sea. 3: I don't see that mentioned in the transcripts. I see the two nuclear submarines part, yet nothing on their exact location, apart from somewhere around China or North Korea, which could be the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea, or the Sea of Japan, which still isn't something very specific, it are all massive bodies of water for a nuclear submarine to go unnoticed in, let alone, how far one of those nuclear missiles in those submarines can travel in the worst case scenario...... I'm not an expert on that matter though.