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

A reminder that during WW2 and the Cold War (and the practice probably hasn't stopped since), subs were a valuable element of intelligence and counter-intelligence. Special subs were outfitted with methods to allow divers to emerge from the sub at depth in order to plant taps on communication wires, and this feature is not unique to the US Navy by now. The US's naval-aided intelligence capabilities will not have diminished since then. You [I]never[/I] confirm submarine locations unless you're caught red-handed. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jordax;52270663]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.[/QUOTE] No President before has been as stunningly incompetent or disinterested in learning the constraints or nuances of his job as Trump. Israel's now not sharing info with the US in the same way it previously did, and Israel and the US were supposed to be BFFs for life even tighter than the US and Canada (who share the longest undefended border in the world). Just because Trump [I]can[/I] doesn't mean he should or that it's in any way defensible except on the technical level.

[QUOTE=Jordax;52270663]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.[/QUOTE] You don't share shit about them on mission with the fucking public.

[QUOTE=Jordax;52270663]Snip for size[/QUOTE] Even if Trump is technically allowed to reveal whatever information he wants and even if the Philippines is ostensibly an ally of the US, it is still a phenomenally [I]dumb[/I] idea to be talking about US strategic assets in insecure cell phone conversations Literally the entire point of a nuclear submarine is there's only a handful of people who have even the faintest idea where it is. Even knowing just the general area of a nuke boat is an incredibly valuable piece of strategic information, [I]especially[/I] if you know it's actually a nuke boat and not just a conventional guided missile sub being used as a red herring No matter which angle you come at this from, it was a fucking stupid idea. It's like talking at great length and great volume about your bank account passwords in the middle of a crowded restaurant. Even if you don't spell out your password for all to hear, you're still sharing sensitive information that has massive potential to do harm

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52270192]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][/QUOTE] Firstly, he claimed to be referring to official US doctrine. I wanted to clarify that we aren't talking about any official US doctrine. Whether this was stupid or not is a totally different issue. (Nice try at a zinger, though it does seem a little below the standard of a mod.) I'm some dude sitting at home. Personally, I have no idea what is useful for worldwide diplomatic and military strategy when it comes to specific movements and intelligence. You guys talk like you're intimately knowledgeable about the US worldwide strategy. It seems almost farcical, a bunch of internet posters on Facepunch pretending to make determinative fact claims about what is and what is not specifically useful to reveal to our allies in a private diplomatic phone call. You have no idea what kind of information is normally shared on this type of call. It generally isn't leaked to the public.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270795]I'm some dude sitting at home. Personally, I have no idea what is useful for worldwide diplomatic and military strategy when it comes to specific movements and intelligence. You guys talk like you're intimately knowledgeable about the US worldwide strategy. It seems almost farcical, a bunch of internet posters on Facepunch pretending to make determinative fact claims about what is and what is not specifically useful to reveal to our allies in a private diplomatic phone call.[/QUOTE] You don't have to have had a long diplomatic or military career to be able to figure out that information like the locations of nuclear submarines is not information that should be readily shared and easily leaked to the public This whole line about 'well we're just some guys on the internet what do we know' is just so much presumptuous bullshit

[QUOTE=Sitkero;52270830]You don't have to have had a long diplomatic or military career to be able to figure out that information like the locations of nuclear submarines is not information that should be readily shared and easily leaked to the public This whole line about 'well we're just some guys on the internet what do we know' is just so much presumptuous bullshit[/QUOTE] I bring that up because all these assertions have a suspicious lack of fact in them. We have people making these huge, specific claims about the US's worldwide strategy and how this or that is always a bad idea, no matter what... but it's all just conjecture. They don't know that. They aren't in those circles, and if they do, then I expect some evidence. I expect something to back up all these assertions beyond personal anecdotes about living near a US naval base. I'm the one spouting "presumptuous bullshit" by pointing out that regular dudes who have nothing to do with this kind of information are pretending to know a whole lot more than they have any ability to. OK. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] At the very MOST someone might be able to say, "Hey, this doesn't seem like a good idea, but I don't really know the full picture." Maybe it will come out that this was an unprecedented act of foolishness, but without more information, we really can't make that claim. We simply don't have the relevant information.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270842]I bring that up because all these assertions have a suspicious lack of fact in them. We have people making these huge, specific claims about the US's worldwide strategy and how this or that is always a bad idea, no matter what... but it's all just conjecture. They don't know that. They aren't in those circles, and if they do, then I expect some evidence. I expect something to back up all these assertions beyond personal anecdotes about living near a US naval base. I'm the one spouting "presumptuous bullshit" by pointing out that regular dudes who have nothing to do with this kind of information are pretending to know a whole lot more than they have any ability to. OK. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] At the very MOST someone might be able to say, "Hey, this doesn't seem like a good idea, but I don't really know the full picture." Maybe it will come out that this was an unprecedented act of foolishness, but without more information, we really can't make that claim. We simply don't have the relevant information.[/QUOTE] -poof

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;52269575]He's the Commander-n-Chief its literally part of his job, sadly.[/QUOTE] The way he's acting, though, he ought to be sectioned for his actions.

[QUOTE=totoad;52270882]Yeah no. I'm a sonar technician, sts, there is absolutely no good fucking reason to tell a potentially hostile foreigner the location of our submarines [B][I]while they are most likely on fucking mission.[/I][/B] This isn't conjecture, it is abso-fucking-lutely fact that this shit isn't supposed to be shared in such a lackadaisical manner.[/QUOTE] When is the last time you sat in on a high level diplomatic phone call with a national leader? It's actually funny to me to think that being a sonar operator makes you knowledgeable about what happens behind top level closed doors every single day. Remember, I'm not making the claim that this was a good idea. I'm saying that we don't have nearly enough information to make the kind of claims that have been made in this thread, without a shred of evidence I might add.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270886]When is the last time you sat in on a high level diplomatic phone call with a national leader? It's actually funny to me to think that being a sonar operator makes you knowledgeable about what happens behind top level closed doors every single day. Remember, I'm not making the claim that this was a good idea. I'm saying that we don't have nearly enough information to make the kind of claims that have been made in this thread, without a shred of evidence I might add.[/QUOTE] Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, when was the last time you took a briefing on opsec? BDA had it right, Duterte is in the middle of trying to suck both China and Russia's dick. There's no good reason to give this information out to him. And fuck that, the fact that it even got out to the public in the first place is the most unacceptable bit of this all.

[QUOTE=totoad;52270900]Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, when was the last time you took a briefing on opsec?[/QUOTE] As I said, I'm not the one making claims here. You are. If you want to claim that this phone call was against some official doctrine or some similar claim, then fine, but you better have something to provide as evidence. Clearly, top level diplomatic relationships do not follow the same rules as your normal enlisted naval employee. Your experience as a sonar operator is not applicable unless you've been in those relevant meetings.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270842]I bring that up because all these assertions have a suspicious lack of fact in them. We have people making these huge, specific claims about the US's worldwide strategy and how this or that is always a bad idea, no matter what... but it's all just conjecture. They don't know that. They aren't in those circles, and if they do, then I expect some evidence. I expect something to back up all these assertions beyond personal anecdotes about living near a US naval base.[/QUOTE] No, it really bloody isn't 'just conjecture' This really shouldn't be such a difficult concept to grasp. You don't have to be a part of certain circles. You don't need a long career in the military, or in intelligence, or in diplomacy, and all the evidence you need for this being a terrible idea comes from [I]what a submarine is[/I]. The greatest strength of a submarine is that nobody knows where it is. The whole idea is that they could be anywhere at any time. They are supposed to be [I]hidden[/I], they [I]need[/I] secrecy You wouldn't talk about how many spies you have in a foreign embassy, would you? Of course not, they're [I]spies![/I] They're supposed to be a secret, telling someone where they are compromises that secret, and the same shit applies to submarines

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270906]Your experience as a sonar operator is not applicable unless you've been in those relevant meetings.[/QUOTE] I'm not a diplomat, but I know how this kind of information is handled. The fact that it got out to the public in such a way, and what those boats are most likely doing is completely fucking retarded. Hey North Korea, just so you know, we got a couple of boats chilling out watching all your shit.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52269456]This information was taken from a phone call transcript, it's not like Trump tweeted it like some of you are suggesting. I don't totally understand what's wrong with Trump telling an ally that two very large/dangerous submarines were going to be passing by their lands? I'm sure he told China and SK too...[/QUOTE] I love how "at least he didn't tweet it" is a defense now

[QUOTE=Sitkero;52270909]You wouldn't talk about how many spies you have in a foreign embassy, would you? Of course not, they're [I]spies![/I] They're supposed to be a secret, telling someone where they are compromises that secret, and the same shit applies to submarines[/QUOTE] If it were relevant to an overall strategy or specific situation, then yes, of course you would tell certain people about spies. Intelligence sharing is probably the single most important part of an alliance out of wartime. Are you claiming that, say, the highest level of leadership in the UK have zero clue where we have subs deployed?

[QUOTE=Sitkero;52270909] You wouldn't talk about how many spies you have in a foreign embassy, would you? Of course not, they're [I]spies![/I] [/QUOTE] Pretty good analogy.

Sgman, my dad still isn't allowed to tell me much about the missions he went on [I]30 years ago[/I] if what he says is to be believed. There is no way in hell telling people about subs on currently active missions is a good idea.

[QUOTE=bdd458;52270951]Sgman, my dad still isn't allowed to tell me much about the missions he went on [I]30 years ago[/I] if what he says is to be believed. There is no way in hell telling people about subs on active missions is a good idea.[/QUOTE] Are you the highest leader of a politically important nation? I honestly don't see how what your dad is allowed to tell you is relevant to the conversation. The idea of, "I'm/this person I know/etc. is not allowed to tell anyone this stuff," being equivalent to ,"No one ever is allowed to tell anyone this stuff," is the part that that needs to be evidenced.

Because he was an active serviceman in the United States Navy onboard submarines, which gives me a bit of insight into protocol when it comes to submarines there pal.

[QUOTE=bdd458;52270956]Because he was an active serviceman in the United States Navy onboard submarines, which gives me a bit of insight into protocol when it comes to submarines there pal.[/QUOTE] ... so how does that make what he can tell you relevant? Is he having diplomatic talks with national leaders on confidential phone calls?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270953]Are you the highest leader of a politically important nation? I honestly don't see how what your dad is allowed to tell you is relevant to the conversation. The idea of, "I'm/this person I know/etc. is not allowed to tell anyone this stuff," being equivalent to ,"No one ever is allowed to tell anyone this stuff," is the part that that needs to be evidenced.[/QUOTE] I guess we have lower standards for the president over navy servicemen then

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52270960]I guess we have lower standards for the president over navy servicemen then[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. The heads of the FBI will tell senate members a lot more than the average FBI agent will tell their kid, therefore the heads of the FBI have lower standards than the average FBI agent? No, of course not. The situations are different and different standards apply.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270959]... so how does that make what he can tell you relevant? Is he having diplomatic talks with national leaders on confidential phone calls?[/QUOTE] If it was so confidental why do we have the transcript. And don't try moving the goal posts bud. You're missing the point, he can't talk about missions conducted 30 years ago (and that the country doesn't start telling others about either) and you expect me to believe that its A OK Supreme Leader Trump is just gapping to random leaders about where we have submarines on active missions?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270953]"No one ever is allowed to tell anyone this stuff," is the part that that needs to be evidenced.[/QUOTE] Actually, that's pretty fucking much how it is. God forbid giving the asshole information on what that sub is [I]currently[/I] doing. You're completely fucking wrong, stop using this "you're not a diplomat" shit as a shield. And lets forget about it being part of the "top level diplomats" shit you like to repeat. The fact that it got out to the public like this is the worst fucking bit of all. Screw Trump telling the guy about it, focus on the fact that his stupid ass did it in such a manner that now the entire fucking world knows.

[QUOTE=bdd458;52270969]If it was so confidental why do we have the transcript. And don't try moving the goal posts bud. You're missing the point, he can't talk about missions conducted 30 years ago (and that the country doesn't start telling others about either) and you expect me to believe that its A OK Supreme Leader Trump is just gapping to random leaders about where we have submarines on active missions?[/QUOTE] The article in the OP states that it was confidential. Also, this isn't some random leader. He's in a very important location when it comes to NK conflict. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=totoad;52270970]Actually, that's pretty fucking much how it is.[/QUOTE] This is nothing more than conjecture. You aren't even able to provide the kind of evidence that would be required to prove it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270972]The article in the OP states that it was confidential.[/QUOTE] Yet now its out to the public, its almost as if the man is a careless fucking idiot.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270918]If it were relevant to an overall strategy or specific scenario, then yes, of course you would tell certain people about spies. Intelligence sharing is probably the single most important part of an alliance out of wartime.[/QUOTE] Generally speaking, intelligence sharing is on a strictly need to know basis, and a man like Duterte, who is known to be trying to foster closer relationships with places like China and Russia, nations that are not exactly known for their friendly relationship with the United States, is absolutely not on the need to know list of things like 'where the nuclear submarines are', especially not if transcripts containing sensitive information like 'where the nuclear submarines are' are going to be passed around the Philippine Department of Foreign affairs and leaked

[QUOTE=totoad;52270978]Yet now its out to the public, its almost as if the man is a careless fucking idiot.[/QUOTE] It's almost like it was leaked and then verified by an anonymous US official. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sitkero;52270980]Generally speaking, intelligence sharing is on a strictly need to know basis, and a man like Duterte, who is known to be trying to foster closer relationships with places like China and Russia, nations that are not exactly known for their friendly relationship with the United States, is absolutely not on the need to know list of things like 'where the nuclear submarines are', especially not if transcripts containing sensitive information like 'where the nuclear submarines are' are going to be passed around the Philippine Department of Foreign affairs and leaked[/QUOTE] Who the hell are you to decide who's on a need to know basis when it comes to back door worldwide diplomatic strategies? I mean that as a serious question. On what basis are you making that claim?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270982]It's almost like it was leaked and then verified by an anonymous US official. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] Who the hell are you to decide who's on a need to know basis when it comes to back door worldwide diplomatic strategies? I mean that as a serious question. On what basis are you making that claim?[/QUOTE] Aight, you're definitely fucking with us. You're completely uninformed on every fucking thing related to the intelligence community. Do not act like you have even one fucking iota of information on how this shit is handled because obviously Trump fucked up or this conversation would not be happening in the first place. You're shilling for him really fucking hard right now and its really fucking obvious. Gotta use that f word some more. So versatile.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270982]Who the hell are you to decide who's on a need to know basis when it comes to back door worldwide diplomatic strategies? I mean that as a serious question. On what basis are you making that claim?[/QUOTE] I thought I made that pretty clear in the main body of the post The basis I'm making that claim on is [U]the United States does not have a friendly relationship with China and Russia[/U] and Rodrigo Duterte's relationship with those two nations presents a clear security risk for things like nuclear submarines