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

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271244]South Korea most definitely knew. Japan probably knew. You think China would be far behind on discovering this information? If China is working on consistent methods to detect our submarines, and I'm sure you're correct that they are, this tidbit of information that Trump leaked is probably of no use to them.[/QUOTE] Again, the idea is complete secrecy. That is the entire fucking premise of a submarine. Why would you divulge information of any kind to anyone with a connection to China or Russia that would reveal even a slight modicum of information? You're throwing caution to the wind because "Trump is president and he can do what he wants", along with "They already are trying to detect our subs, so why stop them". Apply this behavior to the 44th president and your tune would be drastically different.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52271270]Again, the idea is complete secrecy. That is the entire fucking premise of a submarine. Why would you divulge information of any kind to anyone with a connection to China or Russia that would reveal even a slight modicum of information? You're throwing caution to the wind because "Trump is president and he can do what he wants", along with "They already are trying to detect our subs, so why stop them". Apply this behavior to the 44th president and your tune would be drastically different.[/QUOTE] Trump's little cult of personality believes that he can do no wrong unfortunately.

[quote]China has probably been searching, they will probably continue to search.[/quote] Again, I'd like to point out that China probably was casually looking until the President himself confirmed their presence. There's absolutely no reason for them to hold back in throwing a metric fuckton of resources at it. This sort of leak [I][B]does not happen[/B][/I] regarding our nuclear subs. They're not [I][B]likely to get a second chance again at intel this vetted and plausible - perhaps EVER[/B][/I]. So what are they likely to do? Everything they can to find them. So, yeah, [quote]I would be extremely surprised if China wasn't already doing everything in its power to detect our submarines around not only the Korean peninsula but the South China Sea as well.[/quote] we are of one mind on that point. But you know what? They probably [I]weren't[/I] doing everything in their power before hand. But now? Now they'd be a laughingstock if they didn't. As far as intel-leaks go, this one is as fucking vast as the ocean and as rare as a unicorn. And what's the likely consequence? [I]Our submarine movements may be compromised and we wouldn't even know about it.[/I] And for what? All Trump got out of it was a little sabre rattling at NK (who already don't care) and giving the person he was speaking to a leg up in their talks with China. Woo! We strengthened China's relationship with another country by weakening our own position. Now that's good diplomacy!

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271291]First off, sorry to disappoint you about me never handling OPSEC, as if that's somehow relevant to this discussion. I'm not the one giving out where, who, or when. China has probably been searching, they will probably continue to search. Whether they are going to take Trump at his word and look harder I'm not going to begin to speculate. I would be extremely surprised if China wasn't already doing everything in its power to detect our submarines around not only the Korean peninsula but the South China Sea as well. What is espionage? My tune would be the same. I'm not going to pretend to have the wealth of knowledge that is available to the commander in chief regarding these situations, and I'm not going to pretend that I'm qualified enough to criticize their decisions when I clearly only have a very, very small piece of the full picture. I don't really like Trump, I thought Obama was okay. You can slam my [B]opinion[/B] trying to claim I'm some Trump fanatic if you like. I'm finished with this argument. I understand totoad and Firgof's point of view and why they are so vehemently opposed to what Trump did, but I disagree about the repercussions of the information. The whole situation assumes that Trump is telling the truth, and that he didn't reveal this information for some ulterior strategic purpose.[/QUOTE] No, this whole situation assumes that: a) Trump told the truth Which leads us to enemy actors having more information, confirmed from the highest authority, with zero gain to any kind of tactical advantage that you assume this somehow gives us. b) Trump lied We have a commander-in-chief that will provide false information to a country that is swaying in the direction of hostile countries. Since it was mentioned that the Philippines are a strategical point, why would we lie to a country whose alliance we need/want?

It's also worth noting that nuclear subs aren't just for global power projection, subs can and do also function as covert intelligence gatherers, and knowing where a submarine is undermines that function During the Cold War one of the purposes of US nuclear subs was to find Soviet nuclear subs and tail them while gathering as much information about their characteristics as humanly possible This is especially relevant to China because they've recently been pushing towards turning themselves into a major naval power and so there's been a lot of experimentation with their budding homebrew fleet. Knowing there's US submarines active in the area is likely to put them much further on edge than they otherwise would have been

[QUOTE=Sitkero;52271015]This whole argument of 'well you don't know how these things work' is such a goddamn non-argument. It's exactly like people deflecting video game criticisms because 'well you're not a game developer'. All it's really being used for is an attempt to shut people down and stonewall actual discussion[/QUOTE] It's not similar in the slightest. Whether you know how to create a model doesn't have anything to do with whether you can say the model looks good or not. On the other hand, saying that a specific diplomatic/intelligence action was a bad idea requires you to know the context and overarching plan that the action exists in. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jund;52271157]there's also something called common fucking sense. trump could shoot a dog in the head and you'd still go "well you were never president so everyone should shut up" do you expect adm richardson come in here and tell us what he feels about the matter? or is trump telling a bloodthirsty loon who's trying to buddy up with china the location of our submarines some 1572D backgammon that us lowly plebs can't comprehend? truly a nimble navigator in the sport of mental gymnastics[/QUOTE] "It's common sense." Truly the most reputable of arguments. I'll remember that for next discussion I get in. I expect people to provide evidence of their claims. You seem to agree that the kind of evidence necessary is far above the knowledge level that we have the ability to obtain.

[quote]On the other hand, saying that a diplomatic/intelligence action was a bad idea requires you to know the context and overarching plan that the action exists in.[/quote] Not in every case. In this case the simple revelation of the sub positions is a bad idea all hands down. There is no good reason to ever reveal the positions of our nuclear subs. No good reason to even disclose they were ever in the area. [B][I]Especially[/I][/B] no good reason to state what type of submarine they are. All that provides is information other states can use to figure out how to track our subs. It's like giving out key information on how a security system works. Even if you don't give [I]all[/I] of it out, there's no good reason to give [I]any[/I] of it out as any information leaked is steps that can be taken to break that security system. Give someone a thread to pull when it comes to security through obfuscation and you might as well expect the whole thing to immediately unravel. Edit: I'm legitimately trying very hard to find a good potential silver lining and the only one I can come up with is Trump is going to retire all of those nuclear subs next month and replace them with new variations anyway - and these subs are on their final tour until they go to get disassembled. I still don't see a [I]point[/I] in doing that because it's needless noisemaking and could still compromise related families of submarines and technology we use to hide them.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52271382]Not in every case. In this case the simple revelation of the sub positions is a bad idea all hands down. There is no good reason to ever reveal the positions of our nuclear subs. No good reason to even disclose they were ever in the area. All that provides is information other states can use to figure out how to track our subs. It's like giving out key information on how a security system works. Even if you don't give [I]all[/I] of it out, there's no good reason to give [I]any[/I] of it out as any information leaked is steps that can be taken to break that security system.[/QUOTE] Here I'll give a possible justification: Trump and the US diplomatic community are trying to regain trust with the Philippines as a strategic ally. They don't want it to fall apart like it was doing under Obama. In order to do this, they need to rebuild the good relationship that used to exist between the two nations. So they gave them extremely generalized information, that everyone would have already guessed anyway, to let them know that we are actually dedicated to the containment of NK and are exerting a strong presence in the face of China. If anything, I would still bet that we have more than 2 subs in that region of the world. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] Is that the reason he gave the information? I honestly don't know because I'm not privy to the specifics of our long term strategic goals in the region.

[quote]Trump and the US diplomatic community are trying to regain trust with the Philippines as a strategic ally. [/quote] And so we start with some of the most closely guarded intelligence that we even have? That's like not just pulling out a wedding ring on your first date, but also showing up with a pastor, a choir, and all your relatives, the keys to your house, the keys to your car, your passport, your birth certificate, and half of your life savings in cash to give freely away to your date. Nobody does that. [I]Nobody does that.[/I] [quote]that everyone would have already guessed anyway[/quote] I know I may [I]seem[/I] like a broken record on this point but I want to point out that the gap between 'we think there are subs there' and 'we [I]know[/I] there are subs there' is the difference between the Earth and the Moon as comes intel-gathering.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52271370] "It's common sense." Truly the most reputable of arguments. I'll remember that for next discussion I get in. I expect people to provide evidence of their claims. You seem to agree that the kind of evidence necessary is far above the knowledge level that we have the ability to obtain.[/QUOTE] that's funny i don't remember you defending clinton during the benghazi incident or her email scandal because "we aren't diplomats"

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271244]South Korea most definitely knew. Japan probably knew. You think China would be far behind on discovering this information? If China is working on consistent methods to detect our submarines, and I'm sure you're correct that they are, this tidbit of information that Trump leaked is probably of no use to them.[/QUOTE] fuck if everyone knows then we might as well stop using our submarines

[QUOTE=Jund;52271436]fuck if everyone knows then we might as well stop using our submarines[/QUOTE] I'm grateful to not be in the DoD and not having to consider that very action. Honestly, it'd probably be for the best that those subs (by which I mean that whole family of submarine) get retired immediately and wholly new subs built from the ground up replace them as soon as possible using as little of the old technology in the old submarines as possible. Their ability to operate fully hinges on their inability to be discovered, which is aided by the fact that we never tell anyone at any time for any reason where they are or have been. If the subs can't be trusted to operate discreetly, they can't be trusted to do anything.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52271443]I'm grateful to not be in the DoD and not having to consider that very action. Honestly, it'd probably be for the best that those subs (by which I mean that whole family of submarine) get retired immediately and wholly new subs built from the ground up replace them as soon as possible using as little of the old technology in the old submarines as possible. Their ability to operate fully hinges on their inability to be discovered, which is aided by the fact that we never tell anyone at any time for any reason where they are or have been.[/QUOTE] It's all part of Trumps 10D Chess to bring jobs back to America. He'll make all the old Submarines worthless by letting other countries track them so Electric Boat can be contracted to make a bunch of new ones with brand new technology so everyone and their mother in Eastern Connecticut can have a job again /s

I'm literally at a loss for words thanks to you Trump supporters who are still tooting his fucking horn. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271291] ulterior strategic purpose.[/QUOTE] Kay, but that would require the President being someone he isn't. We know who Trump is. We know there isn't a "Ulterior" purpose because the man literally lacks the capabilities. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [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] So basically because the president "declassified" it, any further discussions are moot and we should just be okay with it because he did it Damn dude I wish you'd been capable of such rationale during Obamas tenure. No, it's clearly a violation for strategical and logical reasons, it's obviously a problem because of how few backchannels it went through, it's obviously a problem for Mattis, who's in charge of this stuff, so I wonder how it is that everyone who is even "mildly" in the Trump camp(You can say you're not but all you do is offer defences as to why everything he does isn't a big deal) can gloss over this kinda stuff so easily Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug it turns out.

[QUOTE=Jund;52271412]that's funny i don't remember you defending clinton during the benghazi incident or her email scandal because "we aren't diplomats"[/QUOTE] Can you point to where I criticized non-illegal behavior by Clinton? I sure hope you have something to back up your attack. Generally, I stayed out of the whole Benghazi thing for the same reason I've presented in this thread: I didn't have enough information to make specific claims. The email scandal was clearly illegal, as Comey said it was. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52271479]So basically because the president "declassified" it, any further discussions are moot and we should just be okay with it because he did it Damn dude I wish you'd been capable of such rationale during Obamas tenure. No, it's clearly a violation for strategical and logical reasons, it's obviously a problem because of how few backchannels it went through, it's obviously a problem for Mattis, who's in charge of this stuff, so I wonder how it is that everyone who is even "mildly" in the Trump camp(You can say you're not but all you do is offer defences as to why everything he does isn't a big deal) can gloss over this kinda stuff so easily Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug it turns out.[/QUOTE] First, nice job trying to make this a personal thing. You've become quite good at that. I don't post in threads where Trump is clearly in the wrong because they are already circle-jerks. My contribution wouldn't add anything to the conversation. Secondly, I haven't mention Trump declassifying it a single time. It has nothing to do with the argument I've presented. So you may want to reread my posts. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] As a side note, he didn't even declassify it. It stayed confidential until it was leaked and voluntarily verified as correct by a US official.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271572]That's all he does. He's the "fuck all conservatives" poster child and he has been for a long time.[/QUOTE] ahaha no I'm so far from that but it's enjoyable to watch you miscast me in this "soap" [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52271543] First, nice job trying to make this a personal thing. You've become quite good at that. I don't post in threads where Trump is clearly in the wrong because they are already circle-jerks. My contribution wouldn't add anything to the conversation[/QUOTE] Fair enough if you want to stay out of them in that case. This isn't personal. I've seen you defend things that a year ago, I never would have expected you to do so. [QUOTE]Secondly, I haven't mention Trump declassifying it a single time. It has nothing to do with the argument I've presented. So you may want to reread my posts.[/QUOTE] You're right, I did misread your arguments with numerous other ones in the thread. Your arguments are essentially "No one here has the knowledge or qualifications to say this was against doctrine." fair enough, no one here is likely to have the knowledge. It doesn't mean the decision to do so was at any level sound, or beyond criticizing. [QUOTE]As a side note, he didn't even declassify it. It stayed confidential until it was leaked and voluntarily verified as correct by a US official.[/QUOTE] Well it went into the Philipines as a transcript so whether it was "Formally" declassified or what, it was revealed in a way not entirely in Trumps control(or slightly)

That's a fair enough response. People can criticize the decision all they like. My contentions was the surety with which people are condemning it as objectively wrong without any real evidence to back up the claim do to the inherent lack of knowledge on the subject that we all necessarily have.

But it is objectively wrong. The only positives it [I]could[/I] have are only 'it's just slightly [I]less bad[/I]'. Ask 100 generals in the DoD where our subs are and you'll get 100 responses of 'We don't ever give that information out except to the President'. Hell ask anyone who's ever been on a sub. Ask people who work on aircraft carriers. Just generally ask anyone in the military and anyone who knows anything about our subs knows that we dont ever, ever, ever talk about our sub deployments. So unless Trump is trying to coax Duterte to come take over his job, it's a bad move on all levels.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52271593]But it is objectively wrong. The only positives it [I]could[/I] have are only 'it's just slightly [I]less bad[/I]'. Ask 100 generals in the DoD where our subs are and you'll get 100 responses of 'We don't ever give that information out except to the President'. So unless Trump is trying to coax Duterte to come take over his job, it's a bad move on all levels.[/QUOTE] A more accurate question would be: "Do you think that it is sometimes beneficial to give generalized regional locations of our subs for strategic or diplomatic reasons?" I assume their answer would be yes, but with caution.

Their answer would be 'no' are you kidding. Do you think they'd also potentially say 'yes' to "Is it ok to loan our nuclear football to another country?" There are some things which are always inappropriate. Revealing our subs locations should be something reserved for 'aliens are about to detonate the entire planet if we don't give out the location of all our subs' -- and then it's a "maybe". Edit: In fact, if you want the DoD's reaction to it, they gave it today! [quote=DoD]"We never talk about subs!"[/quote]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52271602]A more accurate question would be: "Do you think that it is sometimes beneficial to give generalized regional locations of our subs for strategic or diplomatic reasons?" I assume their answer would be yes, but with caution.[/QUOTE] The correct answer would be a firm "no".

[QUOTE=totoad;52271607]The correct answer would be a firm "no".[/QUOTE] I mean, I guess I just have to say that I disagree. Neither of us have any evidence to provide. So we're stuck on that point.

[quote] I don't think you're qualified to just assert that the answer in every situation will always be no. Objectively that sounds pretty naive.[/quote] Good thing that the DoD has already yelled about it and stated that they "Never talk about subs!" right? Objectively it weakens our strategic capabilities in every single damn situation. There simply is no way to talk about the locations of our subs at any time that doesn't in some way harm their ability to operate temporarily if not permanently. That's [b]why[/b] we don't talk about them. Rule one of Sub Club is you DO NOT talk about Sub Club. Rule [b]one[/b]. [quote]Neither of us have any evidence to provide.[/quote] Yeah, except for the DoD yelling about it sure. Edit: Oh and decades of information given to sailors about how dangerous just about any information about their deployments are. Or the whole 'loose lips sink ships' thing. They've neeever said anything about how it's a horrible idea in every respect.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52271619]Yeah, except for the DoD yelling about it sure.[/QUOTE] Can you source that? It's not in the OP's article. Are you referring to the three anonymous "officials" in the Buzzfeed article? If so, then that isn't the "DoD," it's three random dudes with unknown levels of authority. It could be three low level desk workers for all we know.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52271591]That's a fair enough response. People can criticize the decision all they like. My contentions was the surety with which people are condemning it as objectively wrong without any real evidence to back up the claim do to the inherent lack of knowledge on the subject that we all necessarily have.[/QUOTE] I think people are so quick to do that because of how many events have popped up as of late. None of them are "objectively" damning. Not one of them is in and of itself enough to generate the movement for impeachment that is required and that we honestly, should be seeing right now. But the culmination of them? This many events, this quickly, and he's not likely to be impeached? How mad can people get? How much bullshit can they swallow before they just opt out, and don't care anymore? There's gotta be a breaking point where this shit stops being palatable because it stopped being acceptable a long time ago. I for one, am as frustrated as I am, because this is what I spent a year warning people about, he's met and exceeded everyone of my "predictions" and now he's doing things that are very worrisome, but I personally am 99% sure he'll never be impeached for anything. I truly believe there's nothing he could do to actually initiate that. And that's disheartening and incredibly scary for me and it should be for other people.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52271543]Can you point to where I criticized non-illegal behavior by Clinton? I sure hope you have something to back up your attack. Generally, I stayed out of the whole Benghazi thing for the same reason I've presented in this thread: I didn't have enough information to make specific claims. The email scandal was clearly illegal, as Comey said it was.[/QUOTE] too bad i never said that. you want to point out where you defended hillary? i mean, if you actually believe what you're preaching then why is it that you only use it to defend trump? she's not in jail so it's technically not illegal right? and according to you that's all that matters

[quote]You're trying to compare a PR statement to the closed-door actions of the highest ranking military officers and our president.[/quote] I'm trying to compare decades of people being told to not ever ever talk about our subs to the present situation. Come on man. Is it not obvious how secret that information is that the people manning the subs [i]aren't typically allowed to leave them even when they're docked[/i]? [quote]If so, then that isn't the "DoD," it's three random dudes with unknown levels of authority. It could be three low level desk workers for all we know.[/quote] Good news, they'd still be informed on the policy even if they were desk jockeys because that's where they work - which means they've already gone through obtaining their security clearances, knowing what information can and can't be shared, and so forth.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52271617]I mean, I guess I just have to say that I disagree. Neither of us have any evidence to provide. So we're stuck on that point.[/QUOTE] What the fuck do you mean no evidence to provide? Evidence that you're not supposed to talk about the current whereabouts of multibillion S&R ships designed entirely around the purpose of nobody knowing where the fuck you are? Navy loves stressing their "ORM" out the ass, why the fuck would they give any information whatsoever if it introduces even the tiniest sliver of a chance of a huge fucking diplomatic shitshow?

[QUOTE=Jund;52271632]too bad i never said that. you want to point out where you defended hillary? i mean, if you actually believe what you're preaching then why is it that you only use it to defend trump? she's not in jail so it's technically not illegal right? and according to you that's all that matters[/QUOTE] Well it was determined to be an example of gross misconduct and whatnot but Comey decided not to pursue actual charges, if I recall correctly. I think we can all agree that Trump's conduct over the past few months have been very gross though!

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52271627]I think people are so quick to do that because of how many events have popped up as of late. None of them are "objectively" damning. Not one of them is in and of itself enough to generate the movement for impeachment that is required and that we honestly, should be seeing right now. But the culmination of them? This many events, this quickly, and he's not likely to be impeached? How mad can people get? How much bullshit can they swallow before they just opt out, and don't care anymore? There's gotta be a breaking point where this shit stops being palatable because it stopped being acceptable a long time ago. I for one, am as frustrated as I am, because this is what I spent a year warning people about, he's met and exceeded everyone of my "predictions" and now he's doing things that are very worrisome, but I personally am 99% sure he'll never be impeached for anything. I truly believe there's nothing he could do to actually initiate that. And that's disheartening and incredibly scary for me and it should be for other people.[/QUOTE] Trump was my last pick. His only moral tenet is helping himself, but I still think it's incredibly important to be accurate with our criticisms. It makes the case against him strong, not weaker.