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

[QUOTE=totoad;52271636]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?[/QUOTE] Yes, because [I]secretly[/I] maybe their positions aren't a big deal! Maybe it's all a distraction! Classification levels don't even exist and brokering top-shelf intelligence that can put lives and the nation's security at risk for political brownie points is absolutely the policy that the DoD is onboard with. [quote]it's incredibly important to be accurate with our criticisms[/quote] There's a great divide between striving for accuracy and striving for pedantry.

[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] Are you even reading what I'm writing? The legality of what Trump did isn't even the point of my argument. As I told HumanAbyss, I don't generally post when my opinion is already being argued by another person. I let them argue it out until I see a place where I can contribute something different or add more onto an argument. That didn't need to be done with Clinton. There are plenty of people on this forum willing to defend her when she's wronged. For example, I think the Benghazi senate hearings were generally a circus with political intent by the GOP. They didn't have any honest intent, especially after the first one. Did that need to be said? No, of course not, because the vast majority were already saying it. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52271641]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] The actions were 100% illegal, but Comey didn't think she did it with intent because of her total ignorance of how technology worked, and historically, this type of crime needs intent to prosecute.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271680]Your argument keeps coming back to the sailors. People like Trump and Mattis aren't sailors. As I said above in my edit, it is the submariners job to accomplish the mission, not worry about the overarching strategic purpose behind it. You seem unwilling to accept this reality where our leadership knows infinitely more than all of us about the situation. It is their job to make the decision whether or not we can share this information and what benefit it might have, and we aren't privy to that decision making process or the information that led them to their conclusion. Is it possible that Trump is simply an idiot and has loose lips and shared information that will potentially put our submarines in jeopardy? Perhaps. Is it also possible that Trump, an individual with access to the most informed and intelligent military advisers and respected generals made a conscious decision to reveal this information knowing that it would be of no benefit to our adversaries? Imagine China can already track our submarines and now they're using their technology to search for the two that Trump just outed. Maybe we have new techniques to ensure they remain undetected that we're intentionally testing? Is this a far-fetched and completely hypothetical situation? Yeah, of course it is, but who are you to say that it isn't the case? There are plenty of hypothetical situations where it doesn't matter that China knows that there are submarines of ours floating around the Korean peninsula. For all you know we've told China that we're going to be operating near their waters to help contain North Korea in an effort to work with China against a growing threat. You probably still disagree. This is the inherent difference between us that is at the core to this argument. We will [I]never[/I] know the full picture behind these decisions and the best we can ever do is make some guesses.[/QUOTE] Mattis seems upset that Trump is doing this according to sources from the pentagon posted earlier in the thread though

Actually, I started with the subs and I'll end with the subs. There is no good reason to ever disclose the position of our subs. That weakens their ability to commit actions stealthily. A sub that can't operate discretely isn't worth operating. China knows where they are? Don't confirm it. Already left the area? Nobody needs to know they were actually deployed. They were never there? OK, sure, but that's retarded - especially when you're trying to build [I]trust[/I]. You seem to be unwilling to accept the reality where it doesn't matter [B]what[/B] the 'leadership knows': this information being shared only harms us. Maybe that information was in trade for other information? Regardless: It harmed us. You can say whatever you like. You can feel whatever you feel. In no world did those subs' ability to operate not become compromised by the leak of that information because you now have to absolutely treat them as compromised. Any intel they gathered? Tainted. Any operations that were underway or had been accomplished? Now their success is cast in doubt. Edit: New hypothetical perfect stealth technology that's cutting edge and never been deployed before? [B]Don't fucking tell them we're testing it.[/B] That just enables them to possibly compromise and steal it before we even officially deploy it fleet-wide. There is no situation where this was a good move. And why in the world would we [I]ever[/I] tell China where our subs are when we wouldn't [I]ever[/I] tell Canada or Mexico - who are a hell of a lot closer to us as allies than China's ever been. If the best you can do is imagine a world in which 'it didn't matter anyway' then boy are you going to get a hell of a comeuppance because there [I]is no such world[/I]. [quote]Is this a far-fetched and completely hypothetical situation? Yeah, of course it is, but who are you to say that it isn't the case?[/quote] A man whose sanity and ability to use reason rather than just hurl imaginary situations no matter how outlandish until I feel comfortable about the world again is still intact at least.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271680]Your argument keeps coming back to the sailors. People like Trump and Mattis aren't sailors. As I said above in my edit, it is the submariners job to accomplish the mission, not worry about the overarching strategic purpose behind it. You seem unwilling to accept this reality where our leadership knows infinitely more than all of us about the situation. It is their job to make the decision whether or not we can share this information and what benefit it might have, and we aren't privy to that decision making process or the information that led them to their conclusion. Is it possible that Trump is simply an idiot and has loose lips and shared information that will potentially put our submarines in jeopardy? Perhaps. Is it also possible that Trump, an individual with access to the most informed and intelligent military advisers and respected generals made a conscious decision to reveal this information knowing that it would be of no benefit to our adversaries? Imagine China can already track our submarines and now they're using their technology to search for the two that Trump just outed. Maybe we have new techniques to ensure they remain undetected that we're intentionally testing? Is this a far-fetched and completely hypothetical situation? Yeah, of course it is, but who are you to say that it isn't the case? There are plenty of hypothetical situations where it doesn't matter that China knows that there are submarines of ours floating around the Korean peninsula. For all you know we've told China that we're going to be operating near their waters to help contain North Korea in an effort to work with China against a growing threat. You probably still disagree. This is the inherent difference between us that is at the core to this argument. We will [I]never[/I] know the full picture behind these decisions and the best we can ever do is make some guesses.[/QUOTE] Holy fuck stop posting about shit you know nothing about. Its like listening to a fucking retard try to talk shop when he can't tell his ass from a hole in the ground. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Flaming/Gimmick" - Novangel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52271693]Mattis seems upset that Trump is doing this according to sources from the pentagon posted earlier in the thread though[/QUOTE] I just went through the thread and couldn't find that source. Can you repost or link to it? Thanks.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271732]Yeah, we get it, because you're a sonar tech you think you know everything about strategic policy regarding submarines. You've probably sat through dozens of briefings and had "DON'T TELL WHERE THE SUB IS AT" drilled into your head so I don't blame you for being a broken record. Enjoy your high chair, buddy.[/QUOTE] "Informed opinion disagrees with mine, must be wrong"

[quote]Yeah, we get it, because you're a sonar tech you think you know everything about strategic policy regarding submarines. [/quote] We also get it: You're jealous and hate that totoad's experience outclasses your own internal bias. [quote]If I had TS for submarines I sure as shit wouldn't be stupid enough to debate about them on a public forum.[/quote] Having TS means you also know what is and isn't TS-worthy. If he's TS-cleared, he's not stupid enough to debate anything that's TS on a public forum. So far as I've seen, nothing he's said rises to even classified.

Clearly you do have more faith because the only opinion that has worth to you in this topic is your own; this much you have made abundantly clear. You [B]can[/B] discuss your job title and very basic responsibilities. That isn't classified information by default. If you're special forces, sure, that would require clearance by default. If he started spouting about how large the ship he is on, what ship it was, where he's been, bases he's recently docked at, how many members the crew is, the existence of X and Y system, and so on - that's stuff that'd get him in trouble. That he has operated a sonar would not rise to even classified. Sure, it could bring a little interest to his activities - but that by itself is innocuous. You've been 'done' numerous times now - and each time you end by stating that your opinions remain unchanged and you refuse to accept any others. I hope that you find a way to open that mind of yours in the future. A closed mind is an echo chamber. All it seems you're here to do is yell about how you must be right and how we must be wrong.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52271780]Clearly you do have more faith because the only opinion that has worth to you in this topic is your own; this much you have made abundantly clear. each time you end by stating that your opinions remain unchanged and you refuse to accept any others. I hope that you find a way to open that mind of yours in the future. A closed mind is an echo chamber. All it seems you're here to do is yell about how you must be right and how we must be wrong.[/QUOTE] You say that as if all these don't equally apply to you, if we're calling what he's doing "yelling." How about not making it personal?

Remember, the president can do whatever he likes without being criticised for it, unless he's a liberal.

[quote]You say that as if it doesn't equally apply to you.[/quote] I have an open mind. Give me a situation that makes [I]sense[/I] where giving out this information wouldn't cause harm and I'll give you a gold star. But I caution that I've thought very hard about it myself because it's a ridiculously strange and irresponsible move for the President to commit to otherwise and I find it hard to believe even Trump would think he'd get away with it without being cleared to do so. But then I remind myself that lately he's also given classified information meant only to be shared with us from Isreal to Russia and am reminded that he's not exactly well-informed or well-practiced on sanitizing the information that he does decide to share (if not just incompetent). Even in my most optimistic and Hollywoodian imaginings, it still harms our intel-gathering capabilities and either puts intel-tech at great unnecessary risk or will cost us dearly in our dealings with other countries. Edit: In fact, let's just straight up make this a game. Rules of constructing a good argument for it: * Didn't compromise any stealth technology * Didn't expose the subs to the threat of discovery by other nations * Didn't change/taint the contents of whatever intel the subs may have obtained * Couldn't have compromised any ongoing missions * Was still useful and credible information, as it should be to build trust with Duterte (read: Wasn't a lie). * Was still a show of strength, as Trump stated, to North Korea. * Won't result in America being required to offer similar levels of information for 'trust building exercises' with other nations. If you can make a good argument for any sort of mission that still paints inside those lines where Trump revealing their location (and present operations) didn't cause harm, we can debate it, elsewise I will remain unconvinced because the only natural thing to do here is to presume the subs were potentially compromised in some fashion which is a net negative no matter how you slice it.

My brother is going to be operating reactors in subs in a year or two and I will be fucking furious if he ends up getting killed because his location is revealed by this twat.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52271655]Are you even reading what I'm writing? The legality of what Trump did isn't even the point of my argument. As I told HumanAbyss, I don't generally post when my opinion is already being argued by another person. I let them argue it out until I see a place where I can contribute something different or add more onto an argument. That didn't need to be done with Clinton. There are plenty of people on this forum willing to defend her when she's wronged. For example, I think the Benghazi senate hearings were generally a circus with political intent by the GOP. They didn't have any honest intent, especially after the first one. Did that need to be said? No, of course not, because the vast majority were already saying it.[/QUOTE] please stop pretending like you're some kind of rational neutral party here. are you going to tell FinalHunter to be quiet for talking out of his ass as well? credentials matter to you apparently, yet you'd sooner let some dfac cook saying that the locations of our subs are completely useless to china off a totally wild asspull slide before even remotely believing some [I]lowly sonar tech[/I]. or that trump was playing 28434D Starcraft: Brood War all along and gave the locations to let china track them so we can track them tracking our subs. and you also go assume that trump might have told duterte of their locations to bolster relations with the phillipines. are you a diplomat now? i'd like to see some proof of your credentials please between trump giving the locations because keeping them a secret doesn't matter, trump giving the locations to be friendly with duterte, and trump giving the locations because he's an egotistical fuckup, i'd say the third option is pretty solid your argument is that what trump did is acceptable because it technically isn't against official policy, even though it's against common sense. if the keeping their locations secret doesn't matter, then i guess we spend millions to put navy vessels whose [I]entire function[/I] is to be untrackable underwater for months at a time to have a laugh oh shit i forgot common sense doesn't mean anything

[QUOTE=sgman91;52271398]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] More realistically: in a phone call he did not prepare for, on a subject he was was not fully briefed on, Trump accidentally said something he should not have said to somebody he should not have said it to. He's already done this before, with Russia, so don't act as if this is some distance and unlikely possibility. You are giving Trump [I]far[/I] too much credit for strategic initiative. Trump is not, and never has been, a measured man. He does not carefully consider his words or his actions. He doesn't prepare, he doesn't study, and he doesn't weigh the pros and cons. Trump simply speaks and acts on impulse. This wasn't cautious diplomacy, Trump is not emotionally or intellectually capable of that. This was just yet another monumental gaffe from a man who seems incapable of opening his mouth without making one. Even if I did humor your argument here: it would still be an incredibly foolish move on Trump's part. You don't reveal the location of your highest value assets to people who have strong diplomatic relationships with our enemies. Basically, the [I]only[/I] way that this wasn't a huge fuckup was if Trump was just outright lying to Duterte, intentionally feeding him false intelligence.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52270918]Are you claiming that, say, the highest level of leadership in the UK have zero clue where we have subs deployed?[/QUOTE] Not if they're not actually relevant to the UK, no. The only time we'd need to tell them anything about it is notifying them that we're operating in their waters when that happens or notifying them of anything relevant to their cooperation on something. Which would probably mostly amount to just a "we've got subs in the water" than a "we've got nuclear subs in the water at this location". Because as people keep saying, secrecy is the entire [I]point[/I] of submarines. Otherwise they'd be normal boats. Also you need to really quit hiding behind the "you're not an experienced expert on this specific field so your opinion holds no water!!!" bullshit. That's just a really transparent excuse to not think critically on the situation. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271076]He's the president. If he wants to offer up that information during diplomacy then that's his decision.[/QUOTE] And people aren't allowed to criticize how fucking stupid a decision that was just because he's the president? Use your brain for two seconds and think critically about [I]why[/I] people are criticizing Trump here rather than getting stuck on the "they're criticizing Trump" part of things and blindly rushing to his defense. Just because something is allowed doesn't mean you have to do it. Often times something that's [I]technically[/I] allowed is in fact a bad idea. The whole reason those sorts of things are allowed are to make it not a pain in the ass to do those things when it's actually necessary. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52271291]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.[/QUOTE] I have a question for you then: Why is it you're always blindly rushing to Trump's defense and coming across literally no differently than outspoken Trump supporters? You'd think that if you don't support him you'd be a lot more likely to criticize his actions than his supporters are. Yet I can think of one Trump supporter right off the top of my head who commonly rushes to his defense and yet still criticizes the guy more than you do. (Which for reference, is not something I can recall ever seeing from you.) [QUOTE=sgman91;52271543]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] I'd actually recommend against taking this course of action for someone like you. It only serves to passively reinforce the views people already have of you. Posting your criticisms of Trump in those threads, on the other hand, would actively help combat those perceptions.

Pointing out a legitimate lack of knowledge about a subject is extremely relevant. If a guy came in here and started to make objective claims about theoretical physics without any actual evidence, I would ask him for his credentials. If he were to say that he's a nurse, so he obviously knows a lot about science, then I would be totally justified in pointing out his lack of personal authority on the topic of theoretical physics and dismiss his claim. In the same way, none of the posters here are privy to the day to day runnings of top level intelligence sharing. Because of that fact, we would need some strong evidence of their claims, which hasn't been provided. The only real evidence that's been mentioned in this thread consists of: - A guy living near a naval base who can't find out if the subs there carry nuclear weapons - A guy who claims to be a sonar operator saying that the OPSEC he had to obey is equivalent to the OPSEC that top level leaders of countries obey - A guy who's dad worked on a sub not telling him stuff from 30 years ago - Lots of claims about common sense That's it, sorry if I don't take the claims very seriously. I'm going to wait until we get something from people who are actual authorities on the matter at hand before making a conclusion. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jund;52271912]oh shit i forgot common sense doesn't mean anything[/QUOTE] Not in a discussion it doesn't. It's a useless claim that anyone can make. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jund;52271912]your argument is that what trump did is acceptable because it technically isn't against official policy, even though it's against common sense.[/QUOTE] No, that is most definitely not my argument, and no one would think that's my argument unless they haven't actually been reading my posts for comprehension. 1) It's legality has nothing to do with my argument. 2) I haven't even said it's acceptable. I said that we can't know with the available information.

This isn't theoretical physics. This is about stealthy things being unhidden. It doesn't take a master's degree to realize that something that's hidden from the whole world is kept that way for good reason. It doesn't require a TS clearance to agree with the statement 'The codes for the nuclear football are never given out'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272107]This isn't theoretical physics. This is about stealthy things being unhidden. It doesn't take a master's degree to realize that something that's hidden from the whole world is kept that way for good reason.[/QUOTE] It's not theoretical physics. It's just a bunch of little particles. International diplomacy is so much more complex than you're trying to make it seem.

Guys. [url]http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=100221[/url] [url]http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=100072[/url] I hate Trump more than most of you combined, but this isn't a thing. The Navy announced their arrivals separately several days ago.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272114]It's not theoretical physics. It's just a bunch of little particles and how they interact. International diplomacy is so much more complex than you're trying to make it seem.[/QUOTE] Meanwhile: The harm in even revealing the barest of informations regarding our sub traffics is much more straightforward than you're willing to admit. [B]@EcksDee Edit:[/B] They announced that they were docked, not that they were operating in the region; also they were visiting South Korea. Where in those reports is detailed their mission? All those talk about is shore leaving and interacting with the cultures.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272123]Meanwhile: The harm in even revealing the barest of informations regarding our sub traffics is much more straightforward than you're willing to admit.[/QUOTE] So says your conjecture. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] Also, all Trump said is that we have 2 subs in the region.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272125]So says your conjecture.[/QUOTE] So theoretical physics is hard to grasp but I need a TS-clearance and a PhD before I can state 'When we give out information on our [B]specifically secret-from-the-world[/B] strategic movements it harms our ability to conduct said strategic movements'? Come on, re-engage that brain. Edit: 2 subs in the region who're operating in a show of strength against north korea; that they're specifically running operations against NK, which limits exactly where they'd be. Also, amidst [B]heavy[/B] lampshading that they're ICBM or Nuke-equipped with all his bravado about how massive their firepower is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272084]That's it, sorry if I don't take the claims very seriously. I'm going to wait until we get something from people who are actual authorities on the matter at hand before making a conclusion.[/QUOTE] This is the entire issue with your view here. It's basically an appeal to authority using the fact said authorities haven't said much yet as reason to try and disregard all critical thought and opposing opinions when this is a simple thing to even consider. 1.) The entire point of submarines is to be secret. 2.) Submarines carrying nukes are kinda even more important to keep secret because nuclear weapons need to stay as safe as possible. 3.) You don't go around talking to everyone about said highly secretive submarines if it's not explicitly relevant to them. Especially if said person has connections to nations that are historically not terribly friendly towards us. You don't [I]need[/I] to be an authority to be able to make this claim. You just need to possess the capability to think logically then actually make use of said capability. Plus even if your appeal to authority were somehow valid it's still a moot point. You can look at other things that have happened in the past and gauge the likely views of those with said authority. And in this case the likely view is basically exactly what everyone has been trying to get across to you for the last 4-5 pages.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272123]Meanwhile: The harm in even revealing the barest of informations regarding our sub traffics is much more straightforward than you're willing to admit. [B]@EcksDee Edit:[/B] They announced that they were docked, not that they were operating in the region; also they were visiting South Korea. Where in those reports is detailed their mission? All those talk about is shore leaving and interacting with the cultures.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant, they're still in the area, and Trump didn't say anything about how long they'd be there. His statement is very close to being completely unacceptable, but it is still [I]technically[/I] correct.

How does it being technically correct make this 'not a thing'? This isn't anything like what the Navy announced as you wrote earlier. If they're [B]still[/B] in the area, that's actually [I]worse[/I] you realize? Edit: Like if it's not obvious if we said we docked nuclear subs in India but were doing some operations in China, that's somehow 'self evident' because they docked in India? Is that the rationale?

[QUOTE=EcksDee;52272116]Guys. [url]http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=100221[/url] [url]http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=100072[/url] I hate Trump more than most of you combined, but this isn't a thing. The Navy announced their arrivals separately several days ago.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Michigan_(SSGN-727)[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cheyenne_(SSN-773)[/url] Those are just normal submarines and not nuclear ones.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52272140][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Michigan_(SSGN-727)[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cheyenne_(SSN-773)[/url] Those are just normal submarines and not nuclear ones.[/QUOTE] They are nuclear powered - which may or may not be what Trump was referring to. He seemed to be playing up the whole 'these things have a big bang' angle - but he could've just been referring to their arms separately in addition to the fact that they were nuclear. Hell, knowing Trump doesn't like to pay attention to his briefs he may not even know the difference between a Nuke-carrying Sub and a Nuclear Sub. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares etc.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52272140][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Michigan_(SSGN-727)[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cheyenne_(SSN-773)[/url] Those are just normal submarines and not nuclear ones.[/QUOTE] Tbh I'm not sure, knowing Trump when someone told him "We have two subs in korean waters" he would go and google "us submerines" and find that "All U.S submarines are nuclear powered" and think "WELL THAT MEANS EVERY SUB HAS NUKES ON IT RIGHT"

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272144]They are nuclear powered - which may or may not be what Trump was referring to. He seemed to be playing up the whole 'these things have a big bang' angle - but he could've just been referring to their arms separately in addition to the fact that they were nuclear. Hell, knowing Trump doesn't like to pay attention to his briefs he may not even know the difference between a Nuke-carrying Sub and a Nuclear Sub.[/QUOTE] I'd always been under the understanding that nuclear subs were the ones carrying nuclear weapons and not necessarily the ones powered by nuclear reactors. You do bring up a really valid point with that last bit though...