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

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52272131]1.) The entire point of submarines is to be secret.[/QUOTE] This premise is just false. The entire point of submarines is to be effective. If using the information that a submarine is in a general region makes them more effective at achieving a specific goal, then that is the best move.

[quote]This premise is just false.[/quote] But it's not a premise. It was literally what they were designed for. Why do you think they've got nuclear reactors, sgman91? Because radiation is cool? Do you think the Blackbird was principally designed just to be fast? That the F-117A was designed to look cool? [quote]If using the information that a submarine is in a general region makes them more effective at achieving a specific goal, then that is the best move.[/quote] There is no such situation.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52272153]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...[/QUOTE] Generally, the phrase "nuclear submarine" refers to one powered by a nuclear reactor, not one carrying nukes. ([URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine[/URL]) [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272158]There is no such situation.[/QUOTE] Again, says your conjecture. This is where not being an authority on international military and intelligence strategy comes into play. You want to make that claim, fine, but you better have something to back it up beyond your own personal opinion.

[quote]This is where not being an authority on international military and intelligence strategy comes into play.[/quote] You must be terrible at Poker. [B]Edit: [/B]This is what you're trying to justify. Opponent: Hit me. Dealer: [Tosses a card] You: HOOBOY. Man, it's a great thing I've got this Ace in my hand. [shows hand that has Ace in it] Otherwise I'd be in a real bad position!

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272156]This premise is just false. The entire point of submarines is to be effective. If using the information that a submarine is in a general region makes them more effective at achieving a specific goal, then that is the best move.[/QUOTE] How exactly do you figure it's false? If they weren't meant to be secret then they'd be surface boats. The entire premise of operating below sea level is that it's far more difficult to detect the ship. Which is a moot point when you're broadcasting their location. Because even a general location will make it a lot easier to narrow in on them. [QUOTE=sgman91;52272159]Generally, the phrase "nuclear submarine" refers to one powered by a nuclear reactor, not one carrying nukes. ([URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine[/URL])[/QUOTE] If that's actually the case then I'll concede that point. I find it kinda strange that it would refer to nuclear-powered subs when the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear armaments is actually more important though. And confusing since I recall hearing in the past that nuclear subs were ones with nuclear armaments but who knows, maybe I'm managing to misremember or something.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52272164]How exactly do you figure it's false? If they weren't meant to be secret then they'd be surface boats. The entire premise of operating below sea level is that it's far more difficult to detect the ship. Which is a moot point when you're broadcasting their location. Because even a general location will make it a lot easier to narrow in on them.[/QUOTE] Firstly, there's a difference between being tactically secret and strategically secret. A sub can remain tactically secret while not being strategically secret (you can know that a sub is in a region of the world without having any idea where it is). As an asset, it's ultimate goal is to effectively complete an objective. For example, aircraft carriers are used to project power all the time, though their "goal" is to be a mobile airfield. The goal of being a mobile airfield is used to great effect in projecting power. In the same way, a submarine can be used to project power.

It can't complete it's objective if its under threat of discovery and it becomes under threat of discovery when intel is leaked on the region it's operating in. Things become even more complicated if their [I]mission[/I] is leaked. The whole point of the nuclear submarine is to be a forward scout that's near undetectable. It gets to [I]be[/I] the forward scout [B]because it is hard to detect[/B]. If you [I]tell people to expect it[/I] they may be able to figure out [I]how to find it[/I]. Next you'll have me justify the doctrine behind using a troop carrier to carry troops because 'I'm not a general of the army so how would I know'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272183]It can't complete it's objective if its under threat of discovery and it becomes under threat of discovery when intel is leaked on the region it's operating in. The whole point of the nuclear submarine is to be a forward scout that's near undetectable. It gets to [I]be[/I] the forward scout [B]because it is hard to detect[/B]. If you [I]tell people to expect it[/I] they may be able to figure out [I]how to find it[/I]. Next you'll have me justify the doctrine behind using a troop carrier to carry troops because 'I'm not a general of the army so how would I know'.[/QUOTE] So why do the navy broadcast where the subs are docked and what area they are patrolling?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272172]Firstly, there's a difference between being tactically secret and strategically secret. A sub can remain tactically secret while not being strategically secret (you can know that a sub is in a region of the world without having any idea where it is). As an asset, it's ultimate goal is to effectively complete an objective. For example, aircraft carriers are used to project power all the time, though their "goal" is to be a mobile airfield. The goal of being a mobile airfield is used to great effect in projecting power. In the same way, a submarine can be used to project power.[/QUOTE] Don't know whether you're trying to come off as a smug know it all or are just obtuse. Strategic Nuclear Deterrence is most effective when your adversary does not know you exist...Trump blabbing his mouth about the existence of what I'm assuming are Ohio class ballistic missle submarines off the coast of NORK endangers the lives of the crew and their mission. You can bet whichever Submarines that were out there exfil'd quick as fuck.

[quote]So why do the navy broadcast where the subs are docked?[/quote] Why does the air force broadcast when air-refueling planes land? Some things are useless to deny once in public view. The strength of the sub isn't in drydock - it's in the water. In the water it is secret; on land it is obvious. Same with refueling planes - we don't tell people where they are because they're used for in-flight refueling, which is a time where aircraft can't maneuver easily and are easy targets. Their secrecy allows those aircraft to operate in regions that are otherwise much more difficult to operate in. Same with a submarine - it is very difficult to operate it in hostile waters when the enemy has been told to exepct it, especially when you're trying to keep everything about it a secret while at the same time accomplishing an objective. It's not rocket science.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272084]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.[/QUOTE] and yet i have never seen you so doggedly defend anyone or thing as much as trump. you let his defenders slide with claims that are even more baseless and even make some of your own. and it isn't just be calling bullshit on your "fair and unbiased" rationality either [QUOTE=sgman91;52272084]Not in a discussion it doesn't. It's a useless claim that anyone can make.[/QUOTE] "to have an internet discussion from scratch, you must first create the universe" of course common sense has a role in discussions. do i need to implicitly prove to you that water is wet before i can use that assumption discussion? the fact that we put submarines underwater to [I]hide them[/I] is common sense, no matter how much you want to delude yourself it isn't [QUOTE=sgman91;52272084]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.[/QUOTE] then what the hell is your argument? you asked for sources on official policy (for no reason apparently) and then said we don't have the credentials to make any judgements on the matter. you ignore hunter's utterly unfounded alternative explanation and make one of your own you're coming off as the type of person who enjoys going against the grain and only "calls out bullshit" when it's convenient for them. i've seen you post plenty of times yet your defense of trump under the pretense of "we don't know enough information" comes off as incrediblly disingenuous because i don't ever recall you going to threads about immigration and going "no one here is a top-ranking immigration officer so we don't have enough information" or going to military news threads and going "no one here is a five star general so who knows"

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272186]So why do the navy broadcast where the subs are docked and [b]what area they are patrolling?[/b][/QUOTE] Hahah what???? Hope you're not talking about SSBN's, that is top secret information.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272156]This premise is just false. The entire point of submarines is to be effective. If using the information that a submarine is in a general region makes them more effective at achieving a specific goal, then that is the best move.[/QUOTE] then prove it. making the claim that revealing the locations of submarines which are designed to operate undetected makes them [I]more[/I] effective is atypical and goes against common sense if common sense tells me that liquid water is wet and you claim that liquid water [I]isn't[/I] wet in a specific situation, it is up to you to prove that it isn't and not up to me to prove that it is

[QUOTE=Jund;52272208]then prove it. making the claim that revealing the locations of submarines which are designed to operate undetected makes them [I]more[/I] effective is atypical and goes against common sense if common sense tells me that liquid water is wet and you claim that liquid water [I]isn't[/I] wet in a specific situation, it is up to you to prove that it isn't and not up to me to prove that it is[/QUOTE] The Navy revealed the foreign basing locations and deployment regions of multiple subs in the links posted earlier. Does that not give away their locations? Are they going against common sense? Those links go directly against what you're saying. In fact, they give more information than Trump did by giving exact docking locations.

No use in arguing. You have multiple people who work in and around Submarines (including myself) trying to educate this guy and he's still gonna jam his fingers in his ears and pretend like we don't know what we're talking about. [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52272215]The Navy revealed the foreign basing locations of multiple subs in the links posted earlier.[/QUOTE] There are Submarine commands in Hawaii, Washington, Georgia, Guam, and Connecticut. That's public knowledge. Submarine patrols and movements on the other hand are usually closely kept secrets, unless they're part of a carrier strike group or escort. The whole purpose of Submarines is the unknown, completely foreign concept I know..

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52272216]No use in arguing. You have multiple people who work in and around Submarines (including myself) trying to educate this guy and he's still gonna jam his fingers in his ears and pretend like we don't know what we're talking about.[/QUOTE] Of course. The alternative would be for him to admit it was a bad move objectively, which he refuses to do and I suspect will continue to do even if generals come out and say it was a bad move (which they won't, publicly) right up until Trump himself says it was a bad move. (Spoiler: Not happening either) There simply [I]must[/I] have been a good reason for all this. Must have! It was for diplomacy and that's complex, so that makes this plausible because reasons. I sold my house in exchange for this singular rice grain? It's diplomacy, so it's complex, so it was a fair trade!

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52272216]No use in arguing. You have multiple people who work in and around Submarines (including myself) trying to educate this guy and he's still gonna jam his fingers in his ears and pretend like we don't know what we're talking about. [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] There are Submarine commands in Hawaii, Washington, Georgia, Guam, and Connecticut. That's public knowledge. Submarine patrols and movements on the other hand are usually closely kept secrets, unless they're part of a carrier strike group or escort. The whole purpose of Submarines is the unknown, completely foreign concept I know..[/QUOTE] Those links clearly say that they are on "Indo-Asia-Pacific patrol." How is that not revealing a region of patrol? [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] And to be clear, I'm ignoring the attempts at making this personal on purpose.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272224]Those links clearly say that they are on "Indo-Asia-Pacific patrol." How is that not revealing a region of patrol? [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] And to be clear, I'm ignoring the attempts at making this personal on purpose.[/QUOTE] "North Korea" is a lot more specific than "Somewhere in the Pacific Ocean". To willfully ignore the several orders of magnitude in specificity is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272215]The Navy revealed the foreign basing locations and deployment regions of multiple subs in the links posted earlier. Does that not give away their locations? Are they going against common sense? Those links go directly against what you're saying. In fact, they give more information than Trump did by giving exact docking locations.[/QUOTE] are you serious? docking locations don't mean jack because THEY'RE ABOVE WATER AT DOCK

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272224]Those links clearly say that they are on "Indo-Asia-Pacific patrol." How is that not revealing a region of patrol?[/QUOTE] Because that information is obvious since the damn name of the ISIC is "Commander Submarine Forces Pacific". They're not going to say how many are out, which type, armament, when, how long, specific countries, coastlines etc.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;52272216]No use in arguing. You have multiple people who work in and around Submarines (including myself) trying to educate this guy and he's still gonna jam his fingers in his ears and pretend like we don't know what we're talking about.[/QUOTE] sorry to say but you're a dirty submarine peasant who doesn't understand the complexity of high level international politics my dude... /s

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272229]"North Korea" is a lot more specific than "Somewhere in the Pacific Ocean". To willfully ignore the several orders of magnitude in specificity is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] So you're backing off of never giving even the most basic information? Tell me, what is the objectively least appropriate amount of information that one can give without going against "common sense?" You seem to have a line somewhere and aren't holding to the absolutist claims made earlier.

[quote]Tell me, what is the objectively least appropriate amount of information that one can give without going against "common sense?"[/quote] What was given out by the Navy, not the President - which is the least amount of information possible. North Korea is not 'basic' information. That's like saying there's no difference in saying 'There's a bomb in the United States' versus 'There's a bomb in Dallas'. One bomb you can look for. The other bomb might as well be randomly assigned a location. The difficulty in sweeping the entire Pacific Ocean for two submarines can't even be fancifully compared to sweeping the waters off North Korea's coast. Edit: I'd like to point out that that information [B]still[/B] shouldn't just be freely given out. Just knowing that subs are operating at all in the region isn't something you should draw attention to, even if they're visible, as perhaps they might go unnoticed on slim chance. There's zero benefit in revealing their location beyond that very slim-most of details.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272234]What was given out by the Navy, not the President - which is the least amount of information possible. North Korea is not 'basic' information. That's like saying there's no difference in saying 'There's a bomb in the United States' versus 'There's a bomb in Dallas'. One bomb you can look for. The other bomb might as well be randomly assigned a location. The difficulty in sweeping the entire Pacific Ocean for two submarines can't even be fancifully compared to sweeping the waters off North Korea's coast.[/QUOTE] Did you actually read the transcript. Trump said: "We have two submarines — the best in the world. We have two nuclear submarines, not that we want to use them at all" Where did he say that they were off the coast of NK? The closest thing is the phrase "over there," which could mean the entire indo-asian-pacific region.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272233]So you're backing off of never giving even the most basic information? Tell me, what is the objectively least appropriate amount of information that one can give without going against "common sense?" You seem to have a line somewhere and aren't holding to the absolutist claims made earlier.[/QUOTE] well the difference is that one tells NK and China the time and place to increase efforts on detecting , locating, and tracking our submarines and the other doesn't all the hills you choose to die on and you choose to die on this one

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272245]Did you actually read the transcript. Trump said: "We have two submarines — the best in the world. We have two nuclear submarines, not that we want to use them at all" Where did he say that they were off the coast of NK? The closest thing is the phrase "over there," which could mean the entire indo-asian-pacific region.[/QUOTE] Read the whole transcript like someone who wants to figure out where two of the biggest prizes in counter-intel are in that document. They're talking about those subs being deployed to combat Kim Jong Un. In order for them to be even capable of that, they have to be in range of NK. That means they're operating in that specific region. Just by that one tidbit you've reduced where they're operating from the whole of the pacific ocean to a small chunk of it that're coastal waters that you're probably already looking at -- but now have incentive to look even harder at. If me, Random Joe Game Developer, can figure that out you can bet your butt that China's intel services figured it out in realtime.

[QUOTE=Jund;52272247]well the difference is that one tells NK and China the time and place to increase efforts on detecting , locating, and tracking our submarines and the other doesn't all the hills you choose to die on and you choose to die on this one[/QUOTE] So Trump saying we have 2 subs "over there" tells them the time and place to do all that, but telling them exactly where we have subs docked doesn't. Really?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272245]Did you actually read the transcript.[/QUOTE] have you? [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAmGtPCXcAAkU6a.jpg[/img] what do you possibly think he could mean by "over there"? maybe near japan? or maybe near india...

[QUOTE=Jund;52272256]have you? [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAmGtPCXcAAkU6a.jpg[/img] what do you possibly think he could mean by "over there"? maybe near japan? or maybe near india...[/QUOTE] He later specifies that they're specifically they're to be available in case Kim Jong-Un does something 'crazy'. That means they're not just 'near China', they're 'within striking range of North Korea' which is a much much much smaller area.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272253]Read the whole transcript like someone who wants to figure out where two of the biggest prizes in counter-intel are in that document. They're talking about those subs being deployed to combat Kim Jong Un. In order for them to be even capable of that, they have to be in range of NK. That means they're operating in that specific region. Just by that one tidbit you've reduced where they're operating from the whole of the pacific ocean to a small chunk of it that're coastal waters that you're probably already looking at -- but now have incentive to look even harder at. If me, Random Joe Game Developer, can figure that out you can bet your butt that China's intel services figured it out in realtime.[/QUOTE] Sub-launched nukes have a range of around 4,000 miles. Everyone already knows we have multiple subs within that radius. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272259]He later specifies that they're specifically they're to be available in case Kim Jong-Un does something 'crazy'. That means they're not just 'near China', they're 'within striking range of North Korea' which is a much much much smaller area.[/QUOTE] 4,000 miles.