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

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272254]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] giving china a better opportunity to test their tracking of our submarines is much more of a realistic danger to our fleet than china firing missiles at them when they're docked in SK during peacetime

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272159] 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] Woah there buddy thats a pretty nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof, but you made the original claim of [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] Thats some shifty debate voodoo right there

Yes, except there's no way that the military will sign off on firing Nukes. There's no point to it. Additionally, they're not striking to harm - they're striking to defend -- and that means they need a rapid response. They won't be firing all the way from Australia. Edit: Allow me to illustrate my point. Red is where the subs could've been before Trump announced what they were doing. Blue is where they [I]likely are[/I] now that he's announced them. I'll also point out that subs don't like operating in shallow waters, so that blue zone is also deceptively larger than it appears. [img]http://imgur.com/3hSaZmX.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272269]Yes, except there's no way that the military will sign off on firing Nukes. There's no point to it. Additionally, they're not striking to harm - they're striking to defend -- and that means they need a rapid response. They won't be firing all the way from Australia.[/QUOTE] ah yes, by "over there" he must have meant australia now china will never know of our plans

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52272268]Woah there buddy thats a pretty nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof, but you made the original claim of Thats some shifty debate voodoo right there[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone disagreed with my claim that a sub's goal is to be effective. The disagreement seems to be how a sub is most effective in all situation, and that is where one would need some sort of evidence. I haven't made any claims beyond offer possibilities. My conclusion is that we do not have enough information to make an objective claim on the topic at this time.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272260]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] 4,000 miles.[/QUOTE] wait hold on didn't you just make the claim that they might not be nuclear armed??? [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])[/quote] Yes you did. If you make the assertion that the subs might not have nukes so by your own admission using the range of SLBMs to decide what range they might be patrolling at is pointless conjecture.

[quote]My conclusion is that we do not have enough information to make an objective claim on the topic at this time.[/quote] A conclusion built from covering your ears and eyes to outside information. See my graphic above if you'd like to see just how big a deal that announcement was.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52272275]wait hold on didn't you just make the claim that they might not be nuclear armed??? Yes you did. If you make the assertion that the subs might not have nukes so by your own admission using the range of SLBMs to decide what range they might be patrolling at is pointless conjecture.[/QUOTE] I said that the phrase generally means a nuclear powered sub. It seems everyone is working under the assumption that they are also nuclear armed. If we're going to assume they aren't, then I don't see the issue at all. Everyone is already certain that we have subs in the region or docked nearby. That information is already given out by the navy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272273]I don't think anyone disagreed with my claim that a sub's goal is to be effective.[/quote] This statement is like me saying people agree with me that the sun is hot. Good detective work i guess? [quote] The disagreement seems to be how a sub is most effective in all situation, and that is where one would need some sort of evidence. I haven't made any claims beyond offer possibilities. My conclusion is that we do not have enough information to make an objective claim on the topic at this time.[/QUOTE] you started off the quoted statement by taking a definite stance so idk what you're trying to do here.

[quote] Everyone is already certain that we have subs in the region or docked nearby. That information is already given out by the navy.[/quote] So you've just chosen to forget the information that specifically points out why this isn't conflatable with the navy pointing out where subs have docked?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272269]Yes, except there's no way that the military will sign off on firing Nukes. There's no point to it. Additionally, they're not striking to harm - they're striking to defend -- and that means they need a rapid response. They won't be firing all the way from Australia. Edit: Allow me to illustrate my point. Red is where the subs could've been before Trump announced what they were doing. Blue is where they [I]likely are[/I] now that he's announced them. I'll also point out that subs don't like operating in shallow waters, so that blue zone is also deceptively larger than it appears. [img]http://imgur.com/3hSaZmX.png[/img][/QUOTE] What is that blue zone based on? Also, the Navy has already confirmed that we have subs docked within the blue zone. So I'm not sure what Trump would have given up by confirming that fact.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272280]I said that the phrase generally means a nuclear powered sub. It seems everyone is working under the assumption that they are also nuclear armed. If we're going to assume they aren't, then I don't see the issue at all. Everyone is already certain that we have subs in the region or docked nearby. That information is already given out by the navy.[/QUOTE] The current position of US subs is something the navy isn't likely to give out one would think. Can you provide sources for your claims?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272284]What is that blue zone based on? Also, the Navy has already confirmed that we have subs docked within the blue zone. So I'm not sure what Trump would have given up by confirming that fact.[/QUOTE] It's based on the range of a typical SLBM. A submarine that's docked doesn't move around; a sub that isn't docked does move around. What he did is make the search for those subs dramatically easier by revealing their mission - which anchors them to within that range of NK; otherwise they can't do their job.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52272281]This statement is like me saying people agree with me that the sun is hot. Good detective work i guess? you started off the quoted statement by taking a definite stance so idk what you're trying to do here.[/QUOTE] The claim I responded to said that the sub's only goal was to stay secret. I responded by saying that the sub's goal is to be effective, and that staying totally secret is only one way to achieve that goal. Letting people know that you have subs in an area, as the Navy already does, can also play a role. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272286]It's based on the range of a typical SLBM. A submarine that's docked doesn't move around; a sub that isn't docked does move around.[/QUOTE] Trump didn't say if they were docked or not. He just said they were "over there." I'm not sure if I'm looking at the wrong thing, but current operational SLBMs seem to have a 12,000km range ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missile[/url]).

[quote]Letting people know that you have subs in an area, as the Navy already does, can also play a role.[/quote] Letting them know 'they're in the area' is a very different beast to 'they're operating on North Korea'. The primary job of a submarine is to stay secret just as the primary job of a troop carrier is to ferry troops safely from point A to point B. If you stick a gun on it that doesn't make it a forward tank. Just because a submarine has missiles doesn't mean that you could just stick it up above water and expect it to do just as great a job. It's effectiveness is [I]directly[/I] related to how secret it is. [quote] He just said they were "over there."[/quote] Great job actually reading the document. I can tell you've either got selective reading down pat or you didn't read it in totality. He more or less revealed their location by specifically pinpointing the general region they're in as well as the specific mission they're in on.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272293]Letting them know 'they're in the area' is a very different beast to 'they're operating on North Korea'. The primary job of a submarine is to stay secret just as the primary job of a troop carrier is to ferry troops safely from point A to point B. If you stick a gun on it that doesn't make it a forward tank. Just because a submarine has missiles doesn't mean that you could just stick it up above water and expect it to do just as great a job. It's effectiveness is [I]directly[/I] related to how secret it is.[/QUOTE] He said they were "over there." That's it. That's all he said. Trump's words are even more vague than "in the area." For all we know he's talking about the subs docked nearby.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272269] Edit: Allow me to illustrate my point. Red is where the subs could've been before Trump announced what they were doing. Blue is where they [I]likely are[/I] now that he's announced them. I'll also point out that subs don't like operating in shallow waters, so that blue zone is also deceptively larger than it appears.[/QUOTE] the blue area could be 90% of the red area and it still would have been a stupid thing to say even if nothing comes of it, it sets a terrible example and shows how careless and incompetent trump is at keeping secrets it's not like the switch on military secrets is either on or off. telling someone you trust about a possible military deployment introduces the chance of the enemy overhearing, increasing their defenses in the area, and slaughtering your side when they get there. that's the entire point of loose lips sink ships. whether or not it happens or whether you had any malicious intent doesn't make it any less stupid

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272288]The claim I responded to said that the sub's only goal was to stay secret. I responded by saying that the sub's goal is to be effective, and that staying totally secret is only one way to achieve that goal. Letting people know that you have subs in an area, as the Navy already does, can also play a role. [/QUOTE] What do you mean by effective? The only possible effect that releasing info, however, vague, on the location of a few of our subs is to offer reassurance or to intimidate. I don't know why we'd need to reassure Duterte and if we wanted to intimidate the Norks we'd just do a big showoffy training exercise with the the South Koreans like we always do. The only reason I can possibly think of for Trump saying this is that he wants to show off , this is evidenced by the way he says it as well. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52272296]He said they were "over there." That's it. That's all he said. Trump's words are even more vague than "in the area." For all we know he's talking about the subs docked nearby.[/QUOTE] But why the hell would trump tell duterte that we have docked submarines in one of our naval bases?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272288]The claim I responded to said that the sub's only goal was to stay secret. I responded by saying that the sub's goal is to be effective, and that staying totally secret is only one way to achieve that goal. Letting people know that you have subs in an area, as the Navy already does, can also play a role.[/QUOTE] if dickwaving was their intention then they would just surface the subs

[quote]That's it. That's all he said.[/quote] OK, fine. I'll go ahead and specifically quote things since you seem to either lack the ability to connect dots or refuse to do more than a flick-through read. PRRD: "As long as those warheads are in the hands of Kim Jon Un we'll never be safe" [...] POTUS: "What's your opinion of him? [...]" PRRD: "[...] there's a dangerous toy in his hands which could create so much agony and suffering[...]" POTUS: "[...] (When he) eventually gets that delivery system. What do you think of China? PRRD: "(China has power over him but he's mentally unstable)" POTUS: We have a lot of firepower over there (read: China). [...] POTUS: If (China doesn't do it), we'll do it (read: deal with potential nuke threats) PRRD: "[...] the other option is a nuclear blast[...]" [...] POTUS: [...] can't let a madman with nuclear weapons on the loose like that. We have a lot of firepower, more than he has, times 20 but we don't want to use it (calling back earlier to how he 'doesn't want to use the nuclear submarines'). If that doesn't spell it out to you, you just might not be capable of reading a transcript for subtext. Regardless of your opinion he said a [B]heck of a lot more than 'over there'[/B].

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52272304]What do you mean by effective? The only possible effect that releasing info, however, vague, on the location of a few of our subs is to offer reassurance or to intimidate. I don't know why we'd need to reassure Duterte and if we wanted to intimidate the Norks we'd just do a big showoffy training exercise with the the South Koreans like we always do. The only reason I can possibly think of for Trump saying this is that he wants to show off , this is evidenced by the way he says it as well.[/QUOTE] He clearly mentions it in the transcript as reassurance. He wants to let them know that we're serious about NK. It isn't some passing interest. I mean effective in the most general sense. Every military asset's ultimate goal is to be effective at whatever we need it to accomplish. If a ship can be effective by patrolling around and projecting power, then we should use it like that. It would be silly to say that an aircraft carrier is only useful when it's being used as a landing craft for plane attacks. In the same way, it doesn't make sense to simplify all submarine usefulness down to "stay completely secret, not letting anyone know even the most basic information even about it's general area, no matter what." Secrecy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jund;52272308]if dickwaving was their intention then they would just surface the subs[/QUOTE] Why would they do that? Knowing that a sub is in striking distance, but not knowing where it is is far more effective a threat. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Kyle902;52272304]W But why the hell would trump tell duterte that we have docked submarines in one of our naval bases?[/QUOTE] ... to reassure him that we have assets in the area.

[quote]I support President Trump to the extent I feel I am obligated to.[/quote] Why do you feel obligated at all? What has he done personally for you to earn such an obligation? Edit: Reading your post, you're effectively stating that you don't just feel obligated to support Trump because you feel 'nobody else does' (which is incorrect) but that you refuse to not support him because ... why? You'll be 'revealed'?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272316]He clearly mentions it in the transcript as reassurance. He wants to let them know that we're serious about NK. It isn't some passing interest.[/QUOTE] This is about the stupidest way to reassure Duterte. Those two subs literally cannot do anything if the norks for god knows what reason decide to nuke the Philippines, which is the only possible way they could do anything to the Philippines. Unless Trump was insinuating a preemptive strike then I dont see any possible way this could've reassured Duterte unless he was retarded.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272316] Why would they do that? Knowing that a sub is in striking distance, but not knowing where it is is far more effective a threat.[/QUOTE] so he told duterte in hopes that it would leak to china and they would leak to NK and that would scare them, thus making our subs more effective wow

[QUOTE=Jund;52272330]so he told duterte in hopes that it would leak to china and they would leak to NK and that would scare them, thus making our subs more effective wow[/QUOTE] While at the same time making them hugely less effective due to them being incapable of doing their mission in secret as everybody now knows what they're doing there.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272316] ... to reassure him that we have assets in the area.[/QUOTE] No shit we have assets in the area though?? We have naval bases in Japan... Those two subs can't do anything to prevent a theoretical strike against the Philippines other then preemptively attack so I fail to see why Trump would specifically mention them unless he was trying to boast, which we clearly was from how he worded his statement.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272334]While at the same time making them hugely less effective due to them being incapable of doing their mission in secret as everybody now knows what they're doing there.[/QUOTE] we're running out of dimensions

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52272335]No shit we have assets in the area though?? We have naval bases in Japan... Those two subs can't do anything to prevent a theoretical strike against the Philippines other then preemptively attack so I fail to see why Trump would specifically mention them unless he was trying to boast, which we clearly was from how he worded his statement.[/QUOTE] It's not out of the realm of possibility for them to pre-emptively strike before their Nuke actually can get anywhere. That, however, requires them to be basically directly off NK's shore - which even [I]further[/I] defines exactly where they'll be operating. The missile would have to strike before NK's got up to speed, after all, for a successful intercept. [quote]I won't bad mouth President Trump just like I wouldn't speak poorly of President Obama. [/quote] What ridiculousness. As if the President is 'above error' and 'shouldn't be talked down to'? You are putting the president on the pedestal of a God, not a Man. Presidents are fallible, can make mistakes, and [I]should[/I] be held accountable for their errors. The founding fathers would be very worried about someone like you who feels the President is a tyrant above reproach and should be feared as one.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52272322]Ah. I apologize that I have come off this way then - I support President Trump to the extent I feel I am obligated to. In no circumstances would I consider any of my posts about things he has done to be in defense of the president himself, merely his actions. This may be a distinction some do not believe exists. I did not vote for Trump, I would have rather seen any other Republican primary candidate win the election. Putting it very diplomatically, I know some of his actions will damage our country and in turn our allies. It is no secret that Facepunch is at times radically left (by US standards). I play devil's advocate almost exclusively for his actions because I get so sick of seeing people dismiss arguments and points of view on the basis of their belief that someone is a "blind Trump supporter." The reason you never see me criticize Trump is because when I see an article where he has done something I don't agree with, I don't post. I shake my head, I frown, and I go read something that doesn't disappoint me. Nobody needs or cares what I think when it's just a bandwagon of people wishing ill of the man, and more importantly, I don't feel right doing it for reasons you can probably surmise.[/QUOTE] i have absolutely no problem with defending trump for any good decisions he makes (even though they are few and far between) but this is not one of them

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52272335][B]No shit we have assets in the area though?? We have naval bases in Japan... [/B]Those two subs can't do anything to prevent a theoretical strike against the Philippines other then preemptively attack so I fail to see why Trump would specifically mention them unless he was trying to boast, which we clearly was from how he worded his statement.[/QUOTE] Right, that's why I think the whole hubbub about Trump's statement is totally exaggerated and based on incomplete knowledge. It was an extremely vague statement.