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

[quote]No sub can do anything to stop a missile launch on the Philippines if NK decided to do it.[/quote] They certainly could - they just have to be very very close to do so.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272343]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.[/quote] Now explain to me what exactly was vague about the statement other then the exact location of the subs? Its clearly a boast. [quote] No sub can do anything to stop a missile launch on the Philippines if NK decided to do it. It's to show that we're serious. We've moved assets into the area.[/QUOTE] But why would the Philippines even remotely care about the deployment of these subs?

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52272356]I was referencing respect for positional authority and the UCMJ, not calling him a god. Other people can call him out and wish ill upon him, but it isn't my place to do so.[/QUOTE] Fair point I suppose. In my opinion the man who you refuse to tell that they fucked up is the man you [I]don't[/I] respect because you have no investment in seeing them succeed the next time around. Putting a man on a pedestal and refusing to point out their flaws in my view is simply refusing to see the man to only see what you want to see; not who they actually are. There's respecting the rank, yes, but there's also respecting the man.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52272353]Now explain to me what exactly was vague about the statement other then the exact location of the subs? Its clearly a boast. But why would the Philippines even remotely care about the deployment of these subs?[/QUOTE] The location is specifically what I'm talking about as that's been the focus of the discussion so far. Trump gave up nothing that would let them know where to find the subs or exactly where they're patrolling. He just said we have subs "over there" in reference to NK and China. It's a display of projection of power and commitment. We're saying, "Hey, we're putting assets in the region just in case something happens. We're here to help if need be." He also seems to insinuate in the conversation that we would need to do some sort of action if China refuses to act. It almost seems like he's suggesting a preemptive strike. If anything, that suggestion seems like a far more interesting and controversial statement than saying we have 2 subs "over there."

[quote]He just said we have subs "over there" in reference to NK and China.[/quote] "It's just in the area of NK and China guys, that's a really big area compared to the whole of the Pacific". Come on, sgman91. Take off the blinders already. You're saying that doesn't let anyone find the subs easier than they would've found them before and that's just flat wrong. "The United States" is several orders of magnitude larger than "Arkansas".

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272359]The location is specifically what I'm talking about as that's been the focus of the discussion so far. Trump gave up nothing that would let them know where to find the subs or exactly where they're patrolling. He just said we have subs "over there" in reference to NK and China.[/QUOTE] So in other words it was an empty and boastful statement. [quote] It's a display of projection of power and commitment. We're saying, "Hey, we're putting assets in the region just in case something happens. We're here to help if need be." He also seems to insinuate in the conversation that we would need to do some sort of action if China refuses to act. It almost seems like he's suggesting a preemptive strike.[/quote] you know when you do a preemptive strike its kinda important to not let the enemy know that you're going to do a preemptive strike, Trump really has a habit of stating sensitive information in unsecure situations. All you've managed to do this far is paint Trump as even more incompetent then he seemed at the beginning of the conversation.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272364]"It's just in the area of NK and China guys, that's a really big area compared to the whole of the Pacific". Come on, sgman91. Take off the blinders already. You're saying that doesn't let anyone find the subs easier than they would've found them before and that's just flat wrong. "The United States" is several orders of magnitude larger than "Arkansas".[/QUOTE] Like we've been shown, it's already publicly known that we have subs docked in that area. How do you know he wasn't talking about those?

[quote]How do you know he wasn't talking about those?[/quote] Because no sub is going to land-fire a SLBM.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52272366]So in other words it was an empty and boastful statement.[/QUOTE] You say that like displays of power and commitment aren't a normal part of diplomacy. Pure power sends a message on it's own. [QUOTE]you know when you do a preemptive strike its kinda important to not let the enemy know that you're going to do a preemptive strike. All you've managed to do this far is paint Trump as even more incompetent then he seemed at the beginning of the conversation.[/QUOTE] The idea of a preemptive strike has been floating around for a long time. It's nothing new.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272367]Like we've been shown, it's already publicly known that we have subs docked in that area. How do you know he wasn't talking about those?[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is Trump said the stupidest and most obvious thing ever and told Duterte "Hey dude we have submarines at our naval bases!"

[quote]Pure power sends a message on it's own.[/quote] So does telling the world 'here's our big secret submarines, but no peaking!'

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52272369]Because no sub is going to land-fire a SLBM.[/QUOTE] What? The docked subs can undock. They aren't permanent fixtures. [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Kyle902;52272372]So what you're saying is Trump said the stupidest and most obvious thing ever and told Duterte "Hey dude we have submarines at our naval bases!"[/QUOTE] That's generally what reassurance is. It's reminding people of things that they already know in order to give them more assurance.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272375]What? The docked subs can undock. They aren't permanent fixtures.[/quote] [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/USS_Michigan_%28SSBN-727%29.jpg/1024px-USS_Michigan_%28SSBN-727%29.jpg[/img] Undocking a sub isn't like turning your car engine over. It takes a lot of time to undock and so forth. Assuming reports are accurate, which they may not be, there are no VLTs on that boat - which means the missiles launch sideways -- which means right into the dock. The only feasible firing position, then, for deterrence would be for them to be in open water -- which means they're not docked.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272370]You say that like displays of power and commitment aren't a normal part of diplomacy. Pure power sends a message on it's own. [/quote] This statement is both meaningless and has nothing to do with what you quoted. "We have the best subs!" is a personal ego boost as Duterte and most of the world clearly know that already. [quote] The idea of a preemptive strike has been floating around for a long time. It's nothing new.[/QUOTE] Trump openly hinting at a preemptive strike is a stupid ass thing to do. A preemptive strike relies on the Norks keeping their shit in place. Statements like this could give the norks the impetus to start scattering their assets, or even strike at us before we do it to them.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;52272384]Trump openly hinting at a preemptive strike is a stupid ass thing to do. A preemptive strike relies on the Norks keeping their shit in place. Statements like this could give the norks the impetus to start scattering their assets, or even strike at us before we do it to them.[/QUOTE] Like I said, the suggestion of a preemptive strike is, in my opinion, much more controversial a statement than saying we have subs "over there." So I agree. It's a pretty incendiary thing to suggest. I wouldn't defend his sentiment at the moment.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52272375] That's generally what reassurance is. It's reminding people of things that they already know in order to give them more assurance.[/QUOTE] That statements about as reassuring as me telling you that the sun won't explode tomorrow or that the sky will remain blue. Saying we indeed have military assets at our military bases is so obvious that if thats what Trump meant its actually stupider then an ego boast statement. [editline]25th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52272391]Like I said, the suggestion of a preemptive strike is, in my opinion, much more controversial a statement than saying we have subs "over there." So I agree. It's a pretty incendiary thing to suggest. I wouldn't defend his sentiment at the moment.[/QUOTE] You're clearly defending his statement already by repeatedly giving wishful interpretations of Trumps statement. Stop with the feigned impartiality.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52272322]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] If that's the case I feel I should reiterate what I said to sgman then: [QUOTE=Alice3173;52272049]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.[/QUOTE] By only ever defending Trump's actions you're actually harming your own credibility in the eyes of most of the site's users. This is something that Trump supporters or those known for defending him in general should keep in mind. When they're never expecting anything other than what's, in their eyes, blind defense of Trump it makes it that much easier to just write off those defenses as invalid right off the bat. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52272337]He's the Commander in Chief - that's inherently something to be respected. I won't bad mouth President Trump just like I wouldn't speak poorly of President Obama. It's the same thing they say if you don't like your supervisor - you don't have to respect the person, but you always have to respect the rank.[/QUOTE] This is something I don't think we see eye to eye on at all. I'm not even in disagreement about respecting the rank but not the person but sometimes the respect the person has lost overrules the respect for the rank. Most notably in cases where sheer incompetence is making the rank out to be a complete joke. I would actively criticize any president who makes bad decisions no matter how much I respect the rank or person. This applied to Obama and it applies to Trump as well. The only reason I criticized Obama's actions less is simply because he didn't make nearly constant bad decisions showing his lack of qualification for the office.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52272337]He's the Commander in Chief - that's inherently something to be respected. I won't bad mouth President Trump just like I wouldn't speak poorly of President Obama. It's the same thing they say if you don't like your supervisor - you don't have to respect the person, but you always have to respect the rank.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and I would normally believe this. Bush wasn't someone I liked, but I would have shaked his hand and called him "Mr President". I wouldn't do that for Trump and he doesn't deserve it and the office is actually being disrespected by the person occupying it.

People don't deserve respect simply because of their office. That leads to fucked up societies

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52272337]He's the Commander in Chief - that's inherently something to be respected. I won't bad mouth President Trump just like I wouldn't speak poorly of President Obama. It's the same thing they say if you don't like your supervisor - you don't have to respect the person, but you always have to respect the rank.[/QUOTE] You respect your supervisor because otherwise you lose your job. The difference is that the president works for [I]you[/I], they need to earn their respect.

I didn't overlook that. It's just not a factor in any of my logic; shouldn't play much in yours either, imo. Just saying: If you're military, you're obligated to disregard bad orders and report bad conduct by officers. Blind faith in your superiors (worshipping the rank) only leads to FUBAR situations. Even if you respect your CO, you're not doing your job if you don't call them out when they need to be called out.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52275052]I'm not a civilian, I think that's a distinction you're all overlooking. I don't disagree with any of you.[/QUOTE] Neither was my unit, but it didn't stop half of them from calling President Obama the "Nigger in Chief." Military obligation doesn't prevent you from being critical.

This debate over whether or not it was legal seems largely academic. The President is the Commander in Chief. He could tell anyone where any of our submarines are if he feels like it. But obviously that would be a bad idea. And just casually slipping into a conversation with Detuerte that we have two submarines off the coast of Korea is just plain dumb.

[QUOTE=kyle877;52275097]Neither was my unit, but it didn't stop half of them from calling President Obama the "Nigger in Chief." Military obligation doesn't prevent you from being critical.[/QUOTE] Truth. My First Sergeant near clocked his CO off their artillery station when he refused to fire on coordinates he knew were bad. Nearly lost his rank for it - but after it all hashed out it was his CO who got kicked down the ladder. The CO was convinced the coords would hit an enemy encampment - FS was certain (double-and-triple-checking) that it would hit a fuel dump nearby it and wipe out some of the town it was near by. By putting his SO in his place, he saved a whole crapton of lives that day. If he'd just respected the rank, a lot of people would've lost their lives and he'd be the one blamed for it. Respect the rank - report the man.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52275114]That's different. I'm not in a position to influence the actions of the commander in chief, joining the bandwagon of individuals calling him an idiot and hoping for his impeachment on a forum would just be unprofessional for me, even if I agreed with him. I have criticisms of the man, I don't just automatically leap to his defense because he is the President. I'm just saying I tend only to post when I agree because it typically leads to a discussion as opposed to if I just claim he's ruining our country like a dozen people before me in the thread.[/QUOTE] I mean if you refuse to criticize him in threads where other people are, but only post to defend him, people are likely to assume you only support him. Being vocal and critical of him goes a long way to people not thinking you're shilling for him.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52275150]I mean if you refuse to criticize him in threads where other people are, but only post to defend him, people are likely to assume you only support him. Being vocal and critical of him goes a long way to people not thinking you're shilling for him.[/QUOTE] Or people can not make things personal and actually take arguments at face value.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52275340]Or people can not make things personal and actually take arguments at face value.[/QUOTE] Are you trying to miss HumanAbyss' point or what? It's the same point I tried to make to you earlier in the thread: If you only ever defend Trump then people will assume you're just blindly rushing to his defense. That means regardless of any validity in your arguments it's going to be approached with the idea it's invalid to begin with.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52272337]He's the Commander in Chief - that's inherently something to be respected. I won't bad mouth President Trump just like I wouldn't speak poorly of President Obama. It's the same thing they say if you don't like your supervisor - you don't have to respect the person, but you always have to respect the rank.[/QUOTE] In other words, you're an authoritarian.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52275372]Are you trying to miss HumanAbyss' point or what? It's the same point I tried to make to you earlier in the thread: If you only ever defend Trump then people will assume you're just blindly rushing to his defense. That means regardless of any validity in your arguments it's going to be approached with the idea it's invalid to begin with.[/QUOTE] Oh, I heard it. I'm just not interested in playing to people's assumptions. They can read my arguments when I write them and take them at face value. If they don't want to do that, then that's their problem, not mine.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52275793]Oh, I heard it. I'm just not interested in playing to people's assumptions. They can read my arguments when I write them and take them at face value. If they don't want to do that, then that's their problem, not mine.[/QUOTE] What's even the point of trying to argue then if you don't actually care if people get your point or not? This is something Trump supporters could do to help alleviate some of the animosity between them and people who are highly critical of Trump and it's not even a remotely unreasonable thing to suggest and yet you refuse to so much as even consider the idea. And then you wonder why people won't take you seriously. I can say with full confidence that, personally, this attitude of yours has lost you the majority of the respect I previously had for you. If you can't be bothered to help your points come across more validly then I can't be bothered taking you seriously at all.