A dismal idea. I will not only provoke the North Korean, but also the Chinese leader, who is probably still choking on the idea of the future delivery of #US#nuclear #submarines to #Australia.
Subs seem to me the politically must inappropriate option. An aircraft carrier would have sent a very strong signal as well.
@HistoPol@GottaLaff It depends on the message. If you want to say, "We're right here" you send an Aircraft Carrier. If you want to send "We're here but you can't see us" then a submarine.
Pragmatically, The sub makes more sense as Aircraft carriers do not operate alone.To send an aircraft carrier means to send a naval battle group which can be at minimum 10 vessels plus support craft. That would be extremely provocative. With a submarine, it can operate on it's own from much longer, doesn't need support vessels and can be easily switched out for tours of duty.
@itwasntme223
Thanks for this introspective.
I am not a naval strategist.
Alas (or fortunately;)), I do not know Kim Jong-il.
What is more threatening?--A threat that you can see or one that you cannot see and that you can never be sure about where exactly it is?
One thing is sure, a nuclear submarine with its "almost unlimited" energy supply can strike anywhere at any time (within the corresponding missile range...
... An #aircraft#carrier would need to be moved into position openly, in contrast.
Now, of course, an aircraft carrier has a lot more #firepower (unless #nuclear#missiles are used) than a small #submarine. However, if I were Kim, I'd deal more easily with the visible than with the invisible enemy, larger provocation or not.
Let's hope I am wrong, though, and that #Xi in particular will not use the sub as a pretext to increase the heat on #Taiwan, which is what...,
@HistoPol@GottaLaff I completely understand what your point but we also have to look at the fact that such a move may make the when days instead of months or years.
I detest the #russian and #chinese governments but i would not want to risk the lives of everyone in that theater on a vague future threat.
Political theater is not an easy game and there is never a correct answer. lol
... calling for the reincorporation of formerly #Chinese territory around #Vladivostok. (I do see a tripartite dissolution of the #Russian Federation as highly likely, one the remainder of the formerly proud #Soviet Army has spent itself in #ukraine
...dates can be brought forward, as we have seen with #Ukraine. So, the earliest imaginable date from #Xi's perspective plus at least a year or so (#Ukraine experience of a failed #Blitzkrieg) will be his ultimate deadline.
(PS: Maybe someone from the naval defense industry can tell me his/her stance...
...
6) #Cyberwarfare in #China and abroad: #Xi has successfully taken control of the internet in China (#GreatFirewallOfChina) and can now even control the narrative in all media. Furthermore, the strategic investment in #Twitter gives it clout in the still prominent #SocialMedia platform.
(see my older threads).
And there are other issues, like China profiting from the #EnergyWars, the successor to its #RoadAndBelt initiative, etc., but this is simply...
These are nuclear ballistic missile submarines, which have but one purpose: launching nuclear weapons. And that is the point.
Occasionally docking Trident missile boats in South Korea is nuclear signaling. The South is currently considering making their own nuclear weapons to deter the North. The US would very much like to forestall this, so we are doing everything we can to reassure them that US nukes are sufficient to deter any North Korean nuclear attack.
@HistoPol@larthallor@GottaLaff to your aircraft carrier question, no. That's not its job. It provides air superiority and a mobile air force against an enemy.
Now, there could be a nuclear capable vessel in its fleet but we want to avoid making our nukes easy targets by satellite.
So, most of the nukes are in silos or under the water.
Navy jets like the F-18 and F-35 are capable of dropping nuclear bombs. The Navy does not disclose whether any given carrier is carrying such weapons at any given time.
Having assets with no conventional war fighting mission show up in South Korea every now and then is just a way to show the Koreans that the US is deadly serious about using nuclear weapons to retaliate in-kind against the North attacking the South with nuclear weapons.
None of the subs carrying Trident ballistic missiles have conventional missiles. These subs are designated as “SSBN”.
Four of these subs originally built as SSBNs were later refitted to carry non-nuclear cruise missiles. No longer capable of firing Trident nuclear missiles, they were redesignated as “SSGN”.
Currently, none of the subs that can fire nukes can fire conventional cruise missiles and vice versa.
... in #war prepare for #peace
The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin.
Hence under no circumstances can it be neglected."
Add comment