4 ms·
I believe it as probable. Say "Submarine found in x waters 145m deep." if this isn't standard, and signals an improvement in current tech, Russia and China will
by tryingagainbro 9y ago
I believe it as probable. Say "Submarine found in x waters 145m deep." if this isn't standard, and signals an improvement in current tech, Russia and China will wonder why and start to piece things out.
The problem is that sub designers go to great lengths to make them invisible while underwater. So if it's disabled and can't tell where it is, that's a problem, (or feature since it's stealthy.)
- nradov 9y agoThere is no basis in economics or physics for that belief. You're just making things up. Military powers aren't omnipotent.
- icelancer 9y agoYou vastly, vastly underestimate how hard it is to do what you just said. Consider the inverse square law, then consider how hard it is to illuminate things underwater at a depth where there is little to no ambient light. Consider the limitations of sonar and other technologies at extreme distances. Then extrapolate that in three dimensions across a major light trafficked area. I get that militaries keep high-tech stuff secret, but what you are proposing is more akin to magic or teleportation than anything reasonable.
- tryingagainbro 9y agoMy thesis was that it's possible not to use the most advanced stuff to find them. Sure sucks that Argentinians died, but it would suck more if 1000 US sailors died and we lost the next war. https://theconversation.com/how-to-find-a-submarine-no-its-not-just-a-case-of-flicking-the-sonar-on-33343 https://theconversation.com/how-to-find-a-submarine-no-its-n...