3 ms·

>My guess is that sinking a US carrier would be treated as justification for opening a bottle of tactical nuclear whoopass. A problem appears when you don't kn

>My guess is that sinking a US carrier would be treated as justification for opening a bottle of tactical nuclear whoopass. A problem appears when you don't know who sank the CV. I think the possibility for such a scenario exists with submarines and torpedoes. The US can't exactly nuke someone based on circumstantial evidence. Combine that with disinformation campaigns by less-friendly nations and it's difficult to tell what the populace would think.

CamperBob2 7y ago
I imagine that's one thing that sonar technology does guarantee. They'll have exquisitely-detailed acoustical profiles for everything in the water that's bigger than a tuna. The author is certainly correct in saying that as soon as a missile or a torpedo gets fired, the stealth game is over. There won't be any question about who did the deed.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  But there are delayed weapons and it's also possible to use weapons that other nations use. Even if the military thinks that know who did it doesn't mean the people will believe it, especially when there are disinformation campaigns. You can't fight a war if your own population doesn't support you/it. A hostile nation doesn't have to be able to do this completely undetected, they simply have to create enough doubt.
FireBeyond 7y ago
> The US can't exactly nuke someone based on circumstantial evidence. We went into several countries (Iraq) not just on circumstantial evidence, but in the face of active knowledge to the contrary. Why so sure?
- Mirioron 7y ago
  And those weren't countries that people held in high regard nor did they run disinformation campaigns in the US. I really don't believe that the US could nuke someone as a first strike without there being overwhelming public evidence to give cause. The US populace probably wouldn't approve regardless who's in charge.
gwright 7y ago
I would be surprised if signal intelligence was unable to discern who the guilty party was in this case even in the absence of hard data from the incident itself. I find it hard to believe any entity capable and willing of initiating such an attack could keep it quiet for long.

CamperBob2 7y ago

I imagine that's one thing that sonar technology does guarantee. They'll have exquisitely-detailed acoustical profiles for everything in the water that's bigger than a tuna. The author is certainly correct in saying that as soon as a missile or a torpedo gets fired, the stealth game is over. There won't be any question about who did the deed.

Mirioron 7y ago
But there are delayed weapons and it's also possible to use weapons that other nations use. Even if the military thinks that know who did it doesn't mean the people will believe it, especially when there are disinformation campaigns. You can't fight a war if your own population doesn't support you/it. A hostile nation doesn't have to be able to do this completely undetected, they simply have to create enough doubt.

FireBeyond 7y ago

> The US can't exactly nuke someone based on circumstantial evidence. We went into several countries (Iraq) not just on circumstantial evidence, but in the face of active knowledge to the contrary. Why so sure?

Mirioron 7y ago
And those weren't countries that people held in high regard nor did they run disinformation campaigns in the US. I really don't believe that the US could nuke someone as a first strike without there being overwhelming public evidence to give cause. The US populace probably wouldn't approve regardless who's in charge.

gwright 7y ago

I would be surprised if signal intelligence was unable to discern who the guilty party was in this case even in the absence of hard data from the incident itself. I find it hard to believe any entity capable and willing of initiating such an attack could keep it quiet for long.