3 ms·

We are likely comparing different scenarios, then? I'd assume defense has a different set of requirements from infiltration. To be sure, you need a lot more f

by taeric 2y ago

We are likely comparing different scenarios, then? I'd assume defense has a different set of requirements from infiltration. To be sure, you need a lot more flexibility for defense that projects farther than you can put a stake in the ground. (Well, tethers in the water, here.) But I would assume you could almost certainly invest in and build both?

lazide 2y ago
Not really, no. If the opponent knows where all the defense equipment is, they can often bypass or destroy it in a first strike too. And any common tethering point is not only a weak link (since it’s fixed), but a way to find every piece of equipment that interacts with it (since it has a easy to find location). The exception maybe purely passive equipment, like SOSUS microphones. But drones are going to make noise when operating, and they’ll point to the tethering point - and every other tethered drone even if it’s not yet operating. The deep ocean is the definition of the ‘dark forest’ problem.
- taeric 2y ago
  The passive suggestion is basically exactly what I had in my brief imagination. Would have somewhat obvious points of failure that you would have to fortify in somewhat obvious ways. Much like any fence technology on land. But this discussion is largely silly; as you are arguing against it as being some sort of perfect proposal. I thought it was quite clear I don't even really mean it as a serious proposal. Just as one that goes against "first principals" being some sort of golden blessing that is bound to get good results.
  - lazide 2y ago
    The responses have been to my original comment that the whole idea is silly, essentially. Because these first principles are fundamental physics limitations. You seem really intent on ignoring these fundamental issues. It’s like trying to argue that habitats on the moon should try to ignore that the moon has no atmosphere. We can, but why? And if you didn’t want arguments, well this is obviously the wrong crowd hah.
    - taeric 2y ago
      What is the argument, then? My point is that it seemed off because it was still trying to force a way to find stealth for large containers that have to move. Remove the need for large and movement, and you get different constraints. No need to rely on "fundamental physics limitations" to point out that it will be difficult. And yes, as you add in more constraints, you get more difficulties. So, if you want completely clandestine deployment, that will be far harder. But nobody would be surprised to learn that a military base has lots of latent defenses. Why would this be any different?

by taeric 2y ago

lazide 2y ago

Not really, no. If the opponent knows where all the defense equipment is, they can often bypass or destroy it in a first strike too. And any common tethering point is not only a weak link (since it’s fixed), but a way to find every piece of equipment that interacts with it (since it has a easy to find location). The exception maybe purely passive equipment, like SOSUS microphones. But drones are going to make noise when operating, and they’ll point to the tethering point - and every other tethered drone even if it’s not yet operating. The deep ocean is the definition of the ‘dark forest’ problem.

taeric 2y ago
The passive suggestion is basically exactly what I had in my brief imagination. Would have somewhat obvious points of failure that you would have to fortify in somewhat obvious ways. Much like any fence technology on land. But this discussion is largely silly; as you are arguing against it as being some sort of perfect proposal. I thought it was quite clear I don't even really mean it as a serious proposal. Just as one that goes against "first principals" being some sort of golden blessing that is bound to get good results.
- lazide 2y ago
  The responses have been to my original comment that the whole idea is silly, essentially. Because these first principles are fundamental physics limitations. You seem really intent on ignoring these fundamental issues. It’s like trying to argue that habitats on the moon should try to ignore that the moon has no atmosphere. We can, but why? And if you didn’t want arguments, well this is obviously the wrong crowd hah.
  - taeric 2y ago
    What is the argument, then? My point is that it seemed off because it was still trying to force a way to find stealth for large containers that have to move. Remove the need for large and movement, and you get different constraints. No need to rely on "fundamental physics limitations" to point out that it will be difficult. And yes, as you add in more constraints, you get more difficulties. So, if you want completely clandestine deployment, that will be far harder. But nobody would be surprised to learn that a military base has lots of latent defenses. Why would this be any different?