4 ms·

> many subs deployed at all times Yeah I guess the point being that by playing those (previously "unknown") deployments as an open hand now you demonstrate str

> many subs deployed at all times Yeah I guess the point being that by playing those (previously "unknown") deployments as an open hand now you demonstrate strength. My understanding is that there are always a number of mid/long range defensive deployments in the Mediterranean as part of NATO contracts with Spain/Portugal (through AEGIS ballistic air defense systems on destroyers), but no (sea-based) long-range nuclear deployments. So explicitly deploying attack capabilities into a "suitable region" does represent an escalation. Though I'd say it's still pretty much on the (rather) low end of the spectrum of escalatory responses.

dekhn 1y ago
Huh. I would have thought (again, not an expert) that Trump would be referring to "defensive" ballistic subs (I normally think of "attack" subs as being the hunter/killers, which try to find the enemy's ballistic subs), and the deployment would be into the baltic (although the mediterranean also makes sense). I guess if you think about it as "US deploys hunter/killer attacks closer to Russian assets" (black sea navy, or near major port cities like Vladivostok, or areas like Crimea or the Russian area near it), since I imagine they have the capability to attack cities, maybe it makes more sense to change their deployment? But in that case, why wouldn't he deploy aircraft carrier groups? I guess we (the public) will probably never know for sure.
- twothreeone 1y ago
  Yeah that's also possible.. my reading was more on the SSBN side, which would be equipped with SLBMs and have a range similar to ICBMs. But "nuclear sub" could also just mean "nuclear-powered" attack sub (SSN), though how those would credibly counter the nuclear threat is less clear to me. The article does mention this as well: > Trump did not say whether he is positioning conventional or nuclear strike-capable submarines

dekhn 1y ago

Huh. I would have thought (again, not an expert) that Trump would be referring to "defensive" ballistic subs (I normally think of "attack" subs as being the hunter/killers, which try to find the enemy's ballistic subs), and the deployment would be into the baltic (although the mediterranean also makes sense). I guess if you think about it as "US deploys hunter/killer attacks closer to Russian assets" (black sea navy, or near major port cities like Vladivostok, or areas like Crimea or the Russian area near it), since I imagine they have the capability to attack cities, maybe it makes more sense to change their deployment? But in that case, why wouldn't he deploy aircraft carrier groups? I guess we (the public) will probably never know for sure.

twothreeone 1y ago
Yeah that's also possible.. my reading was more on the SSBN side, which would be equipped with SLBMs and have a range similar to ICBMs. But "nuclear sub" could also just mean "nuclear-powered" attack sub (SSN), though how those would credibly counter the nuclear threat is less clear to me. The article does mention this as well: > Trump did not say whether he is positioning conventional or nuclear strike-capable submarines