5 ms·

Whilst they may not be able to identify the nation responsible there's pretty good odds it was a Russian SSK. Everyone else operating in those waters isn't goin

by cmdkeen 12y ago

Whilst they may not be able to identify the nation responsible there's pretty good odds it was a Russian SSK. Everyone else operating in those waters isn't going to risk entering Swedish waters as they have an announced policy of using force against unidentified submerged contacts. Entering foreign territorial waters submerged, especially of a nation with counter-detection capability and a military that may fire on you, is the sort of decision that goes right to the top.

lazyjones 12y ago
> there's pretty good odds it was a Russian SSK. Everyone else operating in those waters isn't going to risk entering Swedish waters as they have an announced policy of using force against unidentified submerged contacts What kind of argument is this? Are Russians somehow notorious for being reckless and suicidal? Or how else does Sweden's policy as you describe it make the odds higher that it was a russian submarine? Please explain.
- jordanpg 12y ago
  I don't know how the classification was made, but the first picture suggests that the sub was operating in broad daylight, within a few hundred meters of the coast, with masts and possibly the sail visible to the naked eye from shore??? This was either an on-board emergency, some very, very careless submariners (not something submariners in any country are known for), or something else entirely. The incredibly short distance from the coast suggests the possibility of an unmanned submarine to me. Territorial waters start at 13NM; operating at the 12.75NM is like conducting military operations 12.75NM inside a country's sovereign borders.
  - bojan 12y ago
    You mean like 0.25NM inside a country's borders?
    - jordanpg 12y ago
      No, I mean 12.75NM. If you can take a picture of a submarine with your phone from the shore, it's within a few hundred yards.
      - privong 12y ago
        I think the parent was confused due to your inconsistent/ambiguous use of reference points for distances (13NM away from the coast vs 12.75NM inside [apparently] of the maritime boundary). I experienced the same confusion, reading your original post.
  - mlvljr 12y ago
    They were all drunk, c'mon! Obvious :)
    - mlvljr 12y ago
      And now I have only to guess which side downvoted this :)
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  Reckless and suicidal as in annexing a part of a European country and virtually openly invading another part by force while simultaneously stepping up military intimidation against NATO allies across the board? Apparently so.
  - sologoub 12y ago
    Issue with Crimea is so much more complicated than that. While the inclusion of it as part of Ukraine in 1991 is not in dispute, the land was only "moved" into the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. At the time, it was about equivalent to transferring jurisdiction between one US county to another. A US state to state transfer would not be similar, as USSR laws were very centralized and there wasn't really that much difference between the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) and Ukrainian SSR. (Soviets sure loved long names and acronyms!) From the wikipedia article: "In 1954, it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union." [1] Demographics are also complicated, with 2001 census (latest wikipedia article cites) showing 58% of population identifying themselves as Russian, so it is at least plausible that the majority of the population would prefer Russia as the parent state over Ukraine. [2] The situation in "Donbas" is just downright deplorable. Both sides are not in the clear as to how this conflict came about and how it is unfolding. For proof, take a look at the Human Rights Watch report on use of cluster munitions: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cl.... Personally, I would probably not have such a problem with either side using these, had they been used exclusively against military groups outside of populated areas, or at least in sparsely populated areas, but they are being fired at cities. Firing one of these into a city is inhumane regardless of who occupies the city. There are still civilians that probably did not have a chance to run away, usually the elderly and people with children. These munitions hurt them the most. For what a cluster munition is, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition. In the end, the more we do finger pointing at a large group, the less progress we will make towards a lasting peace. Not all Russians are war-hungry, not all Ukrainians think Bendera is a hero, etc. etc. etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  It's hardly "reckless and suicidal" if you think 1. p=90% the Swedish policy is so much hot air, at least until international tensions reach the boiling point. (A person who thought this would have been right.) 2. You might have stealth tech sufficient to evade the Swedes' sensors. 3. It is valuable to know for sure about #2, and there's only one way to know for sure. The p=10% that #1 is false certainly constitutes a risk, so the only rational actor who would make the play we saw would be someone matching #2 and #3, and right now that's the Russians. Plus the Russians have a history of actively probing their opponents' defenses, so the move would hardly be without precedent.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    >actively probing their opponents' defenses // In what way are they opponents?
    - jjoonathan 12y ago
      Politically. Geographically.
      - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
        Well differing political ideology doesn't make you an opponent unless you're seeking to govern the same area. I'm not sure how you can be geographical opponents when you're different countries - competing for local resources, is that what you intend?
- Systemic33 12y ago
  The same Sweden was basically sleeping when russian planes contested swedish aerospace, and danish F16's had to act on it, and show the russians the door out. Swedish military isn't exactly famous for being on the ready and deliver on threats. It's so relaxed, to the point that its a running joke among neighbour nations. Source: I'm from denmark, and lived in sweden for 6 years up until 3 years ago, and my father has lots of nordic military contacts.
  - aragot 12y ago
    > so relaxed, to the point that it's a running joke "One month"! The article says Sweden has proof of intrusion "in October". If they had gathered enough information a month ago, why didn't they issue a diplomatic protest? Or did it take them one month to gather the information?
    - ptr 12y ago
      To whom would they issue this diplomatic protest? There's no proof which country this sub was from. > The same Sweden was basically sleeping when russian planes contested swedish aerospace I don't know why it matters, but yeah, that happened once. The QRF has been improved since then. The reason why the Swedish Air Force didn't respond quickly enough was that the defence has been all but dismantled since the 90's due to "peace in our time". Both the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister said today that Sweden will defend its borders with all means necessary. It seems we've woken up.
    - alkonaut 12y ago
      Because while they are probably quite sure about who did it (The one non allied state with sub capability operating in the Baltic, my guess), they don't have any proof that is good enough to use in a diplomatic protest.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    >danish F16's had to act on it // Because? Some jets flew over that caused no harm to anyone, wasn't probably even seen by any civilians. Is that a reason to retaliate with a show of force - or had they already used diplomatic channels to tell them that this was not allowed? This sounds like you want to start WW III because someone stepped on your toes at the bar. Sweden perhaps don't think that some other country swinging their dick is a reason to get in to armed aggression.
jbverschoor 12y ago
and why not the sneaky U.S.?
- knd775 12y ago
  What would there be to be gained from that?
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  Because it was operating fairly calmly on the surface, which strongly suggests that it was a diesel boat. Nuclear subs stay submerged after leaving port to help keep stealth. Diesel subs, on the other hand, have to either surface, or extend a snorkel, in order to pull in air to run the engines to recharge the batteries. The US, like the UK, and France has a pure-nuclear submarine fleet; the last American diesel boat was taken out of commission in the nineties. This leaves countries like Germany, whose boats have a distinctive profile that the photographed boat doesn't have, and Russia.
  - pge 12y ago
    In your comment about Germany, are you referring to the Type 209? My data is very dated (1997), but at that point, there were a lot of German-made diesels owned by other nations (including Argentina in the Falklands War). They are/were the Ak-47 of submarines, and many were substantially upgraded with things like Stirling engines so they could remain submerged longer. Point being, if it is a diesel (and I agree with your assessment that it is), it would be difficult to tell visually what nation it comes from, because many older diesels (particularly the German ones but also other) have been sold off and ended up in the fleets of various other countries.
    - Sanddancer 12y ago
      You've got a point, there. I was mostly trying to point out that pretty much everyone else in the general neighborhood is nuclear-only. It could potentially be a Venezuelan sub, but I wouldn't put them high on the list of countries willing to do a stunt like this.

by cmdkeen 12y ago

lazyjones 12y ago

> there's pretty good odds it was a Russian SSK. Everyone else operating in those waters isn't going to risk entering Swedish waters as they have an announced policy of using force against unidentified submerged contacts What kind of argument is this? Are Russians somehow notorious for being reckless and suicidal? Or how else does Sweden's policy as you describe it make the odds higher that it was a russian submarine? Please explain.

jordanpg 12y ago
I don't know how the classification was made, but the first picture suggests that the sub was operating in broad daylight, within a few hundred meters of the coast, with masts and possibly the sail visible to the naked eye from shore??? This was either an on-board emergency, some very, very careless submariners (not something submariners in any country are known for), or something else entirely. The incredibly short distance from the coast suggests the possibility of an unmanned submarine to me. Territorial waters start at 13NM; operating at the 12.75NM is like conducting military operations 12.75NM inside a country's sovereign borders.
- bojan 12y ago
  You mean like 0.25NM inside a country's borders?
  - jordanpg 12y ago
    No, I mean 12.75NM. If you can take a picture of a submarine with your phone from the shore, it's within a few hundred yards.
    - privong 12y ago
      I think the parent was confused due to your inconsistent/ambiguous use of reference points for distances (13NM away from the coast vs 12.75NM inside [apparently] of the maritime boundary). I experienced the same confusion, reading your original post.
- mlvljr 12y ago
  They were all drunk, c'mon! Obvious :)
  - mlvljr 12y ago
    And now I have only to guess which side downvoted this :)
mtrimpe 12y ago
Reckless and suicidal as in annexing a part of a European country and virtually openly invading another part by force while simultaneously stepping up military intimidation against NATO allies across the board? Apparently so.
- sologoub 12y ago
  Issue with Crimea is so much more complicated than that. While the inclusion of it as part of Ukraine in 1991 is not in dispute, the land was only "moved" into the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. At the time, it was about equivalent to transferring jurisdiction between one US county to another. A US state to state transfer would not be similar, as USSR laws were very centralized and there wasn't really that much difference between the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) and Ukrainian SSR. (Soviets sure loved long names and acronyms!) From the wikipedia article: "In 1954, it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union." [1] Demographics are also complicated, with 2001 census (latest wikipedia article cites) showing 58% of population identifying themselves as Russian, so it is at least plausible that the majority of the population would prefer Russia as the parent state over Ukraine. [2] The situation in "Donbas" is just downright deplorable. Both sides are not in the clear as to how this conflict came about and how it is unfolding. For proof, take a look at the Human Rights Watch report on use of cluster munitions: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cl.... Personally, I would probably not have such a problem with either side using these, had they been used exclusively against military groups outside of populated areas, or at least in sparsely populated areas, but they are being fired at cities. Firing one of these into a city is inhumane regardless of who occupies the city. There are still civilians that probably did not have a chance to run away, usually the elderly and people with children. These munitions hurt them the most. For what a cluster munition is, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition. In the end, the more we do finger pointing at a large group, the less progress we will make towards a lasting peace. Not all Russians are war-hungry, not all Ukrainians think Bendera is a hero, etc. etc. etc. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics
jjoonathan 12y ago
It's hardly "reckless and suicidal" if you think 1. p=90% the Swedish policy is so much hot air, at least until international tensions reach the boiling point. (A person who thought this would have been right.) 2. You might have stealth tech sufficient to evade the Swedes' sensors. 3. It is valuable to know for sure about #2, and there's only one way to know for sure. The p=10% that #1 is false certainly constitutes a risk, so the only rational actor who would make the play we saw would be someone matching #2 and #3, and right now that's the Russians. Plus the Russians have a history of actively probing their opponents' defenses, so the move would hardly be without precedent.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >actively probing their opponents' defenses // In what way are they opponents?
  - jjoonathan 12y ago
    Politically. Geographically.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      Well differing political ideology doesn't make you an opponent unless you're seeking to govern the same area. I'm not sure how you can be geographical opponents when you're different countries - competing for local resources, is that what you intend?
Systemic33 12y ago
The same Sweden was basically sleeping when russian planes contested swedish aerospace, and danish F16's had to act on it, and show the russians the door out. Swedish military isn't exactly famous for being on the ready and deliver on threats. It's so relaxed, to the point that its a running joke among neighbour nations. Source: I'm from denmark, and lived in sweden for 6 years up until 3 years ago, and my father has lots of nordic military contacts.
- aragot 12y ago
  > so relaxed, to the point that it's a running joke "One month"! The article says Sweden has proof of intrusion "in October". If they had gathered enough information a month ago, why didn't they issue a diplomatic protest? Or did it take them one month to gather the information?
  - ptr 12y ago
    To whom would they issue this diplomatic protest? There's no proof which country this sub was from. > The same Sweden was basically sleeping when russian planes contested swedish aerospace I don't know why it matters, but yeah, that happened once. The QRF has been improved since then. The reason why the Swedish Air Force didn't respond quickly enough was that the defence has been all but dismantled since the 90's due to "peace in our time". Both the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister said today that Sweden will defend its borders with all means necessary. It seems we've woken up.
  - alkonaut 12y ago
    Because while they are probably quite sure about who did it (The one non allied state with sub capability operating in the Baltic, my guess), they don't have any proof that is good enough to use in a diplomatic protest.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >danish F16's had to act on it // Because? Some jets flew over that caused no harm to anyone, wasn't probably even seen by any civilians. Is that a reason to retaliate with a show of force - or had they already used diplomatic channels to tell them that this was not allowed? This sounds like you want to start WW III because someone stepped on your toes at the bar. Sweden perhaps don't think that some other country swinging their dick is a reason to get in to armed aggression.

jbverschoor 12y ago

and why not the sneaky U.S.?

knd775 12y ago
What would there be to be gained from that?
Sanddancer 12y ago
Because it was operating fairly calmly on the surface, which strongly suggests that it was a diesel boat. Nuclear subs stay submerged after leaving port to help keep stealth. Diesel subs, on the other hand, have to either surface, or extend a snorkel, in order to pull in air to run the engines to recharge the batteries. The US, like the UK, and France has a pure-nuclear submarine fleet; the last American diesel boat was taken out of commission in the nineties. This leaves countries like Germany, whose boats have a distinctive profile that the photographed boat doesn't have, and Russia.
- pge 12y ago
  In your comment about Germany, are you referring to the Type 209? My data is very dated (1997), but at that point, there were a lot of German-made diesels owned by other nations (including Argentina in the Falklands War). They are/were the Ak-47 of submarines, and many were substantially upgraded with things like Stirling engines so they could remain submerged longer. Point being, if it is a diesel (and I agree with your assessment that it is), it would be difficult to tell visually what nation it comes from, because many older diesels (particularly the German ones but also other) have been sold off and ended up in the fleets of various other countries.
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    You've got a point, there. I was mostly trying to point out that pretty much everyone else in the general neighborhood is nuclear-only. It could potentially be a Venezuelan sub, but I wouldn't put them high on the list of countries willing to do a stunt like this.