3 ms·
If we already know a vulnerability exists, why allow it to be repeated if the goal is to find unknown vulnerabilities? It's not about winning the game, it's abo
by dm2 11y ago
If we already know a vulnerability exists, why allow it to be repeated if the goal is to find unknown vulnerabilities? It's not about winning the game, it's about finding weaknesses in defenses.
You can't just "launch all nukes" every time in a war-game, everybody already knows that works.
There is also the good chance that we do have the capability to defend against the specific scenario, but employing it is either too expensive, temporarily unavailable, or too secretive.
Maybe the US Navy just wanted other nations to think that we can't detect submarines at those depths. Then in a war-time situation we can say, "oh, yeah, we were just bluffing, we can easily spot you at those depths".
If the highly-public and multinational war-game involves testing the exact ranges of submarine detection, maybe they had good cause to stop the war-game, and it wasn't necessarily because of losing.
- tsotha 11y agoIt's also possible the red team was deviating from the rules of the scenario. These things are never free-for-alls, where you make up your tactics as you go. When you're moving that many ships and people unless it's somewhat coordinated you risk injuries and deaths. In a training exercise you're just trying to make sure everyone is doing what they're supposed to do. If the Navy wants to explore tactics and vulnerabilities computer simulations are a much better fit.