Quote:
Originally posted by Seahawk
I'm aware that more nations are buying these military toys; a very foolish expenditure of capital, but then these are the naval equivalent of privately owned cigarette boats.
Nope. You confuse cigarette boats with warships. I don't have that option.
|
Er no, it was a relative comparison between military buying fun toys and private individuals buying fun toys. There was no confusion on my part.
Quote:
just how would another nation successfully attack America with one of these subs? Answer, none will because there is no known method.
Your lack of insight into the weapons carried on these vessels voids your statement.
|
In order to successfully attack America, a nation would have to have the capability to attack with thousands of weapons simultaneously, of the few that might approach having this capability none has any reason to do so. No reason for such an attack is expected to develop at any point in the future unless the US government stages yet another cluster fornication against yet another country.
Quote:
Our government is spending the same as the next 27 countries added together; other nations rightly perceive that as a deadly threat, and the threat has been made real by the Iraq attack, invasion, and partial conquest; and the saber rattling and more against Syria and Iran.
Doesn't apply...you know better.
So, again, I state that the US Navy profoundly does not need this equipment.
Active sonar is the only way to defeat these vessels. I profoundly think that the small investment is needed.
|
I don't agree. Passive detection is significantly better, is less dangerous, and is less an offensive threat.
Now, you want to discuss permanent locations for these devices, and yes I realize the weaknesses of that, then perhaps. But in no case should the US government be issued yet another weapon to deploy outside American waters.