XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   Pancho  wrote   
   > The Natural Philosopher wrote   
   >> Pancho wrote   
      
   >>> There is no need for nuclear deployed missiles on subs. It makes no   
   >>> discernable difference to the viability of detering a first strike   
   >>> against the US.   
   >>   
   >> Bollocks   
   >>   
   >> You may THINK you will get most of the silos, you KNOW you wont get any   
   >> of the subs   
      
   > I don't see why you would say that.   
      
   Because its true. Novel concept I realise.   
      
   > Subs can be tracked.   
      
   No they cant when out in the open ocean. That’s the whole point of them.   
      
   > The idea that a technology/technique will emerge that can be used to   
   > effectively locate all submarines is not that fanciful.   
      
   Fraid so.   
      
   > Audio. A network of listening devices.   
      
   Not feasible over the entire oceans and no way to be sure   
   it’s a sub with nukes in it either. Easy to fake audio signatures.   
      
   > Some other property, I don't know what it is, but with advances in   
   > technology I wouldn't rule it out.   
      
   Clearly not there now.   
      
   > The problem is similar to computer security,   
      
   Nope, nothing like that.   
      
   > if you give an opponent a clear attack vector they can hone their   
   > techniques.   
      
   How odd that no one has done that with nuke missile subs.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)