XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 21/09/2021 09:21, Pancho wrote:   
   > On 20/09/2021 19:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >>   
   >> On 20/09/2021 10:59, 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. Subs can be tracked. The idea that a   
   > technology/technique will emerge that can be used to effectively locate   
   > all submarines is not that fanciful.   
   >   
   If it were that easy we wouldnyt bother with subs at all.   
      
   > Audio. A network of listening devices. Some other property, I don't know   
   > what it is, but with advances in technology I wouldn't rule it out.   
      
   Its been done. In fact I worked on it back in the 1970s. rubber coated   
   hulls, very slow propellors, down deep. Totally undetectable.   
      
   Same goes for thermal signature. You cant 'see' it through a lot of   
   layers of water . And teh sub can run on batteries even if its a nuke,   
   >   
   > The problem is similar to computer security, if you give an opponent a   
   > clear attack vector they can hone their techniques.   
   >   
   >   
      
   I can assure you, they do, but I can also assure you, that a sub sitting   
   at depth with engines off is almost impossible to detect. And there are   
   limits to how much of the sea you can litter with sonobuoys.   
      
      
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)