43
Canada’s Submarine Dilemma: Type 212CD vs KSS-III (www.michaeljlalonde.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I can't vouch for the author at all, but this seems like a nice detailed, technical look at the difference between the two.

TL;DR the 212CD is very good at what in biology would be called "sit and wait predation". It's designed to sneak into an ocean floor crevice and hang out there, possibly for for weeks until something comes by, and then attack it. The Hanwha offering, on the other hand, is less superlatively stealthy and maneuverable, but is much more flexible, allowing missile launches and likely having a much longer range.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 11 months ago (9 children)

OK, so you’re not actually willing to use your own words in a conversation and you have resorted to childishness. OK well… I don’t think that you should be deciding whether or not someone should have a nuclear weapon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    This is coming off as deliberately obtuse.

    If you have a nuke, and someone wants to take your shit or kill you, they will be deterred from doing so. Will anyone ever use a nuke in this situation? Who knows, but it would probably cause a world war. Millions, if not billions could die. Governments could collapse. Entire species could be wiped out. The results are nearly unfathomable. I don't think anyone wants to be the cause of that.

    If Ukraine nuked Russia, or vice versa, it would likely result in the destruction of both countries regardless of who the nuke hit, hence the previous commenters wiki link to mutually assured destruction.

    It's uncharted territory for humanity, and no one wants to fuck around a find out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    It’s not obtuse it’s a direct question

    If a nuclear weapon was given to Ukraine, and Russia called bullshit, and continued to fight Ukraine… What do you think Ukraine should do?

    It is a simple fucking question you are just too afraid to answer it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (6 children)

    You’re definitely being deliberately obtuse. Maybe even sealioning. Ukraine being given nukes after Russia invaded is a totally different thing.

    As the other poster said if Ukraine had nukes Russia would not have invaded in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    I’m not being obtuse. It’s a direct fucking question. If Ukraine had nukes, and Russia decided to say we don’t give a fuck what you have, we’re gonna invade you anyway… What Do you personally think Ukraine should do with that nuke? You just know that if you actually answer the question you’re going to lose any argument you make.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    Your problem is the question has already been answered twice. You apparently aren't capable of understanding, so maybe talk less and read wikipedia more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I am not interested in what Wikipedia has to say, I am interested in what you have to say. The answers are Ukraine does nothing or Ukraine fires a nuke. Which one is it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Shhhhh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago

    Exactly, Because answering it would mean you would have to admit that this mutually assured destruction is not actually assured, and then you would have to choose whether or not to nuke something. If you nuke something, then you’re a bad person and if you don’t nuke something then what was the point of them having nukes to begin with?

    It’s disappointing that you have so many opinions and so little desire to back any of them up with rational conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent