USS Carl Vinson Heading To North Korea

Hmm, I thought that came from the right, not during the Clinton years?

You'd be wrong. Guys like Art Bell and Chuck Harder both were peddling that shit in the '90s. Both of them would regularly have guests on who talked about such shit.

They wouldn't have to attack them. They could just use their top secret Mind Control Unit to take over the boomers and use them to launch against us.

I didn't even know our military was monumentally stupid enough to have SSBNs escort our carrier groups until you told me. How was I supposed to know the North Koreans were even more stupid than that?

I do like me some Art Bell, if just for entertainment purposes, like Ancient Aliens.

It's North Korea?

I've been educated in the fact that the US military is several orders of magnitude dumber than I'd ever assumed the North Koreans were. I've still got to get my head wrapped around that.

Yeah, about that, we actually had such a program because we thought the Soviets did.

Hey, the US likes to switch up on things. We refuse to let any of our ships dock at foreign ports that bar the presence of nuclear weapons because we don't want to reveal what ships (and subs) have them and what ones don't. No doubt some CBGs have boomers shadowing them, and some don't. But if we're serious enough to divert a CNG to Korea, don't you think we'd be serious enough to divert a boomer to the same waters?

Forrest Gump was "dumb", but efficient, the North Koreans are Simple Jack.

No. There is no way in hell any CBGs have boomers shadowing them.

Although It is entirely possible the CBGB has boomer's shadowing them.

Yeah, not only is an SSBN a strategic asset, it's not suited to the duties of escorting a carrier battle group like an attack sub is.

And I can't remember an SSBN escorting a carrier in any of his books.

IIRC, a subplot of one of his novels dealt with turning boomers who'd had their missile tubes removed/rendered inoperative into ersatz attack subs, but it's been a long time since I read that particular book.

Did it have a Caterpillar drive?

#1 Enough people on the crew know their location. What your suggesting would require them to basically have a conspiracy together. On a nuclear armed to the teeth submarine.

#2 The computers record everywhere the sub goes and does and that info is going to be looked at and questions will be raised when the ship switchs crews in port.

#3 While subs may have some ability to go where they want each sub has a zone it has too stay in. HQ will know instantly the sub is not in the right area.

#4 These officers aren't going to risk their careers because hey don't like Trump.

Why not? Seriously. If boomers can pretty much go where they want, then why wouldn't a boomer shadow a CBG, if for nothing more than shits and giggles? And why wouldn't a President, any President order a boomer to be near North Korea when tensions were said to be heating up?

Is there a protocol we're missing, otherwise, I agree, why not?

Because enemy subs may be trailing and tracking a CBG and the last thing we need is for an enemy sub to discover a boomer by accident.

A boomers greatest strength is disappearing into the depths.

Not shadowing a CBG for shits and giggles.

My God could you imagine how the Chinese would freak out if they discovered one of our boomers that close to China?

Because it's not their mission to shadow carrier battle groups. SSBNs have absolutely nothing to do with carrier groups, and carrier groups have nothing to do with SSBNs. Their missions have nothing to do with each other. They don't escort carrier groups because there is less than nothing they can do to support them. Carrier groups don't gove a shit where SSBNs are because they don't know where they are.

A) you're assuming we don't have boomers in the South China Sea or elsewhere

B) NK knows how to track us.

But is it against protocol or have we just set precedent?

What precedent have we just set?

North Korean subs ain't all that great. About on par with Confederate subs, IIRC.

Why not do both?

Eh, the US has intercepted Russian bombers (as well as subs) very near the mainland, and we didn't exactly shit our pants over the matter.

#1 We don't need boomers that close to China. Ours are more than capable of slapping the shit out of China from anywhere in the Pacific.

#2 Who said anything about North Korean subs? You do know that China and Russia have them. Right?

The precedent would be that, now, boomers do escort carriers.

I don't think it's an either or situation. I think Trump said this is the way it's going to be for now, so suck it. That being said, this has General Mathis written all over it.

Again there are other subs other than NK out there.

Because the Navy is smarter than you. They aren't going to take stupid risks with a submarine that can end a country.

Eh, the US has intercepted Russian bombers (as well as subs) very near the mainland, and we didn't exactly shit our pants over the matter.[/quote]

We have a tense situation in Korea.

So it would be easy to see why China would freak if it became known that we had a boomer off their coast.

Like many have said, no it's not necessary, but it's a bit of dick waving. It's a reminder to NK. Besides, the Chimese President has backed down so point taken.

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that MAD was an attractive idea for those wishing to hold down military spending because it promoted the idea of "we have 1,000 Minuteman ICBMs, surely that will deter the Soviets from ever attacking us so we don't need to bother with more extensive nuclear or conventional weaponry"

We have a tense situation in Korea.

So it would be easy to see why China would freak if it became known that we had a boomer off their coast.[/quote]
The Navy will do what it's told. As you said, it would take a grand conspiracy to do otherwise and they don't want to risk their careers.

Why are you bitching anyway, this is exactly what Trump should have done?