Quote:

---

1)looking stuff up can make you look stoooopid if you don't pay attention. did you bother actually reading what "collision" was defined as in the 43 collisions article?

here's some of the specific "collisions" they refer to. i'm outraged at the government's classified program of ruining 2000-dollar fishing nets.

Aug. 28, 1988: Unidentified sub hooks anchor of fishing boat Sinaway Navy-paid $2,350. -
Jan. 4, 1989: Unidentified sub collides with fishing boat New Dawn. Case under investigation.
April 5, 1989: Unidentified sub breaks anchor of Canadian fishing boat Pearl E. Navy paid $1,712.
April 5, 1989: Unidentified sub damages net of fishing boat Nootka Mariner. Navy paid $2,350

April 17, 1989: Unidentified sub snags net of British fishing boat Laurel, towing smaller vessel for 15 minutes before crew cuts net free. Case under investigation.



Yes. collisions.

if you haven't noticed, microprocessors weren't that impressive if they existed in the 1980's, when your article ends. the newest subs don't use traditional periscopes and they've retrofitted navigation/electronical systems into the subs that are to the 80's equipment what the computer you're typing on is to a mac iic.

then there's the ruskies, we're not doing red october stuff all the time anymore, that risk's out of the mix.

2)SOURCES-you seem like a smart guy, go back to college, think about why one might be GARBAGE. be discerning, find credible ones instead ofsourcing the center for non-proliferation studies regarding nuclear submarines that launch nuclear-missiles. are you fucking kidding me? is there a tone to that article? is it not an archived nyt editorial?


it's frankly beneath me to argue with someone who posts links without examination and throws up a fucking UNSOURCED OP-ED piece from the fucking new york times as evidence of anything.

---