In article <tjr8ch$d9a$2@reader2.panix.com>,
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8.5682@fx17.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>>>>>>>> stock?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>>>>>> of money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>>>
>>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
>>>
>>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>bombs by the
>>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
>>>weapons.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
>>
>>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
>>getting smaller every day.
>>
>Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
>shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
>to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
>spare one's ships is a classic power move.

(Hal Heydt)
From what I've read, the Kremlin wanted assurances from Kyiv that
they wouldn't use the authorized corridor to launch attacks.
Seems like an easy promise to make and one that's hard to prove
that the corridor is used that way.

Apparently, for 5 months before the grain shipment deal, the
Russians were blockading Ukrainian ports. In light of the loss
of the Moskva and whatever losses were suffered in the events on
28 Oct. at Sevastopol, one wonders if the Russians are now *able*
to blockade the ports, and if they wanted to try, how long what
is left of their fleet would last.

So...the reversal on food shipments may be the Russian way of
disguising that they really have no way to stop them, or--at
least--no way to stop them that wouldn't simply be blown away by
the Ukraine forces.

Note also that on 31 Oct., the largest number of ships left
Ukraine ports with record--for the times--cargo, and the Russians
didn't lift a finger to either stop them or even object.

In article <caf2mhtggiqmqnh07bvkr54l7vc4saeh15@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8.5682@fx17.iad>,
>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>>>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>>>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>>>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>>>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>>>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>>>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>>>>>>>>> stock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>>>>>>> of money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>>>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>>>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>>>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
>>>>
>>>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>>bombs by the
>>>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
>>>>weapons.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
>>>
>>>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
>>>getting smaller every day.
>>>
>>Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
>>shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
>>to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
>>spare one's ships is a classic power move.
>
>I'm not sure I am following you here.
>
>There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
>Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
>time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
>way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.
>
>The result is that they are built and not used except as a threat. A
>bluff that neither side is willing to call because both sides are
>running the same bluff and want to keep their fleets in existence.
>
>So, this is probably a desire on Putin's part to keep his fleet
>floating so he can /threaten/ to use it. But not use it, because that
>would risk losing it.
>
>Of course, he /could/ simply build a new home port in actual Russian
>territory on the Black Sea and moving the fleet there. Sevastople is
>fair game because the Crimea is still considered part of Ukraine by
>most of the world.
>
>WWII in the Pacific is, of course, clearly an exception. But there was
>very little choice in that case on both sides, as the soldiers used to
>seize and hold ground couldn't wade across the Pacific on their own
>feet.
>
>And, of course, Midway (and other battles) showed that winning a major
>fleet action could severely impact the enemy. Even with those
>new-fangled aircraft carriers lording it over the battleships.

(Hal Heydt)
Plus, unless some new and startling evidence shows up, it appears
that staying harbor in Sevastopol won't keep the Black Sea fleet
afloat.

I'm still wondering what the status of the Adm. Makarov
is...frigates aren't noted for having the armor it would take to
survive being holed at the waterline.

Side note... In the Battle of the South Atlantic, aka The
Falklands War, a group of Royal Marines on South Georgia made
note of an Argentine frigate fairly close to shore past them.
They fired an anti-tank missile at it and blew a 3 foot by 5 foot
hole in her, just above the waterline. The frigate made port and
remained there for the duration of the war. The difference
between a frigate and tank being...tanks actually have armor.

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> on Wed, 02 Nov
2022 09:09:10 -0700 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>news:f925mht0k9nllbmssu7bth6smrb5p0ocn6@4ax.com:
>
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> on Tue, 1 Nov 2022
>> 16:06:51 -0500 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>On 11/1/2022 3:45 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:tjru3c$rg3h$2@dont-email.me:
>> [snip]
>>>>>>> I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>>>>>> bombs by the Russians over the years. They know what they
>>>>>>> are doing with nuclear weapons.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_ma
>>>>>>> ss_d est ruction
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how long has it been since the last one? As has been
>>>>>> discussed, these things require maintenance. And it's never
>>>>>> been clear - perhaps even to the Soviets - how many would
>>>>>> actually *work* in a mass launch.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is that. But, who wants to volunteer to be tested on
>>>>> by the Russians ? Not me.
>>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't volunteer to be on the launch crew, who might well
>>>> be in more danger than the target.
>>>>
>>>> But all things considered - Putin is now actually offering
>>>> terms (insane, stupid terms, but still) - if Putin felt he had
>>>> working nuclear missiles, the ability to launch them (and get
>>>> them to the target), and, most important, underlings who would
>>>> follow the orders (there are apparently *five* levels of
>>>> command between him and the launch buttons, all of which much
>>>> unanimously agree to the launch), I think he would have tried
>>>> by now. And, if some British tabloid reports are accurate
>>>> (heh), he *has*, and been told "no" by his own inner circle
>>>> (who are *clearly* planning their exist strategy, hoping to
>>>> avoid war crimes trials).
>>>
>>>I highly suspect that the KGB are insanely loyal to Putin and
>>>would enforce any of his edicts. Those military officers have
>>>families and the KGB could arrest them.
>>
>> The issue is not necessarily whether the orders to launch
>> will be
>> followed, but once given will the missiles launch, reach the
>> target, and detonate?
>>
>The issue is all that, and more. There are so many failure modes
>between Putin giving the order and actual detonation.

And then what happens?

The Scenario mentioned is that the orders are followed, and two
launches are made, and both fail to detonate. Then what?
On D+0 only the Russians know "what happened" (I.e. Nukes were
launched but failed to detonate.)
How long till the Ukrainians figure this out? And then what?
How long till "the West" finds out? And they then do what?
How long till "other" Intel agencies find out (e.g., China)? And
what do they then do?
How long till the news hits the various "Concerned" NGOs?

--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:49:20 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2022 09:53:42 -0700, Robert Woodward
> <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <caf2mhtggiqmqnh07...@4ax.com>,
> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >> Nicoll) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8...@fx17.iad>,
> >> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> >>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> >>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
> >> >>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >> >>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
> >> >>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
> >> >>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
> >> >>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
> >> >>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
> >> >>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
> >> >>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
> >> >>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
> >> >>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
> >> >>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
> >> >>>>>>>> stock?
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
> >> >>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
> >> >>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
> >> >>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
> >> >>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
> >> >>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
> >> >>>>>>>> of money.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
> >> >>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
> >> >>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
> >> >>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
> >> >>bombs by the
> >> >>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
> >> >>>weapons.
> >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
> >> >>
> >> >>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
> >> >>getting smaller every day.
> >> >>
> >> >Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
> >> >shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
> >> >to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
> >> >spare one's ships is a classic power move.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I am following you here.
> >>
> >> There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as "Fleet in
> >> Being". The core idea behind it is that naval vessels take a long long
> >> time to replace, so it is best not to lose any of them. The easiest
> >> way to do /that/ is to never let them leave Port in time of war.
> >>
> >
> >This concept was not followed by the Royal Navy. BTW, I once saw a table
> >of ship losses for the European navies in the period 1793-1815; the
> >English list was about as long as the Spanish and French lists combined.
> >However, the English list was dominated by losses due to storms and
> >unknown rocks while the Spanish and French lists were dominated by
> >battle losses (mostly captured by the English).
> That is another exception.
>
> They didn't need to.
>
> "Rule Britannia!
> Britannia rule the waves"
>
> They were also a seafaring people, dependent on shipping for trade.
>
> Perhaps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being] would help make
> the concept clearer.

That's as maybe, but the US Navy, at least from WW2 until the fall of the
USSR, spent a great deal of time out of port.

Part of that (and that applies to the USSR as well) is that the missile subs
are useless as a deterrent when in port. They need to be 'out there somewhere',
perhaps right off the enemy coast.

There was also an implicit deal that the US would protect shipping lanes the
world over, enabling globalization, so long as countries aligned with it
against the Soviets.

This was wildly successful. However, when the USSR fell, we lost interest.

pt

In article <XnsAF428BF8CD8B9taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>And, if some British
>tabloid reports are accurate (heh), he *has*, and been told "no" by
>his own inner circle (who are *clearly* planning their exist
>strategy, hoping to avoid war crimes trials).

(Hal Heydt)
+1 for that particular typo.

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:5ue5mhli9evnrkugh83pbpripgt7ug3bis@4ax.com:

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> on Wed,
> 02 Nov 2022 09:09:10 -0700 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the
> following:
>>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>news:f925mht0k9nllbmssu7bth6smrb5p0ocn6@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> on Tue, 1 Nov 2022
>>> 16:06:51 -0500 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>On 11/1/2022 3:45 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:tjru3c$rg3h$2@dont-email.me:
>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of
>>>>>>>> nuclear bombs by the Russians over the years. They know
>>>>>>>> what they are doing with nuclear weapons.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_
>>>>>>>> ma ss_d est ruction
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And how long has it been since the last one? As has been
>>>>>>> discussed, these things require maintenance. And it's
>>>>>>> never been clear - perhaps even to the Soviets - how many
>>>>>>> would actually *work* in a mass launch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is that. But, who wants to volunteer to be tested on
>>>>>> by the Russians ? Not me.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't volunteer to be on the launch crew, who might
>>>>> well be in more danger than the target.
>>>>>
>>>>> But all things considered - Putin is now actually offering
>>>>> terms (insane, stupid terms, but still) - if Putin felt he
>>>>> had working nuclear missiles, the ability to launch them
>>>>> (and get them to the target), and, most important,
>>>>> underlings who would follow the orders (there are apparently
>>>>> *five* levels of command between him and the launch buttons,
>>>>> all of which much unanimously agree to the launch), I think
>>>>> he would have tried by now. And, if some British tabloid
>>>>> reports are accurate (heh), he *has*, and been told "no" by
>>>>> his own inner circle (who are *clearly* planning their exist
>>>>> strategy, hoping to avoid war crimes trials).
>>>>
>>>>I highly suspect that the KGB are insanely loyal to Putin and
>>>>would enforce any of his edicts. Those military officers have
>>>>families and the KGB could arrest them.
>>>
>>> The issue is not necessarily whether the orders to launch
>>> will be
>>> followed, but once given will the missiles launch, reach the
>>> target, and detonate?
>>>
>>The issue is all that, and more. There are so many failure modes
>>between Putin giving the order and actual detonation.
>
> And then what happens?
>
> The Scenario mentioned is that the orders are followed, and
> two
> launches are made, and both fail to detonate. Then what?
> On D+0 only the Russians know "what happened" (I.e. Nukes
> were
> launched but failed to detonate.)
> How long till the Ukrainians figure this out? And then
> what? How long till "the West" finds out? And they then do
> what? How long till "other" Intel agencies find out (e.g.,
> China)? And
> what do they then do?
> How long till the news hits the various "Concerned" NGOs?
>
Given what the world's reaction would be, and how brilliantly
Zelensky has played the PR game so far, I'd guess it would be a
matter of hours. I suspect the Ukrainian teams who go and inspect
any duds that crash where they can get to them (and trust me, they
have people who are assigned specifically to that task) have geiger
counters, which make it pretty easy to tell if it's a nuclear
warhead. From there, it's game over for Russia.

There have been reports that Putin tried to launch nukes showing up
here and there, mostly in British tabloids, and you can't take
their word for it that *they* exist without independent
verifcation. The more plausible ones are the ones that say his
generals told him "no," with a close second of "the missiles didn't
launch."

If a launch had taken place without a detonation, we'd have heard
about it by now.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rKqn6y.wo9@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsAF428BF8CD8B9taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>And, if some British
>>tabloid reports are accurate (heh), he *has*, and been told "no"
>>by his own inner circle (who are *clearly* planning their exist
>>strategy, hoping to avoid war crimes trials).
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> +1 for that particular typo.
>
Yeah, well, it's rather more accurate that "exit" anyway, since
they're very unlikely to be allowed to leave Russia. Except, perhaps,
under guard on their way to The Hague.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0157f1ee-21fb-496f-96a8-f6cd891ceaf9n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:49:20 AM UTC-4, Paul S
> Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Nov 2022 09:53:42 -0700, Robert Woodward
>> <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <caf2mhtggiqmqnh07...@4ax.com>,
>> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 13:53:21 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com
>> >> (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8...@fx17.iad>,
>> >> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> >>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> >>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>> >> >>>wrote:
>> >> >>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1...@gioia.aioe.org:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> >> >>>>> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4,
>> >> >>>>>>> Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> >> >>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there
>> >> >>>>>>>>> was a good chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal
>> >> >>>>>>>>> was actually inoperative due to Russia's economic
>> >> >>>>>>>>> woes and war in Ukraine.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> and costs a lot of money to make.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used
>> >> >>>>>>>>> deuterium and tritium and needed regular
>> >> >>>>>>>>> topping-up. Modern hydrogen bombs use lithium-6
>> >> >>>>>>>>> deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium, is
>> >> >>>>>>>>> stable.
>> >> >>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any
>> >> >>>>>>>> *modern* hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working
>> >> >>>>>>>> with old Soviet stock?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach
>> >> >>>>>>>>> his conclusions, he neglected to check his facts
>> >> >>>>>>>>> even to the extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>> >> >>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles
>> >> >>>>>>>> require a lot of other mainteance, as well, which
>> >> >>>>>>>> is, for the most part, high tech, requiring a high
>> >> >>>>>>>> degree of skill and a lot of money.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life
>> >> >>>>>>> on Russian corruption or incompetence.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against
>> >> >>>>> them.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet
>> >> >>>> against the Russians based on their past results?
>> >> >>>> You're saying their achievments in Ukraine have
>> >> >>>> impressed you with their competence?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of
>> >> >>>nuclear
>> >> >>bombs by the
>> >> >>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing
>> >> >>>with nuclear weapons.
>> >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_
>> >> >>> destruction
>> >> >>
>> >> >>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large
>> >> >>army; now, it is getting smaller every day.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
>> >> >shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
>> >> >to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to
>> >> >pleeeease spare one's ships is a classic power move.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure I am following you here.
>> >>
>> >> There is, in historical Naval circles, a concept known as
>> >> "Fleet in Being". The core idea behind it is that naval
>> >> vessels take a long long time to replace, so it is best not
>> >> to lose any of them. The easiest way to do /that/ is to
>> >> never let them leave Port in time of war.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This concept was not followed by the Royal Navy. BTW, I once
>> >saw a table of ship losses for the European navies in the
>> >period 1793-1815; the English list was about as long as the
>> >Spanish and French lists combined. However, the English list
>> >was dominated by losses due to storms and unknown rocks while
>> >the Spanish and French lists were dominated by battle losses
>> >(mostly captured by the English).
>> That is another exception.
>>
>> They didn't need to.
>>
>> "Rule Britannia!
>> Britannia rule the waves"
>>
>> They were also a seafaring people, dependent on shipping for
>> trade.
>>
>> Perhaps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being] would
>> help make the concept clearer.
>
> That's as maybe, but the US Navy, at least from WW2 until the
> fall of the USSR, spent a great deal of time out of port.
>
> Part of that (and that applies to the USSR as well) is that the
> missile subs are useless as a deterrent when in port. They need
> to be 'out there somewhere', perhaps right off the enemy coast.
>
> There was also an implicit deal that the US would protect
> shipping lanes the world over, enabling globalization, so long
> as countries aligned with it against the Soviets.
>
> This was wildly successful. However, when the USSR fell, we lost
> interest.
>
The flaw with the "Fleet in Being" theory is that a fleet in port,
which safe from direct attack, *cannot* protect shipping, and
economies grow or fall on shipping and have for a long, long time.

For a really solid historical example of this, take a look at
privateering on the Spanish Main in the 16th century. The Spanish
didn't start sending *fleets* of warships to escort the Treasure
Fleet because their armada would be safer in port.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 16:14:11 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <tjr8ch$d9a$2@reader2.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <ht98L.20665$TUR8.5682@fx17.iad>,
>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On 10/31/2022 2:47 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:tjnf3b$1o0a$1@gioia.aioe.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/2022 7:55 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:fc63eebd-32d2-4e19-a8c8-96137f32753bn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda
>>>>>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:ceaace75-7ee0-426b...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good
>>>>>>>>>> chance that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually
>>>>>>>>>> inoperative due to Russia's economic woes and war in
>>>>>>>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs
>>>>>>>>>> a lot of money to make.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium
>>>>>>>>>> and tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen
>>>>>>>>>> bombs use lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like
>>>>>>>>>> deuterium, is stable.
>>>>>>>>> What's the timeline on that? does Russia *have* any *modern*
>>>>>>>>> hydrogen bombs? Or are they still working with old Soviet
>>>>>>>>> stock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his
>>>>>>>>>> conclusions, he neglected to check his facts even to the
>>>>>>>>>> extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>>> Both nuclear warheads (of all types) and missiles require a
>>>>>>>>> lot of other mainteance, as well, which is, for the most
>>>>>>>>> part, high tech, requiring a high degree of skill and a lot
>>>>>>>>> of money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This isn't an area where you want to bet your life on Russian
>>>>>>>> corruption or incompetence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't want to bet against it, either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given their past results, I would not bet against them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Which them are we talking about? You would not bet against the
>>>>> Russians based on their past results? You're saying their
>>>>> achievments in Ukraine have impressed you with their competence?
>>>>
>>>>I was specifically talking about 715 detonations of nuclear
>>>bombs by the
>>>>Russians over the years. They know what they are doing with nuclear
>>>>weapons.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
>>>
>>>That was then, this is now. They used to have a large army; now, it is
>>>getting smaller every day.
>>>
>>Reportedly, the Russians are offering a deal in which grain
>>shipments will be left unmolested if the Ukrainians promise
>>to stop sinking Russian ships. Asking the enemy to pleeeease
>>spare one's ships is a classic power move.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>From what I've read, the Kremlin wanted assurances from Kyiv that
>they wouldn't use the authorized corridor to launch attacks.
>Seems like an easy promise to make and one that's hard to prove
>that the corridor is used that way.
>
>Apparently, for 5 months before the grain shipment deal, the
>Russians were blockading Ukrainian ports. In light of the loss
>of the Moskva and whatever losses were suffered in the events on
>28 Oct. at Sevastopol, one wonders if the Russians are now *able*
>to blockade the ports, and if they wanted to try, how long what
>is left of their fleet would last.
>
>So...the reversal on food shipments may be the Russian way of
>disguising that they really have no way to stop them, or--at
>least--no way to stop them that wouldn't simply be blown away by
>the Ukraine forces.

Which might lend some credence to the "power play" idea, in the sense
that he is trying to pretend he has the power to stop them when he
does and gain credit for not doing what he can't do anyway.

>Note also that on 31 Oct., the largest number of ships left
>Ukraine ports with record--for the times--cargo, and the Russians
>didn't lift a finger to either stop them or even object.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <9d2b37ff-716f-4c14-a136-09a0b2a7331an@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>The ships are actually in engaged in war crimes - they are one of the
>sources of the
>missiles currently destroying civilian targets in Ukraine.
>
>They are legitimate targets.

(Hal Heydt)
Just by being part of the Russian armed forces they're legitimate
targets, even if all they do is sit in port.

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 7:49:06 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> As was pointed out, they require significant maintenance, even when
> using LiD in the secondary (and I don't believe they have a NIF equivalent.)

I have no idea if the Russians ever worked on inertial confinement fusion
(I presume NIF is standing for "National Ignition Facility" here?) but, of
course _tokamak_ is even a Russian word. But neither have much to do
with thermonuclear _warheads_.

John Savard

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 2:45:40 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> But all things considered - Putin is now actually offering terms
> (insane, stupid terms, but still) - if Putin felt he had working
> nuclear missiles, the ability to launch them (and get them to the
> target), and, most important, underlings who would follow the
> orders (there are apparently *five* levels of command between him
> and the launch buttons, all of which much unanimously agree to the
> launch), I think he would have tried by now.

If the Ukraine were to accept his insane, stupid terms, then he would
win the war. If, instead, he launched his nukes, then the U.S. would
nuke Russia in response, and both sides would lose.

So I don't see offering insane, stupid terms as an indication he doesn't
have nukes, it's a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do even when he
does have nukes. If he started to offer reasonable and fair terms, I
might get suspicious.

John Savard

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 3:06:56 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> I highly suspect that the KGB are insanely loyal to Putin and would
> enforce any of his edicts. Those military officers have families and
> the KGB could arrest them.

Oh, indeed. (And that it's the FSB now is too unimportant a detail for
it to be worth correcting you; I consider it quite blameless of you that
you do not wish to be bothered keeping track of their name changes.)

John Savard

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 3:30:13 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> and if they're sane, they're more afraid of western
> retribution than they are of the FSB. And should be. The FSB will
> only kill them (if they can).

And here I thought that torture and rape even of people's families
was the sort of thing the FSB did, but the West did not.

Are you trying to inform me otherwise?

John Savard

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 1:52:37 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 3:06:56 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
> > I highly suspect that the KGB are insanely loyal to Putin and would
> > enforce any of his edicts. Those military officers have families and
> > the KGB could arrest them.

> Oh, indeed. (And that it's the FSB now is too unimportant a detail for
> it to be worth correcting you; I consider it quite blameless of you that
> you do not wish to be bothered keeping track of their name changes.)

There was the NKVD under Stalin, the OGPU under - Lenin? - and the
Okhrana under the Tsars, I think... ah, why guess, I'll pull up the Wikipedia
article...

Ah. Ivan the Terrible: the Oprichniki. Then the Secret Prikaz, the Preobrazhensky Prikaz,
the Secret Chancellery, and the Secret Expedition. Nicholas I: the Third Section. Later,
under the Tsars, the Okhrana. Lenin: the Cheka. Stalin: the NKVD and, later, the OGPU.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 7:49:06 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> As was pointed out, they require significant maintenance, even when
>> using LiD in the secondary (and I don't believe they have a NIF equivalent.)
>
>I have no idea if the Russians ever worked on inertial confinement fusion
>(I presume NIF is standing for "National Ignition Facility" here?) but, of
>course _tokamak_ is even a Russian word. But neither have much to do
>with thermonuclear _warheads_.

The raison d'etre for the NIF is stockpile maintance absent testing. Any other uses
are secondary.

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 7:39:40 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> The raison d'etre for the NIF is stockpile maintance absent testing. Any other uses
> are secondary.

Oh. Well, in that case, _either_ the Russians have an equivalent, _or_ they would
never have signed a treaty banning underground testing. I should think that is
obvious.
Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that they had an equivalent during
the Soviet era, but in their current state of desuetude could no longer maintain it.

John Savard

On Friday, 4 November 2022 at 07:54:25 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> []Snip nonsense] Are you trying to inform me otherwise?

You're being trolled there. By a troll.

On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 12:34:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 7:39:40 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> The raison d'etre for the NIF is stockpile maintance absent testing. Any other uses
>> are secondary.
>
>Oh. Well, in that case, _either_ the Russians have an equivalent, _or_ they would
>never have signed a treaty banning underground testing. I should think that is
>obvious.
>Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that they had an equivalent during
>the Soviet era, but in their current state of desuetude could no longer maintain it.

You mean, of course, "it was sold off to the highest bidder and used
to buy a really spiffy superyacht by one of Putin's buddies".
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 00:54:22 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 3:30:13 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> and if they're sane, they're more afraid of western
>> retribution than they are of the FSB. And should be. The FSB will
>> only kill them (if they can).
>
>And here I thought that torture and rape even of people's families
>was the sort of thing the FSB did, but the West did not.
>
>Are you trying to inform me otherwise?

He's trying to inject Trump/Putin Talking Points into the discussion
(if that's what it is).

IOW, he is in bot mode.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <49560aa3-4dfc-41ef-a58c-3efc5ec0a4e2n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 2:45:40 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> But all things considered - Putin is now actually offering terms
>> (insane, stupid terms, but still) - if Putin felt he had working
>> nuclear missiles, the ability to launch them (and get them to the
>> target), and, most important, underlings who would follow the
>> orders (there are apparently *five* levels of command between him
>> and the launch buttons, all of which much unanimously agree to the
>> launch), I think he would have tried by now.
>
>If the Ukraine were to accept his insane, stupid terms, then he would
>win the war. If, instead, he launched his nukes, then the U.S. would
>nuke Russia in response, and both sides would lose.

(Hal Heydt)
From what I've been reading, that's not necessarily the response.
There appears to be a strong suggestion that any use of a
tactical nuke would be to wipe out the Russian forces with
conventional arms. This would be, at least in part, to drive
home the point that a nuclear exchange is NOT a desired outcome,
as much as to show that it's not needed.

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 2:38:24 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:

> From what I've been reading, that's not necessarily the response.
> There appears to be a strong suggestion that any use of a
> tactical nuke would be to wipe out the Russian forces with
> conventional arms. This would be, at least in part, to drive
> home the point that a nuclear exchange is NOT a desired outcome,
> as much as to show that it's not needed.

Yes, that's a possible response to the use of a tactical nuke in
Ukraine. I was thinking of other possible uses of nuclear weapons
by Russia, even if those are, hopefully, less likely.

John Savard

On 10/29/2022 11:40 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good chance
> that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually inoperative due to
> Russia's economic woes and war in Ukraine.
>
> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs a lot of
> money to make.
>
> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium and
> tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen bombs use
> lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
>
> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his conclusions, he
> neglected to check his facts even to the extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>
> John Savard

“”Give Kremlin A Warning”: US ‘Nuclear Apocalypse’ Submarine Enters
Mediterranean Sea”
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/give-kremlin-warning-us-nuclear-apocalypse-submarine-enters-mediterranean-sea

“Multiple reports show the world’s largest nuclear submarine, the USS
Rhode Island, left the Port of Gibraltar on Spain’s south coast last
week and was last seen entering the Mediterranean. British newspaper
Daily Express said the nuclear submarine is “reportedly heading towards
the Black Sea.””

My goodness, she is a big girl. Not much hot bunking on her. One of my
son’s friends slept on top of a torpedo for all of his deployments, he
strictly had 8 hours, two other guys shared the bed.

I am of two minds on this. One is that it is a provocation. Two, it is
a deadly threat.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 10/29/2022 11:40 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good chance
>> that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually inoperative due to
>> Russia's economic woes and war in Ukraine.
>>
>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs a lot of
>> money to make.
>>
>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium and
>> tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen bombs use
>> lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
>>
>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his conclusions, he
>> neglected to check his facts even to the extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>
>> John Savard
>
>“”Give Kremlin A Warning”: US ‘Nuclear Apocalypse’ Submarine Enters
>Mediterranean Sea”
>
>https://www.zerohedge.com/military/give-kremlin-warning-us-nuclear-apocalypse-submarine-enters-mediterranean-sea
>
>“Multiple reports show the world’s largest nuclear submarine, the USS
>Rhode Island, left the Port of Gibraltar on Spain’s south coast last
>week and was last seen entering the Mediterranean. British newspaper
>Daily Express said the nuclear submarine is “reportedly heading towards
>the Black Sea.””
>
>My goodness, she is a big girl. Not much hot bunking on her. One of my
>son’s friends slept on top of a torpedo for all of his deployments, he
>strictly had 8 hours, two other guys shared the bed.
>
>I am of two minds on this. One is that it is a provocation. Two, it is
>a deadly threat.
>

I'm of the mind that Zero Hedge is not worth the pixels it paints.

The Ohio class boats are four decades old now and the Rhode Island
is on a scheduled port visit to Gibralter.

The "Daily Press" is a british tabloid.

It's highly unlikely that a boomer would enter the med, where it
would be unable to run silent and run deep.

On 11/8/2022 3:48 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 10/29/2022 11:40 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> I was reading an article that claimed that there was a good chance
>>> that Russia's nuclear arsenal was actually inoperative due to
>>> Russia's economic woes and war in Ukraine.
>>>
>>> The logic was that tritium has a short half-life, and costs a lot of
>>> money to make.
>>>
>>> Too bad that only the earliest hydrogen bombs used deuterium and
>>> tritium and needed regular topping-up. Modern hydrogen bombs use
>>> lithium-6 deuteride, and lithium-6, like deuterium, is stable.
>>>
>>> So while the author used "basic physics" to reach his conclusions, he
>>> neglected to check his facts even to the extent of peeking at Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> “”Give Kremlin A Warning”: US ‘Nuclear Apocalypse’ Submarine Enters
>> Mediterranean Sea”
>>
>> https://www.zerohedge.com/military/give-kremlin-warning-us-nuclear-apocalypse-submarine-enters-mediterranean-sea
>>
>> “Multiple reports show the world’s largest nuclear submarine, the USS
>> Rhode Island, left the Port of Gibraltar on Spain’s south coast last
>> week and was last seen entering the Mediterranean. British newspaper
>> Daily Express said the nuclear submarine is “reportedly heading towards
>> the Black Sea.””
>>
>> My goodness, she is a big girl. Not much hot bunking on her. One of my
>> son’s friends slept on top of a torpedo for all of his deployments, he
>> strictly had 8 hours, two other guys shared the bed.
>>
>> I am of two minds on this. One is that it is a provocation. Two, it is
>> a deadly threat.
>>
>
> I'm of the mind that Zero Hedge is not worth the pixels it paints.
>
> The Ohio class boats are four decades old now and the Rhode Island
> is on a scheduled port visit to Gibralter.
>
> The "Daily Press" is a british tabloid.
>
> It's highly unlikely that a boomer would enter the med, where it
> would be unable to run silent and run deep.

Isn't the Med mostly 3,000 to 5,000 feet deep and up to to 17,000 feet
deep ? I suspect that they could run silent and deep there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Sea

Lynn