So why did they reveal that info after if it was so sensitive? I wouldn’t have thought that would have changed anything. I also have vague memories of reports of a “sound” being detected early on but then not mentioned again until after. Then again my memory is trash so I dunno
How quickly they process the information, how accuratly they could determine the source, and how accuratly they could determine the location would all be fairly sensitive information.
Basically what I’m saying is that if they announced right after it happened that “Hey guys that sub imploded at X depth and the debris field will be at Y location because we heard a pressure vessel of the correct size crush followed by the sound of something of roughly the correct mass crashing into the sea floor.” Then everyone would know how capable our equipment is.
Basically announcing it days later gives a conclusion to the questions of what happened and also will likely keep others from meeting a similar fate. Not to mention the benefit of telling other countries that “Yes we can and will find out about what goes on underwater, just how quickly is more of a mystery… For you.”
No offence but if you have this line of thinking it’s fairly safe to assume other countries have people whose job it is to think this way who would have easily come to the same conclusion. I mean how quickly isn’t leaving too much to the imagination. I would just assume they’re capable of doing everything you mentioned plus more
So assume they can do it but if you invest to heavily in countering that assumption and your assumption turns out to be wrong you wasted resource on something that may be a better assumption?
Saying “We heard something in that multi square mile area that may be worth looking into” is way different than “We know exactly where and what it was”
And how quickly they could definitively identify what the sound was and where can play a big role in identifying capabilities of the systems at play and the how advanced they are
And of course knowing capabilities is a key part in developing systems to circumvent such systems
Basically what I’m trying to say in entirely too many words is that specifics matter a lot, especially to the military. And specifically knowing what someone is capable of can be used as a way of getting around it or using their own systems against them. Especially so that you know you’re not investing in systems research that is already defeated by anothers systems.
So why did they reveal that info after if it was so sensitive? I wouldn’t have thought that would have changed anything. I also have vague memories of reports of a “sound” being detected early on but then not mentioned again until after. Then again my memory is trash so I dunno
How quickly they process the information, how accuratly they could determine the source, and how accuratly they could determine the location would all be fairly sensitive information.
Basically what I’m saying is that if they announced right after it happened that “Hey guys that sub imploded at X depth and the debris field will be at Y location because we heard a pressure vessel of the correct size crush followed by the sound of something of roughly the correct mass crashing into the sea floor.” Then everyone would know how capable our equipment is.
Basically announcing it days later gives a conclusion to the questions of what happened and also will likely keep others from meeting a similar fate. Not to mention the benefit of telling other countries that “Yes we can and will find out about what goes on underwater, just how quickly is more of a mystery… For you.”
No offence but if you have this line of thinking it’s fairly safe to assume other countries have people whose job it is to think this way who would have easily come to the same conclusion. I mean how quickly isn’t leaving too much to the imagination. I would just assume they’re capable of doing everything you mentioned plus more
Welcome to how spying works
So assume they can do it but if you invest to heavily in countering that assumption and your assumption turns out to be wrong you wasted resource on something that may be a better assumption?
You don’t give away your capabilities regardless of what you assume your adversary has.
It’s that simple.
The accuracy is a big part of it
Saying “We heard something in that multi square mile area that may be worth looking into” is way different than “We know exactly where and what it was”
And how quickly they could definitively identify what the sound was and where can play a big role in identifying capabilities of the systems at play and the how advanced they are
And of course knowing capabilities is a key part in developing systems to circumvent such systems
Basically what I’m trying to say in entirely too many words is that specifics matter a lot, especially to the military. And specifically knowing what someone is capable of can be used as a way of getting around it or using their own systems against them. Especially so that you know you’re not investing in systems research that is already defeated by anothers systems.