Wednesday, February 25, 2009

La Grande Tromperie (the great deception): Bumper Subs

Anyone who has driven longer than 5 years has probably heard of insurance scams in which participants intentionally collide with other autos. Rarely in such staged accidents are either skid marks or reliable witnesses found. Perpetrators claim afterwards to have suffered seriously debilitating and difficult to medically verify neck or spinal cord injuries.

Now, consider the domain of strategic nuclear deterrents, specifically submarine carried nuclear-tipped missiles. If submarines are always silent and strange (Juan Caruso), ballistic missile subs are murky to the nth (nuclear) power.

While world navies have little economic incentive to commit insurance fraud, incentives to dupe potential enemies as well as propagandize the public have long existed among nuclear opponents and proponents alike. Whenever a domain is wrapped in secrecy, an environment conducive to deception exists. Unlike road automobile accidents, submerged submarine collisions seem never to involve skid marks or eye witnesses.

Consider the recent collision of HMS Vanguard and SNLE Le Triomphant, for instance. Should we expect one or both commanding officers to be relieved? No, and yes, respectively. Here's why: If either France or the UK were to relieve their captain unilaterally, it would appear an admission of guilt, or at least negligence. More likely, both captains would either be exonerated or mildly censored.

But even submarine accidents are subject to forensic investigations, you may protest. Correct, and the people who repair related hull damage are sworn to almost as much secrecy and prevented from snapping cell-phone pictures as the crews. FOIA does not apply either.

Nevertheless, we read news gems like this: Published Date: 20 February 2009 Submarines 'may have hit each other several times'. - THE British and French submarines that collided in the Atlantic Ocean earlier this month while carrying nuclear missiles may have hit each other several times, it emerged yesterday.

Very well, what else is in doubt? Monday, February 23, 2009 - HMS Vanguard crash inquiry is under way - The accident occurred at slow speed somewhere in the Atlantic at the beginning of this month. Both submarines, which are believed to have been carrying ready-to-launch nuclear weapons, were damaged. Now we know: One or both of the subs may have been transiting at slow speed, and one or both may not have carried some nuclear weapons.

There are advantages to not carrying nuclear weapons aboard, but letting the world believe you do. Credible deterrence is maintained at an economical cost, dangers of accidental detonation are minimized, crew training is still afforded, and loading, offloading and periodic maintenance of warheads is reduced. This is not only economical to the nth power, it is energy saving and green.

If a new world order were at hand, and it will not be while nuclear deterrents are still deployed, the cabal-in-charge would want total nuclear disarmanent for reliable control over the rest of the human race. Again, the collision of the two subs, which may have posed absolutely no risk of nuclear warhead detonations (because none were actually aboard), gives disarmament proponents a current event to hype their cause (anarchy?).

Perhaps you find this scenario farfetched. Well, consider these gems:

A senior Royal Navy source said the potential consequences of such a collision were unthinkable.
Wonder what he meant? - We are not told that or who is February 23, 2009 in the linked article.

U.S. Seeks Successor to Trident Submarine - Feb. 20, 2009 – Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter told reporters at a news conference: A wide variety of options are being considered for the Trident’s replacement, Winter said. However, the Navy secretary expressed his belief that the Trident system would be replaced by another undersea-going platform.
“I do fully expect that it is going to be a submarine,” Winter said of the Trident’s successor.

Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Winter’s belief that the Trident’s replacement “will be a submarine.” [ibid]

Curious, at the very least. As suggested earlier, the vessels may have participated in an ultrasecretive, mutually beneficial, nondeadly ruse of bumper subs. Rebuttal of our theory would require a convincing story. We will have no details from the boards of naval inquiry.

If the two COs are subsequently exonerated, however, an unavoidable appearance of mutual planning arises. These highly trusted men's careers could be sacrificed to prove otherwise, but dismissing the Bumper Sub theory as wild conjecture (it actually is) requires no dismissals. We conclude, therefore that a statement of mild censure will apply to both.
Now, we must all wait patiently to learn if we are correct.
Submarines are always silent and strange.



At 04 March, 2009 07:28, Blogger Brine said...

I've been seeing posts to this effect since the story came out with a suspicion of anti-nuclear bent to the French and British government, but it makes no sense. Cui bono? Moreso, can you see any submarine captain willingly, even under orders, participating in a intentional collision?

At 19 March, 2009 15:09, Blogger Vigilis said...

Brine, your question is well-taken.

The benefit of national debt relief would inure to the governments of France, and GB.

It would also translate to tax relief for their respective citizens.

As Americans, many of us would not approve of shifting more of the EU's military burden to the U.S., of course. It is not our call.


Post a Comment

<< Home