I can’t vouch for the author at all, but this seems like a nice detailed, technical look at the difference between the two.

TL;DR the 212CD is very good at what in biology would be called “sit and wait predation”. It’s designed to sneak into an ocean floor crevice and hang out there, possibly for for weeks until something comes by, and then attack it. The Hanwha offering, on the other hand, is less superlatively stealthy and maneuverable, but is much more flexible, allowing missile launches and likely having a much longer range.

    • CanadaPlus@futurology.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      It’s more like “everyone needs no nukes”. It’s just that being one of the nuclear powers is so much easier…

      Having a delivery system in case we do decide to go down that path seems reasonable.

        • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          17 hours ago

          The point of nukes is to not use them. Countries with nukes negotiate. Countries without nukes get preyed upon.

          Your comment is ridiculous considering there is an active war of invasion in Ukraine at present, and they traded their nukes in exchange for a promise not to invade. In retrospect, the nukes would have been better.

              • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                18 minutes ago

                OK, wait a sec. We all know what MAD entails. However, Ukraine is currenty striking deep into Russia, disrupting refineries and such. Yet Russia hasn’t blown Kiev with a nuke. That’s a legitimate issue to consider. I don’t think most would disagree that nukes reduce the chance of an armed conflict. However it seems like even so, we can’t rely on it to stop it entirely. It’s as if there’s a threshold of threat/intensity below which a hot war can be maintained despite having nuclear capability. If that’s a realistic possibility, we should tackle it. Maybe after we get nukes.

                With all that said I do believe we need nukes yesterday especially because we have little ability to maintain a hot war with the US.

                Amassing a large ballistic missle arsenal DPRK-style would also work as a deterrent. Perhaps even more effectively since we could fire some of it to prove we ain’t afraid to use it, without “starting a nuclear war.”

              • velindora@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                14 hours ago

                And if Russia said “fuck it” and called their bluff, what should Ukraine do?