I used to think it was the Argentine sub, and that might have been useful cover for a more dangerous sub (higher capability in all respects). When I saw the pic of the Argentine sub I just felt sorry for those who died in it. Looks too old to do much and it does not look capable of any aspect of “silent running,” so you wouldn’t need the class of aircraft sent into the zone (sub hunters) we’ve seen because it should be detected with more conventional means.
But I can see the CIA sinking that one to raise speculation so that the capabilities of a sub later detected might be temporarily underestimated. The CIA thinks of humans as specs of dirt so they would thinking nothing of sinking an Argentine sub “just for show.”
I used to think it was the Argentine sub, and that might have been useful cover for a more dangerous sub (higher capability in all respects).
_________________________________________
What I meant to say is I used to think it was the Argentine sub but now that FReepers have provided more information about it, I think the “disappearance” of that sub might have been useful cover for a more dangerous sub (higher capability in all respects).
I’ll add that one of the intel videos I watched (Shipman, former CIA ?) said the CIA has it’s own equipment (planes, boats etc.) and weapons cached all over the world. Maybe they took some of those trillions of dollars that Obama et. al. swiped and simply placed an order for their own sub with all the bells and whistles they wanted.
Here's what I was thinking this...
We know NK has subs. We know NK has nukes. We believe NK was a Clown op...
What if they used a NK sub (or the Argentine sub), stuffed with a devise, staffed with NK hostages, in an effort to blow it near a coastal city?