You have made the case that we should not explain where certain of our assets were that night. I would submit that it is somewhat readily appearant why it should have been revealed.
As a general rule, I would agree with you. And even in this instance I might if it is the case that some form of live action was underway for which revealing any information whatsoever might tip a third party as to some sensitive intel. Baring that, it think we should.
You would respond that even the location is of prime importance, and we should not reveal it. I have stated on this thread that we already reveal locations when these types of assets come to port. Revealing a location after the fact would not generally be a problem.
Let’s say the location was revealed six months to a year later. Would that really be problematic? I find that opinion hard to imagine being supportable.
I appreciate your comments.
“I have stated on this thread that we already reveal locations when these types of assets come to port.”
Surface ships are one thing, but our subs for all intents and purposes “don’t exist” when they’re submerged especially a SSBN. We know they exist, they know they exist but the location if known (by us) is a closely held secret. And our subs do not make any port calls such as what the surface fleet does that I know of.
Those subs could have been testing new hardware (sonars, or new screw configuration, etc) and info about such “tests” are a secret.
If you look at a map, the sub base at New London isn’t that far away, and I would assume that the waters in the general area of the crash is sufficiantly deep enough for the subs to go out and “play” without fear of hitting anything.
You also have the Naval Underwater Systems Center on Fishers Island which is only 2 or 3 miles off the coast of CT.
So my bet is that the Navy was testing a new submarine system and didn’t want to divulge that the test was going on hence the “foot dragging” on the part of the Navy to mention what was in the area.