“Nuclear powered” has no reference to their weapons capabilities, but instead how it generates electricity to run the ship.
Back in the old days, subs had diesel generators that required air to run the generators (like any fossil fuel powered engine) that recharged the batteries that powered the ship while submerged. That means that if the batteries were running low, the sub would need to surface to use the diesel engines to recharge the batteries so they could dive again. With the invention of nuclear powered subs, surfacing wasn’t needed except for replenishing breathing air. Which I think is like a few days or maybe a week or two. Or whatever, I’m not an expert on this.
Now, that’s not saying that a lot of nuclear powered subs don’t also carry nukes (like tridents, for example). But “nuclear powered sub” doesn’t have any bearing on that. It’s purely describing how the sub generates electricity.
I hope that any submariners that read this will correct me if I’m wrong. This is all based on info I read years ago.
I don’t know if this is done in practice, but if you have a nuclear powered sub, implementing a water electrolyzer that makes oxygen is fairly trivial. Then you have air as long as you have power, so they could in principle stay submerged for ≈ 20 years, or however long the nuclear reactors can go without refill.
Technically a Sub can stay underwater forever, it is the crew that is the problem there. If they had Star Trek replicators to make them food with that reactor then boredom becomes the limiting factor.
I just re-watched all the first 14 Bond movies, and there are apparently satellites that can track all the subs, so we’re good 😊👌 Also, you can just reprogram the missiles to blow up the other subs — just steal the launch codes, easy peasy 👍 Check mate, Kim! 💥🚀
Side note: many (or, indeed, most) of the films did not age well 😣 I’m not proud of how little of the misogyny, borderline rape-y, no-consent, belittling of women stuff I failed to notice as a kid (patents’ fault) and adolescent (my fault); it starts to get a bit better around the end of the Moore era, and I’m now getting ready for the Dalton era. It will be interesting to see the newer films with this fresh context of the old ones, and I’ve never seen the two newest ones, which I think were supposed to address all of these issues.
Secondary side note: so far, the best ones (IMHO, YMMV) have been For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View To A Kill.
I think it downplayed the importance of CO2 scrubbing, because we can tolerate low O2 a lot easier than high CO2. High CO2 is also what gives us that suffocating feeling.
It briefly touches on rebreathers near the end. The theory behind them is that the difference between the %O2 on the inhale and exhale of our breathing cycle is very little. So if you can get rid of the CO2, you can re-breathe that same air for a “long” time before it starts to get too low in O2 content and it starts to impact your survivability.
I’m sure he just wanted to test all (all) the food first to make sure his population doesn’t get poisoned; very commendable, really. Not everyone is a villain, you know!
We’re talking about a guy who said he could remotely de-classify documents by thinking real hard about them. Maybe he’s under the impression that the internet will magically shut down when he says “turn yourself off!” out loud three times.
The "Internet" isn't actually a thing. You can disrupt large portions of computer interconnectivity by targeting popular service providers and the larger traffic hubs. Because there is no central junction or single vendor or provider it isn't really something that can be completely shut off in one brush stroke. Note that television and voice calls and all money uses the same infrastructure. Selectively shutting off somethings and not others would be even harder.
Setting aside that making sense of things Trump suggests is pointless: one method would be a blanket order that telecom providers turn off access in a targeted area. I expect in America some portion of people would still figure out how to get connectivity, but cutting off 80% of internet access would still be very disruptive.
This is where I was leaning when thinking about it initially. It would almost have to be a non-technical solution. I’m guessing he’s more of an “internet for me, but not for thee” kind of turn-off-the-internet guy so infrastructure and service would need to operate on some level
In addition because the providers and cables are owned and operated by private companies the government would have a very hard time convincing telcos to do that.
Hell even internally you can’t with every major city having 2 or 3 places where providers can connect with Google, Amazon, Facebook, Cloudflare, Akamai. Not to mention all the private peering locations.
From a political POV, make legislation that says registered telcos must turn off telecommunications equipment connected to non US locations or black hole non us traffic when entering the country when requested by a government.
From a technical POV, have the Armed Forces drop depth charges on those cables where they cross our borders. Sure there would be legal challenges, but the damage would already be done, probably for years based on how prosecuting him for January 6th has gone.
Ordering Amazon to turn off their servers (or more likely block all but government-approved connections) would result in about 70% of the internet going offline, even without cutting the cables. This can be accomplished with emergency powers.
Poison or shut down US-based root DNS servers; also accomplishable with emergency powers, but the easiest to route around.
Yes, this would all be a phenomenally stupid idea. New York City alone lost ten billion dollars per day while they were offline from Sandy. My job - hell, the entire company I work for - would evaporate instantly with no internet, and so would the livelihoods of most Americans. But this fucking guy doesn’t care about any of that. Don’t think the law will get in his way, don’t think fear for the country’s future will stop him. If the rest of the government allows him to be a candidate and he gets elected, despite the Fourteenth Amendment, the US is toast.
Egypts internet infrastructure of 2011 does not equal US internet infrastructure of 2025. The US is too well connected to feasibly turn off the internet. With egypt in 2011 they only had to shut down five ISPs and that shut off the internet in their country.
He’d have his man-servant turn off the wifi on his phone. As long as the little symbol is gone, that means the internet no longer exists. Object Permanence isn’t his strong suit.
It’s a shitty Newsweek headline, is it 1700 planes or 1700 flights? The PLAAF does not even have 1700 planes I think.
In either case, this is worrying. One more reason Ukraine must be successful in its defence, to show that military expansionism is not a viable ideology today.
newsweek.com
Active