>>2334256

i'm big on the idea of a tomahawk launch…but…range on the tomahawk is published as 1550 miles (and i'm sure there's some fudge room in there…even if you add 20%…1900 miles?)

and hawaii is 2650 or so from whidbey.

i'm sure these are all related…but how, i still don't know.

still think we're looking for a (secretly already arrested) rogue flag officer (adm, vice adm, rear adm, rear adm lower half) though.

>>2334407

agreed that there were two FF, and not to confuse.

but

i have a major problem with the trident theory.

every article i find about the trident missiles indicates that EVERY live trident has nuclear warheads attached.

the president is the only person who can auth a nuke, and even then it has to go through a rigorous process of pentagon officials.

IF we launched a trident - EVERYONE would know. there would be no hiding that. the best they could do would be to say it was a test missile. our gov't might try to suppress a nuke detonation, but the rest of the world would be all over it.

UNLESS we can shoot down nukes without asploding them (and i don't think we can)

but even then, a trident launch would be noted by everyone on the sub, and again, up through the pentagon…no, we would fucking know about it. that would leak/slip.

it's too complicated and fantastic for that to be the case.

but

all Ohios also carry (or can carry) tomahawks, which have the guidance systems you link to in your earlier post, and are much better at hitting aircraft.

AND

they have the added benefit of an expedited launch sequence

AND

nobody would blink twice about a tomahawk firing exercise…the magnitude of difference in ordinance is enough for me to look sideways at the 'nuke' theory.

(i am not totally dismissing it, just letting you know how difficult of a time i have believing it.)

again - the CoC for a tomahawk is three people, and that's much easier to corrupt/spoof.

(i think)

still waiting for a navyfag to weigh in.

>>2334497

i want to hear more about your theory! tell me why.

i'll tell you my thought process first, though.

<<2311893

<Who has authority to launch a missle?

>nukes, only the president, smaller, the TSC

<Q said unauthorized, so…

>either the president/pentagon was spoofed/bypassed or the TSC was spoofed/bypassed

<<2311980

<Given CoC process to launch what does this tell you?

>top level skipped

<CLAS removal WASH minutes after.

>they arrested someone as a result (in WASHington state or WASHington DC - unclear)

<Q

if it was foreign, i would expect more of our military to react, and not simply stand-down.

if our military was given the stand-down, and then later learned that this was an attempt to hit HI or POTUS, they would massively revolt.

>>2334556

>>2334542

i think that's enough to keep the Triton D5 on the table as a possibility, thanks!

a blunt-force D5 impact with AF1 would be disasterous.

are test firings a matter of public record? do you think an FOIA request could unearth details about "test firings" if that were the case?

>>2334556

>>2334542

(to add - i have read a ton about naval efficiency today. i have major doubts that there are any "test tritons" out in the sea right now…they value those payloads/bays too highly to give room for a test which they don't plan to fire. food for thought)

>>2334580

lol.

i'm going to trust my own knowledge and understanding before i trust exopolitics. your mileage may vary.

Q asks us to apply occam's razor.

it's much much simpler (if you read about how tomahawk firings are authorized) to compromise a single Flag Officer and blackmail him/her into sending a launch order to a Fire Controlman than it is to anticipate an entire spook-sub roaming the seas.

granted - i'm not saying exopolitics is wrong, or that that scenario is impossible…just that the simpler answer is internal corruption.

thanks.

>>2334596

yeah - that resonates.

and it's why i still think 'internal corruption' is the problem.

but again - anons investigate avery avenue, not telling anyone to ignore their instincts.

i just know what i think.

last thought on the "conventional" or "test trident" theory.

trident launches could accidentally trigger a world war, immediately…we scrapped a plan to arm tridents with conventional explosives (or just to leave them as battering rams) for fear that they'd be mistaken as traditional tridents.

for this reason, again, i have serious doubts that either of the FF launches were truly D5s.

(but hey, man, that's just my opinion. night anons, hope we learn more tomorrow)