Candlewhisper Archive wrote:All submarines are "almost impossible" to track or detect, to a given value of "almost impossible".
do need to edit that. I don't know what new technology submarines would have; I just looked up "new sub technology" and it said that the US is making a hard-to-track sub. What 'revolutionary' tech would a sub have?
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Subs that can carry nuclear payloads are not exactly new developments. 1960, I think, was when the first SLBM was developed.
the nuclear part isn't supposed to be revolutionary, it's the part above.
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Additionally, I agree with all Trotterdam's points. The only real issue here is the noxious fumes and why that happened. The sub itself is highly unlikely to do anything other than harmlessly crash, and there's no real risk here of a nuclear meltdown of any sort.
The issue is supposed to be what to do with top secret technology that might fall into enemy hands. Not about it crashing, although that was in a previous draft. In option 2, I refer to the noxious fumes, although I'm sure if it fits or not.