He (and his wife) will be old and grey, before they’ll be able to walk more than 100 yards, in a straight line.
Sub secrets are the most sensitive secrets we have (probably on par with the names of highly-placed assets). There will be no leniency.
The foreign country probably knew they’d be up shit’s creek, if they got caught.
Source? I can't imagine what kind of secrets an opponent could want about a sub. I can see how operational data about the disposition of the fleet is useful, but the subs themselves? Subs have a ball of Pu powering a steam turbine that runs propulsion and onboard electronics. Some of them have strategic missiles for killing cities, some of them have torpedoes for killing ships and other subs.
Not asking for any secret data, obviously. Just wondering what kind of secret data is even useful to an adversary.
Since military tech is a cat and mouse game, having access to stealth tech could put you ahead of your competitors in the arms race, until they design another level of protection that makes current tech obsolete.
AIUI the mostly tightly held secrets are around the acoustics - acoustic signature, propeller design, that sort of thing. A sub relies on being hidden to carry out its mission, so anything that helps an opponent to find your subs has to be well guarded.
Naval reactors are basically a miniaturised version of a power station reactor. Some of the latest HEU ones are designed for the fuel to last for the life of the boat.
It's like asking why rocket engines are under ITAR. Rockets are just ICBMs without a warhead.
Knowing a technologies capabilities means you can focus on defeating the exact specs of the tech.
For example, F-22s purposely fly around with pods that deteriorate its stealth capabilities so nobody, not even allies, knows exactly how a F-22 looks like on radar/can study it closely.
Not an expert, but that's what comes to mind.
two security-related things that stuck with me were:
a) there is a door that leads to the reactor compartment, and that entire section of the ship is off-limits to him. he had a thorough background check before going, and someone from the Navy reviewed all his footage before he could publish it. but despite all that, he's not allowed to even be in the part of the ship where the reactor is. excellent defense-in-depth (pun not intended).
b) when discussing sonar, the XO was sitting right there along with the sonarman, to make sure nothing classified was recorded. there were a few times where the XO said "nope nope nope, can't talk about that". the most interesting one to me was, IIRC, a question about the active sonar system being relatively high frequency sound, and if they used any lower frequencies...they cut immediately after that.
how to build a nuclear reactor is relatively well-known. but, how do you make a silent nuclear reactor? that's really only useful for a submarine. it wouldn't surprise me if existing commercial reactor designs would need to be completely redesigned for submarine use.
for an example of how much research goes into making subs silent, there is a very deep lake in Idaho the US Navy has used for acoustic testing since World War 2 [0]
the navy also has almost 70 years [1] of operational experience with nuclear reactors on subs. I imagine there's a enormous pile of "minor" things they've figured out as they chase down every last source of uncontrolled noise on the boat.
0: https://jalopnik.com/the-navys-most-vital-and-secretive-subm...
https://www.economist.com/img/b/640/724/90/sites/default/fil...
Honestly Australia doesn't need nuclear sub. The only things they can do that diesel-electric sub couldn't is offensive missions in water further for the Australian costs. That might be useful if Australia decides to go fight in an hypothetical war against China but that would mostly serve the interest of the USA.
Diesel-electric was probably a better choice because Australia would have been able to service them. As is, they will be bound to the USA.
why do you think nuclear subs have to be moving to cool the reactor?
Blind Mans Bluff is as good a place to start as any I guess.
During and before World War II, the U.S. had a category of classified information called Restricted, which was below confidential. The U.S. no longer has a Restricted classification, but many other nations and NATO do. The U.S. treats Restricted information it receives from other governments as Confidential. The U.S. does use the term restricted data in a completely different way to refer to nuclear secrets, as described above.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/15/us-will-s...
[2] https://defense360.csis.org/what-is-the-importance-of-the-au...
I don't know either. And if Russians wanted it, they wouldn't have had an interest in a wayward scientist — that would be just too American style.
Rather, I'd say they would've gone after a person who could've given it to them on a golden platter, rather than having to read through somebody amateurish spy scoop compilation. That would be more Russian.
They had few spooks, but they spared no expense, and went to any lengths in getting somebody high rank like Ames, or Hansen.
Now... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia...
An example of how seriously the US takes this kind of thing look back to history. After Walker leaked secrets the US started getting even more protective of its submarine programs. The combination of power, propulsion, stealth, and attack capabilities make them the pinnacle of deployable mobile power. A carrier group can start a war, a single submarine can finish one with 24x12 100kt warheads.
The density of sensitive information relating to submarines is very very high.
India is a stretch. Having routinely dealt with Indian companies, there would be endless negotiations and squabbling over money. Endless.
The first contact was in april 2020. It's either Russia or China.
If a nation knows too much about the subs of the other nation, then it's quite possible that they may consider a first strike.
It's a horrible thought, but people can be really barking mad.
The Virginia-class sub is a fast attack sub; not a boomer, but the tech used between them is very similar.
I'm actually surprised that people don't know why subs are such a big deal, but I guess shouldn't be. The Cold War was really bad (my father was in the CIA). People, these days, may not know what it was like. I grew up in the Cold War. the current couple of generations have had the luxury of not growing up in that, but we may be bringing the band back together for a reunion tour.
"On or about December 20, 2020, the FBI’s attaché (“LEGAT”) in COUNTRY1 obtained a package representatives from COUNTRY1 had received in April 2020 through a mail carrier from the U.S. by an unidentified subject in an attempt to establish a covert relationship."
Per Wikipedia:
> Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.[1] This typically includes acts such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...
I think the problem is that it needs to involve an enemy of the USA to be treason. Enemy as in declared enemy, not just hostile to.
John Walker[1] gave sub secrets to Russia, and didn’t get a treason charge (but he may have turned state’s evidence to reduce his charge). He did die “mysteriously,” a year before he was eligible for parole. He was about as bad as you can get.
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Clearly and narrowly defining it in the constitution was a step to stop the clear abuses they had witnessed.
Look around even in this thread with everyone talking Treason.
I mean why not call it terrorism? Because terrorism is a blanket term that puts people outside of the normal legal system - e.g. 'outlaws' - and has them taken off to inhumane internment camps like Guantanamo Bay, where rule of law or the Geneva convention no longer apply. Apparently.
One day the US will / should be tried for war crimes, but since they have nukes and veto rights in the UN that's unlikely to happen. They've already indicated they would not hesitate to deploy troops to The Hague to extract any of their (former) leaders if they end up there.