this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
20 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10697 readers
726 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I can't vouch for the author at all, but this seems like a nice detailed, technical look at the difference between the two.

TL;DR the 212CD is very good at what in biology would be called "sit and wait predation". It's designed to sneak into an ocean floor crevice and hang out there, possibly for for weeks until something comes by, and then attack it. The Hanwha offering, on the other hand, is less superlatively stealthy and maneuverable, but is much more flexible, allowing missile launches and likely having a much longer range.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 hours ago (12 children)

"Land-attack capability via cruise and/or non-nuclear ballistic missiles"

Canada needs nukes.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 1 points 9 hours ago (10 children)
[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 hours ago (9 children)
[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That would solve nothing because they would be condemned for using it.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The point of nukes is to not use them. Countries with nukes negotiate. Countries without nukes get preyed upon.

Your comment is ridiculous considering there is an active war of invasion in Ukraine at present, and they traded their nukes in exchange for a promise not to invade. In retrospect, the nukes would have been better.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

And if Russia doesn’t stop? What would you suggest they do?

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Why are all you comments hopelessly misconstrued?

If they had nukes, there would have been no invasion.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And if Russia said “fuck it” and called their bluff, what should Ukraine do?

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 0 points 42 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 minutes ago (1 children)

I did. This sounds suspiciously like trolling.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 1 points 3 minutes ago

It’s not like trolling. I’m asking you a legitimate question and you keep copying and pasting bullshit. Answer with your own words.

If Ukraine got a nuclear weapon and Russia continued to do what it’s doing without using your nuclear weapons, what do you think Ukraine should do about it?

Answer with your own words otherwise you are the fucking troll

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)