It weighs 50 tons and is 51 feet could anything really mess with that?

[0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a263440...

Definitely. Here’s a case where a far larger submarine got caught in a net: https://outdoors360.com/fishing-boat-snags-220-foot-submarin...

This article talks about how the submarine usually ends up severely damaging any fishing boat unlucky enough to get tangled.

Absolutely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

That article is about an incident involving aircraft, I don't think that is what you meant to link.

It's a large, heavy object being easily interfered with.

(The parent comment said "It weighs 50 tons and is 51 feet could anything really mess with that?" An EP-3 weighs 67.5 tons and is 105 feet long.)

The same applies to submarines and a net around the propeller.

(It's also a good example of the sort of diplomatic fuss that ensues after this sort of incident, too.)

Ok, so all you have to do to interfere with the robotic sub is crash a jet into it?

Posting a link to a completely unrelated article with 0 explanation is idiotic, especially when there are plenty of examples of incidents that actually involve submarines.

The point: "It's long and heavy" isn't any sort of good reason to believe it can't be messed with. That incident also demonstrates China's willingness to play chicken with US assets.

Throw a steel cable into its prop, get too close using another sub or two, etc.

How is the situation any different than at the moment?

If you can capture an autonomous submarine just by throwing a net over it, then presumably you can also capture a manned submarine in the same way? What difference do the bodies inside make in terms of being able to capture it? Just better at evading?

And losing a submarine compared to losing a submarine and the people inside it seems a better deal, doesn't it?

It's a lot more justifiable to use deadly force to respond when human lives are being placed at risk. The diplomatic consequences are likely to be different, as well.

> You mean precious lives of Americans.

I really don't. Switch the nationalities and my answer is the same - self-defense when human lives are at risk is a lot more justifiable than self-defense of a robot. People are worth more than electronics.

This is a fair point I agree with.

Is it also justifiable to use deadly force in the response to actions not involving deadly force and only hypothetically putting lives at risk?

Because this is what you said in your original comment.

I said, and I quote: "can it defend itself? Should it?"

Armed, unmanned robots change the calculus on both sides of an engagement.

I meant to refer to "It's a lot more justifiable to use deadly force to respond when human lives are being placed at risk"

It should, and almost certainly does, have scuttling charges. Alternatively there could be an “incident” although that’s less desireable.