A-score (14.98): Moderate constitutional concern. Separation driver scores 3 (unilateral military repositioning without clear congressional consultation on major escalatory action). Violence driver scores 4 (nuclear submarine repositioning represents significant escalation risk, though not immediate violence). Rule_of_law scores 1 (questionable adherence to war powers norms). Severity multipliers: durability 0.9 (reversible order), reversibility 1.1 (can be undone but creates precedent), precedent 1.2 (normalizes reactive military escalation to rhetoric). Mechanism modifier 1.15 for policy_change. Scope modifier 1.3 for international with broad population impact. B-score (36.01): High distraction/hype. Layer 1 (18.7/34): outrage_bait 9 (nuclear war framing), meme_ability 7 (submarines/nuclear war), novelty 8 (unusual reactive posture), media_friendliness 10 (perfect headline material). Layer 2 (17.31/32): mismatch 9 (massive military response to ex-official comments), timing 7, narrative_pivot 8 (shifts from domestic to existential threat), pattern_match 8 (classic distraction playbook). Intentionality 12/15 (reactive to rhetoric, sensational framing, vague sourcing, disproportionate response) yields 0.54 weight. D-score: -21.03. Classification: List B (B>=25, D<=-10). This is primarily a hype-driven event with disproportionate response to non-official rhetoric creating nuclear escalation narrative.