MILITARY

Tragedy Under The Sea

A common accident on a Russian submarine may have turned fatal because of overcrowding.

By Anna Nemtsova | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 10, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: The genius @ 12/14/2008 10:31:00 AM

    Madness of the USA increases. Do not strain to the priest. All the American priests will be roasted from reciprocal Russian impact. It so now, and through any time in the future. Fairy tales, dreams, the advertising companies, getting of money from the state are employment of the American military strategists.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 11/12/2008 9:57:13 AM

    Glenno, Russia does have options. The US missile deployment is purely defensive. Russia is not threatened at all by ABMs. They can simply ignore the US missiles since they are NO threat, and actually add local security by providing an Eastern Eurpoean defense against Iranian offensive missiles. The cold war is over. Much of the US nuclear power fuel comes from decommissioned Russian nuclear weapons.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/15/2008 9:17:01 PM

      "Glenno, Russia does have options. The US missile deployment is purely defensive. Russia is not threatened at all by ABMs. "

      Except that we could then strike Russia, and they could not strike back.

      Defensive, my ass.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 11/12/2008 3:39:21 PM

      Ma'am, taken in the context of our last few years of behavior, any military system in Ivan's backyard is a threat. We have tossed out plenty of treaties and made others null and void by action. Your premise is that we would keep our word and only base the few interceptor missiles we propose.
      If I we're on Ivans General Staff, such an assumption would be suicide. Ivan no longer has the ability to monitor our activities the ways he once did. We could quietly surround him with systems in a few years time that would remove his nuclear deterrent credibility. His people suspect this possible by 2012-15. Of course, I read his papers and understand his concerns.
      From a strategic perspective, Defensive missiles are Offensive if you place them close enough to cause an effect on another nations offensive choices. Ivan's missile detection and defense systems are absolutely primitive. If we place him into a situation where he is more likely to shoot because of a percieved threat, then he likely will. The 40+ year technical gap exposes him in ways you can not reassure by sticking missiles into him like suppositories.

      • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 11/13/2008 9:24:46 AM

        We have to consider all of the threat capabilites and likelihoods. At this point Ivan is pretty much out of the threat likelihood. Ivan and the US are still well above MAD levels and ABM capabilities are too weak to keep MAD from happening. Russia, like the US, has a well developed bureauocracy that makes nuclear war hard to pass. Iran, on the other hand, has an agressive and small ruling class. While we must consider Ivan to some extent the more serious threat is Iran. A society that accepts suicide bombers with nuclear capability is far scarier than a Russia that has had H-bombs for about 70 years without using them. Ivan may not like our ABMs, but Ivan isn't into suicide.

        I think I saw a program where European countries are developing a quiet third power source sub with decent range, I think it was something like natural gas or fuel cells. I wonder if the EU could sell that type of sub to India. It would be safer, and EU can build in the weapons platforms needed without nuclear power. We don't need another Kursk.

        • Posted By: Braes @ 11/13/2008 1:24:47 PM

          Ivan doesn't believe this. We have over 4800 Standard Missile III's in the fleet that can with a software modification shoot a cold object in space. These are aboard several classes of surface combatants.
          Integrated into our global ABM capacity, Ivan feels that we are successfully neutering his capacity, and could have the capability within the next few years.
          Ivan is very correct.
          Ivan has watched us shoot ICBM's from Vandenberg AFB, and shoot them down from Alaska's Ft. Greely, a roughly 90deg intercept at 5000+mi range.
          Ivan can use a protractor and map. Ft. Greely covers several of his time zones, and a facility in Eastern Europe would provide overlapping coverage.
          Ivan won't allow that under any circumstances that he does not dictate or control. He is done getting slapped around.
          The problem with the Kursk was not it's propulsion system. The Kursk suffered multiple explosions forward. They were unable to control the fire, and unable to secure enough bulkheads to maintain bouyancy.
          The German Submarine you saw is a very quiet class of boat, and we will not be giving that technology to anyone. It is good enough a boat that it can get to just about any target and make a kill. You were right on fuel cells.

          • Posted By: Braes @ 11/13/2008 2:34:15 PM

            Now as for the 800# Gorilla in the room, Iran, there are planty of untried options that do not involve an Eastern European deployment of an ABM system. We can eliminate any embargoes of Medical, Foodstuff, or other non-dual use sales, after all, Halliburton has been making money in Iran for years, in direct violation of many laws. We can place the Radar system in many locations favorable to our interests that are not directly under Ivan's nose. We can still provide Poland and the Czech Republic the equipment they need to defend themselves without any offensive threat to Russia. The USAF 3 Star General who is retiring next week has tossed a lot of flame toward the incoming Administration about the National Missile Defense system basing. Generals do not make policy and are not elected politicians. He is out of line.
            The question is not one of capacity or improvements since 2000.
            The question is do I want allies or enemies, international support or hate. Unilateralism and calling Russia hysterical and dismissing their objections has been stupid. Changing the basing model will not as the General suggests "Weaken American Leadership of NATO." I'd say rendition, Afghanistan, Iraq, insults and other such things have done just fine to weaken our diplomatic standing in the world, let alone NATO. What the General wants is a great big USAF piece of the NMD pie, when most of it is Army and Navy based. Good old fashioned interservice rivalry.
            Now, honestly, I can accomplish nothing in this world without Russia, China, India, Brazil and a host of others on board. I will not be able to dictate terms and conditions to anyone, but have to negotiate. Russia can run Irans nuclear fuel cycle with no problems here. The "peaceful atom" has been United States policy since the Eisenhower Administration. Let Iran boil water and make electricity. As far as wiping Israel off the map and other nonsense, Israel has it's own ABM systems and help from us. They also have enough nukes to bust anyone they wanted to shoot, anywhere. An attack on Israel would be the complete end of all of Persia, and much of humanity in the resulting global damage. You can not put that much Iran at 80,000ft, glowing, and expect good crop performance for a bunch of years.
            The DoD has more band members, or lawyers, than the State Department has diplomats.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 11/14/2008 1:05:54 AM

    The latest news story is about the Ukraine looking to install Russian surface to surface missiles targeted at the proposed US missile installations. I find this a valid, measured response to a measured threat. Georgia's problem was resolved rapidly and with almost no escalation. Russia has an energy dependent economy and energy prices are in the toilet. They are also Euro dependent. This is showing that no matter how much saber rattling is coming from the Kremlin that Russia and company is not a serious real threat any more. We shouldn't let down our guard, but we can afford to put ABMs where we want them in NATO without an active military response from Russia.

    India can still purchase German fuel cell subs. Germany has the quiet technology, but that doesn't mean they have to build a quiet sub for India. Leave out enough quiet tech to make the sub detectable to NATO and there is a sellable product which will not be a NATO threat.

    The Kursk may not have been a reactor problem, but it did leave a Russian quality nuclear reactor on the sea floor. Fortunately it was in water shallow enough to recover. The exploson was at the other end of the ship and in fairly shallow water this time. We were lucky. Russia trying to build any nuclear sub or surface ship under the current economic situation scares the hell out of me.

  • Posted By: Glenno @ 11/11/2008 7:20:14 PM

    Now that America is insisting on placing missiles on Russias border, Russia has no choice but to update their fleet to bring their nukes closer to US by submarines. America would be wise to wait a few years until the updated Russian submarines are ready, as it would not be in anyones interest to have a nucear incident on the American coast

    • Posted By: leeschill @ 11/12/2008 8:09:06 PM

      Glenno is cluless about Nuo Subs....Ballistic Subs are Farther from our shore now than they were in 1980's....when we knew exactly where they were at least 4 out of 5 days. "There is no defence in the deep"....SOSUS

    • Posted By: Braes @ 11/12/2008 3:24:14 PM

      I think that as political winds change, so will the placement of ABM systems near Russia. As for any threat from Russian submarines to the United States, including accidents, Russian boats are still very noisy and very trackable and detectable. It is not really a valuable threat process.
      The United States can achieve it's defensive ABM needs without provocation. It is the flaw of certain thinkers to assume Russia would just accept a threat placed under their nose. The necessary Radar Systems can really be placed far away from Russia, as well the missiles. The politics of this Administrations plays of old-europe vs. new europe should be taken into account. Likewise the issue in Georgia recently. These people have been reckless and stupid, with no strategic goal.
      The placement of the Iskander systems near the Kaliningrad Region would more than offset any United States project.

  • Posted By: Seattle206 @ 11/11/2008 4:38:06 PM

    This has to be disheartening to the Indians. They've already suffered other gaffes, miscues and delays from the Russians. If I'm not mistaken, Russia was to rebuild and sell one of its aging aircraft carriers (The Varyag?), but that project was beset by engineering delays, cost overruns and other technical problems. Seems they'd be better off buying a used attack sub from the US, British or French.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 11/12/2008 4:25:51 PM

      India has the resources and cash to buy from Russia, and there is a great deal of technical co-operation. Setbacks in weapons development are as common as success. We pancaked one of our first F-22's because a software flaw didn't understand a High AoA Low Airspeed, gear transition configuration. Ouch is part of the process. This class of boat is really being stretched with this model, and the sea trials are of necessity a dangerous process. What is a shame is that the discharging of the agent was likely due to someone lighting a cigarette. The fact that a state prosecutor has opened a case tends to indicate this.

  • Posted By: Holly Garfield @ 11/11/2008 1:06:17 AM

    A nuclear submarine is a project where compromise and budgeting are very, very dangerous. The US had the Thresher, Russia had the Kursk. The end of the cold war has not been kind to the Russian military budget. It may be time for India to wait until it can build its own nuclear submarine. India has mostly local military threats, where diesel subs can be useful. Nuclear subs are only necessary for global threats.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 11/12/2008 3:48:04 PM

      It is not the powerplant that India is seeking, but the capability of this class of attack boats. We tend to like cruise missiles too. Attack boats have really grown past the maritime role.

      • Posted By: Braes @ 11/12/2008 4:05:35 PM

        The BrahMos has been developed as a joint venture between the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) of India and the Federal State Unitary Enterprise NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM) of Russia under BrahMos Aerospace. The missile is named after two rivers, the Brahmaputra and the Moskva.

        Between late 2004 and early 2008, the missile has undergone several tests from variety of platforms including a land based test from Pokhran desert, in which the S maneuver at Mach 2.8 was demonstrated for the Indian Army and a launch in which the land attack capability from sea was demonstrated.[1]

        A Mach 5 system is under development. India is not a signatory to any treaty prohibiting this.

  • Posted By: Glenno @ 11/10/2008 6:37:28 PM

    It is great that Medvedev is putting focus on updating the naval fleet as it became outdated through the difficult 90's

    • Posted By: Braes @ 11/12/2008 3:43:04 PM

      While it is the fastest way to improve your strategic capacity, it will come at great cost and not as much benefit. Good job off Somalia btw.

  • Posted By: Combat Goldfish @ 11/11/2008 1:24:02 PM

    You'd imagine that they'd have a maximum occupancy sign. D???oh

  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/11/2008 10:43:15 AM

    Well, that sucks. Poor bastards.

  • Posted By: anOPINIONATEDsob @ 11/10/2008 11:01:18 PM

    War is a dangerous game to play. Perhaps some bright sunny day we all will decide that the game is not worth the sacrifices we make to play. No matter then reasons for this accident, once again we must pray the brave rest in peace and someone takes good care of their loved ones.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse