It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Submarines In The North Pole!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
The Americans have a submarine squadron there on a continuous basis, the Russians presumably do as well. This site will give you a bit of an idea of some of what's going on up there.

www.carc.org...

This is the Arctic Submarine Laboratory site, which illustrates that there is an ongoing military presence and testing in the area.

www.csp.navy.mil...




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mcphisto
Oh I know the US Navy wouldnt do things like that without telling us. Of course they wouldnt!
Would they?

An anecdote of my experience:
While I was still at the recruiting station getting "tested," I wound up scoring 97% on my ASVAB test...They told me that I qualified for any rating I wanted. They tried to push a nuclear field on me at the time, but I stuck to my guns: I told them that I may someday want to have kids, not mutant blobs of radioactive protoplasm. They replied that it was a good answer but the NAVY has never had any kind of nuclear accident on record. I returned with, "At least, none that you'd be able to admit." The person conducting my "qualifying interview" had very wide eyes at that point...And nothing else to say.

I wound up as OTM...Loosely defined, it's a computer technician/maintenance field that does require Secret-level (minimum) security clearance...



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by iori_komei
the arctic
ice sheet is'nt a large piece of evenly thick ice.


I wouldn't think so, but still, 5 to 6 feet thick? Ummm, I find that somewhat amazingly thin..for an area that is as frigid as the artic..

This is because running water can't freeze...Unless the temperature approaches "absolute zero." There's no natural place on Earth that gets that cold. There are still sub-surface currents that keep water moving. Also, tempratures above the waterline fluctuate far more than temperatures under the surface. Besides, they also can use sonar to judge the thickness of surface ice before they try to surface.
Speaking of cold water, did you know that if you fall overboard in waters any cooler than sub-tropical, you could die of hypothermia in less than five minutes...It takes a ship 10-15 minutes just to turn around to come back for you. They're more likely to launch dingies (& helicopters, if they have them) to search & recover while the ship merely tries to stop.


Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Training for what? Launching missles? Not trying to be condescending, just curious what types of missions they do.

Perhaps...But they're not likely to fire off live missles with armed warheads for "training". However, I was stationed on a ship that participated in the RIMPAC '90 exercises in the vicinity of Hawaii. During the battle exercises, they would "fire" duds with their weapons & through computer simulations that would calculate hits & damage. I had the opportunity to witness several ships "test fire" their weapons with live ammo, including the "legendary" Battleship Missouri (16" cannons that fire shells that weigh about the same as a Volkswagon Beetle!) fire at an "imaginary target" just over the horizon (a good 15+ miles down-range). It's not hard for me to imagine that submarines would occasionally do similar training.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Folks--

I hate to tell you this--BUT---. The US and Russian Navies have been making trans arctic trips and surfacing in thin ice for nearly my entire Generation, and I'm 60 years old. You have to understand that the the shortest route between here and Siberia is under the North Pole.

Yes, for what it's worth, they train to launch missiles--and a lot of other things. One of those reasons for surfacing is the taking of weather and magnetic data readings. The Weather data taken by our nuclear submarine fleet is essentially what has been used to determine the extent of Global Warming.

For what it's worth, the first underwater trans arctic voyage was accomplished by the USS Nautilus, our first nuclear powered boat, and under the leadership of it's Skipper, then Captain Jimmie Carter. Interestingly, it was Jimmie Carter who designed the Reactor that powered the Nautilus, as well as it's first Commander.

Sorry--none of this is new.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Ed Littlefox]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
How about someone posts some links with some data about the actual height and number of thin ice spots in the poles before we jump to conclusions about global warming or anything else.

As of now I have not found any detailed information that states that there are more spots of 5-6 ft ice at the poles than in decades past, or that there used to be less of them. This thread is about the SUBS impacting the environment, not a Datsun or can of AquaNet.



Subs are not going to break through ice that is any thicker than that!!
I don't need any "sources" to realize that much..



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mcphisto
Some amazing pictures of sub's in the North Pole. Whilst these pics are great to look at, I can only wonder what damage they are causing that fragile enviroment.


I was wondering if you could explain what causes you to believe the arctic environment is fragile, and if you could elaborate on which specific characteristics are fragile and why?

Thanks.







[edit on 10/12/06 by Mcphisto]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan...
Yes they are a hazard to that envioroment, they stay out for months at a time and get rid of lots of waste, both industrial and human under that ice. To think otherwise is delusional.


By industrial waste I am assuming you mean small amounts of solvents and chemicals used in everyday operations. Except in an emergency those are not dumped. They are stored onboard and removed back in port to be disposed of properly.

Human waste is treated like all ships at sea, including private pleasure craft. Human waste is collected in onboard septic tanks and treated with enzymes that break down any solid waste and partially decompose liquid waste. After the waste is sufficiently treated the tank is dumped at sea under a prescribed set of conditions -- water depth, distance from any shore, ocean current conditions, etc. It disperses quickly without any unacceptable effects on sea life. The discharge of human waste at sea has been studied and restudied and studied again by virtually every sea-going nation in the world, and has been deemed safe as long as certain protocols are met.

The enzymes used are the same as used in recreational vehicles (slight differences due to salt vs fresh water). You can buy bottles at any camping supply store. Large ships just use more of it.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54

Originally posted by LoneGunMan...
Yes they are a hazard to that envioroment, they stay out for months at a time and get rid of lots of waste, both industrial and human under that ice. To think otherwise is delusional.


By industrial waste I am assuming you mean small amounts of solvents and chemicals used in everyday operations. Except in an emergency those are not dumped. They are stored onboard and removed back in port to be disposed of properly.

Human waste is treated like all ships at sea, including private pleasure craft. Human waste is collected in onboard septic tanks and treated with enzymes that break down any solid waste and partially decompose liquid waste. After the waste is sufficiently treated the tank is dumped at sea under a prescribed set of conditions -- water depth, distance from any shore, ocean current conditions, etc. It disperses quickly without any unacceptable effects on sea life. The discharge of human waste at sea has been studied and restudied and studied again by virtually every sea-going nation in the world, and has been deemed safe as long as certain protocols are met.

The enzymes used are the same as used in recreational vehicles (slight differences due to salt vs fresh water). You can buy bottles at any camping supply store. Large ships just use more of it.


Well said. Also, I think it's appropriate to point out that the mass of human waste generated on all sea going vessles around the world is negligable in comparison to the mass of bodily wastes generated by all organisms living in the oceans (and I'm quite sure they do not treat their waste).



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Mcphisto
Some amazing pictures of sub's in the North Pole. Whilst these pics are great to look at, I can only wonder what damage they are causing that fragile enviroment.


I was wondering if you could explain what causes you to believe the arctic environment is fragile, and if you could elaborate on which specific characteristics are fragile and why?

Thanks.

So I take it you dont think this part of the world is worth worrying about?

Stupid me!

Lets all just take our fleet of subs upo there and piss about as much as we can, coz nothings worth a toss up there in the Artic!

I hope you live close to the sea, you may just get a ocean view in a couple of years, who knows?

If you want proof, Google it instead of asking me to do it for you! Lazy bones!







[edit on 10/12/06 by Mcphisto]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Sorry to go off topic very briefly but I need to make a clarification.

In one of my previous posts (12/12 1:54 PM) it appears that an edit was mde by another poster. That is cleary not the case. I made an error while quoting which displaced that posters edit note from his original post.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
McPhisto, Contrary to your assumption, I do think the environment is worth worrying about. I just wondered why you labled the arctic as friagile? Is the Sahara fragile? The Amazon basin? Death Valley?

I'm just curious as to what makes an environment fragile. Would you care to expand?

You can probably guess that I don't think the environment is "fragile" IMO it is extremely durable and resilient, as are most of the the eco/bio systems that live within it.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
McPhisto, Contrary to your assumption, I do think the environment is worth worrying about. I just wondered why you labled the arctic as friagile? Is the Sahara fragile? The Amazon basin? Death Valley?

I'm just curious as to what makes an environment fragile. Would you care to expand?

You can probably guess that I don't think the environment is "fragile" IMO it is extremely durable and resilient, as are most of the the eco/bio systems that live within it.


Well my reason for calling it fragile is that I believe you can only tamper with it so much before you alter the make up of that region, which will have a knock-on affect. It may not be fragile to you, or the next man. But I consider it fragile, its up to ones opinion I guess. I worry about the future of this planet for my children etc, do you? If you do then you must consider it fragile too!

And I also consider the Earth as one big organism, if you mess with one bit, it will affect the other parts too. So you see, this is why I wonder at what damage 50 yrs of sub's cruising around the N. Pole does. I dont mean breaking a sheet of ice, but torpedo tests, even dumping the odd sump tank now and then.

Take a look here and see what a mess we are in.
www.greenpeace.org...
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...



www.crystalinks.com...
The Arctic has never been under the political control of any nation, although some nations' militaries have attached a strategic importance to the region. In the 1950s and 1960s, the arctic was often used by submarines to test new weapons, sonar equipment, and depth testing.During the Cold War, the Arctic region was extensively monitored by the United States military, since it was the opinion of the said military that the first warnings of a Soviet Union nuclear strike would have been indicated by ICBMs launched over the North Pole towards the United States. The United States placed such importance on the region that two military decorations, the Arctic Service Ribbon and Coast Guard Arctic Service Medal, were established for military duty performed within the arctic circle.


McP



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
Folks--

For what it's worth, the first underwater trans arctic voyage was accomplished by the USS Nautilus, our first nuclear powered boat, and under the leadership of it's Skipper, then Captain Jimmie Carter. Interestingly, it was Jimmie Carter who designed the Reactor that powered the Nautilus, as well as it's first Commander.

Sorry--none of this is new.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Ed Littlefox]


Sorry -----none of this is correct either.

The first commander of the USS Nautilus was Commander Eugene P. Wilkinson.

The design of the reactor that powered the USS Nautilus was a group led by Captain Hyman G. Rickover, who was later put in charge of all nuclear submarines when he was promoted to Admiral.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mcphisto

Well my reason for calling it fragile is that I believe you can only tamper with it so much before you alter the make up of that region, which will have a knock-on affect.


Humanity, as well as almost all forms of life, have altered the make up of the entire planet since it was capable of supporting life. Yet the planet thrives. I think this alone shows the earth/environment/ecosystem is not fragile.



I worry about the future of this planet for my children etc, do you? If you do then you must consider it fragile too!


I do. But I worry about real concerns for the future like overpopulation, indiscriminant use of anti-biotics which weaken us as a species, government intervention in our personal choices, extratererrstrial catastrophes such as unforseen solar events or planetary impacts. IMO these things are a much greater threat to our future than coal burning power plants, automobiles, or submarines.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
Training for what? Launching missles? Not trying to be condescending, just curious what types of missions they do.


I don't know the mission of the sub in the original post's photo, but, believe it or not, some US Navy submarines take research scientists to the arctic to conduct environmental studies. See the link.

nsidc.org...

The sub is probably the best way to get the scientists there. IMO, I'd be afraid to land a plane, since (with my luck) I'd probably find one of the thin parts of the ice. And a helicopter would need to fly a long, long way from a home base to get there.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 26-12-2006 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Mcphisto
 

Don't worry. Seawolf-class attack submarines are environmentally friendly
even while defending our liberties.



new topics




 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join