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.

 

Russia escaped a nuclear Armageddon on New Year's Eve?

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Russia escaped a nuclear Armageddon on New Year's Eve?


rt.com

There are claims in the Russian media; the country was within a hair’s breadth of a disaster comparable to Chernobyl a few weeks ago. It is alleged a strategic missile-carrying sub was on fire for more than a day with its entire arsenal aboard.

­According to Kommersant-Vlast magazine the submarine K-84 ‘Ekaterinburg’ was undergoing minor repairs when it caught fire on December 29 during routine maintenance at a dry dock in Murmansk in Northern Russia. The missiles had not been offloaded as the repairs were regarded as minor, and the sub was due to return to service early in 2012
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Could you imagine the state of the planet had this have gone the other way, while i'm extremely glad this was averted it makes me incredibly angry still just thinking about the current nuclear situation in the world

There are far to many nukes on the planet already, Russia who have the vast majority of them and the US secondly, enough to destroy the world a thousand times over, thats without the hundreds of nuclear reactors on the planet going bang in the aftermath. we don't stand a chance, and this out come is in the hands of a very few, when one drops they're all going to drop in short succession,

The world seriously needs to pull its finger out and call for a MASSIVE decrees of nukes by all nations if not the total disarmament of nukes making them illegal unless of a peaceful usage, yet every nation on the planet would still like to own them, are we absolutely stupid?, we should be calling for nations to disarm rather then deciding on whether nations are responsible enough to own them, such as the situation in Iran, which imo they're not responsible enough with its funding & aiding terrorist attacks on the people of Israel,

Incredible, just what the world would have needed another nuclear disaster, it might have been better this did happen as another reminder because after Chernobyl and Fukushima the world still thinks more nukes is a good idea, forget this crap with Iran, we should be pushing for every single country on the planet not having a single nuke, forget which nation is a threat to another possessing them, for with these devises they're a threat to every single living creature on this planet, why does no one mention or think about this? other then get entangled with who has the right to own them, BS no one does,



rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 14-2-2012 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Just crazy.

I was under the impression that most nukes would only actually detonate on a full scale if armed and properly launched, not just if they were in a fire. Same thing as if a plane carrying one were to crash to prevent an accidental detonation....

Or maybe I am wrong and we just missed a nuclear disaster.

Edit....

Ah now I see, the true threat was the reactor of the sub, not necessarily the nukes.
edit on 14-2-2012 by CalibratedZeus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 


Thanks Op for bringing this to our attention. S&F
Glad it did not came to a big disaster.
Thanks RT for bringing it in the open, apparently they are not a fully state controlled media.
They even bring stuff that is embarrassing to Russia.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CalibratedZeus
 


You are correct. They would have to be armed to have a nuclear detonation.
There would have been a nasty nuclear mess to clean up, but it wouldn't have detonated
the nuclear weapon.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
High explosives + nuclear reactor + nuclear warheads (armed or not) + fire = bad continent to be on.

I'm with you OP, too many maybe almost accidents, the laws of probability DICTATE an accident, again.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 


Please do correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it the dock that caught fire? I don't believe there was any danger to the nukes at all.

Found it


Official statements were vague, but the blaze is believed to have started when wooden scaffolding caught fire during welding repairs to the 167-meter (550 feet) Yekaterinburg submarine, which had been hoisted into a dry dock.



A Defense Ministry spokesman said all its weapons had been removed before repairs started and its nuclear reactors were shut down.


www.reuters.com...



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

Apparently the fire was caused by welding sparks whilst it was dry-docked. The acoustic tiles that cover the hull ignited and the sub was returned to the water to put the fire out.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
From the OP's link:



Equipment on the K-84

­The standard arsenal of the K-84 is 16 intercontinental ballistic Sineva missiles with four thermonuclear warheads on each one of them.

Every missile is also a tank filled up with highly toxic and combustible fuel. A missile weighs about 80 tons and most of that is fuel. The submarine is also armed with up to 12 torpedoes and anti-submarine missiles, with about 300 kilograms of high-power military explosive or a nuclear warhead on every one.

On top of that the sub is powered by two 90 megawatt water-cooled nuclear reactors each containing about 70 kilograms of uranium-235. The reactors were stopped for the time of the repair but the fission materials remained on board at the time of the alleged accident.


Holy crap ! That's some heavy duty combustables.




The fire spread rapidly into the hard to reach space between the thin outer hull and the hardened pressure vessel. It took the efforts of over 400 fire fighters with 72 vehicles, including specialist units for fighting heavy industrial fires, to bring the blaze under control by 18.20 on December 30.


Wow... 400 firefighters.


Okay, too close for comfort.
This is insane.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


The sub was most definitely on fire, and for more than a day, i think that is of a threat to the many warheads on board, warheads are not removed for minor repairs



edit on 14-2-2012 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Lot of ignorance in this topic. You could blow up a nuclear sub with C4 and the warheads on it would not detonate because they need to be primed first, by actually launching them to make them active. A nuke which has not been launched is about as dangerous as a small child. So basically a small fire on a nuclear sub in Russia is really literally nothing to worry about.



There would have been a nasty nuclear mess to clean up, but it wouldn't have detonated
the nuclear weapon.


You're right, it wouldn't have detonated, and I'm having trouble figuring out why a fire would cause a missle made of steel to start leaking nuclear material, these things are made of metal, usually metal isn't flammable or affected much by heat apart from expanding very slightly. let's not forget that the interiors of the things are compartmented, and the go-juice inside the missle is in a very sturdy container of it's own. It's not like you can just "take the lid off" a nuke and it starts leaking nuclear material all over the place.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Lazyninja because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
nuclear materials need to have a critical mass to be a factor as a bomb however any amount of radioactive material is dangerous as one particle of plutonium inhaled can cause cancer.

The amount of material needed could be as small as on kilogram to achieve critical mass.
Depending on proximity to other amounts of radioactive material one explosion could release sufficient heat and radiation to set off other explosions in a chain reaction.

Politico's are completely insane on a universal scale to dabble with such destructive forces...perhaps someday the gene or meme that infects these types can be identified barring these types from leadership positions or using their own mentalities...perhaps they should be removed from peaceful society entirely?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I do want to abolish nuclear weapons, i really do. I lived through the cold war, and honestly, the 80s under Reagan were a much more frightening time than our current threats and wars.

My fear of course is if these weapons were eliminated, conventional warfare would again become much more commonplace. Im sure the US or China would see its opportunity for expansion and begin an aggressive takeover.

I am actually completely convinced the removal of the threat of mutual anhilalation would lead to wars similar to scale of WW1 and WW2. While these wars can still happen, its much more unlikely knowing your enemy can push a button and kill everyone you love within 30 minutes. Hell, Americas bomb most likely stopped Stalin from continuing his Western push after Berlin.
edit on 14-2-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Old technology wearing out.

It probably happens a lot more than people know about.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Lot of ignorance in this topic. You could blow up a nuclear sub with C4 and the warheads on it would not detonate because they need to be primed first, by actually launching them to make them active. A nuke which has not been launched is about as dangerous as a small child. So basically a small fire on a nuclear sub in Russia is really literally nothing to worry about.



There would have been a nasty nuclear mess to clean up, but it wouldn't have detonated
the nuclear weapon.


You're right, it wouldn't have detonated, and I'm having trouble figuring out why a fire would cause a missle made of steel to start leaking nuclear material, these things are made of metal, usually metal isn't flammable or affected much by heat apart from expanding very slightly. let's not forget that the interiors of the things are compartmented, and the go-juice inside the missle is in a very sturdy container of it's own. It's not like you can just "take the lid off" a nuke and it starts leaking nuclear material all over the place.
edit on 14-2-2012 by Lazyninja because: (no reason given)


Nobody has said the nukes would have detonated as far as i can see, but that does not make this event acceptable, frankly this is a worry at just how poor and shoddy the health & safety is around Russian nuclear assets, especially when you consider Chernobyl, what idiots do they have working around these assets surely they should consider tighter safety measures or train professional workers in health & safety, sparks and flammable stuff is a bad idea, pretty simply stuff



I'm having trouble figuring out why a fire would cause a missle made of steel to start leaking nuclear material, these things are made of metal, usually metal isn't flammable or affected much by heat apart from expanding very slightly


Steal isn't invincible my friend, steal melts when heated, it was on fire for a day and required 400 fighter fighters to contain, that tells you this was no small fire, had the fire have got inside, there would have been no chance of stopping it reaching the nukes and leaking, To come on here with a move along there is nothing to see here attitude and try and pass it of as fine is ridiculous,




You could blow up a nuclear sub with C4 and the warheads on it would not detonate because they need to be primed first


Underwater yes, as there would be no fire to speak of, on land no, different matter all together, i'm sure you would be very happy to sit by a fire with a nuclear warhead on it, i for one certainly wouldn't tho
edit on 14-2-2012 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr
I do want to abolish nuclear weapons, i really do. I lived through the cold war, and honestly, the 80s under Reagan were a much more frightening time than our current threats and wars.

My fear of course is if these weapons were eliminated, conventional warfare would again become much more commonplace. Im sure the US or China would see its opportunity for expansion and begin an aggressive takeover.

I am actually completely convinced the removal of the threat of mutual anhilalation would lead to wars similar to scale of WW1 and WW2. While these wars can still happen, its much more unlikely knowing your enemy can push a button and kill everyone you love within 30 minutes. Hell, Americas bomb most likely stopped Stalin from continuing his Western push after Berlin.
edit on 14-2-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)


I suppose you do have a very good point they have also served as a war deterrent, i guess that's the only good that has ever come of its horrendous birth, but unfortunately soon enough everybody looks to have one or more, already globally there are now approximately 23,000 nuclear warheads. and only a handful of country's posses them, that numbers only going to grow bringing more instabilities and insecurity globally, so soon enough they won't even serve that purpose they'll just be a threat to mankind,

23,000 nuclear warheads, i dunno about you, but that sure scares the s# out of me



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
What an understatement; watch the video. It's an absolute inferno, blazing and exploding, for over a DAY?

We as a species have made it clear time and time again, we cannot be trusted with such power, we will ALWAYS end up hurting ourselves with such weapons, and dangerous facilities.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The fire was obviously in and outside the sub as one of the robotic fire arms was spraying inside the torpedo tube and a upper hatch. Thank god the Russians can at least put out such a fire, unlike Japan!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CalibratedZeus
 


Fire will not make them detonate, if that were the case if a nuclear missle was shot down by a Patriot or Israeli Arrow, it would explode and kill people.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 


Although a fire on a nuclear armed submarine is serious, it would not have detonated the devices.

Normally nuclear devices are prevented from detonating by filling internal spaces with a solid damper (in some cases a high cadmium metal chain or ball bearings or boron coated wire). Arming the devices consists of removing the damper material and priming the conventional explosives which initiate either compression of the core, or assembly of the critical mass in the case of older "gun assembled" types of devices.

In the case of fission-fusion devices, the initiating device could also be stored separately to the fusion chamber, prior to deployment (dependent on the construction).

There could, however, be a conventional explosion if the device got too hot, but most of this would be restrained by the tamper casing and would only cause very local pollution by radionucleotides.


edit on 14/2/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join