It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by FightHard
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.

Speak for yourself. The human race in my opinion has actually behaved very responsibly in the deployment and maintenance of these weapons.

May I remind you there were only 2 deployments of these weapons in history since its conception.

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Lazyninja
usually metal isn't flammable or affected much by heat apart from expanding very slightly.

Most of the 80 tonnes of the missile are its fuel right? Metal still heats up, and even if the temperatures didn't reach high enough to melt the metal, surely the heat that was there could have caused the missile fuel/propellant to ignite and explode? Kind of like throwing an aerosol on a fire.


For the record, I mean conventional explosion, not nuclear.
edit on 14/2/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

It's official Russia isnt allowed to play with nukes anymore. Too many mistakes, well Nukes are mistake in the first place. But come on Russia I expect more from you!

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
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)

Nuclear warheads are among the safest weapons in existence. Fire isn't going to set them off. I seriously doubt that they would be fully armed too, meaning that the trigger system wouldn't be armed so therefore there couldn't be a nuclear explosion (though it could be possible considering the other explosives within the sub). The worst possibility would have probably been dispersion of the nuclear warhead in the aftermath of an explosion, but not an actual nuclear detonation.

Besides, the fire was on the hull. Not much of a threat to internal components, especially if the sub could simply be dropped into the water.

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:26 AM
Good to see that many people know that warheads can't go off with a fire.

The worse that could have happened is radiation leak. To fight that, they could have took the sub and sink it in the deepest ocean abyss... it wouldn't be the first time that humanity dumps nuclear material in the ocean...
edit on 15-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 02:01 AM
I dont think anyone here think the missles them selves would start there reaction and hit critical mass in the fire... thats not the problem,

i think the reactors, pluss the missle fuel plus the explosive (non nuclear) warheads of the torpeados would surley cause all manner of nasty fall out, if you take a sealed tube full of explosives and nuclear material and let it burn, the outcome will surley be an unpleasant mess for anyone invloved or within tens of miles of the disaster?

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:50 AM
Interesting follow up...

Smoldering SLBMs Smothered

It was recently revealed that a Russian submarine, that caught fire while in a dry dock last December, still had 16 nuclear ballistic missiles, plus four non-nuclear torpedoes stored in launch tubes. Normally, these weapons are removed before entering dry dock. Initially the Russian Defense Ministry said this had been done. But local journalists spoke with shipyard workers who confirmed that the navy commanders and shipyard managers agreed to save time (about two weeks) and not remove the missiles and torpedoes. During the fire, crewmen inside the sub removed the torpedoes from their launch tubes to prevent the fire on the hull from triggering one of the torpedo warheads (each carrying 300 kg/660 pounds of explosives). One torpedo going off could have set the others off, which might have led to a breach in the nuclear reactor containment, and the detonation of the ballistic missile warheads. The explosives in the nuclear warheads would not have caused a nuclear explosion, but would have spread the nuclear material over a wide area. Some of the hypergolic fuel of the ballistic missiles would also ignite, helping to spread vaporized nuclear material even further.

Could have been REALLY bad.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 05:39 AM
reply to post by Vitchilo


at least it was a product of an accident during maintenance, and not the result of faulty engineering or crew incompetence.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in