A Collision at Sea Involving a Nuclear Sub

They are "fairly rare" events, but they do take place from time to time. "They" being one of our subs being involved in a collision with another ship. This particular collision, with a cruiser, occurred during naval exercises.

Cruiser collides with nuclear sub off US East Coast

(14 October 2012) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19940049

That, at least, is good news. That isn't always the case though. (see "List of submarine incidents since 2000" wiki link, later on in this post for details)

Again, see the list below lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarine_incidents_since_2000

I guess you could call that "fairly rare", considering the number of subs out there patrolling the seas...but that's just since 2000 lol

 

Ok, I admit I was never in the Navy and I have never been on a naval ship or a submarine and the story doesn't really describe what happened well. But...this has to be the sub's fault!

A sub is designed to be undetectable. And it has the most advanced ability to detect other things in the ocean known to man. Plus the sub can move in 3 dimensions in the ocean. How do you put yourself in a situation where you end up near the surface and 500 feet in front of a ship?

Really, how the hell does a sub ever collide with anything considering the above capabilities? The chances of a sub colliding with a ship as it moves through the ocean should be just slightly higher than the chances of me colliding with a ship as I walk down the street!

 

In my first draft of this story, I mentioned that "most of these collisions occur during naval exercise", but I changed it completely after researching it a bit.

I have several memories of past sub/ship encounters during naval exercises over the last 25/30 years, but realized that I probably only heard of the more sensational "sub to ship" stories, and not the "Someone put his socks in the microwave to dry 'em out and started a damn fire!" incidents.

Not that that example above is real, but upon thinking back, cruising through some dusty memories, the incidents of fires on subs was very typical, and dominated those little dust balls.

When I looked it up on wiki, I started with the ones from 2000 on up, to see just how many there were. I expected maybe three or four, not the 22 (subs) total...but I was probably just thinking in terms of U.S. ships, and not the World's.

A Japanese fishing boat incident popped into mind too, but I don't see it on the list. It may be that I'm remembering wrong, since there was a Japanese Tanker in the list, but I swear it was a fishing boat. It may also be pre-2000, but I don't think so...the 2007 incident sounds about right, time-wise.

 

I'm going to research that Japanese "fishing boat" incident later, if it exists, but I also want to research just how many nuclear subs have sunk since the Nautilus (the first) was built. I know of two for certain, and another is a bit hazy. I'm guessing there are more though.

One was definitely part of the covert activies by the guy who found the Titanic. I had a chance to be on that boat, as they were seeking money from suckers. Little did THEY know I didn't have any money, and I was "returning the favor" by messing with them. I had them send me the video (back in the mid 80s mind you). They were reluctant, but really really wanted my money. Who's the sucker now, eh?

Anyway, the idea of having nuclear reactors on the ocean floor gives me fits of nervousness. Then there's the nuclear bombs that are missing. One is dropped in the mud just off the Georgia coast, I believe.

Yes, a nuclear bomb...hydrogen, I believe, or "thermonuclear", since it requires fusion to trigger it...which is something like 100 times more powerful than a typical nuclear bomb.

With a typical nuclear bomb, a tactical anyway, damage is severe in a relatively small area...maybe a square mile or two....and a kill radius of maybe a few miles. A hydrogen bomb is more like a radius of 6 to 10 miles of utter destruction, and a kill radius of maybe 20 to 25 miles...where exposure will lead to death within a few weeks.

I may be off on those figures, so I'll check 'em...while I research other nuclear incidents at sea.

Scary @#$% though, knowing that a nuclear bomb is buried off the mud off Georgia's coast, in shallow water I might add. Don't tell Georgians lol The theme for "Deliverance" would take on a whole 'nother meaning. "You all better listen up, we all here's gots a nu-cu-leer thing-a-ma-what, and we all is risin' again! You'll better leave this here free State of Georgia, or we all gonna have to see what this here pupy-what'sis can do."

 

My Georgia accent is atrocious, btw. With apologies Georgians! (gulps involuntarily). "No need to dig in that mud....it's all a hoax. Hey! Is that yer sister over there....semi-naked....?"

 

I also wanted to bring up another issue, that of nuclear waste being dumped at sea. I became aware of it some years ago while researching the reasons behind so many "dead spots" in our rivers, lakes, and seas. That research was mostly focused on run-off pollution, but I happened across these policies on dumping nuclear waste at sea and it really pissed me off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste

Up to 1993! By the early 1950s, the effects of radioactivity were well known, at least enough for people to think twice about doing something so DUMB!

Back in the 70s, the environmental movement had produced significant results, but it took over twenty years before countries agreed to stop dumping this stuff where ever they wanted:

I am very much aware of this, but it's worth adding here, for people who may not be as aware:

Really classy move too...right off their coast.

Mind you, this is deliberate dumping of waste, and not "tests", as on Bikini Atoll...which is uninhabitable, and will be for hundreds of years...maybe a thousand.

Nuclear energy carries with it an immense price. I used to support it, but as I've learned more and more, I simply can't. It's wayyyyyy too dangerous to leave in the incapable hands of the lowest bidder.

 

When I was a kid, Three Mile Island was a real-World incident along the lines of the 70s movie "The China Syndrome".

The news at the time clearly stated that, while serious, there was no need to panic. I had extreme doubts about those public comments, as they were unusually optimistic, IMO.

It's only in recent years that I've learned in detail what really happened. The controllers were conducting tests, as an exercise, to be prepared for emergencies, and inadvertently caused the problem through a series of unbelievably stupid procedures.

The same thing happened in Chernobyl, btw

By the time these controllers understood they had a real problem on there hands, they were incapable of handling it. Experts from everywhere converged on the scene, filling the room to overcrowded conditions, hampering the effort even more.

By the time the right people with the right knowledge had access to the right controls, the reactor was melting. It was minutes away from exploding like Chernobyl and Fukishima did. The fallout would likely have killed thousands of people.

It is my opinion that we as a people can't control these reactors with enough safety to warrant their continued use. Couple that with the waste issues and, for me anyway, it's obvious that they shouldn't be operated anymore. Period. That'll hurt energy issues here, yes...but I'd rather go without heat and light than die a miserable death due to radiation poisoning, which is basically everywhere in the World as it is, though in minute quantities.