Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

shakran · 02-19-2009, 10:41 AM

the probability that it /did/ happen is 1 because it happened. The probability that they /will/ collide is still vanishingly small (otherwise as soon as they got repaired, they'd go out to sea and hit each other again)

As for nuke boats hitting each other, there really isn't a whole lot of risk of a nuclear incident. In the first place, the Kursk did not cause nuclear fallout, and its wreck was a lot worse than this one. The reactors are very, very tough, and a collision at sea will not make them explode.

Even if the fissile material is exposed t o the ocean, nothing much will happen. The ocean is the world's biggest cooling tank. The minuscule amount of radioactive material in a submarines reactor vessel would cause no noticeable effects to the environment of the ocean, certainly not on a long-term basis. Probably the worst nuclear accident on a sub happened in a bay in Russia in the 80's. A refueling accident caused the nuclear fuel to explode, taking the reactor and part of the ship with it, and spewing radioactive debris all over the harbor and dock. Within 7 months, radiation levels in the harbor were back to normal. And that's in a sheltered, enclosed body of water. In the depths of the ocean, you'd barely notice it.

In fact, the old style submarines (and other naval vessels - -Aircraft carriers are nuclear too) would cause more damage because they had diesel engines that had to run often to keep the batteries charged, and that pollutes the oceans in a big way.

I'm not a fan of nuclear myself, but it is the best solution, especially for submarines if you don't want them to have to surface all the time to snorkel air.

As far as what happened to the reduction of weapons. . .There already has been a reduction of weapons. That's why nuclear missile launch sites in the Dakotas, Florida, and elsewhere are abandoned (some having been converted into private homes). The reduction is pretty meaningless, however. If I have a revolver, and I remove 5 bullets, leaving one, and then hold it up to your head, are you gonna feel any safer that I've complied with arms reduction? No, because you're still gonna die if I pull the trigger.

02-19-2009, 10:41 AM	#36 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	the probability that it /did/ happen is 1 because it happened. The probability that they /will/ collide is still vanishingly small (otherwise as soon as they got repaired, they'd go out to sea and hit each other again) As for nuke boats hitting each other, there really isn't a whole lot of risk of a nuclear incident. In the first place, the Kursk did not cause nuclear fallout, and its wreck was a lot worse than this one. The reactors are very, very tough, and a collision at sea will not make them explode. Even if the fissile material is exposed t o the ocean, nothing much will happen. The ocean is the world's biggest cooling tank. The minuscule amount of radioactive material in a submarines reactor vessel would cause no noticeable effects to the environment of the ocean, certainly not on a long-term basis. Probably the worst nuclear accident on a sub happened in a bay in Russia in the 80's. A refueling accident caused the nuclear fuel to explode, taking the reactor and part of the ship with it, and spewing radioactive debris all over the harbor and dock. Within 7 months, radiation levels in the harbor were back to normal. And that's in a sheltered, enclosed body of water. In the depths of the ocean, you'd barely notice it. In fact, the old style submarines (and other naval vessels - -Aircraft carriers are nuclear too) would cause more damage because they had diesel engines that had to run often to keep the batteries charged, and that pollutes the oceans in a big way. I'm not a fan of nuclear myself, but it is the best solution, especially for submarines if you don't want them to have to surface all the time to snorkel air. As far as what happened to the reduction of weapons. . .There already has been a reduction of weapons. That's why nuclear missile launch sites in the Dakotas, Florida, and elsewhere are abandoned (some having been converted into private homes). The reduction is pretty meaningless, however. If I have a revolver, and I remove 5 bullets, leaving one, and then hold it up to your head, are you gonna feel any safer that I've complied with arms reduction? No, because you're still gonna die if I pull the trigger. Last edited by shakran; 02-19-2009 at 10:43 AM..