ADVERTISEMENT

The Moskva - looking worse by the hour

Noodle

Hall of Famer
Jun 19, 2001
30,126
12,347
113
Some reports claim 450 are unaccounted for, and now there are claims it sank with two nuclear warheads on board. Largest wartime sinking since WWII. What a shitshow for the Russians

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Some reports claim 450 are unaccounted for, and now there are claims it sank with two nuclear warheads on board. Largest wartime sinking since WWII. What a shitshow for the Russians

Why in the world would it be carrying nukes?
 
Why in the world would it be carrying nukes?

The tone of that article suggests that the anti-ship cruise missiles on that thing could be armed with nuclear warheads. One assumes, small tactical warheads. From there it all just seems speculation that maybe a couple of warheads could have been onboard. But there was nothing there suggesting real evidence that there actually were any. They may as well have said, "The Moskova could have been carrying sliced roast beef." I mean, maybe, right?
 
The tone of that article suggests that the anti-ship cruise missiles on that thing could be armed with nuclear warheads. One assumes, small tactical warheads. From there it all just seems speculation that maybe a couple of warheads could have been onboard. But there was nothing there suggesting real evidence that there actually were any. They may as well have said, "The Moskova could have been carrying sliced roast beef." I mean, maybe, right?
Roast beef? During Lent?
 
Some reports claim 450 are unaccounted for, and now there are claims it sank with two nuclear warheads on board. Largest wartime sinking since WWII. What a shitshow for the Russians

Could striking it with a missile theoretically detonated one of the nuclear warheads?
 
Could striking it with a missile theoretically detonated one of the nuclear warheads?

I'm not a science guy who can regale you with the details, but no, my understanding is that detonating a nuclear warhead requires a fairly specific chain of events. Simply hitting one with a cruise missile would not trigger such a detonation.

Now that's not to say that the nuclear material in the warhead wouldn't result in some sort of potential contamination. But not an explosion.
 
I'm not a science guy who can regale you with the details, but no, my understanding is that detonating a nuclear warhead requires a fairly specific chain of events. Simply hitting one with a cruise missile would not trigger such a detonation.

Now that's not to say that the nuclear material in the warhead wouldn't result in some sort of potential contamination. But not an explosion.
Yeah I know that it requires some chain of events and I thought one of those was an explosion of some kind to get the atomic explosion going but wasn't sure.
 
I'm not a science guy who can regale you with the details, but no, my understanding is that detonating a nuclear warhead requires a fairly specific chain of events. Simply hitting one with a cruise missile would not trigger such a detonation.

Now that's not to say that the nuclear material in the warhead wouldn't result in some sort of potential contamination. But not an explosion.
Correct, the missile has to be armed before it would explode and they aren't stored "armed".

A month ago I finished Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors. Destroyers had a similar situation with depth charges. Depth charges had to be armed. So before battle, they would be armed. But if the ship was hit, sailors had to run around disarming them. If the ship sank with armed depth charges, charges would explode when they reached their programmed depth. The author said the concussion wave would result in a fatal enema for anyone in the water.

So nukes have similar safeguards. There is a very specific explosion to set off a nuke, a normal explosion would not. The most basic example is that the explosion has to come from the middle of the material and start the reaction uniformly. An explosion from one end would not do this.

But for this to work, the explosive surrounding the plutonium must be a perfect sphere, and the entire sphere must be detonated simultaneously. If the detonation merely starts at a single point on the sphere, the nuclear explosion will fizzle. To achieve uniformity of detonation, scores or hundreds of electric detonators must be embedded all over the outer surface of the sphere, and all must be fired at the same instant.​
If the sphere of explosive were set off by an accident, it would not explode uniformly and would not compress the plutonium enough to cause a nuclear detonation. But it might set off a fast chain reaction short of a full-scale explosion - a reaction that would generate deadly radiation and spread radioactive debris.​
 
Correct, the missile has to be armed before it would explode and they aren't stored "armed".

A month ago I finished Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors. Destroyers had a similar situation with depth charges. Depth charges had to be armed. So before battle, they would be armed. But if the ship was hit, sailors had to run around disarming them. If the ship sank with armed depth charges, charges would explode when they reached their programmed depth. The author said the concussion wave would result in a fatal enema for anyone in the water.

So nukes have similar safeguards. There is a very specific explosion to set off a nuke, a normal explosion would not. The most basic example is that the explosion has to come from the middle of the material and start the reaction uniformly. An explosion from one end would not do this.

But for this to work, the explosive surrounding the plutonium must be a perfect sphere, and the entire sphere must be detonated simultaneously. If the detonation merely starts at a single point on the sphere, the nuclear explosion will fizzle. To achieve uniformity of detonation, scores or hundreds of electric detonators must be embedded all over the outer surface of the sphere, and all must be fired at the same instant.​
If the sphere of explosive were set off by an accident, it would not explode uniformly and would not compress the plutonium enough to cause a nuclear detonation. But it might set off a fast chain reaction short of a full-scale explosion - a reaction that would generate deadly radiation and spread radioactive debris.​
Unfortunately Chernobyl was supposed to be foolproof. I do not trust Russian safeguards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops and DANC
Correct, the missile has to be armed before it would explode and they aren't stored "armed".

A month ago I finished Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors. Destroyers had a similar situation with depth charges. Depth charges had to be armed. So before battle, they would be armed. But if the ship was hit, sailors had to run around disarming them. If the ship sank with armed depth charges, charges would explode when they reached their programmed depth. The author said the concussion wave would result in a fatal enema for anyone in the water.

So nukes have similar safeguards. There is a very specific explosion to set off a nuke, a normal explosion would not. The most basic example is that the explosion has to come from the middle of the material and start the reaction uniformly. An explosion from one end would not do this.

But for this to work, the explosive surrounding the plutonium must be a perfect sphere, and the entire sphere must be detonated simultaneously. If the detonation merely starts at a single point on the sphere, the nuclear explosion will fizzle. To achieve uniformity of detonation, scores or hundreds of electric detonators must be embedded all over the outer surface of the sphere, and all must be fired at the same instant.​
If the sphere of explosive were set off by an accident, it would not explode uniformly and would not compress the plutonium enough to cause a nuclear detonation. But it might set off a fast chain reaction short of a full-scale explosion - a reaction that would generate deadly radiation and spread radioactive debris.​
Great book, isn't it?
 
Correct, the missile has to be armed before it would explode and they aren't stored "armed".

A month ago I finished Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors. Destroyers had a similar situation with depth charges. Depth charges had to be armed. So before battle, they would be armed. But if the ship was hit, sailors had to run around disarming them. If the ship sank with armed depth charges, charges would explode when they reached their programmed depth. The author said the concussion wave would result in a fatal enema for anyone in the water.

So nukes have similar safeguards. There is a very specific explosion to set off a nuke, a normal explosion would not. The most basic example is that the explosion has to come from the middle of the material and start the reaction uniformly. An explosion from one end would not do this.

But for this to work, the explosive surrounding the plutonium must be a perfect sphere, and the entire sphere must be detonated simultaneously. If the detonation merely starts at a single point on the sphere, the nuclear explosion will fizzle. To achieve uniformity of detonation, scores or hundreds of electric detonators must be embedded all over the outer surface of the sphere, and all must be fired at the same instant.​
If the sphere of explosive were set off by an accident, it would not explode uniformly and would not compress the plutonium enough to cause a nuclear detonation. But it might set off a fast chain reaction short of a full-scale explosion - a reaction that would generate deadly radiation and spread radioactive debris.​
You described Fat Man. Little Boy was a gun type bomb and critical mass was achieved differently. by shooting a subcritical mass into another one.

Accidential explosion of an unarmed bomb would be rare if not impossible in either case.
 
You described Fat Man. Little Boy was a gun type bomb and critical mass was achieved differently. by shooting a subcritical mass into another one.

Accidential explosion of an unarmed bomb would be rare if not impossible in either case.
A multiple detonator strategy could also be employed on a gun design to reduce the shock wave impulse, and minimize the local effects.
 
The BBC reports:

"Moskva wreckage declared item of Ukrainian underwater cultural heritage

... the wreckage of the pride of Russia’s fleet has been declared an item of Ukrainian underwater cultural heritage. Number #2064 to be precise, falling under the category of rare scientific or technical equipment.

In a post on their official Facebook page, the Ministry of Defence wrote "80 miles from Odesa, the famous cruiser and the largest sunken object of the Black Sea floor can be admired without much diving!"

According to Ukrainian Military TV, the wreckage is at a depth of around 45-50 metres, with its last known location revealed by the British."
 
The BBC reports:

"Moskva wreckage declared item of Ukrainian underwater cultural heritage

... the wreckage of the pride of Russia’s fleet has been declared an item of Ukrainian underwater cultural heritage. Number #2064 to be precise, falling under the category of rare scientific or technical equipment.

In a post on their official Facebook page, the Ministry of Defence wrote "80 miles from Odesa, the famous cruiser and the largest sunken object of the Black Sea floor can be admired without much diving!"

According to Ukrainian Military TV, the wreckage is at a depth of around 45-50 metres, with its last known location revealed by the British."
This summer my sister and my kids are going scuba diving from a catamaran in the British Virgin Islands. I’ll ask her if she wants to add this to her bucket list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
This summer my sister and my kids are going scuba diving from a catamaran in the British Virgin Islands. I’ll ask her if she wants to add this to her bucket list.
At a depth of 45 to 50 meters, I'm thinking the visibility is probably pretty crappy. There's a pretty big difference between Scuba diving in 50 feet of water compared to 150 feet of water.
IIRC, it's at about 100 feet that you have to start worrying about the bends and would need to be certified to go deeper than that.
 
At a depth of 45 to 50 meters, I'm thinking the visibility is probably pretty crappy. There's a pretty big difference between Scuba diving in 50 feet of water compared to 150 feet of water.
IIRC, it's at about 100 feet that you have to start worrying about the bends and would need to be certified to go deeper than that.
Good point. Definitely not recreational.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT