Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Captain_Dorja

Insane conspiracy theory

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,368
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,415 battles

I stumbled across this today. It was pretty funny because of how idiotic this idea is.

According to this genius, K-129 was going to nuke the US and was destroyed by it's own nuclear missile blowing up. A few minor problems exist with this theory though.

  • For this to be true, a nuclear bomb would have had to explode next to the sail of K-129 while it was on the surface very close to Hawaii. The missiles sat on the sail when fired and the subs fired them from the surface.
  • If you blew up a nuclear warhead within a few dozen feet of a surfaced submarine's sail, that submarine wouldn't end up sitting on the bottom looking like this. As we can see, the sub is clearly damaged and sunk, but that means it wasn't vaporized

           ZPTMRtL.jpg

  • The US Navy heard the accident and the sinking of that sub. We would have noticed if a nuclear bomb blew up on the surface of the ocean a few hundred miles from Hawaii.
  • If a missile was in the launching position than that missile wasn't blown up. They launched the missiles individually. The first launch attempt would have had to be the only attempt since Hawaii wasn't nuked in 1967. Since only 1 missile would be raised for launch at a time, if a missile is raised for launch than it was the first launch attempt, and if it is in the raised position than it isn't blown up, thus no missiles blew up.
  • The US actually recovered part of that wreck. If it had been sitting on the surface when a nuclear missile blew up the whole wreck would have been completely irradiated. It was slightly irradiated, but not even to a dangerous level. If I recall correctly there were nuclear tipped torpedoes in the torpedo room, which is the section we recovered.

    Basically, the guy who has this crazy idea is completely stupid. The reason why the captain of K-129 is an "unsung hero" isn't because his heroic deeds are not remembered, not known, or are covered up. It's because they did not occur and thus cannot be truthfully sung.

    If anyone is interested in the story of how the United States attempted to recover the wreck of K-129, I highly recommend the documentary "Azorian."https://www.amazon.com/Azorian-Raising-K-129-Michael-White/dp/B008QTU7QY Project Azorian was the name of the partially successful attempt to lift the wreck of K-129 from the bottom of the ocean with what essentially was a huge claw machine built on a drill ship run by the CIA and covered by a story about Howard Hughes trying out a crackpot deep sea mining scheme (Howard Hughes was kind of like the Elon Musk of his day in terms of using his own personal fortune to fund hair brained schemes that no one else would even think about). Project Azorian is one of those things were people would say, "Man I can't believe we wasted all that money on something so stupid when we could have done something useful with it," and those people would be staggered to learn that Project Azorian advanced deep sea drilling by leaps and bounds. The technical hurdles to be overcome were insane and in order to do it these people basically invented the foundational technology required to move offshore drilling out of shallow water and into the deeper waters we drill in today. Not only that, but once the Glomar Explorer was finished with her work on Project Azorian, she enjoyed a career as a standard drill ship, but she also spent a lot of time drilling for scientific research. Cores drilled all over the world's oceans by the Glomar Explorer were instrumental in establishing the theory of plate tectonics as something which is true instead of something that we just think might be going on.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,173 posts
3,842 battles

More likely, the rocket fuel being liquid (Kerosene and RFNA-- Red Fuming Nitric Acid) probably got accidently exposed and WHAM!  This is a hypergolic fuel.  That is, it combusts automatically when combined.  RFNA is extremely corrosive and is a dangerous stored propellant when you do it for a long period of time-- like on a deployed submarine.

The damage is consistent with this sort of internal explosion.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,368
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,415 battles
21 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

More likely, the rocket fuel being liquid (Kerosene and RFNA-- Red Fuming Nitric Acid) probably got accidently exposed and WHAM!  This is a hypergolic fuel.  That is, it combusts automatically when combined.  RFNA is extremely corrosive and is a dangerous stored propellant when you do it for a long period of time-- like on a deployed submarine.

The damage is consistent with this sort of internal explosion.

Yeah I wondered if they had something like that happen, or like a battery explosion or something. The Russians sure did like to use nasty, nasty fuels in their rockets. I know the US Navy found most of the front of the boat but the back end wasn't found if I remember right. It kind of made me wonder if they had some sort of casualty in the engineering spaces that damaged the aft end so bad that it really broke apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,914 posts
8,383 battles
1 hour ago, Captain_Dorja said:

Project Azorian advanced deep sea drilling by leaps and bounds. The technical hurdles to be overcome were insane and in order to do it these people basically invented the foundational technology required to move offshore drilling out of shallow water and into the deeper waters we drill in today.

Yes and hurrah the Deepwater Horizon massive spill (sea water depth 5000 ft+)

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[PROJX]
Members
1,009 posts
18,299 battles
1 hour ago, Captain_Dorja said:

Yeah I wondered if they had something like that happen, or like a battery explosion or something. The Russians sure did like to use nasty, nasty fuels in their rockets. I know the US Navy found most of the front of the boat but the back end wasn't found if I remember right. It kind of made me wonder if they had some sort of casualty in the engineering spaces that damaged the aft end so bad that it really broke apart.

Actually, the Azorian project (Howard Hughes’ Glomar Explorer under the cover of exploring the mining of manganese nodules) did find the K-129 largely intact.  Listening devices in the Pacific helped triangulate the area the K-129 was lost so the US had a better idea of where she had sunk than the Russians.  The attempt to raise it involved a large claw-like cradle device which was lowered through the center of the ship (the explorer had a type of moonpool to house the raised sub under concealment).  During the salvage, part of the claw/cradle mechanism failed, resulting in the loss of the rear half of the sub and only the front half being retrieved.  This was all done while under surveillance by a Russian Surveillance ship.   A second attempt to retrieve the rest of the sub was planned, but aborted since the press had gotten wind of the project and cover story was blown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
362
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,173 posts
3,842 battles

Here's the real thing, a submarine that came within a hair's breath of using a nuclear torpedo.

It was one man out of three that kept WW 3 from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,678 posts

Nuclear weapons don't fail deadly, they fail safe. They have to detonate in a very specific sequence to actually start a chain reaction. The missile rupturing and exploding on the launch surface would not cause that.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,471
[REVY]
Members
6,142 posts
5,158 battles
11 hours ago, Murotsu said:

Here's the real thing, a submarine that came within a hair's breath of using a nuclear torpedo.

It was one man out of three that kept WW 3 from happening.

Alternate documentary:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,368
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,415 battles

@TornadoADV

Good point about how nuclear weapons don't just blow up, but I've got to say that the guy in the clip does seem to imply that in his theory the warhead goes up. I could be misjudging what he means though,  but it doesn't really matter. The whole idea is pretty ridiculous either way.

 

@hangglide42

Yeah I'm aware with what happened during the recovery. 2 of the lifting arms broke off and most of the wreck fell out of the cradle. What I'd meant earlier about the aft party of the wreck is just that from what I remember, I don't know if the navy found it, or if it was just too broken apart. The portion lifted included from the bow to just aft of the sail and like 2/3 of that was not recovered becauseof the damaged arms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,471
[REVY]
Members
6,142 posts
5,158 battles
15 hours ago, Captain_Dorja said:

The Russians sure did like to use nasty, nasty fuels in their rockets.

This was a point of contention in the Soviet Space Program.  Korolev did not like the "Devil's Venom", but the cryogenic fuel system on the R-7 ICBM took 20 hours to prepare and the rocket only be put on alert for a single day, which made them woefully impractical as a weapon.  But then again the Devil's Venom would dissolve a man's lungs.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,471
[REVY]
Members
6,142 posts
5,158 battles
On 4/30/2018 at 12:14 AM, TornadoADV said:

Nuclear weapons don't fail deadly, they fail safe. They have to detonate in a very specific sequence to actually start a chain reaction. The missile rupturing and exploding on the launch surface would not cause that.

Then again, when you hear about the people behind the of the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion talk it about, they give a very sobering response in that it is never certain if the fail safe systems would really work.  Every accident is unpredictable.

https://www.bilibili.com/video/av8079113?from=search&seid=9061305160942912560

North Carolina nearly had a hydrogen warhead go off because of the nature of the plane crash, completed 3 out of the 4 arming sequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

But then again, I don't think even the Soviets would be stupid enough to have a nuclear warhead self-destruct with a nuclear detonation if the arming code was mistyped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,368
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,415 battles
7 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Then again, when you hear about the people behind the of the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion talk it about, they give a very sobering response in that it is never certain if the fail safe systems would really work.  Every accident is unpredictable.

https://www.bilibili.com/video/av8079113?from=search&seid=9061305160942912560

North Carolina nearly had a hydrogen warhead go off because of the nature of the plane crash, completed 3 out of the 4 arming sequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

But then again, I don't think even the Soviets would be stupid enough to have a nuclear warhead self-destruct with a nuclear detonation if the arming code was mistyped.

What I kind of wondered too though is if you had a nuclear missile explode, even if the warhead didn't go off you would still have a big chunk of fissionable (and if it's an H-bomb fusionable?) material that just blew up. Wouldn't that basically be like the Mac Daddy of all dirty bombs? I'm thinking that the whole wreck would have been really heavily irradiated but on this I could very well be completely wrong. This is just my half assed low information inference. At any rate, the missile that was allegedly in the launch position wasn't even blown up. It was sticking out of the top of it's tube on the sail. They designed a part of the lifting cradle to articulate in order to hold that missile in place with a net of steel chain. Recovering that missile was one of the biggest prizes the government was after on the whole wreck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,471
[REVY]
Members
6,142 posts
5,158 battles
5 hours ago, Captain_Dorja said:

What I kind of wondered too though is if you had a nuclear missile explode, even if the warhead didn't go off you would still have a big chunk of fissionable (and if it's an H-bomb fusionable?) material that just blew up. Wouldn't that basically be like the Mac Daddy of all dirty bombs? I'm thinking that the whole wreck would have been really heavily irradiated but on this I could very well be completely wrong. This is just my half assed low information inference. At any rate, the missile that was allegedly in the launch position wasn't even blown up. It was sticking out of the top of it's tube on the sail. They designed a part of the lifting cradle to articulate in order to hold that missile in place with a net of steel chain. Recovering that missile was one of the biggest prizes the government was after on the whole wreck.

 

I don't know how "dirty" a hydrogen warhead is to be honest.  I look at the Rivière-du-Loup B-50 nuclear weapon loss incident where a non-nuclear detonation of a Mark 4 nuclear bomb which scattered nearly 100 pounds of uranium (U-238) over Canada, and the US just covered it up and as far as I know, made no effort to clean it up.  So I'm guess it wouldn't be that dirty.  Goldfinger's cobalt-salted dirty bomb from James Bond would probably have been far more radioactive because cobalt bombs intentionally enhance the radioactivity with the intent to contaminate.  In comparison, Uranium is only moderately radioactive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Rivière-du-Loup_B-50_nuclear_weapon_loss_incident

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
488
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,678 posts

Water is actually a great isotope stabilizer due to it's density and fluidity as a material and given how it's not an active emission source, a breached nuclear warhead would rapidly lose it's radiation potential given just how small amount of fissionable material it really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×