Hacker News Reader

Comment by PietdeVries | Hacker News Reader

Could the fire that the crew fought with their lives indeed have damaged the reactor (and thus have caused the "planetary catastrophe" - I assume that is what the article hints on)?

Or basically, was the reactor designed in such a way that a regular fire could damage it that it would become unstable?

View on HN

Given that the statement originated from a Russian official in 2019, we can safely assume the opposite. The crew's tragic death was preventable and pointless.

And where is the planetary scale when a nuclear explosion occurs? There have been many nuclear explosions on the Bikini Atoll etc. without planetary catastrophes.

Not to speak of the fact that an underwater nuclear explosion would do even less, except for a Tsunami maybe, which again is localized.

The only thing I can think of is preventing nuclear war. A rogue ballistic sub or so. But that is not very plausible.

The suggestion is the sub may have been carrying a Cobalt Bomb, a nuclear weapon encased in cobalt to increase fallout. In the case of a water detonation I'm guessing massive radioactive contamination that would end sea life for a large area - perhaps even planetary.

Pure speculation to fit the "planetary catastrophe" remark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-media-nuclear-torped...

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...

A truly massive amount of radioactive material has been dumped into the ocean. No amount of 'cobalt bomb' or other fantasy devices will appreciably affect the truly large (geological scale) ocean. Even if you dump every nuclear reactor, nuclear waste, nuclear fuel and blow up every nuke in the ocean, that will simply not seriously affect the ocean.

That seems a stretch?

I would put it into the category of tribute to fallen comrades. Nice guy, good soldier. The type of thing that almost certainly isnt true for all dead soldiers.

Exactly. It's much better to say they died valiantly saving everyone than to say that for example, someone lit up a cigarette that started a fire and then they realized half of oxygen masks wasn't working.

Losharik is a type of a spy sub, probably intended to tap into undersea cables. There shouldn't be a "wonder weapon" on the ship.

None of the leaked diagrams of the Losharik show any torpedo or missile tubes. The "bomb" hypothesis is pure speculation. However, they show a hydraulic manipulator and skegs, so it's clearly designed to tamper with stuff on the sea floor (eg. submarine communications cables).

I don't understand how they made the jump from "200 mega-tonne tsunami bomb" to cobalt bomb. I'm certainly no nuclear physicist, but I thought a cobalt bomb was purely to spread radioactivity and had effect on the strength of the bomb. Even a nuclear bomb creating a tsunami seems quite questionable, as does a fire setting it off.

The whole thing just seems like an odd mix of Russian propaganda, crazy conspiracy theories and scientific misunderstanding.

I suspect a "cobalt bomb" would be less effective in terms of explosive yield than an equivalent normal multi stage weapon design - the neutrons from the fusion reaction in the secondary being used to activate the cobalt rather than into fissioning the fissile jacket of the secondary where most modern weapon designs actually get most yield.

> a nuclear bomb creating a tsunami seems quite questionable,

Yes, a "trunami bomb" is nonsense. We've done underwater nuclear tests (e.g. operation Hardtack's Wahoo test). Water pressure prevents most of the physically destructive effects[2][3]. (it does make the local water radioactive for a while, but much less than the fallout generated by the same bomb on land. (water is a better at absorbing radiation than air) The idea that it might produce a tsunami is anti-nuclear fear mongering and/or baseless paranoia.

> as does a fire setting it off

The could only hypothetically be possible if the bomb was a "gun" design, which was quickly abandoned after the trinity test proved implosion designs were possible, because the "gun" method was inherently risky. (too easy to accidentally detonate the conventional explosives) (gun designs also had a high-ish risk of "fizzling", because they might not hold the critical mass together long enough)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hardtack_I#Underwate...

[2] https://what-if.xkcd.com/15/

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tbxDgcv74c

A tsunami creating nuclear submarine drone targeting Europe? And suddenly, the "Floodland" album by Sisters of Mercy feels eerily relevant again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floodland_(album)

No, water is a very good radiation shield and also cools down the reactor. So basically the subs are quite safe under hundreds of feet of water until the material leaks out and contaminates the sea floor.

https://www.businessinsider.com/sunken-soviet-nuclear-sub-le...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com