E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Andrei Pronin / AP file
The Yekaterinburg nuclear submarine is in Gadzhiyevo in the Murmansk region, Russia, on March 16, 2011. Firefighters extinguished a massive fire aboard a docked Russian nuclear submarine Friday, Dec. 30, 2011, as some crew members remained inside, officials said, assuring that there was no radiation leak and that the vessel's nuclear-tipped missiles were not on board.
MOSCOW -- Russia came close to nuclear disaster in late December when a blaze engulfed a nuclear-powered submarine carrying atomic weapons, a leading Russian magazine reported, contradicting official assurances that it was not armed.
Russian officials said at the time that all nuclear weapons aboard the Yekaterinburg nuclear submarine had been unloaded well before a fire engulfed the 550-foot vessel and there had been no risk of a radiation leak.
But the respected Vlast weekly magazine quoted several sources in the Russian navy as saying that throughout the fire on Dec. 29 the submarine was carrying 16 R-29 intercontinental ballistic missiles, each armed with four nuclear warheads.
"Russia, for a day, was on the brink of the biggest catastrophe since the time of Chernobyl," Vlast reported. The 1986 disaster in modern-day Ukraine is regarded as the world's worst nuclear accident.
Neither the Russian Defense Ministry nor the office of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who has responsibility for military matters, would immediately comment on the report. A spokesman for the navy could not be contacted.
Senior U.S. officials told NBC News on Tuesday that the report is true and that nuclear arms were onboard Dec. 29, but there was no danger of a catastrophic disaster on the scale of Chernobyl.
The reason, said one official, is that the fire was not near the weapons or the ship's reactor and that those areas are hardened.
The fire started when welding sparks ignited wooden scaffolding around the 18,200-ton submarine at the Roslyakovo docks, 900 miles north of Moscow. It is one of the main shipyards used by Russia's northern fleet.
Russia Today File / AFP - Getty Images
A grab from images released by Russia Today shows fire crew trying to extinguish a fire on board the Russian nuclear submarine Yekaterinburg docked in Murmansk on Dec. 29, 2011.
The rubber covering of the submarine then caught fire, sending flames and black smoke 30 feet above the stricken vessel. Firemen battled the blaze for a day and a night before partially sinking the submarine to douse the flames, according to media reports.
Vlast reported that immediately after the fire, the Yekaterinburg sailed to the navy's weapons store, an unusual trip for a damaged submarine supposedly carrying no weapons and casting doubt on assurances that it was not armed.
"K-84 was in dock with rockets and torpedoes on board," the magazine said, adding that in addition to the nuclear weapons, the submarine was carrying torpedoes and mines as well as its two nuclear reactors.
The magazine said that if one of the torpedoes had exploded, it could have threatened the nuclear missiles, leading to a nuclear accident.
Media reports of what happened at the time of the fire were contradictory, and foreign journalists were unable to gain access to the high-security zone.
An official told NBC News on Tuesday that even if the nuclear warheads had caught fire, the physics of nuclear weapons don't lend themselves to accidental detonation.
Although the probability of a disaster was low, there is a high probability that someone in command will have to answer questions, the officials said.
It is standard operating procedure in the world's nuclear navies to remove nuclear warheads from submarines prior to maintenance.
Russia's worst post-Soviet submarine disaster was in August 2000 when the nuclear submarine Kursk sank in the Barents Sea, killing all 118 crewmen aboard.
NBC News' Robert Windrem contributed to this report from Reuters.
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Radiation risk? Hope that they have preventive measures.
If those 64 warheads had gone off that would have left one h*ll of a crater in the harbor.
.
You cannot detonate a Nuke simply by lighting it on fire, that's not how a nuclear explosion works. To have a nuclear explosion you need to force the enriched material into a super-critical density (by colliding it with other nuclear material or creating an explosion around the material that forces it in on itself), thereby starting the nuclear reaction. Simply setting it on fire would only release the nuclear material from its container and release huge amounts of radiation. This submarine fire wouldn't have caused a nuclear explosion, but it could have started a meltdown that would have released massive radiation into the area.
In a fire hot enough to ignite the high explosives would have dispersed the U325, or PU239 not so much a radiation hazard. But the micronized PU239 has lovely way of getting to lungs, and remain undetected.
If such a test were performed to see if a fire would trigger and explosion and then could have triggered an implosion, I would recommend against doing it with a ready but unarmed warhead.
Just a precaution, you understand, a cascade of 16 missiles, with multiple warheads (?) then one explosion leads to another.
Russian Roulette Gos Nuclear, Trusting Souls.
You can too set off a nuclear weapon by setting it on fire...that is what my great grandfather did in Russia at Tunguska in 1908. He made the device in his work shed and then by accident, the shed caught fire and poof!!!!!!
To hide the existence of nuclear weapons, the Russians hid this but Americans showed up, paid my grandmother $200.00 for her dad's notebook and batta-bing! We got the bomb in time to perfect it for...well, you know...
So the fire was NOT in the sub but was a liner around the outside; a no brainer; lower the sub into the water to douse the flames. This also doesn't constitute a high risk for anything inside the sub. I love how they make the story sound much more catastrophic than it actually is.
Skeeter, that's the most ridiculous yarn I've read in a long time. The development of the atomic bomb is well documented, and NOT based on anything that happened in 1908. The theoretical possibility of such a weapon was not even developed until the 1930's. Try looking up Leo Szilard. He proposed this possibility in 1934.
Nice try!
Alan, it was a joke. Google "Fox News" and "slant" to understand humor.
I love how stories like this try to scare people by sounding like there was a danger of an atomic explosion before slipping in their little disclaimer at the end, "the physics of nuclear weapons don't lend themselves to accidental detonation."
This is the understatement of the year. It is almost impossible to get an atomic bomb to go off on purpose. The very idea of a fire or a secondary explosion causing a nuclear blast is laughable. It would be like worrying that you might burst into flames if your coffee is too hot. It is not just unlikely, it is effectively impossible. Whole countries work for years to design and build a device that can trigger an atomic explosion. If any part of the device is displaced by even a millimeter or the timing of the different triggers is off by a millisecond, the chain reaction will fail. There has never been a nuclear explosion triggered by fire or nearby explosions, even other nuclear explosions, and there never will be. If you detonated 63 of the 64 warheads on the ship at once, the 64th would not "go off", though it would be vaporized, of course.
Hey y'all wanna go weld by those wooden docks over there?
James:
You brought up an interesting point. Since Fukushima, a lot of us are likely more aware of how the nuclear fuel requires constant cooling, is that correct?
As with other nuclear incidents, the secrecy is as disturbing as ever, not to mention the crew locked down inside the craft.... No mention was made of how much radiation might have leaked, maybe none. We will never know.
Nuclear fission - an industry, a power source, a weapons system, all born at the beginning of the Cold War. We can only hope that nuclear fusion, likely to be ready by 2030? will live up to its promise of providing truely clean and abundant energy.
Skeeter? It's got to be difficult to type with that straight jacket on. Broadband access in padded rooms. What will they think of next?
Anyway, Russia's secretive ways haven't changed from their Soviet days. They'll have a major incident and we won't hear a thing about it until it's all over. How comforting.
"Russian officials said at the time that all nuclear weapons aboard the Yekaterinburg nuclear submarine had been unloaded well before a fire engulfed the 550-foot vessel and there had been no risk of a radiation leak."
No risks---wink, wink
"The 1986 disaster in modern-day Ukraine is regarded as the world's worst nuclear accident".
I believe that Fukushima has replaced Chernobyl as the world's worst nuclear accident so far, by at least a couple of times over.
I was thinking the same thing. reportedly started to melt down.
Yeah, and try to keep the sparks away from the highly flammable rubber coating on the sink-boat.
Wow,
(Extreme Sarcasm). I see all the Nuclear (Weapons) Physicists are posting CNWDI on Newsvine. (people that know my experience and training from previous posts know why I can say this).
At the end of the "Cold War" after START, SALT, INF Treaty, etc. the United States of America showed the USSR the CNWDI methods to make their Nuclear Weapons Safer including CNWDI Two Person Control Systems (before that one person could enable a USSR Nuclear Weapon).
In the worst case situation the materials would have caught fire and small non nuclear explosions. It would be the burning nuclear materials creating a radioactive smoke cloud that would be of radioactive concern and spreading toxic PU239 (microscopic particles will kill). This is known as a "Redacted. Redacted.
In this case (design), no you cannot. However, that is not entirely true of ALL Nuclear Weapons.
Exactly, that is why it was smart to stay on board and submerge the boat (submarine), like sure you are going to attempt to abandon ship while running across a burning deck with the boat (submarine) rubber stealth coating on fire sticking to your feet.
This is unlike when the USSR dropped a nuclear warhead torpedo on the deck of one of their USSR Typhoon Class Boats (submarines), with the torpedo fuel igniting, the explosives and nuclear materials in the nuclear warhead torpedo catching fire, and burnt the Typhoon Class Boat (submarine) to the waterline. In this case submerging the boat (submarine) would have done nothing as the nuclear materials that have gone pyrophoric (ignited) continue to burn underwater (hydrogen + oxygen + a pinch of salt).
WA-Moscow,
Have you read Skeeter McClusky other posts? If you did then you would know that Skeeter McClusky actually believes that and not as sarcasm.
In this case yes, as well as most Nuclear Weapons with the US Safe Technology (actual name is still CNWDI) after SALT, START, INF Treaty, etc. (that also eliminated the US and USSR Nuclear Weapons (Warheads as "W" numbers) without this US Safe Technology), in General that is not entirely true (certain other Nations).
Not really. If you were sent there with the US NAIRA Teams to assist the USSR at the time, you would know that the Fukushima Nuclear Accident/Incident will never replace what happened at the USSR Chernobyl f**k up (nuclear fuel almost did the "China Syndrome"), the lessons learned from Chernobyl (a USSR design feature) prevented that from happening at Fukushima.
Did you even Read the Article it was the outside Rubber Stealth Coating on the Boat that was on fire. Would you rather have the crew panicking attempting to abandon ship running around on the deck with burning rubber attached to them and burning to death or have them dive the submarine to put out the fire or if in dry dock open the flood gates to put out the fire (if you do not lock down the hatches, flooded boat (submarine) with drowned (dead) crew). In this case this is what makes the difference between a Boat (Submarine) Captain and a dead crew.
David:
You brought up several interesting points, most of which I was not aware of, not being a nuclear anything. What concerns me most, as I expect many others, is how the industry is shrouded in secrecy. Will we ever know what happened to the sub and crew, likely not?
My personal reaction to Fukushima or a fire on a nuclear sub is similar to my reaction to other issues of info dissemination when it comes to nuclear power. It's a hard industry to "sell" even in the best of times.
There are still a group of rogue nations that are wasting their best and brightest on developing a flawed technology, versus channeling all their nervous energy to figuring out more creative ways to solve one of our world's top five most challenging issues going forward, access to affordable clean energy anywhere in the world.
We lost an atomic sub...and really, no one knows what it had on board.
what year was this?
Mid to late 60's. The Thresher.
In the seventies -- I think it was the "Thresher".
It was indeed the Thresher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)). Although I'm not sure what you mean by "and really, no one knows what it had on board."
It did not have any nuclear armaments on-board, just the nuclear reactor.
Actually the Thresher was lost in 1963 - was that so hard to Google? See how B.S. and half-truths become fact in this day of willful ignorance, despite unprecedented access to the actual facts? Learn how to learn fools, or you will continue to be tools.
Wow Bruce... easy now...Think you might have climbed a little high on Mt. Judgmental.
Yes I was talking about the Thresher. The US government blew off questions about what it had on board. They said it was a training accident.
or was the answer regarding nuke weapons, "we can neither confirm nor deny"?
The USS Scorpion went down within several years of USS Thresher, and their still not sure what happened.
Bruce is the bestest Googler I've never met!
Regarding the USS Scorpion. I understand the sinking was caused by a crewman taking a shower. The drain was plugged...
The MS Stockholm went afoul into the Andrea Doria on 25 July 1956 and sank in the fog south of Nantucket Island in the North Atlantic. Fifty-one people were killed on both ships and the Stockholm penetrated 40 feet into the Andrea Doria which took on water and capsized in about thirty minutes. The next morning the Andrea Doria sank and slipped beneath the waves like an old man into a warm bath!
You idiots . . .
Looks like Bruce got jumped on with both feet. Sometimes it's not wise to be a smart aleck.
Thresher? I'm takin my Thresher out tonight and playin with it!
I'm not sure what the Stockholm and Andrea Doria had to do with it...but it has always been unclear if the fuel aboard the Thresher was safe, and they did not make clear what else was aboard. We also accidentally dropped a nuclear weapon on an American farm.
the thresher was on one of many sea trials. she was leaking water from the start. the air in her ballast tanks was not dry so that when she blew her ballast tanks the water froze and literally blew the piping off the bulkheads from the ice that had formed in the pipes. we leanred a lot form her tragedy
America lost the USS Thresher (SSN-593) on 10 APR 1963.
America lost the USS Scorpion (SSN-589) on 05 JUN 1968.
nah, they forgot that the screen door doesn't keep the water out
Yep, Bruce in Austin, is correct.
And all of you criticism him (failed attempt to deflect being uninformed uneducated and too lazy from yourselves).
We are talking about people that got killed, and all of you did not know since you did not bother to do the research (google) and even make fun of the fact that people died:
Guess some of you would love to get crushed to death by tons of seawater.
Bruce in Austin it is better to be known as a SMART aleck. Than them admitting that they are the opposite "alecks"
willis22 would be correct. The "official" US policy is never to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons. It's been that way since the very beginning of that wonderful technology.
Bruce is in the lead and David's making a firm presents.
david, whine much?
some people deal with tragedy by making light of it, get over yourself.
Kinda funny that they put in pictures of gay marriage and martha stewart with an article on a possible nuclear disaster
So what your saying is that a Russian Navy gay wedding catered by Martha Stewart , got horribly out of control and almost caused a nuclear accident ?
@jnessler: Now THAT's funny!
It's kind of funny that the cookies in your browser directed you to see those types of advertisements. The advertisements on my screen are for local jobs, car insurance, and e-cigarettes. Same article!
All it means is that, even though a potential nuclear disaster is being reported, ya just gotta have those commercials!!!! I would guess that if we were looking up into the sky at one of those Russian missiles smiling down at us, the *&%$*& Energizer bunny would swoop by beating his little drum and you would hear "it keeps going and going and going."
Whoa! This brings out how really stupid we are to have all those atomic weapons flying around everywhere and in submarines that get lost and sink, etc. At some point people will find those and if the technology continues to evolve, there will be ways to get them out. Let's hope it's the right people.
No glasnost here...
So, anybody believing the Russian stories??? I don't. Sure they unloaded the nuc weapons before the fire started. Doesn't everybody do this since they know a fire will start!! Ha, Ha, big BS.
most ships offload weapons before going into drydock
Recently, the remains of the first submarine ever built were put on display after being retrieved from the bottom of the ocean. In it they found some bones, buckles, a watch. Imagine the surprise when, 100 years from now, some poor shmuck happens upon one of the "lost" nuke subs. Could be an interesting fishing trip/.
Nuclear disasters are sooooooo 2011.
...From Russia, with lies...
Russia lying, this can't be true ---- LMAO
There government is no worse than ours in that department.
The yarn-spinning may be the same - but the Russian Navy is incredibly more reckless.
To put a submarine in wooden scaffolding while it still had torpedoes, mines, and 16 ICBMs aboard is a fantastically foolish maintenance procedure. It takes time and money to off-load and store the weapons, then reload after the maintenance. It would keep the sub off-line for a longer time. The Russians were probably in a rush to get the sub back on patrol. They lucked out - the heat would not detonate a nuclear warhead, but it could cook off the high explosive warhead on a torpedo, which would rip the boat apart. If the ICBMs got hot enough, the solid fuel missile propellant could ignite, releasing lots of energy in a very rapid and messy way.
Catchy. And true. But we're all playing that game. No one is going to admit @!$%# ... yet I still tune in everyday because ...
mailman8,
One of the few intelligent posts so far. You should not be a mailman (no sarcasm meant).
why is the first picture of a British sub?..........the Union Jack and all
No, that is the "Jack and Fortress flag" of the Russian Navy. Kinda looks British, but the submarine is definitely Russian.
Its the Imperial Russian Naval Jack, from the 1850s.
That's a Russian Navy Jack flag.
No. Wrong. Read the caption. Russian naval flag. Google it.
It's the Russian Navy Flag (Jack). It has the St. Andrew Cross similar to the Union Jack only in blue.
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru~nav.html
Dag gummit its a Confedrete flag!!!!! Yeeeeeehaaaaaa! The South has risen again!!!!!!
He was in a hurry?
That is not the British flag (Union Jack), look closer....I believe that is the boats naval flag
They keep track of nuclear weapons in the world... like congress keeps track of where our taxes is spent.
I recall a story a few years ago....a US Air Force bomber took off from a Minnesota air base for a training flight to a Louisiana air base..they were bringing the plane to the hanger and one Air Force officer notice the bombs attached to the plane had nuclear warheads not conventional bombs..talk about a blunder and possible disaster if something happen in flight over the mainland of the USA.
These warheads can not be detonated without specific codes being entered. No big bang just a nasty mess in someones back yard.
Yes they can - see my story above plus - I once saw a movie where a guy hit a nuke with a hammer and it went off....
Yeah, but it can't be just any hammer. It has to be the right one.
WA-Moscow,
Have you read Skeeter McClusky other posts? If you did then you would know that Skeeter McClusky actually believes that and not as sarcasm.
And why does the article imply that an nuclear incident did happen? All this was, was a simple fire on a nuclear sub with no mention of radiation leaks in the article; actually it explicitly says there were no leaks. Anything for views I guess eh MSNBC?
...and the fire was on the OUTSIDE, in the scaffolding and the rubber coating of the sub. Once it was out, they merrily sailed it to the weapons depot. End of crisis.
Would you even have read the article if the sensationalized title of "Report: Russia faced major nuclear disaster in 2011"
was changed to
"Rubber Coating on Russian Submarine Caught on Fire".
Wooden scaffold around, and rubber coverings over, a fueled and armed ballistic submarine. What century of nuclear safety are these people in? Good gawd.
Yeah, I think they last used wooden scaffolding when they built the Trojan horse. LOL
You say "fueled" as if you are talking about a gas powered car with a fuel tank on the outside. As the article clearly states this was a nuclear powered sub and the reactor(s) are hardened as are missiles. The fire would have had to burn through several inches of hardened steal just to get through the outer haul of the sub. Then it would have to get through the inner one and then , probably, through several outer compartments before it got to the reactors and the weapons. With all that said it would have been nice of them to let people know the truth. But hey this is Russia we are talking about, why start telling the truth now?
The wood scaffold is used as it will not damage the rubber liner as steel beams would; the entire sub is lined with a rubber epoxy to make it absorb sonar making it invisible under water; normally this liner is not made fire retardant... well because.. it remains underwater... you see, it is a very modern sub, you're just behind on on the technology... CHEERS
Ken,
Aluminum scaffolding, which is what most industries use, is every bit as smooth as or smoother than wood scaffolding so it wouldn't damage the rubber if it comes in contact with it. Actually, aluminum is safer than wood because it doesn't splinter and catches on the rubber and tears. If you don't believe me, take an aluminum pipe and a wood dowel and rub both on a rubber surface. The aluminum pipe slides over the rubber surface much smoother. And I'm sure you can order aluminum scaffolding which is polished to a finish smoother than the standard metal scaffolding. In any case, welding sparks and wood is a no no.
Road Warrior-252445,
Ken Trout is correct. Even aluminium will damage the coating. And aluminium has a tendency to get harder the more pressure applied (compression of surface), same technique used during the manufacturer of US cruise missiles. There is also the fact that aluminium burns just like magnesium (almost impossible to extinguish).
Go to either a USN East Coast Dry Dock at Virginia, or a USN West Coast Dry Dock at California and ask them. While TDA at Hawaii (USN Pearl Harbor) I was really surprised at the really big squared logs that they used to shore up the ships and boats (submarines)(stacked on top of each other like game Jenga, except many columns based on displacement (tonnage)).
@david-475776 That's right. I live in Hawaii, and know several folks who work/worked at the shipyard on maintenance, plus a few former engineers that helped to remove the spent fuel rods of decommissioned subs. Our local paper even had a very brief article on how the wooden blocks are shaped/arranged for the drydock work. If the on-line version of the Honolulu Star Advertiser article is available, you might even get to see the pictures.
Welding around wooden scaffolding. Hilarious. That never happens in the US.
...reports indicate the presence of a vodka-powered welder...
See posts# 13.3 and 13.5.
"Most Industries" do not use Rubber Stealth Coatings.
Has anyone else noticed that the "I hate nuclear power" media is flooding the internet with every doom and gloom story they can dig up concerning the issue? And that these stories are here as a result of the new nuclear facility licenses that were recently awarded. Fascinating.
You kids like to aggue the insignificant details; the USSR wasn't known for maintenance which should worry anybody. What's happened to their nuclear arsenal since the fall is mostly understood, we think!! The US, Great Britan and Israel need to get our @!$%#s together, acquire and destroy it. How long, with the current global economic issues, will it take before those opposed to democracy or those whom think the Boogie man is up there waiting in paradise after death, will find the right dude needing money or medical treatment for a family member?
I wonder if the guy who finally said, 'hey, let's just submerge the boat!' got a medal...
A boat in drydock cant be just submerged instantly.
Open the flood gates and or valves.
Even old pre WWII Dry Docks were built below Sea Level in order to get the ships or boats (submarines) into the Dry Docks in the first place.
The good thing is that it was at the docks ....
Many ships carry their nukes with them as the exercise around the world ....
Mybe it is just me, but that kinds of looks like a British flag on the bow.
Russia is the dumbest country in the world. Who else would be communist for 100 years? Now they shoot themselves in the foot with intercontinental ballistic missile. Bad think Napoleon didn't manage to civilize these savages.
Stalin killed nearly 50 million of his own citizens to stay in power and the leaders who followed weren't much better. It didn't have anything to do with them being stupid, they were terrified for their lives for half a century.
70 years from now they could be saying that about obama. Be careful America.
@Bensgpa - If you think half the country thinking differently than you is equivalent to murdering 50 million people, you need some serious mental help. It makes me happy that you're just an angry person with a computer and not somebody with any real influence.
@Really?-3548458 I'm not fond of many of Obama's supporters and his appointments. Lots of them are radical folks who openly worship Marx, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, etc. and their writings talk about radical changes that include violent overthrow and euphemisms for killing their opposition (e.g., our democracy). Their attitude: kill some people, you're a murderer, but kill hundreds, thousands, or millions, you're a hero. This is their take on the "Hope" and "Change" that Obama had promised.
My influence is my vote. Everyone should do careful research and vote wisely based on facts, not emotionally charged slander. I Hope to Change the outcome this time around ...
so the story here is that there is no story:
"The reason, said one official, is that the fire was not near the weapons or the ship's reactor and that those areas are hardened."
Ya but people like nukular subs cause they're long and hard and full of seamen
Yes a perverted mind is a terrible thing to waste, it should be shared with others.
This doesn't make any sense. Did they talk to any nuclear weapons experts? The feature of reactors that makes them so dangerous is the volume of material involved and the temperatures at which they operate. An explosion of the chemicals in a nuclear warhead would not trigger a nuclear explosion. It would spread radioactive material around the immediate environment but would not spread it like a radioactive steam discharge or a volatilized graphite explosion as in a pressurized water reactor or a Chernobyl type reactor. Nuclear warheads have had chemical explosions before.
This was serious, but not in a nuclear sense. I really wish the reporting was better
Well..... evidently , lying politicians ARE everywhere !!
Must kill moose and squirrel!!
Wrong. It's "keel moose and squirrel."
Can't really tell... the Russian government and the Russian press have roughly the same levels of reliability and accuracy.