Russian ‘floating bomb’ ship packed with explosives now just 15 miles from two UK towns

a reply to: visitedbythem


"Why not just state it as loaded with ammonium nitrate fertilizer?"

They did:



"damaged Russian cargo ship loaded with 20,000 tonnes of highly explosive ammonium nitrate is currently just 15 miles from Margate after being “anchored” on the edge of the English Channel close to the Straits of Dover."

a reply to: Kurokage

First and foremost, maritime law (also known as admiralty law) applies to activities on the high seas or areas of open ocean beyond any one country's waters.

That's the reason i wondering what maritime law has to say on the topic if indeed it presents a danger to shipping the fact that it is outside British waters might not make much difference.

One would imagine we would be obligated to remove such a danger.

www.britannica.com...
www.clarksons.com...#:~:text=First%20and%20foremost%2C%20maritime%20law,beyond%20any%20one%20country's%20 waters.
www.marineinsight.com...

For the record, the sunken vessel loaded with ordnance is the SS Richard Montgomery, not "Montgomery". The Montgomery was a different ship. The Richard Montgomery is indeed loaded with unexploded munitions, quite a bit of them. Shame on UK authorities for not dealing with this like they should have long ago. Yes, it would have been dangerous then, but not nearly as dangerous as it is now, some 80 years later! While authorities claim 'safety' as the reason, the real reason for not cleaning up this mess is bureaucracy and cost. Anyone with two neurons to rub together would know the really unsafe thing to do is to leave 1,400 tons of unexploded bombs on the seafloor to corrode and decay just waiting for something to run into them, or for the ship to collapse on them.

To the Russian ship, yes, they may indeed be up to something, but once again we see media "spin" here. The MV Ruby is full of ammonium nitrate, not particularly explosive by itself; it's fertilizer. So, it's not a "BOMB SHIP!!" as claimed by the media. It only becomes a bomb ship when it runs into a massive 1,400 ton pile of REAL bombs just sitting there waiting for something to run into them due to inaction by political bureaucrats!

I am rarely critical of the UK government, gawd knows we have enough of our own problems here in the US, but in this instance I am going to be critical...primarily because this is a great example of some stupid sh!t the US would do too.

The combined explosive force of the two ships, were they to collide, would create a devastating blast which would make the one in Beirut look like child's play! It would likely create not only a local tsunami (tidal wave) as well as leveling local communities. Should such an event happen, the UK has no one to blame but themselves!

Don't get me wrong, the Russians are some evil and calculating bastages when it comes to stuff like this. Furthermore, historically Russia seems to love to just let their rickety fleets fall into disrepair and sink (sometimes very conveniently, in the case of nuclear submarines they don't want to pay to dispose of). However, in this particular case, there should be no excuse for the Russians to create an incident (which would be an Act of War).

I personally am getting very tired (and grumpy) with all the people trying to start WW3 lately! I'm not saying UK started this; the Russians did, but still...Clean up your sh!t, UK! You don't want WW3. We don't want WW3. Nobody wants WW3...except for the war mongers!

No more excuses.

edit - What I mean by people "trying to start WW3" is things like the media labeling things "BOMB SHIP!!", when they're not 'bomb ships' at all...thus stirring the pot of war.

On a complete side note...fertilizer is not cheap right now, and ammonium nitrates are some of the best fertilizers. The cargo onboard that Russian ship is worth a metric sh!t-ton of money! The value of the fertilizer alone could be used for humanitarian purposes. So, if it's such a big deal...then board and seize the damn thing. Take the cargo and put it to good use. Don't just sit around and let the media label things "Bomb Ship!" and wait for some disaster to happen, one which could easily be prevented. Oh, and clean up the mess of the SS Richard Montgomery while you're at it!

a reply to: andy06shake

I don't know much about maritime law. Apart from in the eighties I had to fix some Court Order to the mast of some ship for reasons that I can't remember.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I know crazy people try to use it in courts to circumvent the system which tends to go down like a lead balloon.

But it does indeed seem to apply in international waters.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Expecting politicians to actually do something about this is probably the triumph of hope over experience.

a reply to: andy06shake

hat's the reason i wondering what maritime law has to say on the topic if indeed it presents a danger to shipping the fact that it is outside British waters might not make much difference.

Thats interesting, as it's a broken ass ship but still afloat and can run 'under it's own steam'? I imagine once it's refueled it will be sent on it's way?

a reply to: visitedbythem

Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber used Ammonium Nitrate to build bombs and terrorised the USA for nearly 20 years.

Might just be fertilizer to some.

But its rather a nasty potent substance in the wrong hands or when stored improperly in bulk.

a reply to: andy06shake

Nasty stuff. Even flour can be highly explosive.

www.iflscience.com...

a reply to: andy06shake

Stop with the DOOM PORN!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Where?

It's a ship Flyingclaydisk in the wrong place, at the wrong time, where international salvage laws will probably apply, if they can't get the thing sea-worthy and on her merry way rather soon.

Dangerous.

But hardly a threat to the entire human race or doom porn as you put it.

And if we are stopping doing things, screaming words in block capitals might be nice.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

SS Richard Montgomery, not "Montgomery"...... I personally am getting very tired (and grumpy) with all the people trying to start WW3 lately!

Yeah, Ive read articles where both have been used, and I've also posted the wrong name, my apologies. Like you, I'm also getting a bit fed up with all the threats about being nuked recently. Last I checked though, the British goverment haven't threatened anyone with Nuclear War?

news.un.org...

He warned, however, that “not since the worst days of the Cold War has the spectre of nuclear weapons cast such a dark shadow.”

He said that “nuclear sabre-rattling has reached a fever pitch” and there have been threats to use a nuclear weapon, highlighting fears of a new arms race.

Meanwhile, decades-old norms established against the use, spread and testing of nuclear weapons are being eroded.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Custard as well apparently.

Which can be highly explosive in the same way flour is under the correct conditions.

Its a fuel-air explosive of sorts now i come to think about it.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Not sure talking about 20,000 tonnes of the stuff sitting of the coast is doom porn, but you have to admit it's very dangerous? Especially when you also take all the Russian threats of attacking Britian into consideration.

a reply to: andy06shake

That's it. I'm clearing out my kitchen cupboards.

I don't want death by custard!

a reply to: andy06shake

I only used all caps because the UK tabloids used all caps for the same thing. As I clearly stated, the MV Ruby is not a "Bomb Ship", but rather a bulk carrier loaded with fertilizer.

And, if it happens to get close enough to the SS Richard Montgomery (which really is a 'bomb ship') to cause a combined explosion then the UK will have nowhere to look but into the mirror for the resultant damage.

That's the point.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That's UK tabloids for you....

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If Russia deliberately did that I think Russia would be to blame.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And where have i stated it was a "Bomb Ship"?

Nowhere i can see.

The vessel's cargo however is highly volatile and explosive under the correct conditions, which is the salient point if I'm not mistaken.

It's dangerous that's the point.

But i would not go so far as to call it doom porn.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: andy06shake

That's it. I'm clearing out my kitchen cupboards.

I don't want death by custard!

Be careful my friend!!!