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

a reply to: Kurokage

Dangerous? Potentially, yes, under the right circumstances.

Agreed on the threats.

However, the fix is simple enough if the ship becomes the true threat. If it starts moving toward populated areas and/or toward the location of the SS Richard Montgomery, then the Royal Navy should sink it on the spot. Put Russia on notice..."it's in our territorial waters and it is derelict. Move it or lose it."

That far off shore, a couple torpedoes will do the trick. If it blows up, well, too bad. If it doesn't, well, wet ammonium nitrate is inert. Problem solved. That, or tow it into a port and sell the fertilizer to pay down some of the debt.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I believe the SS Richard Montgomery is an American ship?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

With our wet lot of politicians in charge they'd probably arrest the first Sea Lord if the RN did ANYTHING

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I believe the SS Richard Montgomery is an American ship?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Haha charge mooring fees from when it ran aground that should build a few schools!

Be a shame if something happened to the MV Ruby. Accidents do happen...

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If the SS Richard Montgomery were to explode it could potentially cause a large-scale disaster i agree.

And by the looks of what is alleged to be onboard would indeed affect nearby areas including residential areas and shipping lanes.

Apparently, authorities monitor the wreck closely.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Yes, it is. It 'was' an American ship bringing munitions to Europe during WW2. That is correct. Through ineptitude on the part of the crew, it ran aground and broke up. No excuses.

So, are you suggesting the US should come and clean it up? I could maybe buy into that to a degree...but then we'd have to get into things like back-charges for supplying the war effort in WW2, and I don't think we want to go there. But I'd be willing to go for a 50-50 effort, jointly funded by both the US and the UK.

a reply to: andy06shake
Im a little surprised no members of the religion of peace haven't tried anything with it yet.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Ha! Yeah, right after you get done paying the bill for the WW2 efforts. Can you build billions of 'negative schools'? LOL!

DOH!

(just ribbing ya'!)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think salvaging the ordinance or trying to remove it might set it off.

Hence the reason its simply monitored as opposed to anything being done about it in the past 80 years.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think we finally paid that lot off in about 2005 ish.

a reply to: SprocketUK

SSSSHhhhhhh...they will now!!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

However, the fix is simple enough if the ship becomes the true threat. If it starts moving toward populated areas and/or toward the location of the SS Richard Montgomery, then the Royal Navy should sink it on the spot.

I agree with your statement, and would seem like the best course of action.

As for the SS Richard Montgomery...
www.bbc.com...

As the tide receded the vessel was left stranded. The hull’s welded plates began to crack and buckle under the weight of the explosives on board.

Local dockworkers hurriedly mounted a salvage operation. They managed to empty the rear half of the ship before finally abandoning it on 25 September 1944, when the forward section flooded and the vessel snapped in half.

In the decades that followed, authorities considered non-intervention to be the safest course of action. That became particularly true when a 1967 attempt to clear the Kielce – a smaller wrecked munitions vessel almost four miles (6.4km) out to sea – triggered an explosion that measured 4.5 on the Richter scale and damaged property in nearby Folkestone, though no injuries were reported.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

haha I remember a tv show pointing out how, since the Russians would have beat the Nazis anyway, we should have sat it all out, kept our money and just fought the Japs. We'd have been a few trillion better off and kept most of the empire together

a reply to: andy06shake

It almost certainly would...now. It wouldn't have 80 years ago. Removal now would likely involve controlled demolition in place, with an emphasis on "controlled".

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Nah, just winding you up, mate.

I think we eventually paid off your Lend Lease in 2006?

a reply to: SprocketUK

Could be right.

I think they might have bigger fish to fry than the population of Sheerness all the same.

It's probably more the shipping lanes that would be decimated depending on the level of traffic which I'm inclined to believe would be rather high.

Something about a massive 5 ft wave also, which I'm not sure about.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Me too. I read a book where that was the plot but can't remember which one.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah I was thinking just for the headlines, in fact, I'm kinda surprised the IRA didn't have a crack back in the day too.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Difficult to do a "controlled" demolition on that lot.