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

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Yes, it would absolutely go off (if it was going to), and that's the whole idea. You wouldn't be "towing" it per se, just rolling it over. The idea being to disturb the remaining ordnance in a controlled way. The surrounding area would be evacuated while this was performed. Then similar techniques are used but on smaller scale to spread the munitions out so they can't chain react when detonated. Once that's done, then you start selectively detonating the spread out munitons one by one (or in small groups). Yes, it's messy, and yes, it's disruptive, but look at the alternative...a time bomb which could go off at any time (when you're not ready, and when people are not evacuated). That's a much worse alternative.

Sometimes you fight fire with fire...and sometimes you fight fire with explosives. (it's an old oilfield trick)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Dunno, I m no bomb disposal expert.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

See all that sounds expensive to the tune of a couple of £100 million(because it always is), possibly more.

We canny get them to pay for the community centers to stay open.

And there are food banks in operation all over the island.

They are taking away the pensioner's warm home discount ffs.

What chance do you really think there is of TPTB footing the bill to remove underwater bombs.

From 80 years ago that ""might go off"" just because it might kill or mame a couple of 100 to a 1000 people or so?

The answer is not much really as unfortunate as the case may be.

originally posted by: watchitburn
A lot of nonsense in this thread.

AN fertilizer isn't explosive by itself, you'd have to mix it with a fuel (diesel is commonly used) then you would need an initiator and most likely a booster too.

It's not explosive, but it is flammable. And when it burns it off-gases massive volumes of gas. It's this gas expansion which causes the destructive force. And ammonium nitrate doesn't necessarily need fuel oil (you're referring to the explosive known as ANFO) to burn. Once it reaches its flashpoint it will burn on its own. The reason for the fuel oil is to accelerate this process very rapidly.

The Beirut explosion wasn't an accident, it was an Israeli op to take out a Hezbollah explosives cache.

I tend to agree; it wasn't an accident. Who did it though remains an open question. It could have been the Israeli's, but if it was then it was a pretty reckless move on their part.

Russia didn't blow up their own pipeline, it's just stupid.
Biden and Victoria Nueland are both on video saying we would take it out.

Who exactly the US used to do it is still in question though.

Again, I agree; I would say it's highly unlikely Russia did it. There would be some motive though for Russia to do it considering the pipeline was shut down indefinitely for a variety of reasons. The viability of the pipeline, long term, was in question. That's a big motive right there, but I don't think they did it. The flip side of this is, the strategic value of the pipeline was negligible also (for the same reasons). Thus, this isn't a big incentive for the west to do it either. My vote would be 3 letter agencies from the west, but could have been Ukraine too in a similar op. No question though that it was intentional. Big remaining question is who.

All of this doesn't mean that Putin is good(he's not) , or that Russia isn't up to something. I'm sure they are.

But the whole floating bomb thing is obvious fear mongering propaganda aimed at low info rubes that still believe whatever the media tells them to.

Agreed.

a reply to: andy06shake

The old "OSI model" (computer networking) used to have (7) different levels or "layers". Back in the day, there was a saying that some problems were "Layer 8" problems, meaning they weren't technical but rather political and/or bureaucratic.

The problems you cite are Layer 8 problems. We have the same; they're not real problems, they're political and bureaucratic problems. They have solutions, it's just that no one wants to implement them. And part of the reason is because so many people's "feelz" get 'hurted'.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I do not dissgree.

The thing about the sort of problem in question would be sods/murphy's law or so it would seem.

At some point "they" will be forced to care.

These days they just blame the last administration and hope the shoe lands on someone else's foot.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to make the SS Richard Montgomery less of a hazard by building a 'wall' around it?

1) Marine concrete;

2) Big-ass blocks;


3) Big-ass crane vessel.


Lay a perimeter wall around the coast-facing side and then decide what to do. Blow it or leave it... any resulting explosion and tsunami should be contained enough not to pose a risk to the coastline inhabitants.

a reply to: Encia22

I'm no expert, but that sounds like a plan to me.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Encia22

I'm no expert, but that sounds like a plan to me.

I have an old school buddy who is the Labour MP for Southgate and Wood Green. I've been meaning to touch bases with him as I haven't seen him since we left school. Perhaps I can interest him in the idea, lol.

It would be a lot cheaper than hiring the one only company in the world which could do the salvage operation, according to the BBC article posted earlier.

a reply to: Encia22

That is another solution, absolutely. Build a wall around it so a blast, if any, goes straight up. The only negative I see there is just a larger navigation hazard, but you can't get near the thing anyway, so why not.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Encia22

That is another solution, absolutely. Build a wall around it so a blast, if any, goes straight up. The only negative I see there is just a larger navigation hazard, but you can't get near the thing anyway, so why not.

Cheers. If the wall were to extend all the way around the ship, say at a distance of 150ft or so, it would protect it from being hit 'inadvertently' by other ships, hostile or otherwise.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Kurokage

you SAS guys will blow it up like Nord Stream and blame Russia again. I would not put it past the royals to sacrifice some civilians to justify a NATO war mandate and detonate it in the midst of busy shipping channel nearby the most innocent targets possible. The Royals of Britain are just as nasty as the Israeli government, I am certain they would gladly sacrifice their own people, lie about it, and then quietly admit it nearly a year later.

Your Monarchs, you know the wealthiest families and people in your country that miraculously have zero policy control over the country unlike every other civilization on Earth and their wealthiest citizens, are running the show, not your MP's . That would be like believing that the US congress is not actually run by the big corporations through their lobbyists. Except with Royals, they don not need lobbyists, they own everything. They just communicate directly with their friends in the military. Maybe the heirs further down the list still use lobbysists.

Honestly the way the article reads make this sound like vulnerable target for sabotage more than concern from an attack by them. I suspect they want or intend on doing something with it.

I take it you're a fan of our royal family then!

SAS wouldn't touch it anway... SBS on the other hand, well, who knows.

a reply to: Encia22

Well, I'm not about leaving things like UXO in the water (or anywhere for that matter). These things need to be dealt with, else they will surprise you at the worst times.

So, my solution would be to use mass to your advantage. Fill a bunch of inter-modal containers with concrete and place them around the ship to above the tide line, buttress them so they are like a buttressed wall (i.e. several containers thick at the bottom and then tapered). Shape the containers to force the blast up, and away, from populated centers, and then use controlled demolition to detonate the whole thing. That, or spread it out as I identified earlier, and then detonate it.

Until this is defused it poses a grave danger to both shipping, population centers and even low flying aircraft.

Blow it up and be done with it.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

"Your Monarchs, you know the wealthiest families and people in your country that miraculously have zero policy control over the country unlike every other civilization on Earth and their wealthiest citizens, are running the show, not your MP's . That would be like believing that the US congress is not actually run by the big corporations through their lobbyists. Except with Royals, they don not need lobbyists, they own everything. They just communicate directly with their friends in the military. Maybe the heirs further down the list still use lobbysists."

Yeah, sure.

What a load of old mullarkey.

Do you think anyone believes this bullcrap?

It's the SBS.

Deny Ignorance.

a reply to: Kurokage

Sounds no worse than the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery......

To settle the SAS / SBS debate, it was the RAF that sank the Torrey Canyon back in the day.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Really?
Not sure that is accurate.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Kurokage

Would an explosion at the mouth of the estuary, 7x bigger than the enormous Beirut blast, send a significant wee tsunami up the Thames?

How would the barrier cope? Could it possibly flood parts of London? However short lived such a flood was it would cause a lot of damage, maybe casualties and plenty of publicity. A bit of rain brings half of street flooded London to a stand still. If detonated on Sunday night/Monday morning it would stop many businesses functioning, probably for the week if not longer thanks to the clean up. And no doubt it would increase the volume and influence of groups wanting the uk to stop backing Ukraine.

Well done for picking this up, since i've not heard it mentioned in msm til you're link

a reply to: Encia22

Good plan!

How about rigging explosives and detonators that transmit through concrete (dunno if thats a given!), or cabling the detonators.

Then drop pipes down from boats filled with concrete. Pour enough concrete over the Montgomery, wait for it to set and then BOOM.

Hopefully that would smother the blast enough to mitigate the chance, or size of a tsunami.

a reply to: Kurokage

If this did just happen to be a dastardly Putin-ploy, given how fond he is of hacking i'd expect the Thames Barrier to be hacked and 'switched off' just as the ship detonates. Sure it'd point the finger of blame at Russia, but would Putin care at this point? Probably not! Besides, he'd cry false flag set up, using Nord Stream as a precedent

If i were the security services i'd order the barrier fully raised and if possible locked in that position so that hacking can't lower it, until the ship is gone

a reply to: gb540

Wonder why they (UK/US/whoever) didn't detonate it immediately after the war, versus letting it be a hazard for 80 years?

A large part of the cargo was removed in 1944. But work stopped after the Admiralty – the UK government department responsible at the time – refused to pay workers danger money for unloading the bombs. This was the best chance the government would ever have to make the ship safe.

www.newscientist.com...