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

a reply to: kwaka

The impression I had reading it was the vessel was a sub

I know Russian subs have a tendancy to sink quite often, but no it's not a sub. It's part of Russias' shadow fleet of ships used to circumvent sanctions.

a reply to: Kurokage

I know Russian subs have a tendancy to sink quite often, but no it's not a sub. It's part of Russias' shadow fleet of ships used to circumvent sanctions.

Thanks for that, don't have to worry about the nuke issue then. Could still make a mess of the port but wont take out a city. The thermobaric bomb will make more of a mess on the surface if properly engaged. Have to spread the fuel out first for max impact.

If Russia that that pissed off with Britton they have other means to assault. Getting sabotaged in a foreign port is more of a risk. Ukraine would have no issues there.

Quite a pickle. How bad is the damage, how feasible to transfer offshore. Looks like a good diplomatic channel to gauge the frenemy level.

a reply to: Kurokage

"I think over the last 77 years the government has thought to itself 'well, the longer we leave it, the safer it gets'.
"It appears if you talk to experts in explosives, that is the opposite of the truth."

Why don't you just evacuate the citizens in the area, and then blow it all up underwater after maybe setting up levees in the more vulnerable areas??? 1400 tons is certainly alot of ordinance, but nukes themselves have not caused tsunamis when detonated underwater, granted it was open ocean.

1400 tons does not compete with this, so maybe yall should just create a plan to blow it up underwater?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

1400 tons does not compete with this, so maybe yall should just create a plan to blow it up underwater?

Maybe that's what Putin has in mind with the 20,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate....

a reply to: worldstarcountry

but nukes themselves have not caused tsunamis when detonated underwater,

Fukushima? Maybe it was just an earthquake? Could a nuke in the right spot on the ring of fire preempt such events?

At this time I am not informed enough on just what kind of repercussions an underwater nuke will do at what depth. On initial inspection has trouble all over it.

a reply to: kwaka

Russian state TV has threatend Great Britian with a Nuclear tidal wave a few times now...
www.popularmechanics.com...

Poseidon is Putin’s showpiece. First revealed in 2015, this nuclear-powered underwater drone—one of Russia's next-generation nuclear weapons

A succession of news reports have carried wildly disparate accounts of Poseidon’s capabilities. So is this another example of overblown Russian military vaporware or is there something more to it?

I looked up the likely damage from this since it seems fairly small in explosive terms.
LINK

Quite surprising to be honest.

a reply to: SprocketUK

But add in all that ammonium nitrate, in shallow water?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Yeah, the 20,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate exploding would be a massive explosion when you compare it to the 2,700 tonnes that exploded in Beruit.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Maybe buy shares in a glazer in sheerness?

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I looked up the likely damage from this since it seems fairly small in explosive terms.
LINK

Quite surprising to be honest.

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

Would've better to get it over with in somewhat controlled fashion, versus letting it go unstable over time and be an opportunity for your unfriendlies...