Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Moscow Times)   Did a rogue Soviet submarine try to fire a nuclear missile at Pearl Harbor in 1968? A new book argues that it did   (context.themoscowtimes.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

13156 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Oct 2005 at 12:18 AM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-10-14 12:07:30 PM  
You all needto read the book 'The Jennifer Project'. It is a book that came out LOONG before this book and it says the same thing that we did recover the whole boat.
They pointed out that the hole in the bottom of the re overy boat was not large enough to fit the whole sub into it but it was large enough for the largest part of the boat. They knew that the boat had broken up and what's more they sent another sub to inspect the wreak and knew that it had broken up into three parts.
Then they put out the stoy about how they were notable to gather the boat in.
It is all a cover story according to the 'The Jennifer Project'
 
2005-10-14 12:42:49 PM  
2005-10-14 02:53:42 AM MastaBrembo

WINNER of thread!
 
2005-10-14 01:14:10 PM  
But did he let them shing?
 
2005-10-14 01:27:36 PM  
dittybopper:

So, no, it wasn't a waste of time or money. In hindsight, it looks like it, simply because the claw broke and we didn't get everything we wanted, but had we been able to get it the pay-off would have more than paid for the cost of the operation.

Well, a bit late, but, there's a very good book called "Blind Man's Bluff" that details much of the Cold War sub face-offs, and the author's research shows that 1.) any valuable information from the sunken sub could have been retrienved by submersibles, as opposed to building an entirely new megaship to actually try and raise it from the bottom. And the code keys on the sub were already decrypted or had been changed.
 
2005-10-14 03:13:34 PM  
chechcal
Well, a bit late, but, there's a very good book called "Blind Man's Bluff" that details much of the Cold War sub face-offs, and the author's research shows that 1.) any valuable information from the sunken sub could have been retrienved by submersibles, as opposed to building an entirely new megaship to actually try and raise it from the bottom. And the code keys on the sub were already decrypted or had been changed.

Well, I'm not really an expert on unmanned submersibles, but I do know that the original survey of the wreck was done with a 'dumb fish' camera towed behind a submarine. Even in the early 1970's, I don't think we really had the capability to do that sort of thing (ie., survey the wreck, open it up, and delicately sift through the pieces using a remote UAV).

As for the code stuff, I know a bit more about that. The ability to read a significant amount of traffic, even if it was from a while ago, can be very useful. It is entirely possible that we had been able to break their traffic, I don't know. If we hadn't, having a couple of months worth of decrypted traffic would be a great help in breaking future intercepts.

This is because messages tend to have a rigid format, and that is a weakness that can be exploited. Stereotypical beginnings and endings, grid references, and standard phraseology can all help in decrypting a current message, if you know what they are. Having a significant amount of decrypted traffic can help on that front, which is probably one of the two or three big reasons we tried to grab the K-129. The British actually used this method in WWII to try and decrypt the U-boat Enigma traffic.

I suspect that any one reason to raise K-129 wouldn't have been enough, but two or three put together made a compelling case.

Again, given the technology of the early 1970's, though, I don't see how we could have gained much with a remote submersible. From what I understand, a siginificant portion of the internal structure was 'compressed' towards the bow by the pressure.
 
2005-10-14 03:59:28 PM  
If you are interested in this read
The Silent War: The Cold War Battle Beneath the Sea
By John P Craven.

There is quite a bit about project Jennifer in it
as well as a bunch of other similar stuff.
He invented a lot of the technology used so I would say
his credibility is really good.

I recall he said the evidence showed the sub must have
sunk after an explosion in one of the missile tubes
while at the surface.

Anyhow a good book if you like this stuff.
 
2005-10-14 04:43:23 PM  
dittybopper:

Again, given the technology of the early 1970's, though, I don't see how we could have gained much with a remote submersible.

Alvin, famous for the recovery of the dropped nuke off of Spain, was launched in 1964, and the 'dumb fish' you describe were basically ROV's, not unpowered drogues, which were pretty sophisticated even at the point when the wreck was finally discovered.

Either way, interesting story.

Here's the book I was talking about: Blind Man's Bluff, definitely worth reading. It also has great details about the wire-tapping missions in the Beiring and the Barents.
 
2005-10-17 09:26:17 AM  
One of the problems with Mr Weir review of this book is it looks a though he did not bother to READ it.
In the review he states that the K129 did not have to surface to fire her missiles. This is true.
IN the book the author states the the boat was trying to act like a PRC boat and they did have to surface to fire their missiles. The whole purpose of the mission was to provoke a war between the USA and the PRC.
The site of the sinking was much closer to Pearl Harbor because the missiles of the PRC did not have the range of the USSR's missiles this is also to sell the idea that the PRC fired the missile and not the USSR.
 
Displayed 8 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report