how safe are nuclear subs? Putin said the nucelar sub that went down the crew saved all life on earth what happens if >1 the reactor goes critical would it affect all life >2 has one been blown up and what happened to the reactor did it affect life on earth >3 what happens if one is blown up would it cause a problem for everyone on earth >4what's the point of having a weapon that's so dangerus that it can destroy everyone
Also what about the nuclear powered ships how safe are they?
1. God you're dumb. 2. There are nuclear subs on the bottom of the ocean currently. 3. Dear god, you're dumb. 4. Go away.
Joseph Torres
1. Critical means the reactor is operating an producing power, this is a good thing. 2. Several have blown up with no significant contamination. 3. It would not, under several hundred meters of salt water is the best place a nuclear reactor could be if it was badly damaged. 4. A modern nuclear submarine is one of the most capable naval vessels a navy can have, and its no where near as dangerous as you think if one is lost
if you're in a pool of water you can be just meters away from sources of radiation that would kill you a hundred times over if you were stood so close by in open air water is a great insulator of radiation
Nathaniel Rodriguez
>if the reactor goes critical depends on where. in shallow waters you might get radioactive material spread along the coast. in open ocean however it would probably have minimal contact with land life - the water exchange rate between deep ocean and coastal areas is low enough that the US proposed disposing of nuclear waste by burying it in deep sea trenches. in either case, the good news is the radiation will be spread thin over a large area, and the bad news is that it's hard to control where seawater goes. >has one been blown up If you mean the reactor melting down, it has happened to a few Soviet subs with varying results. If you mean the sub getting sunk, it has also happened with no apparent radiation releases (again, it's hard to tell when they sink in deep water). >what's the point of having a weapon so dangerous it can destroy everyone well, it's better than a weapon so safe it can't destroy anyone.
Jason James
>Le Terrible >but it's reversed
What's going on here? just the BBC needed a sub pointing to the right so they reversed the image or do french subs have their names reversed like ambulances so ships that see them in their rear view mirrors can read the name of the sub that approaching them?
Ryan Fisher
That's the russian sub K-18Z Yelviyayaet Yel
Jose Cook
Fpbp
Adrian Fisher
>putin said
Austin Campbell
Water is a really good insulator of radiation. It probably wouldn't be a big issue since the reactor isn't that big, as long as the nuke fuel didn't leak everywhere.
Ian Hernandez
The only reason he said that was to make the victims of the accident sound heroic and make their sacrifice seem worthwhile. It’s the same shit they did with the Kursk. Meanwhile, in about 5 years, when there’s inevitably another fatal accident on a Russian submarine, the rhetoric will be repeated.
Ryder Roberts
spotted the retarded brit
Carson Myers
It's French, reversing is almost as natural to them as surrendering.
Jayden Evans
How many subs has Russia lost now due to reactor fuck ups?
Dominic Harris
the amount of fuel in a naval reactor is miniscule compared to the vastness of the ocean. you only need a few feet of water inside the reactor to block the radiation being emitted by the core, so a broken core sitting at the bottom of the sea is no threat to anyone except the critters directly next to it
Brody Morales
>How many subs has Russia lost now due to reactor fuck ups?
none, actually. all the subs russia has lost were due to other things like explosions and fires unrelated to the reactor.
Evan Perry
>3 what happens if one is blown up would it cause a problem for everyone on earth
I'll take 'What are sub-surface nuclear tests? for £1000' please.
Brayden Ramirez
>USS Scorpion >USS Thresher >K278 >K219 >Kursk
All were nuclear submarines, all sank. The First 3 are still sitting on the ocean floor. and none have had detrimental effects on the environment.
Nothing apocalyptic. As soon as the nuclear fuel left the reactor the reaction would quickly die out no matter what and the vast majority of the very dense and heavy materials would quickly sink to the bottom and would quickly continue to sink into the "mud" that exists just about everywhere in the ocean. Also water is a pretty effective radiation shield. The material that would drift into the ocean would cause major problems of course but nothing apocalyptic/catastrophic.
Evan Murphy
If you actually read what's contained in that link you would see that all of those submarines were lost because of explosions and fires unrelated to the reactors. Yes, the reactors lost power...because the boats were on fire or flooding. The reactor did not cause the problems that sank the boats.
Henry Lee
>bullshitona >nilsen Discarded.
Xavier Harris
You seem extremely unintelligent.
Luis Harris
Don't listen to Putin, dumbass.
Carson Sanchez
>How much graphite is on the ground? None, actually, you are delusional
Anthony Peterson
Hell, Russia uses the waters near Novaya Zemlya as a dumping ground for reactor cores.