No "BLUNDERING" allowed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

Friends,

I don't know about you, but I get rather nervous when I hear - and we've heard plenty over the years - about incidents and accidents dealing with nuclear weapons or the systems that deliver them. Submarines running aground, ladders puncturing nose cones, cheating on tests, drunkeness... and WHAT?!?!?! Oh yes, accidental firing of torpedoes around nuclear submarines.

That's correct; over in the UK someone "accidentally" fired an unarmed (phew!!!) torpedo from a ship at a nuclear dockyard.  The torpedo was stopped by a conveniently placed storage container.  I'll let you imagine the possibilities here. Thankfully, no one was injured, and it made for quite a show for those fortunate to witness the spectacle.

It wasn't a nuclear weapon, although the accident occurred in a "high security" area where nuclear submarines are docked for maintenance.

But back to the central question here - There is always a risk, no matter how small it may be, of error with every human activity. And with nuclear weapons we need to ask the question, "Based on the likely severity of the consequences of any accident involving a nuclear weapon (or weapons), do we wish to take even the most infinitesimal risk that it presents?"

This and other questions relating to the risks of continuing to rely on the false security of nuclear weapons are certainly not being brought into any conversations governments are having about building new nuclear weapons (and delivery systems) or improving existing weapons systems.  These are questions that we ignore at our (humanity's) peril.

Looking back on the instances in which humanity stood on the brink of nuclear holocaust due to incidents involving system-related errors, it was human intervention that saved the day (and humanity). Ironically, it is also human interaction that could bring about humanity's end.

So, as you read the somewhat the humorous title, really consider the underlying issues it conveys.

There is no room for "blundering" around nuclear weapons, and humans have proven, through the ages, to be great blunderers!!!

Peace,

Leonard

************************

Oops! Royal Navy warship accidentally fires TORPEDO at NUCLEAR dockyard

Originally published Fri, March 14, 2014, in the Daily Express

A BLUNDERING Royal Navy warship has accidentally fired a TORPEDO at a nuclear dockyard.

Luckily the torpedo was an unarmed version used for testing Luckily, the torpedo was an unarmed version used for testing [SWNS]

HMS Argyll was moored at Devonport Naval base in Plymouth when the 9ft missile suddenly shot out of its starboard side during a training drill.

Workers watched in disbelief as the tube-shaped projectile flew 200 yards through the air before blasting a hole in a security fence and slamming into a storage container.

The 650-acre site is the sole repair and refuelling facility for Britain's nuclear submarines.

Luckily, the torpedo was an unarmed version used for testing, so it merely thudded into the metal container and did not explode.

Nobody was hurt but red-faced naval chiefs have now ordered a major investigation into the terrifying incident, which took place inside the base's high security area.

A source said: "The torpedo came shooting out of the side of Argyll and flew through the air before going straight through a security fence.

"It's carried on going before hitting a storage container. If anyone was inside it they would have a had a nasty shock - the whole side of the container was stoved in.

"Had the thing been armed it would have let out a 200-metre blast. You could be talking about a major loss of life.

"The Navy guys and the civilian dock workers are understandably appalled by what has happened.

"Someone has obviously pushed the button, presumably by accident - the big question is who."

The 650-acre site is the sole repair and refuelling facility for Britain's nuclear submarines [SWNS]

Had the thing been armed it would have let out a 200-metre blast. You could be talking about a major loss of life.

HMS Argyll is currently the oldest serving Duke Type 23 frigate in the Royal Navy having been launched in 1989.

However, the 4,900 tonne vessel underwent a £20million refit in 2009 to ensure her weaponry was at the cutting edge of naval warfare.

Its armaments include sea wolf anti-aircraft missiles, harpoon launchers, a 4.5 inch mk8 cannon and two twin 12.75 inch sting ray torpedo tubes.

The self-propelled torpedoes are armed with 45kg warheads to take out enemy submarines that they lock onto with acoustic homing sensors.

Argyll's sting ray tubes are normally below the surface of the water but it's understood they were exposed by the tide when the accident took place on Wednesday afternoon.

A spokesman for the Royal Navy said: "We can confirm an incident occurred onboard HMS Argyll on Wednesday 12th. The ship was alongside at Devonport Naval Base in Plymouth.

"During a training exercise, an inert Test Variant Torpedo unexpectedly jettisoned onto the wharf. There was no explosion and no casualties.

"An investigation is now under way to determine the cause of the incident. The torpedo is not an explosive hazard.

"The specific details of the incident are subject to further investigation and it would be inappropriate to comment further.

"The result of the investigation will determine what actions will be necessary to avoid any repeat of this incident in the future.

"However, torpedo system test firing alongside in the naval base has been suspended subject to completion of the investigation."

###

Original Source URL:  http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/464945/Oops-Royal-Navy-warship-accidentally-fires-TORPEDO-at-NUCLEAR-dockyard-in-Plymouth

Ladders and Missiles Don't Mix!

Well Blow me down Mateys. It appears that the U.S. Navy has scuttled another command at Sub Base Bangor, more politely known these days as Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor. According to the Navy, Captain Timothy J. Block, the commanding officer of Bangor’s nuclear weapons facility was given the heave-ho because of a loss of confidence in his ability to continue to lead, according to a Pentagon spokesperson.

The Pentagon also said that there was no “specific issue or incident” that led to Block’s removal and that public safety was not jeopardized at the facility, which assembles, stores and places nuclear weapons on submarines. Phew - We can all breathe easy now. But then again, this IS the second time in just six years that a Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific (SWFPAC) commander has been relieved of his command for "a loss of confidence", and this is the facility where the U.S. stores roughly a quarter of its nuclear weapons!

In case you aren't familiar with the previous (serious) incident that ultimately caused heads to roll, here is the one minute version. November 7, 2003. Missile handling crew preparing to remove a Trident C4 missile from missile tube number 16 (on the USS Georgia) opens tube hatch, lowers access ladder into tube (ladder used to attach hoist to lift missile out of the tube), crew member attaches hoist, and they all take a break. Now comes the fun part. They come back from their break, start hoisting the missile (not a good idea since they had not yet removed the ladder), and the missile's nose cone is impaled by the ladder, slicing a 9-inch hole in the nose cone. And by the way, the ladder came within inches (quite literally) of one of the nuclear warheads before the crew stopped hoisting!!!

The Bangor explosives handling wharf

Just a few more inches, and the 2003 accident could have resulted in non-nuclear explosions, dispersal of plutonium into the air and water, and even fire involving missile propellant. SWFPAC failed a week long nuclear weapons inspection conducted in December 2003, resulting in multiple reassignments and courts-marshal.

Although we have heard nothing specific as to the recent dismissal of Captain Black, the 2003 incident only became public knowledge when the Kitsap County Sheriff heard about it from a reporter. One can only wonder why the Navy has relieved another commander of one of the largest nuclear weapons depots anywhere. If the December, 2003 Seattle PI article is an indicator, we should all be watching. Rear Admiral C.B. Young, director of the Navy's strategic weapons systems programs in Washington, D.C., cited only "a lack of confidence" as the reason for sacking Bangor's commanding officer after the most serious (known) nuclear weapons-related accident in recent years. Isn't that the exact phrase used by the Pentagon to describe the most recent dismissal???

Peace,

Leonard

Navy Fires Top Officer at Bangor Nuclear Weapons Facility, Kitsap Sun, Friday, August 21, 2009
Nuclear missile allegedly damaged, about the 2003 accident, Seattle PI, Thursday, March 11, 2004
Bangor officer in charge of key missile systems loses his command, Seattle PI, Thursday, December 25, 2003

French Sub Mistakes British Sub for Shipping Container; Really!

Friends,

Picture this. Deep down in the murky depths of the Atlantic Ocean two nuclear powered submarines, one British and the other French, are on patrol. These huge, yet nimble giants (roughly the length of one and a half football fields), with some of the most advanced technology available, are bristling with nuclear armed missiles (each one with enough megatonage to incinerate an entire, large continent). Their crews monitor the waters around them as they cruise silently (really, really silently), deep beneath the surface.

Wham!!! The next you know, it's general quarters with klaxons clanging and sailors frantically securing hatches, determining the extent of damage, and generally trying to figure what the hell just happened. Crew members have lots of things on their minds, not the least of which are the condition of the nuclear reactor as well as the 16 nuclear armed missiles nestled in their launch tubes, not to mention whether they will ever see sunlight again.

When the dust settles everybody takes a deep breath, while somebody asks about their insurance carrier. They have just had the most expensive fender bender in history. On February 3, 2009 the British submarine, HMS Vanguard, collided with the French submarine, Le Triomphant in the Bay of Biscay. The damage to Le Triomphant's front end (the sonar dome to be precise) has been estimated at roughly $73 million; good thing it was a "low speed" collision (according to France's defense ministry); thank God for five mile-an-hour bumpers.

And that's not all. They didn't know they had hit each other. The French sub commander immediately surfaced and radioed that "I have hit something. I think it was a [shipping]container, so I am heading back to Brest." I am sure the British would get a little huffy having the French refer to one of their Trident subs as a shipping container; after all, they are "shipping"the same Trident missiles as American Trident submarines. So much for international relations.

Although the French sub was able to limp back home, the British sub had to call for a tow; how humiliating. Fortunately for both crews, there were evidently no injuries, and neither the pressure hulls, the reactors, nor the nuclear weapons were compromised. But what if??? What if the submarines had been cruising at a higher rate of speed, and what if one had impacted the other amidships rather than "clipping" the sonar dome. One expert quoted said that, "It's like two blindfolded men creeping around a room. Eventually they are going to bump into each other." Isn't it more like blind people driving two big diesel trucks containing high explosives around a parking lot?

What ended up being an embarrassing and expensive accident might have been a catastrophe. As for the probability of this event, the MailOnline quoted "naval sources" as saying "it was a million to one unlucky chance both subs were in the same patch of sea." That, in itself, is a very important statement. Everything carries some risk. There is no such thing as absolute safety. In terms of the potential for a collision between two nuclear submarines, or even an accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon, there is always some risk, whether due to a problem with the weapon or human error. And even when that risk is infinitesimal, as in the case of one chance in a million, there is still (always) that minute probability of failure or accident. In the case of an accident involving the detonation of a nuclear weapon (or perhaps an accidental launch), is that a risk that we can consider acceptable???

These two subs were cruising around on what the French defence ministry called their "nuclear deterrence missions". One has to wonder what these behemoths (loaded with the most destructive force the world has ever known) present - a deterrent or a liability. In a post Cold War world, big submarines loaded with nuclear armed missiles are, indeed, an impressive (and expensive) show of force. But what is their practicality? How much of a deterrent are they in the new world order? Are these denizens of the deep perhaps dinosaurs destined for extinction?

Peace,

Leonard

The submarine pictured above is the Le Triomphant, photo by the French Navy, via Reuters.

References: You can read various news reports of the accident at the links below:
Mail Online, February 16, 2009, Worldpress.org, February 17, 2009, New York Times, February 16, 2009, Global Security Newswire, February 17, 2009