July 17, 2001

2:20 AM

Remember the Kursk?It was discussed in length here last year. Now the Russians are going to haul it up, because they don't want US salvage divers to see what their best technology looks like. But the people involved in the rescue attempt last year charge that the haste is risky, and could lead to serious consequences if those reactors were to rupture.
posted by Ezrael (15 comments total)

US salvage divers to see what their best technology looks like.

I have to believe that we know what those subs look like inside and out.
posted by brucec at 6:08 AM on July 17, 2001

Why of course we do. Sean Connery handed one over to us in Red October
posted by jfuller at 6:22 AM on July 17, 2001

When the Russians say they don't want us to see what their best tech looks like, what they mean is that they don't want us to see how much it resembles our own, i.e., how effective the Russians are at military espionage.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:40 AM on July 17, 2001

"The Russians know the U.S. has exploited sunken submarines before, so the sooner they can get that ship in their hands, the safer they will feel," said retired Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll of the U.S. Navy.

I'm not censuring us for doing it...hell, I would think it would be mighty tempting, even if you're sure you know what you'll find, to just go take a look see. But we do do it, and it is on their minds, I'm sure. Although it's also possible that they want to get all the possibly salvageable equipment they can off of the thing...it was their most advanced sub to date, from all reports.

I'd really interested in the technical challenges of this ambitious effort, but at the same time worried about what could happen if it fails. I'm somewhat afraid of what could happen if they drop the sub and the reactors crack...radioactive material could flood the area.
posted by Ezrael at 7:37 AM on July 17, 2001

When the Russians say they don't want us to see what their best tech looks like, what they mean is that they don't want us to see how much it resembles our own, i.e., how effective the Russians are at military espionage.

That's just a little bit presumptuous, isn't it? You believe that Americans are too honourable to appropriate foreign technologies for themselves? Cough, Werner von Braun, cough.

Anyway: Putin needs state funerals quick-sharp, and the political impact of retrieving the bodies and sympathising with the families is of more immediate value than what's stashed inside the Kursk.
posted by holgate at 8:37 AM on July 17, 2001

That's just a little bit presumptuous, isn't it? You believe that Americans are too honourable to appropriate foreign technologies for themselves? Cough, Werner von Braun, cough.

Actually, I think the implication there was that we wouldn't need to, because it would be like stealing a Honda Civic if you already own a Honda Civic Coupe. I don't agree, but I suspect that was the meaning.
posted by Ezrael at 9:47 AM on July 17, 2001

There's a whole site dedicated to the project.
posted by muckster at 9:59 AM on July 17, 2001

And another one here.
posted by muckster at 10:07 AM on July 17, 2001

That's just a little bit presumptuous, isn't it? You believe that Americans are too honourable to appropriate foreign technologies for themselves?

"But something happened to change all that. Back in the mid-1980s, the Japanese company Toshiba [illegally] sold propeller milling machinery to the Soviets through the Norwegian Kongsberg firm; this and other submarine intelligence furnished by the Walker spy ring resulted in significantly quieter Soviet subs by the later part of the decade. As writer Neal Stevens wrote about the Akula-class Soviet boats, "The combined results generated a steep drop in broadband acoustic noise profiles.""

from
http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/anglesdangles/taming.html
posted by ljromanoff at 10:23 AM on July 17, 2001

Well, if that's in the public record, there's little point hiding it, is there?

And it certainly doesn't invalidate my second point: when it comes to military hardware, espionage is part of the design process, no matter who you are.
posted by holgate at 10:29 AM on July 17, 2001

Thanks, muckster.

And I'm not saying the Russians didn't steal tech from us...just that we still probably would do the same to them. I'm sure there's quite a bit of classified American technology on that sub. But, we have spies too, right? If they're doing their jobs right, there should be plenty of stolen tech on our subs, and other military equipment.

I don't think this is a moral issue. We all spy. Heck, we spy on our allies, and they spy on us. For me, I'm still a little worried about the possibility of those reactors cracking, and I'm wondering if maybe, in the spirit of international cooperation and all, we shouldn't offer any technical assistance we could to this project. Not that they'd take it.
posted by Ezrael at 10:31 AM on July 17, 2001

Well, if that's in the public record, there's little point hiding it, is there?

There's probably more to it that that. It would be of interest to the United States to get inside that sub and see how effectively the Russians have integrated American technology, how they've changed it, what they haven't utilized, etc. - and the Russians understandably wouldn't want the U.S. to have that sort of information.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:47 AM on July 17, 2001

Quite so. And part of military deployment is, of course, appearing to be equipped with better technology than you actually have: a stealth bomber, for instance, is better than its specifications while it carries the lustre of presumed "invisiblity", until one actually gets shot down.

But I do think the political imperative here outweighs the military one, which is why the Russians are prepared to take the risk of an accident. As Francis Wheen notes, Putin took a huge amount of flak for not breaking his holiday to go to Murmansk, and his promise to raise the Kursk as soon as the summer thaw arrived isn't going to be forgotten. My guess is that the European crews (British, Norwegian and Dutch) who are contracted to take part in the salvage operation are in contact with their defence ministries, which are in turn briefed and briefing the US, in best unofficial NATO tradition. But because this is primarily a face-saving operation, there's simply no way that Putin could spin things with US divers on site.

Ezrael, just to add to your worries:

Meanwhile, dozens of decrepit submarines from the Northern Fleet are moored in the waters off Murmansk, looking like dead whales. They are in an alarmingly poor state of repair, but the spent nuclear fuel is still loaded in their reactors. Some locals call them "floating Chernobyls".
posted by holgate at 12:15 PM on July 17, 2001

"sympathising with the families is of more immediate value than what's stashed inside the Kursk"

Kursk. Im thinking, lost tank battle. but your right. whats in a name.
"Well, if that's in the public record, there's little point hiding it, is there?" so true. the public can acess 98% of the technical data of a SR-71.(via various journals, magazines,etc.) i would think another 1% by now. This came from a naval captain.(u.s., retired) When in ONI training, he was told to find those documents as an exercise. He can rely this because it is standard practice for research. no real secrets. (except those we keep secret)
posted by clavdivs at 1:09 PM on July 17, 2001

I'm surprised that nobody's pointed out that perhaps their 'best technology' is somewhat lacking if it's managed to find its way to Davey Jones' so quickly...
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 2:11 PM on July 17, 2001