In frigid Arctic waters 100 miles north of Russia's Kola Peninsula,
one of the world's most powerful warships sank. All 118 Russian sailors
were lost in the tragedy. It is believed that most of the crew were
killed within seconds or minutes of an onboard explosion, which was
probably caused by the detonation of one of the boat's torpedoes.
The 14,000-ton Kursk might be described as a submersible battle
cruiser with a strike range of 340 nautical miles. Armed with 24
Chelomey SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles, 28 Novator anti-submarine missiles
and torpedoes, this deadly war machine could destroy an entire U.S.
carrier battle group in minutes.
Experts have said that the Kursk's non-nuclear missile warheads have
a combined firepower equal to that of two Hiroshima bombs. According to
Jane's Information Group, the SS-N-19 Shipwreck missile can also be
armed with a 500 kiloton nuclear warhead.
In the event of World War III, this single ship could kill more
people than were killed in the entire First World War. But the Kursk
was not designed for bombarding American coastal cities. It was
designed to sweep the seas of United States submarines, surface ships
and heavily armored aircraft carriers.
TRENDING: Jihad against Christians is due to … climate change?
In terms of its electronic sophistication, the Kursk was equipped
with a special target detection sonar which is one of Russia's most
closely guarded military secrets. Anyone who suggests this boat was a
cheap piece of machinery, or that its crew was an ill-trained bunch of
idiots, deserves to be corrected.
So how did the Kursk sink?
Before touching on the many theories and rumors now circulating, it
is worthwhile to put the Kursk tragedy into perspective. Those who
would parade this event as evidence of Russia's weakness and
backwardness should consider whether or not they would characterize the
U.S. Navy of the 1960s as weak or backward.
The worst submarine disaster in history occurred in April 1963 when
the USS Thresher -- a nuclear attack submarine -- sank 200 miles off the
New England coast with the loss of all 129 aboard. The cause of the
sinking was never determined. The wreckage of the Thresher lies in
8,500 feet of water, inaccessible to Navy divers.
But the loss of the Thresher was not America's only nuclear sub
catastrophe. Five years later, in May 1968, the USS Scorpion
disappeared after being sent to investigate Soviet naval vessels near
the Canary Islands. The Scorpion had been at sea for three months, and
was expected at Norfolk on May 17. But it never arrived. Some Cold War
analysts speculated that the Scorpion had run afoul of the Soviet ships
and was intentionally sunk.
Official naval records later contradicted this theory. As it
happened, the Scorpion was more than 200 miles from the Soviet ships
when a catastrophic explosion cracked its hull. The explosion, it
appears, was from one of the Scorpion's own torpedoes, which had been
fired. Perhaps out of carelessness, a torpedo had became armed and in a
desperate effort to get rid of it, the captain jettisoned the unruly
weapon, which then homed in on the hull of the unfortunate submarine,
sinking it in 11,000 feet of water.
So many things can go wrong at sea, especially when you are piloting
a submersible bomb. Not only is some of the equipment explosive, but in
the event of damage to the ship, the inrushing ocean water can be fatal,
having more than enough power to drown its victims. There is the sheer
pressure of the ocean depths, and the low temperature of the water,
which can also kill. Therefore, the mischances and human errors we
live with on land are nothing compared with the underwater environment.
With millions of tons of ocean pressing in on it, a submarine rocked by
an explosion at any depth may never reach the surface again.
We know from evidence that Norwegian seismologists recorded two ocean
explosions on Saturday morning, Aug. 12. The first explosion was small,
probably less than 220 pounds of TNT equivalent. The second explosion
was estimated at two tons of TNT. The explosions, perhaps by chance,
coincided with the test-firing of a new experimental missile from the
Russian nuclear cruiser, Peter the Great. (The Russian Northern Fleet,
including the Kursk, were on weekend naval maneuvers at the time.)
The Russian Navy has attempted to suggest that the Kursk collided
with a British submarine, or alternately with a World War II mine.
According to press releases earlier this week, U.S. acoustical
recordings taken from a few hundred miles away show no evidence of a
collision with another ship.
It is also significant that a number of lies were told by Russian
officials in the first days after the sinking. These lies suggest a
failed attempt to obscure the time of the catastrophe by as much as a
day. There was also an attempt to deceive the world about the
rescuability of the crew. When an expert Russian deep-sea diver offered
assistance at the outset, Russian naval officials turned him down.
We should not assume this indicates disregard for the sailors on the
Kursk. It rather indicates certainty by the Northern Fleet's leaders
that there could be no survivors from such a large underwater
detonation.
Perhaps it was heartfelt contrition on Monday when the commanding
admiral of Russia's Northern Fleet, Vyacheslav Popov, said, "Forgive the
children. Forgive your sons, and forgive me for not bringing your boys
back."
Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev, however, was not contrite. He found
the sinking as an opportunity to depict Russia's Navy as weak and
underfunded -- "robbed and stripped," were his words. Although Sergeyev
was recently pegged as an opponent of increased Navy and Army funding in
a rancorous dispute with Chief of the General Staff Anatoly Kvashnin,
Sergeyev has turned the Kursk disaster into a shameless occasion for
justifying an augmented defense budget.
Sergeyev also continued to suggest the loss of the Kursk was due to a
collision with an unidentified sub. As if to reinforce his claim, the
Russian Navy announced the discovery of deck railings from a British
submarine within 1,000 feet of the Kursk wreckage. But the British
denied any involvement, saying there were no British submarines near the
Kursk on Aug. 12.
Perhaps the nastiest rumor, supposedly leaked by the Kremlin to Anton
Ponomariev of Pravda, was that a United States sub intentionally
torpedoed and sank the Kursk in an incident that could have triggered
World War III. The supposed culprit in the incident, suggested
Ponomariev, was the USS Memphis, which allegedly suffered damage and had
to put in to Norway for repairs.
One thing the Kursk tragedy should teach us is that the Russian
military retains an unreformed Cold War mentality. And they are
tireless in their determination to accuse the West of wrongdoing in any
incident. By common report, however, the Russian people are not buying
the Kremlin's subtle propaganda spin. They are upset with President
Vladimir Putin's handling of the episode, and they do not trust the
Navy's version of events.
Whatever happened to the Kursk and the 118 sailors on board, it was a
human tragedy. Our prayers should go out to the families of those who
perished, and to all sailors who daily risk their lives on submarines.