
How to nuke a submarine - vinnyglennon
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-to-nuke-a-submarine-2f0bd50f39e
======
rurounijones
> In keeping with the operation’s naming theme, the testers nicknamed the
> instrument subs for Native American women, using terms that aren’t very
> polite. We’ll refer to them as “tubs.”

Lets not redact history for modern sensibilities, history is dirty and does
not conform to our wishes, they were called "Squaws", now continue reading the
article.

> The bang might have deafened every whale in the Pacific.

Now that is an interesting, and quite scary thought, talk about possible
unforeseen consequences. What would have happened if sealife were to be
deafened.

There is a short video of the test on wikipedia
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wigwam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wigwam)

~~~
hackuser
> Lets not redact history for modern sensibilities, history is dirty and does
> not conform to our wishes, they were called ..., now continue reading the
> article.

Like many similar statements, the real message of rurounijones' comment is
about aggressiveness. By intentionally behaving badly (being offensive, smug,
etc.) they hope to intimidate others who would disagree but don't want a
fight, or to be modded down. It adds nothing to the discussion and does not
belong on HN.

Some situations in life can be complicated, but in this case it's simple to
treat people with respect; the author did it and we should too.

~~~
rurounijones
History is history, it is written fact (usually), if someone is going to write
about historical record, like in this article, then they should report it
accurately rather than through a "Modern sensibilty" filter.

Feel free to clarify: For example "they were unfortunately called 'squaws'
which is an offensive term" or something like that.

It

(A) educates (and means I don't have to go to wikipedia to find the missing
information) and

(B) educates about why it might be better not to use this word (I certainly
didn't know it is considered offensive by some)

instead of treating us like children.

When old episodes of Tom and Jerry were released on DVD featuring a
"stereotypical" black housewife they did not cut them or alter them. They
simply put a message before the episodes explaining that they are not
appropriate nowadays but the environment they were created in is not the same
as it is today.

Fun fact: When the Dambusters blew the Moehne Dam in WWII they transmitted
"Nigger Nigger Nigger" on the radio to signal success.

* Did they do it because they were racists? No (Name of the squadron mascot dog).

* Would I recommend using this word in military operations now? Hell no.

* Would I expect an article about the raid to change or omit the word? No.

* Is the use of the dog's name causing controversy? Unfortunately yes.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
If they weren't racists they would have given the dog a different name.

~~~
rurounijones
You are making assumptions of others motives based on your knowledge and
emotions regarding the word which is different from people in the UK 60 odd
years ago.

"Nigger" was a reasonably common name for black dogs then. There are a few
other notable examples on the wikipedia page:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_%28dog%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_%28dog%29)

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
People in the UK were racist as fuck back in the 40s (not as much as, say,
white US southerners, of course)

~~~
rurounijones
Ok, let me put it another way. Prove the dog was called "Nigger" because Guy
Gibson was racist... and "He must be racist otherwise he wouldn't have called
the dog that" does not count since that is circular reasoning.

Unless the dog's name came from racist motivations the name itself (and the
word) loses racial overtones UNLESS the listener decides to add them again in
which case it is the listener who is at fault for assigning motivations the
speaker (namer) in this case, didn't have.

------
brownbat
Meanwhile, the British had a fascinating series of anti-submarine weapons.

The problem with depth charges dropped off the stern was that you had to pass
over the target before firing, telegraphing your shot, losing sonar contact
and firing nearly blind.

The British came up with the "Hedgehog" system to fire mortars forward. It was
also a shotgun approach, firing several at a time in a spread, those that hit
exploding on contact (rather than by depth).

Hedgehog "destroy[ed] the target in about 20 percent of attacks in the
Atlantic (versus 6 percent of depth charge attacks in the same theater.)"[1]
There were few reloads, though, and sometimes the smaller charges failed to
sink the target.

Then someone realized that if you set off explosions on opposite sides of a
sub, you create a pressure wave that just collapses the target like an empty
can of soda. That's how "Squid" worked. Its charges also sank about twice as
fast as the hedgehogs, speeding up resolution. There was a single and a double
squid system, the double system brought the success rate up to around 40
percent.[2]

Loading and firing munitions can be difficult in a storm or a battle. So the
natural improvement in "Limbo" was to automate all that, with sonar officers
pointing the system to a target and pulling the trigger.[3] There's some stock
footage of Limbo out there.[4]

[1]
[http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/H/e/Hedgehog.htm](http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/H/e/Hedgehog.htm)

[2]
[http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.htm](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMBR_ASW.htm)

[3] The Squid and the Limbo automatically corrected for pitch and roll, but
the Limbo ensured that the munitions would enter the water at the same angle,
which simplified the detonation timing. The Limbo system was in use up to the
1990s.

[4] [http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675054412_NATO-
Operation...](http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675054412_NATO-Operation-
Strikeback_Limbo-mortar_British-ASW-Frigate_Semiautomatic-loading_chain-
rammers)

~~~
blueskin_
Read about Hedgehog before (and IIRC, the russians copied it but it might not
have worked or reached active service), but not Squid. Very interesting.

------
peter_l_downs
Pretty interesting article. Interestingly, they never discussed: how would you
_find_ a submarine to bomb in the first place? There's a great book called
"Blackett's War" [0] that discusses how Patrick Blackett [1], an experimental
physicist, helped the allies win WWII in a variety of ways, most notably by
answering that question using statistics to better inform aerial bombardment
of German U-boats. Blackett is the father of what is now known as "operations
research" [2]. The book is absolutely worth reading if you have the time.

[0]: [http://www.amazon.com/Blacketts-War-Defeated-U-boats-
Brought...](http://www.amazon.com/Blacketts-War-Defeated-U-boats-
Brought/dp/1452661987)

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Blackett,_Baron_Blacket...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Blackett,_Baron_Blackett)

[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research)

------
jpolitz
Reminds me of an Asimov story:

“But if they have thermonuclear power, where do they conduct the tests and
detonations?”

“On their own planet, sir.”

[http://supernovacondensate.net/2012/06/23/isaac-asimov-
silly...](http://supernovacondensate.net/2012/06/23/isaac-asimov-silly-asses/)

~~~
gizmo686
Why is conducting thermonuclear tests tests on our own planet so dangerous.
The physics is simple enough that we can have a good enough idea of how large
an explosion it will be. The explosion is small enough that it can be safely
conducted over a large uninhabited region (such as the ocean). It does not
cause a runaway chain reaction that would spark fusion in all of our
atmospheric or oceanic hydrogen.

The only civilization level danger of thermonuclear is that if it becomes
weaponized, mass produced, and used as a weapon. However, in this case, it
does not matter where we conduct the tests.

~~~
lobster_johnson
Nuclear and thermonuclear tests have left areas of land radioactive and
uninhabitable. Trinity and the many later tests blew radioactive dust across
the U.S., and there is no reason to believe that this did not have any health
effect on the population [1]. The Bikini Atoll and nearby islands were
evacuated with the promise that the population could return, and are still
uninhabitable to this day [2]. There are probably other examples.

[1] [http://online.wsj.com/articles/decades-after-nuclear-
test-u-...](http://online.wsj.com/articles/decades-after-nuclear-test-u-s-
studies-cancer-fallout-1410802085)

[2]
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing_at_Bikini_Ato...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing_at_Bikini_Atoll)

~~~
gizmo686
Hence why I suggested conducting the tests over the ocean, or perhaps under
the ocean. Notwithstanding, the radioactive fallout and uninhabitable land do
not seem to come close civilization dooming effects. They do not even
necessarily suggest a propensity for us to do stupid things, as we may very
reasonably choose to allocate a certain region for scientific testing of
things that would leave a large region uninhabitable (be it
nuclear/chemical/other).

Of course, this is all assuming that all species are like us in terms of the
dangers of nuclear testing. I am fairly confident that we would be very
simmilar in terms of the direct effects of the explosion, but I would expect
the effect of the radioactive aftermath to vary between species from different
planets. Assuming that other species have the same basic mechanisms as we do
for radiation problems, they might come from planets where with higher
radiation (or higher radiation events/regions) than Earth, and have evolved
more aggressive defensive/reparative measures for it.

~~~
arihant
Shitting on the other side of the bed is still shitting in your own bed. What
about marine life? What about effects of radiation on their natural evolution
cycles?

You might want to read on effects of ship noises on whales.

~~~
gizmo686
If your concern is about wildlife, you should nuke populated areas, the
radioactive wasteland will become a de-facto wildlife preserve (as happened
with Chernobyl). This won't help marine life, as they live in water which is
amazing at blocking radiation. Also, the radiation emitted by a bomb is tiny
when diluted across the entire ocean. I would be much more concerned about the
other crap we dump into the ocean on an industrial scale.

>natural evolution cycles Evolution has dealt with things far worse than a few
nuclear bombs.

>You might want to read on effects of ship noises on whales.

I am not suggesting that we bomb the ocean on a commercial scale.

------
grecy
If you enjoyed this story, I recommend the documentary "Nuclear Dynamite" \-
detailing a time when the world thought nukes would be very handy to use as
construction devices - i.e for excavating canals, building artificial lakes,
etc.

At one point, they were planning to "dig" the Panama Canal using nukes...

It looks like you can find it in 5 parts on Youtube
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMENC-
qwkM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMENC-qwkM8)

~~~
toomuchtodo
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare)

------
jedc
Former US Navy submarine officer here. First, this article clearly shows how
nuts the US military was acting in the height of the cold war. Just... wow.

On a more practical note, when I was on board my boat I read some of the
studies/papers/results that were done quite a few years ago now where the Navy
exploded torpedos at increasing ranges to a relatively modern nuclear-powered
submarine. From what I remember, the point was to better understand both
failure modes of equipment as well as unexpected interactions between systems
as potentially unexpected failures occurred. I don't remember the details (and
couldn't share them if I did) but was really glad a) that the Navy had done
this testing, and b) that I hadn't been on board when it had happened!

------
The_Fox
> Sailors and scientists needed to know the range and lethality of underwater
> nuclear explosions. Would they harm the crews, ships and planes delivering
> the weapons?

This reminded me of the Mark 45 nuclear torpedo exhibit at the USS Bowfin
mueseum at Pearl Harbor. The targeting procedure was for the torpedo to be
"aimed in the general direction and to the far side of the target, in order to
place as much distance as possible between the submarine and the nuclear
explosion." Yikes. See
[http://svsm.org/gallery/mk45/IMGP6756](http://svsm.org/gallery/mk45/IMGP6756)

~~~
danjayh
Yikes indeed. I have to wonder if the sailors aboard the victory ships closest
to the blast in the linked article knew the level of danger they were in.
Absolutely terrifying.

------
ZanyProgrammer
Nuclear-tipped torpedos were commonly used for ASW during the Cold War. In
fact, I think the P-3s that flew out of Moffett Field on ASW patrols almost
certainly carried nuclear warheads. I imagine Steve Jobs tripping on acid in
the orchards of Santa Clara County, with nuclear armed P-3s going off on
patrol overhead.

------
DCoder
Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia...
[http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1954USSR1....](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1954USSR1.html)
\- "can we nuke an area and then send troops into it?"

~~~
waps
Thanks for pointing this out. So the US is not, in fact, the only nation to
have fired nuclear weapons at people. The USSR did it too, except it fired it
at it's own people and soldiers.

~~~
nisa
The US did something similar through:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Rock_exercises](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Rock_exercises)

------
gadders
Well, today I learned that "squaw" is now considered offensive, but apparently
incorrectly.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw#Claims_of_obscene_meaning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw#Claims_of_obscene_meaning)

------
excpt
For further information about the atmospheric test years topic I'd recommend
the movie 'Trinity and Beyond'
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqaq59whOa0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqaq59whOa0)).
It's build upon declassified military material. Years: 1945 to 1963,
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Finding good and solid information about the russian test program is very
hard. There's no "complete" documentation about the whole programm. Most
documentaries focus on the ~50MT device the USSR built and detonated.

------
Aoyagi
Well, too bad it's all in imperial units.

Otherwise a nice read, although I'm not sure if the conclusion means "modern
subs" at the time or modern subs today. (I'm assuming the two are different)

------
imaginenore
30 kilotons is tiny.

Both US and USSR tested hydrogen bombs in the 48-50 megaton range.

~~~
arethuza
The largest US test was Castle Bravo at 15Mt and that was far more than the
expected yield of ~6Mt (which caused a lot of problems):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo)

The Soviets did test a 50Mt version of a 100Mt design - the "Tsar Bomb":

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba)

The US did have a 25Mt weapon which was a real "3 stage" design (i.e.
primary/secondary/tertiary - presumably both the secondary and tertiary being
fusion/fission).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb)

The USSR had SS-18s with very large warheads (20-25Mt) - presumably to hit
deep bunkers (Cheyenne Mountain, Raven Rock Mountain etc.).

------
GigabyteCoin
>Surplus real subs weren’t cheap enough or pristine enough to use as
instrumented targets, so the Long Beach Naval Shipyard built three identical
4/5-scale sub hulls to hold instruments while submerged.

This seems incredibly scant by today's U.S. Military standards.

Why not build the sub hulls exactly to scale?

Hell, why not build real submarines to perform the test on?

~~~
bronson
You say surplus subs weren't cheap enough but you think new subs would be?

------
1qaz2wsx3edc
OT: I honestly pictured a subway sandwich in a microwave when saw the title.

------
diltonm
Interesting read. I'd say one thing, bring back diesel boats, the Rickover
experiments proved only how noisy and expensive submarines can be. Good men
(or women if fully manned male/female - no mixing, it will not work), great
batteries and ... Stirling Engines. I'd put to sea today with that, no more
nukes. All of that to mean, you can't sink what you can't find.

~~~
rotten
You don't need to find them if you are using nuclear depth charges. You just
need to know they are "in the area". The old "close enough for horseshoes and
grenades" adage applies - although even less precision is required.

~~~
VLM
I got an alternative interpretation by reading it in minutes and torpedo
ranges.

All the real specs are classified but the pessimistic public stats indicate a
nuclear sub can be out of destruction range within five or so minutes,
assuming your detection is perfect to the foot.

Also the destruction distance makes it a nearly perfect ASW weapon against
WWII submarines equipped with WWII torpedoes, because the range of an old Mk18
is a mile or so, so if a WWII submarine came thru a time warp and got in close
enough to attack a modern carrier, the destroyer screen could pretty much one-
shot the sub without serious damage to itself.

The problem comes from modern torps and modern subs. So a nuke running at 20
kts fires a Mk 48 at comfortable-ish 10 miles (eh, maybe half its unofficial
range). First of all being 10 miles away you can't just drop the depth charge
and expect it to destroy a sub 5 times further away than the official limit.
Secondly, at 20 knots for the nuke sub and 20 knots for the ASW destroyer,
that 10 miles is 30 minutes to get over the launch position for a destroyer at
which time the sub is 10 miles away in a random direction, far out of range.
Third even if a destroyer or ASW plane is overhead and drops the charge on a
sub, from the testing they detonated at 2500 feet down, and that half mile is
going to take awhile. Not that long, but awhile. Meanwhile the sub floors it
and at (classified) top speed its going to take well under 2 minutes to get
out of the destruction zone.

Its not exactly fish the barrel if you try to wargame it out. The TLDR is
drawing a one mile radius circle of destruction isn't necessarily effective if
your target takes substantially less than 3 minutes to go one mile.

