Did the Moskva carry nuclear warheads?

[bluedigger]

Apparently, those large missiles on the front were nuclear capable. It would certainly explain the Russians' desperate attempt to take a capsized vessel of that size in tow in heavy weather and bring it to port.

[2naSalit]

1. Just have to wonder about that.

There could be some aftermath explosions coming soon. It would really suck if the nukes do.

[bluedigger]

2. I'm not too worried about them detonating.

If they haven't already popped after what has happened, a little salt water shouldn't trigger them. If the Russians have any competence (sigh) they'll be in a watertight compartment. But the ship carried sixteen missiles, and potentially as many nuclear warheads. All just sitting there on the bottom of the Black Sea now. What a cluster...

[2naSalit]

3. Definitely cause for concern...

A genuine mess.

[NutmegYankee]

4. Unless intentionally triggered, they are designed to not detonate from accidents.

With plutonium cores, the timing to detonate the plastic explosives is key.

[2naSalit]

5. That gives me...

A slight bit of comfort. I wonder how far it was from port when it sank.

So many questions. I hope more info comes to light.

[NutmegYankee]

10. Other nuclear bombs have gone down with Soviet subs.

They've been on the ocean floor for decades.

[2naSalit]

22. I know about some of those...

This are new arrivals to the sea floor so I am uncomfortable about them at this point.

[Towlie]

6. How do you know how Russian nuclear warheads are designed?

 
←

[NutmegYankee]

8. The designs are fairly similar - the physics is the same.

Plutonium cores must be crushed in all directions simultaneously to reach critical mass and this is done with modern high stability explosives. These are not the first Russian nukes to sink. There are several atomic torpedos (nuke bomb torpedoes) sunk in the ocean. Accidents involving American and Soviet ships, bombers and rockets have left at least 50 warheads and nine nuclear reactors scattered on the ocean floors since 1956.

But if you feel the need to panic, don't let me stop you.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

12. Yep

Nuclear weapons are designed specifically to not detonate unless specifically triggered to do so. We have lost 6 or 8 weapons and never recovered them. God only knows how many the Russians have lost. They aren't exactly going to be forthcoming with information like that. None have randomly detonated.

[Towlie]

25. So it's not how they're designed, it's just how nuclear weapons work. Thank you for correcting that.

 
←

[NutmegYankee]

26. There were earlier designs that were not as stable.

Particularly early Uranium designs. However, those designs were also quite bulky and not easily packaged into rockets or torpedoes.

[Calista241]

23. There's only a handful of ways to actually cause a nuclear detonation.

Hundreds of events have to happen in a certain order, in just a few micro-seconds in order to trigger a nuclear device. Exposure to heat, as in a fire on board this ship, or intrusion of salt water, or any damage to the triggering mechanism would make it just another inert device at the bottom of the Black Sea.

The worst possible result from this is that some terrorist goes down there, retrieves the device, and re-engineers it into a dirty bomb. All of that will take time, and both the Russians and the Americans have the capability to retrieve the device before some rando terrorist organization goes down there and gets it.

I'm not sure how deep the water is in the Black Sea, but retrieving any devices would be complicated, but within several states capabilities. And I'm sure it's a high priority for both nations after the conclusion of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine.

[Calista241]

16. There is zero chance of an accidental detonation of any nuclear device.

It's not like a traditional explosive or any other unstable device; so no electrical current, jostling, salt water intrusion, human diver, or any recovery efforts could set off a nuclear explosion. It's just not physically possible.

Hundreds of things have to go exactly, precisely right, in the correct order, all in micro-seconds in order to trigger a nuclear explosion. Any disruption, no matter how minor, of any part of the triggering process, and no nuclear detonation happens.

[TrollBuster9090]

7. I was actually more worried about that when it was on fire.

The danger of a tactical nuclear weapon 'cooking off' was a little scary. I'm not an expert, but I believe the US Navy stores the warheads in a safer part of the ship, in the event of a fire. Given the Russian navy's bad track record for safety, I wouldn't necessarily trust them to do the same.

Now that it's on the bottom, there's less danger. But it's still not zero. Sadly, there are still a few nuclear warheads sitting on the ocean floor. Including one near Tybee Island, off the coast of Georgia. The USAF dropped it there to avoid a crash in 1958, and have never been able to find it.

[bluedigger]

11. Finding them is what I'm worried about.

I'm sure they thought it worth the attempt to get it into Sevastopol to recover them more easily. It will be a major effort as they are now, but one that will have to be done at some point, and until then, the location will need to be guarded/monitored closely.

[TrollBuster9090]

15. In the beginning of the war, it looked like Russia was trying to capture the Ukranian nuclear power

nuclear power plants. My first thought was that they might be worried that if they didn't succeed in conquering Ukraine, they wanted to make sure there wasn't any plutonium left in Ukraine for them to turn into nuclear weapons. They initially captured Chernobyl. I figured that's what they were up to. Now they also have to worry about Ukrainians recovering weapons from the ocean floor.

[bluedigger]

17. Their problem solving Fu is weak.

They seem to just keep digging in deeper.

[gaskinite]

9. I know that the US Navy puts all of its ordinance through rigorous live fire tests

I have been told they shoot all of their explosive devices with .50 cal bullets, set them on fire. Shoot missiles at them etc.

They want their bombs to blow up on command not by accident.

I’m sure the Russians have similar thoughts.

[TrollBuster9090]

13. That's what they said about Chernobyl, and K-431

I hope their standards have improved since then.

[NNadir]

20. They are not even remotely related.

We are trained like Pavlov's dogs to associate these things, but anyone with even a primitive understanding of how reactors and bombs work would be inclined to just shake their head.

I'm shaking mine.

[Brother Buzz]

14. The Ukrainian John Deere Submarine Salvage Brigade will have your answers soon

[EndlessWire]

18. LOL! n/t

[bluedigger]

19. LOL

Slava Ukraini!

[Bantamfancier]

21. To be honest,

that looks more like a Massey Harris than a John Deere.

[Brother Buzz]

24. It is, indeed, a Massey Harris 44

I understood the USSR imported a few of them back in the day to steal the design.

The Ukrainian John Deere Brigade has been gathering up the rust buckets since the Russian 2014 invasion, and repurposing them into submarine salvage vehicles.