11 ms·

Why Russia fears Sweden’s submarines

90 points by gullyfur 7y ago

m0zg 7y ago
Of all the countries Russia fears, Sweden is _way_ towards the bottom of the list. Source: have a brain, am a Russian.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  ISTM the editor wrote this headline. TFA only mentions Russia in the context of being a threat to Sweden. Also why present tense when "Sweden’s two A26s should be completed between 2022 and 2024, at which point it will be possible to gauge whether they can meet their ambitious performance parameters." Or at least that was the case in 2018 when TFA was published; do we have any idea whether construction even started?
  - kryptiskt 7y ago
    They are being built and have delivery dates in 2024 and 2025.
- lb1lf 7y ago
  -The very problem Sweden causes for Russia is described in the story; Sweden can effectively prevent the Russian Baltic fleet from exercising power in the Baltic or, for that matter - keep it holed up in the Baltic sea if the Russian admiralty should order it to brave the Kattegat and Skagerrak straits to venture into the North Sea. The Russians aren’t concerned that Sweden are going to invade them anytime soon; they are concerned that, should the Russians get a bit carried away in their geopolitics-by-force games, the Swedes may be a heck of a nuisance.
  - erdos4d 7y ago
    The Russians could also lob a tactical nuke at Malmo and take their ships out into the Atlantic as well. For sure the US isn't going to risk a major US city to defend Sweden, so there's also that. Also, if memory serves, flattening the Copenhagen/Malmo area was considered an obvious Russian opening move during the cold war, if things had gotten hot.
    - kryptiskt 7y ago
      There is no such thing as tactical nuke warfare.
      - erdos4d 7y ago
        Wiki disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
        Talanes 7y ago
        Actually, I think the last line of the intro makes their case pretty well: "No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation." Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.
    - lb1lf 7y ago
      -As kryptiskt has already pointed out, tactical nuking... isn't. Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines. The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord. Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting. Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive. The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
    - csomar 7y ago
      Nuking Malmo doesn't take out the subs though. These subs can stay there underwater for 6 months sabotaging Russian activity. Nuking their city will give them a good reason to fight until death.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Sweden can do jack shit if Russia _really_ decides it needs to go somewhere, even without the nukes. Their submarine fleet is 4th largest by vessel count, and likely 2nd strongest (after the US) by strength. Much of it is also nuclear, so you don't really know where it is at any given time - a few subs are always parked in the Atlantic just in case. Sweden also has 1/14th the population of Russia, and 1/4th the population of Ukraine. I don't see what Sweden could do with this (im-)balance of power with a few puny conventional submarines and why anyone in the Russian Navy would be afraid of anything they can possibly do.
    - NicoJuicy 7y ago
      It's army is mostly old gear. The USSR was way bigger, stronger and still everything crumbled. Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period. The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.
    - avianlyric 7y ago
      I don’t think a big submarine fleet really helps you if you can’t get them out of port. Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      This is the same Russian Navy that, less than a year ago, managed to sink a floating drydock while refitting their sole aircraft carrier, damaging the latter and keeping it out of commission for longer. Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        Navy does not "refit" anything - shipyards do that. Russia doesn't have much of an above-water Navy - it doesn't really need it. What's the point of spending billions on something that will be sunk wholesale in the first few hours of any armed conflict with any capable adversary? Its submarine fleet, however, is formidable, as are its anti-ship rocket and torpedo capabilities.
- dang 7y ago
  Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? I feel like we've asked you this a zillion times. It doesn't take much mozgi to figure out how to do this, or why.
  - jimbob45 7y ago
    mozgi=brain(s) in russian for anyone else who was wondering.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    This comment criticizing the exaggerated headline seems more substantive than the headline itself.
    - dang 7y ago
      That comment wasn't criticizing the actual headline, which never said Russia fears Sweden. Even if I don't fear you, I might fear your deadly submarines. Headline criticisms are unsubstantive to begin with, but it's particularly unsubstantive to make up a different headline and criticize that instead.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        With all due respect, that's an exceedingly fine distinction to draw, particularly with a HN user whose first language might not be English. If I fear a nation's military, it isn't an abuse of idiom to abbreviate that fear to one of the nation itself. Besides which, as mentioned ITT, when one reads TFA, the only mention of Russia is as a threat to Sweden: "simulating attacks", "infiltrating territorial waters", etc. There is no support in the text for any Russian fear of anything. Let us not go so far overboard in defending sensationalist headline-writing editors.
        dang 7y ago
        Ok. The main point is: the GP was an obviously bad comment for HN, shouldn't have been posted, and we've cut that user an incredible amount of slack already about posting bad-for-HN comments.
- erdos4d 7y ago
  Not sure why you are downvoted, I completely agree with you, Russia isn't afraid of Sweden.
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    Well perhaps 'afraid' is not the right word to use here ('fear' sounds more neutral). Having a neighbor, and not a particularly friendly one, calls for counter-balancing actions on either side. Simple as that.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
I too would fear something - if it were deadly.
- dang 7y ago
  Ok, we've taken tautological deadliness out of the title above. Let's discuss the topic now? (Or nothing. Nothing is always an option.)
  - ldoro8nnf 7y ago
    Still doesn’t make this article with discussing. It’s a military submarine. Most people will understand implicitly it’s deadly. Thus Russia fears it. And no I won’t abide the forum rules. Violating a TOS isn’t illegal and I don’t have to import your requirements in a society ruled by law Make the forum private if you don’t like it It’s not really discussing much of value anyway except the occasional github project, this stuff is all debated better elsewhere. Stuck at home though and mind is wandering. Gonna go do something more interesting than go in circles online
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      You're telling the guy with the power to ban you that you won't abide by the forum rules? Not a great strategy...
    - pengaru 7y ago
      > Violating a TOS isn’t illegal and I don’t have to import your requirements in a society ruled by law What do you think it is that empowers the owners of this web site to do as they please with it? You are a guest here, learn to be a better one.
CalChris 7y ago
And they aren’t even nuclear powered. Since those subs are defensive (defensive attack subs) and don’t need to roam the seven seas, nuclear power wouldn’t offer much. Moreover, diesel subs running electric are very quiet.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  Why would an internal-combustion piston-thrashing motor be less noisy than a nuclear heat-powered turbine?
  - CalChris 7y ago
    Because batteries. You can’t turn off a nuclear power plant and go really silent.
  - rjsw 7y ago
    You can turn off the diesel generator. You can't turn off the cooling pumps of a nuclear reactor.
    - jabl 7y ago
      IIRC many modern nuclear subs can shut down the primary circuit pumps and rely on convection at low power, making them pretty quiet.
  - missedthecue 7y ago
    A nuclear reactor must always stay "on". This leaves a very minute level of sound that can be picked up using special modern sensor equipment. A diesel motor on the other hand can be shut off completely and on demand, and the submarine can run off their battery which is completely silent.
    - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
      Also, nuke subs can (and do) leak radioactivity into the water. IIRC- and I don't have a source for this (might've been thedrive?)- Russia has radiation-detecting equipment onboard their subs that helps them in their hunt to find U.S. subs.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
I guess I would say that Russia does not fear Sweden's submarines, and that the article does not make an adequate argument that it does. What Russia has a problem with is one that it has had for centuries and been unable to resolve. Since the end of the Great Northern War Russia's best ports are on the Baltic, and Russia has had a large strategic focus on the North - reference https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/156474/sundberg_ulf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/156474/sundberg_... - but the Baltic is in a lousy strategic placement. If you were playing a military game you would want to expend a lot of manpower and economic might to get other ports that you could use, but they have never really managed this because unlike a military board game you can't just roll the dice a bunch of times and move your counters into Iran and solve your problems. I mean Russia won the war, but they didn't win the war enough to not be hemmed in by the Kattegat and better positions of Denmark and Sweden in the area. Sweden's submarines are just the latest iteration of this long term problem.
- close04 7y ago
  Also we're in an age when many wars are fought through proxies and with plausible deniability. A submarine doesn't help with either of the those. This isn't the BUK missile that somehow "happen" to end up with "insurgents". It's going to be used only in an open and direct confrontation between the 2 clearly identifiable parties.
  - trhway 7y ago
    >This isn't the BUK missile that somehow "happen" to end up with "insurgents". It didn't "happen", it were Ukrainian BUKs captured by the rebels - June 29, almost 3 weeks before MH-17, "Now the Donetsk sky will be protected by BUKs" https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703 https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703 [the publication time is easily verifiable through Internet Archive] - a news that the rebels had captured Ukranian anti-aircraft installation armed with BUKs, second such installation in a few days. Both sides published that news at the time. Similarly a submarine can be hijacked either in real life or, in near future, virtually. Though my bet here is on unmanned underwater drones impossible to identify after attack (and probably self-destruction).
hirundo 7y ago
Dear Kockums, could you please quote one (1) medium sized A26 configured without weapons for use as a private yacht? Will I need permission from the State Department for that? Regards...
Igelau 7y ago
Facts about the Kockums: > stretching them out from forty-eight to sixty meters It reaches a prodigious length. > hull will also be unusually resilient to underwater explosions It's hard. > a special ‘multi-mission’ portal for deploying special forces It's ready to unload high-quality seamen. If they staged an invasion of America, when the tears of laughter finally subsided, we'd already be completely conquered.
animalnewbie 7y ago
Why does this place shit on Russians like they're not human and defend Chinese people who eat live rats and fry live dogs? Universal law of attraction?
andreig2191 7y ago
Clicked the link thinking that this would be some sort of grander geopolitical argument(alliances, treaties, borders, size of fleet). I have instead finally crawled out of the rabbit hole that is international submarine comparison (think https://www.gsmarena.com/ https://www.gsmarena.com/ or https://youtu.be/zIjngBAxTr4 https://youtu.be/zIjngBAxTr4 (This could be a post on its own (Do you guys think the iPhone 1 with updated internals could outsell the newest iPhone? Is this actually the newest SE ?)). What was most surprising to me is that there is a standardized way to become an international submarine dealer. What if I told you that a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University could land you such career. I don't know about you, but I was shocked! I have a final question. How does Sweden's purchase choices on the submarine market explain Russia's fear of their submarines? Actually, after rereading the article, I'm not even sure what the author's whole point is? I will now go to bed very confused about submarines :(
scorecard 7y ago
A Stirling engine powered Swedish sub sank the USS Ronald Reagan in a war game exercise. It was able to get within range of the aircraft carrier because the Stirling engine is very quiet. For more about Stirling engines, I recommend reading: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2013/11/30/stirling-silver https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2013/11/30/...

90 points by gullyfur 7y ago

m0zg 7y ago

Of all the countries Russia fears, Sweden is _way_ towards the bottom of the list. Source: have a brain, am a Russian.

jessaustin 7y ago
ISTM the editor wrote this headline. TFA only mentions Russia in the context of being a threat to Sweden. Also why present tense when "Sweden’s two A26s should be completed between 2022 and 2024, at which point it will be possible to gauge whether they can meet their ambitious performance parameters." Or at least that was the case in 2018 when TFA was published; do we have any idea whether construction even started?
- kryptiskt 7y ago
  They are being built and have delivery dates in 2024 and 2025.
lb1lf 7y ago
-The very problem Sweden causes for Russia is described in the story; Sweden can effectively prevent the Russian Baltic fleet from exercising power in the Baltic or, for that matter - keep it holed up in the Baltic sea if the Russian admiralty should order it to brave the Kattegat and Skagerrak straits to venture into the North Sea. The Russians aren’t concerned that Sweden are going to invade them anytime soon; they are concerned that, should the Russians get a bit carried away in their geopolitics-by-force games, the Swedes may be a heck of a nuisance.
- erdos4d 7y ago
  The Russians could also lob a tactical nuke at Malmo and take their ships out into the Atlantic as well. For sure the US isn't going to risk a major US city to defend Sweden, so there's also that. Also, if memory serves, flattening the Copenhagen/Malmo area was considered an obvious Russian opening move during the cold war, if things had gotten hot.
  - kryptiskt 7y ago
    There is no such thing as tactical nuke warfare.
    - erdos4d 7y ago
      Wiki disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
      - Talanes 7y ago
        Actually, I think the last line of the intro makes their case pretty well: "No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation." Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.
  - lb1lf 7y ago
    -As kryptiskt has already pointed out, tactical nuking... isn't. Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines. The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord. Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting. Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive. The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
  - csomar 7y ago
    Nuking Malmo doesn't take out the subs though. These subs can stay there underwater for 6 months sabotaging Russian activity. Nuking their city will give them a good reason to fight until death.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Sweden can do jack shit if Russia _really_ decides it needs to go somewhere, even without the nukes. Their submarine fleet is 4th largest by vessel count, and likely 2nd strongest (after the US) by strength. Much of it is also nuclear, so you don't really know where it is at any given time - a few subs are always parked in the Atlantic just in case. Sweden also has 1/14th the population of Russia, and 1/4th the population of Ukraine. I don't see what Sweden could do with this (im-)balance of power with a few puny conventional submarines and why anyone in the Russian Navy would be afraid of anything they can possibly do.
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    It's army is mostly old gear. The USSR was way bigger, stronger and still everything crumbled. Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period. The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.
  - avianlyric 7y ago
    I don’t think a big submarine fleet really helps you if you can’t get them out of port. Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    This is the same Russian Navy that, less than a year ago, managed to sink a floating drydock while refitting their sole aircraft carrier, damaging the latter and keeping it out of commission for longer. Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Navy does not "refit" anything - shipyards do that. Russia doesn't have much of an above-water Navy - it doesn't really need it. What's the point of spending billions on something that will be sunk wholesale in the first few hours of any armed conflict with any capable adversary? Its submarine fleet, however, is formidable, as are its anti-ship rocket and torpedo capabilities.
dang 7y ago
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? I feel like we've asked you this a zillion times. It doesn't take much mozgi to figure out how to do this, or why.
- jimbob45 7y ago
  mozgi=brain(s) in russian for anyone else who was wondering.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  This comment criticizing the exaggerated headline seems more substantive than the headline itself.
  - dang 7y ago
    That comment wasn't criticizing the actual headline, which never said Russia fears Sweden. Even if I don't fear you, I might fear your deadly submarines. Headline criticisms are unsubstantive to begin with, but it's particularly unsubstantive to make up a different headline and criticize that instead.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      With all due respect, that's an exceedingly fine distinction to draw, particularly with a HN user whose first language might not be English. If I fear a nation's military, it isn't an abuse of idiom to abbreviate that fear to one of the nation itself. Besides which, as mentioned ITT, when one reads TFA, the only mention of Russia is as a threat to Sweden: "simulating attacks", "infiltrating territorial waters", etc. There is no support in the text for any Russian fear of anything. Let us not go so far overboard in defending sensationalist headline-writing editors.
      - dang 7y ago
        Ok. The main point is: the GP was an obviously bad comment for HN, shouldn't have been posted, and we've cut that user an incredible amount of slack already about posting bad-for-HN comments.
erdos4d 7y ago
Not sure why you are downvoted, I completely agree with you, Russia isn't afraid of Sweden.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  Well perhaps 'afraid' is not the right word to use here ('fear' sounds more neutral). Having a neighbor, and not a particularly friendly one, calls for counter-balancing actions on either side. Simple as that.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

I too would fear something - if it were deadly.

dang 7y ago
Ok, we've taken tautological deadliness out of the title above. Let's discuss the topic now? (Or nothing. Nothing is always an option.)
- ldoro8nnf 7y ago
  Still doesn’t make this article with discussing. It’s a military submarine. Most people will understand implicitly it’s deadly. Thus Russia fears it. And no I won’t abide the forum rules. Violating a TOS isn’t illegal and I don’t have to import your requirements in a society ruled by law Make the forum private if you don’t like it It’s not really discussing much of value anyway except the occasional github project, this stuff is all debated better elsewhere. Stuck at home though and mind is wandering. Gonna go do something more interesting than go in circles online
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    You're telling the guy with the power to ban you that you won't abide by the forum rules? Not a great strategy...
  - pengaru 7y ago
    > Violating a TOS isn’t illegal and I don’t have to import your requirements in a society ruled by law What do you think it is that empowers the owners of this web site to do as they please with it? You are a guest here, learn to be a better one.

CalChris 7y ago

And they aren’t even nuclear powered. Since those subs are defensive (defensive attack subs) and don’t need to roam the seven seas, nuclear power wouldn’t offer much. Moreover, diesel subs running electric are very quiet.

Koshkin 7y ago
Why would an internal-combustion piston-thrashing motor be less noisy than a nuclear heat-powered turbine?
- CalChris 7y ago
  Because batteries. You can’t turn off a nuclear power plant and go really silent.
- rjsw 7y ago
  You can turn off the diesel generator. You can't turn off the cooling pumps of a nuclear reactor.
  - jabl 7y ago
    IIRC many modern nuclear subs can shut down the primary circuit pumps and rely on convection at low power, making them pretty quiet.
- missedthecue 7y ago
  A nuclear reactor must always stay "on". This leaves a very minute level of sound that can be picked up using special modern sensor equipment. A diesel motor on the other hand can be shut off completely and on demand, and the submarine can run off their battery which is completely silent.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    Also, nuke subs can (and do) leak radioactivity into the water. IIRC- and I don't have a source for this (might've been thedrive?)- Russia has radiation-detecting equipment onboard their subs that helps them in their hunt to find U.S. subs.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

I guess I would say that Russia does not fear Sweden's submarines, and that the article does not make an adequate argument that it does. What Russia has a problem with is one that it has had for centuries and been unable to resolve. Since the end of the Great Northern War Russia's best ports are on the Baltic, and Russia has had a large strategic focus on the North - reference https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/156474/sundberg_ulf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/156474/sundberg_... - but the Baltic is in a lousy strategic placement. If you were playing a military game you would want to expend a lot of manpower and economic might to get other ports that you could use, but they have never really managed this because unlike a military board game you can't just roll the dice a bunch of times and move your counters into Iran and solve your problems. I mean Russia won the war, but they didn't win the war enough to not be hemmed in by the Kattegat and better positions of Denmark and Sweden in the area. Sweden's submarines are just the latest iteration of this long term problem.

close04 7y ago
Also we're in an age when many wars are fought through proxies and with plausible deniability. A submarine doesn't help with either of the those. This isn't the BUK missile that somehow "happen" to end up with "insurgents". It's going to be used only in an open and direct confrontation between the 2 clearly identifiable parties.
- trhway 7y ago
  >This isn't the BUK missile that somehow "happen" to end up with "insurgents". It didn't "happen", it were Ukrainian BUKs captured by the rebels - June 29, almost 3 weeks before MH-17, "Now the Donetsk sky will be protected by BUKs" https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703 https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703 [the publication time is easily verifiable through Internet Archive] - a news that the rebels had captured Ukranian anti-aircraft installation armed with BUKs, second such installation in a few days. Both sides published that news at the time. Similarly a submarine can be hijacked either in real life or, in near future, virtually. Though my bet here is on unmanned underwater drones impossible to identify after attack (and probably self-destruction).

hirundo 7y ago

Dear Kockums, could you please quote one (1) medium sized A26 configured without weapons for use as a private yacht? Will I need permission from the State Department for that? Regards...

Igelau 7y ago

Facts about the Kockums: > stretching them out from forty-eight to sixty meters It reaches a prodigious length. > hull will also be unusually resilient to underwater explosions It's hard. > a special ‘multi-mission’ portal for deploying special forces It's ready to unload high-quality seamen. If they staged an invasion of America, when the tears of laughter finally subsided, we'd already be completely conquered.

animalnewbie 7y ago

Why does this place shit on Russians like they're not human and defend Chinese people who eat live rats and fry live dogs? Universal law of attraction?

andreig2191 7y ago

Clicked the link thinking that this would be some sort of grander geopolitical argument(alliances, treaties, borders, size of fleet). I have instead finally crawled out of the rabbit hole that is international submarine comparison (think https://www.gsmarena.com/ https://www.gsmarena.com/ or https://youtu.be/zIjngBAxTr4 https://youtu.be/zIjngBAxTr4 (This could be a post on its own (Do you guys think the iPhone 1 with updated internals could outsell the newest iPhone? Is this actually the newest SE ?)). What was most surprising to me is that there is a standardized way to become an international submarine dealer. What if I told you that a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University could land you such career. I don't know about you, but I was shocked! I have a final question. How does Sweden's purchase choices on the submarine market explain Russia's fear of their submarines? Actually, after rereading the article, I'm not even sure what the author's whole point is? I will now go to bed very confused about submarines :(

scorecard 7y ago

A Stirling engine powered Swedish sub sank the USS Ronald Reagan in a war game exercise. It was able to get within range of the aircraft carrier because the Stirling engine is very quiet. For more about Stirling engines, I recommend reading: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2013/11/30/stirling-silver https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2013/11/30/...