6 ms·

It depends on where exactly the ship is when the reactor is damaged, but in general water is actually pretty good at containing radiation so my guess is that so

It depends on where exactly the ship is when the reactor is damaged, but in general water is actually pretty good at containing radiation so my guess is that some wildlife will die or get cancer but it won't have long term effects like Fukushima did because the ship will sink and kill the core before it melts down, if it even melts down in the first place. Regardless, it won't really matter, since sinking a US aircraft carrier probably means nuclear war.

coolspot 5y ago
> since sinking a US aircraft carrier probably means nuclear war. USSR/Russian strategy against air carrier groups are nuclear torpedoes (launched from subs) and swarming nuclear cruise missles diving underwater some last mile before impact (launched from ships/subs/coast/heavy bombers). Also don’t need to hit precisely - miss by couple hundred meters will do too.
- nexuist 5y ago
  Right, if we've got nukes in the water, who cares about what the on-board reactor is going to do. Whatever happens is certainly not going to be pretty.
  - wbl 5y ago
    The reactor has a larger fission product and transuranic inventory. It is the more dangerous one over an intermediate timescale after the short lived induced radiation goes away.
swarnie_ 5y ago
> since sinking a US aircraft carrier probably means nuclear war. Nice to know the US mentality hasn't budged an inch in 75 years. Please don't nuke the rest of us because you lost a dick waiving contest.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  Have you forgotten why a US military was necessary just 75 years ago to save the UK from destruction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion
  - Cymrukicks 5y ago
    Terrible choice of battle, One that the UK won handily of its own ingenuity and cunning as stated in the wikipedia.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      My point was not about US involvement in a specific battle but that of Nazi Germany's clear intent to invade the UK, likely only eventually abated by US involvement.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Check your timeline. The US wasn’t even in the war then. Though American help was instrumental later in the war, the UK actually saved itself from invasion (with help from fellow Commonwealth nations). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      My point was not about US involvement in a specific battle but that of Nazi Germany's clear intent to invade the UK, likely only eventually abated by US involvement. Like you said, the UK saved itself (for now), but "American help was instrumental later."
      - mthoms 5y ago
        After the Battle of Britain ended, and Operation Barbarossa started, it was impossible for Germany to invade the UK. That was 6 months before the US entered the war. I get the point you're making, but American military involvement had almost nothing to do with the UK repelling German invasion specifically.
solatic 5y ago
> sinking a US aircraft carrier probably means nuclear war Remind me again what the geopolitical consequences were of the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing Sinking a US aircraft carrier (especially if by proxy rather than uniformed military) probably means some strong statements and some court cases.
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  Blowing a hole in the side of a destroyer in harbor is hardly comparable to sinking an aircraft carrier.
- nexuist 5y ago
  Did you forget the part where we went to war for 20 years and tore the entire region to shreds? Do Iraq, Afghanistan, or Sudan remotely resemble functional sovereign states after US intervention? What about the thousands of drone strikes and hundreds of thousands dead? I would not describe our intervention in the Middle East as "some strong statements and some court cases."
  - solatic 5y ago
    That wasn't in response to the USS Cole bombing. Don't conflate that with 9/11.
    - nexuist 5y ago
      9/11 was not an isolated incident and was the culmination of nearly a decade of damaged ME relations. If you'll remember, Desert Storm had been 10 years before, and Al Qaeda had bombed the WTC 8 years before. It was 9/11 that forced the US's hand, but it was not only 9/11 that justified their choice.

coolspot 5y ago

> since sinking a US aircraft carrier probably means nuclear war. USSR/Russian strategy against air carrier groups are nuclear torpedoes (launched from subs) and swarming nuclear cruise missles diving underwater some last mile before impact (launched from ships/subs/coast/heavy bombers). Also don’t need to hit precisely - miss by couple hundred meters will do too.

nexuist 5y ago
Right, if we've got nukes in the water, who cares about what the on-board reactor is going to do. Whatever happens is certainly not going to be pretty.
- wbl 5y ago
  The reactor has a larger fission product and transuranic inventory. It is the more dangerous one over an intermediate timescale after the short lived induced radiation goes away.

swarnie_ 5y ago

> since sinking a US aircraft carrier probably means nuclear war. Nice to know the US mentality hasn't budged an inch in 75 years. Please don't nuke the rest of us because you lost a dick waiving contest.

reducesuffering 5y ago
Have you forgotten why a US military was necessary just 75 years ago to save the UK from destruction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion
- Cymrukicks 5y ago
  Terrible choice of battle, One that the UK won handily of its own ingenuity and cunning as stated in the wikipedia.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    My point was not about US involvement in a specific battle but that of Nazi Germany's clear intent to invade the UK, likely only eventually abated by US involvement.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Check your timeline. The US wasn’t even in the war then. Though American help was instrumental later in the war, the UK actually saved itself from invasion (with help from fellow Commonwealth nations). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    My point was not about US involvement in a specific battle but that of Nazi Germany's clear intent to invade the UK, likely only eventually abated by US involvement. Like you said, the UK saved itself (for now), but "American help was instrumental later."
    - mthoms 5y ago
      After the Battle of Britain ended, and Operation Barbarossa started, it was impossible for Germany to invade the UK. That was 6 months before the US entered the war. I get the point you're making, but American military involvement had almost nothing to do with the UK repelling German invasion specifically.

solatic 5y ago

> sinking a US aircraft carrier probably means nuclear war Remind me again what the geopolitical consequences were of the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing Sinking a US aircraft carrier (especially if by proxy rather than uniformed military) probably means some strong statements and some court cases.

flohofwoe 5y ago
Blowing a hole in the side of a destroyer in harbor is hardly comparable to sinking an aircraft carrier.
nexuist 5y ago
Did you forget the part where we went to war for 20 years and tore the entire region to shreds? Do Iraq, Afghanistan, or Sudan remotely resemble functional sovereign states after US intervention? What about the thousands of drone strikes and hundreds of thousands dead? I would not describe our intervention in the Middle East as "some strong statements and some court cases."
- solatic 5y ago
  That wasn't in response to the USS Cole bombing. Don't conflate that with 9/11.
  - nexuist 5y ago
    9/11 was not an isolated incident and was the culmination of nearly a decade of damaged ME relations. If you'll remember, Desert Storm had been 10 years before, and Al Qaeda had bombed the WTC 8 years before. It was 9/11 that forced the US's hand, but it was not only 9/11 that justified their choice.