3 ms·

Another indication that we were in fact close to a nuclear disaster.

• bell-cot 5y ago
  Notice how much worse this sub's collision was - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)#Collision_with_seamount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)#Co.... But there was no nuclear disaster in that case, either. Might your statement be mostly, ah, aspirational?
• throwaway4good 5y ago
  First indication was that they send one of these guys out after the incident: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_WC-135_Constant_Phoenix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_WC-135_Constant_Phoen...
  • Sosh101 5y ago
    Would that detect contamination in the ocean?
  • wycy 5y ago
    Doing due diligence to assess whether there could've been a nuclear incident doesn't imply we were anywhere close to a nuclear incident.
• smileysteve 5y ago
  That's not how this works. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29117947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29117947
  • throwaway4good 5y ago
    One thing is the nuclear engine that drives the boat, another is what sort of weaponry it had on board. Judging from the public available pictures the damage was substantial creating the possibility of some sort of Thule airbase scenario. That the US sent out their sniffer planes is public record as they were carrying trackers that allowed open source observers to see them. I think it is a very serious story that has gotten hardly any coverage in the western media. https://mobile.twitter.com/SCS_PI/status/1454692456449003522 https://mobile.twitter.com/SCS_PI/status/1454692456449003522
    • cbm-vic-20 5y ago
      This was not a ballistic missile sub, it's an attack sub designed to take out other ships. According to the Wikipedia article about this type of sub, it can carry cruise missiles, but the current arsenal doesn't have nuclear warheads on them.