3 ms·
If there were collisions, I think they were probably accidents. For one, deliberate collisions would risk the loss of the American submarine too. They weren'
by MichaelCollins 4y ago
If there were collisions, I think they were probably accidents. For one, deliberate collisions would risk the loss of the American submarine too. They weren't built for ramming.
Secondly, the circumstance of an accidental collision seems very believable. Such collisions would not have been freak accidental encounters; the main mission of US attack subs at the time was to tail Soviet ballistic missile subs very closely and not be detected. The Soviet submarine commanders had some inkling of this, and responded by making erratic maneuvers to "clear their baffles" (essentially, look behind themselves, where their sonar was otherwise blind.) Trailing an unpredictable submarine very close is inherently risky. I think the blame falls on the circumstance of the Cold War itself, which compelled both sides to believe their actions were necessary.
- bombcar 4y agoAlso allowing the Soviets to claim an undersea accident vs “you totally rammed our sun you idiot” allows them to save face and also prevents escalation.
- detaro 4y agoAnd it has happened to others that almost certainly weren't trying to kill each other: In 2009, a French and a UK ballistic missile sub collided https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant... not to mention quite a few more incidents of subs ramming surface vessels, which should be even easier to avoid.