Drowning of Russian Submarine – Delhi Science Forum

The Russian nuclear-powered submarine Kursk, one of its newest submarines considered highly reliable, went down in the Barents Sea off the Russiaport of Murmansk on August 12 last week, and yesterday all hopes of any survivors from among the 118 crew were officially given up. What remains now after this gruesome tragedy, which saw the submariners’ worst fears of a watery grave come true, is to find out the cause, recover the bodies and perhaps plan to salvage the submarine itself. But whatever be the outcomes of each of these endeavours, salient aspects of which we shall be discussing in this article, some wider issues also loom and need to be addressed. What are the safety issues involved in nuclear submarines, especially those carrying nuclear weapons? What dangerous underwater games are played by the world’s major powers, especially those locked in confrontationist postures?

And what remnants of the cold war are being played out between Russia and the USA along with its western allies?

COLLISSION WITH US SUBMARINE

The first official Russian reports, by Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov who also heads a government committee probing the disaster, stated that the Russian vessel had struck “some underwater object with a large tonnage” perhaps another submarine, and had suffered severe damage due to an explosion possibly caused by this collision. Another massive explosion may have occurred when the Kursk hit the sea-bed, and it was also possible that some of the torpedoes loaded in the front of the Kursk may have exploded in either of these collisions.

Almost automatically, suspicion immediately turned to the possibility of a collision with a US submarine. Memories of an earlier collision in 1989 between US and Soviet submarines resulting in the latter sinking in Arctic seas quite close to the present incident further prompted this theory. The US is not only the major power with a large submarine fleet and one that frequents the northern Arctic waters, but also because US submarines have a known habit of closely and provocatively following Russian (earlier Soviet) submarines with a view to harass them and use such close encounters to gain better understanding of Russian submarines’ performance and operational strategies and tactics.

The US of course vehemently denied that any of its submarines or other naval craft were involved in any collision in the Barents Sea area or anywhere else for that matter. The US further continued to hide behind its official stance of not confirming or denying the location of any of its strategic sea-going vessels and would not state categorically whether or not any of its submarines were in the vicinity. However, it soon became known that a US nuclear submarine had docked at a Norwegian military base within

two days of the Russian submarine, although there was no confirmation of any damage or repairs to the US vessel. Early Russian navy reports also referred to a marker buoy (a floating device designed to mark a particular sport) near the accident site with green and white markings as are used by both the US and British navies. It is also known that NATO vessels were indeed monitoring the Russian naval exercises in the Barents Sea in which the Kursk was taking part.

There were, of course, some suspicions that the Russians were using the collision theory as a means to shift blame and attention away from any possible lapses within the Russian submarine such as malfunction in its torpedo bays. The Barents Sea and nearby areas are also host to numerous unexploded mines left over from the Second World War and it is also possible that the Kursk ran afoul of one of these on that fateful day.

DANGERS OF NAVAL MANOEUVRES

Whatever the real cause of the sinking of the Kursk, and whatever the reality of US or NATO involvement in it even if accidental, the tragedy once again brought to the fore the serious dangers posed by the close-range manoeuvres carried out by heavily armed underwater vessels some of which could even be armed with nuclear weapons, as indeed the Kursk was equipped for. For all the supposed end to the Cold War, these confrontationist and provocative moves which are still being made by the US and NATO continue to play at the fringes of catastrophe.

And there is always the danger posed by accidents to nuclear-armed or even nuclear- powered vessels which roam the global waters. Like its US counterparts, the Kursk too is designed as a carrier of massive quantities of lethal weapons and means to deliver them. When fully armed, the Kursk carries 24 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles essentially for attacking enemy aircraft carriers, the mainstay of the US navy. Apart from these missiles, the Kursk carries 533mm and 650mm torpedoes, one or more of which may have exploded resulting in the extensive damage seen in the submerged vessel.

It has indeed come as some relief to all concerned, especially to the littoral nations around the Barents Sea and nearby waters, that the two nuclear reactors which powered the Kursk do not appear to have suffered any damage. The Norwegian team of rescue divers trying to enter the ill- fated Kursk have not reported any radiation leaks into the Barents Sea. But imagine what could havoc could have been unleashed if the reactors had indeed been seriously damaged by the explosions or, perish the thought, if any nuclear weapons had been on board the Kursk and suffered damage during the explosions.

COLLAPSING RUSSIAN CAPABILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS

The shadow of the Cold War could also be seen in the general reaction in the Western media to the sinking of the Kursk. Barely hidden and smug satisfaction could be easily discerned behind the ostensibly sympathetic accounts of the tragedy with innuendos cast on the state of Russian preparedness and technological capabilities. The US and the West in general may now be gloating over the state to which the mighty former Soviet armed forces have declined, but the West should also look at its own role in first creating and then propping up a tottering regime in Russia with all institutions in a state of near collapse. The US and the West should also realise that they too may soon have to pay a heavy price in unknown ways since such creations have a habit of turning on their creators.

Yet the Russian plight made a sorry sight indeed. For days there were no serious moves by the government or military leadership to attempt a rescue or launch any major endeavour to aid the then stricken submarine. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, the latest “great white hope” in Russia after Boris Yeltsin, neither interrupted his holiday at a Black Sea resort nor even issued any statement of concern or sympathy for the afflicted sailors. For its part, the Russian Naval efforts under Admiral Mikhail Motsak, chief of staff of the Russian Northern Fleet, were seen worldwide as being totally ineffective. The Russian civil and military authorities spent days refusing Western help and even responded to US offers of assistance by telling them to make their offer through NATO as if this would be in any way less demeaning for Russian pride. Finally Norwegian divers achieved what the Russians were unable to do, that is examine the rear escape hatch, make a damage assessment and finally prise it open physically. The British submarine rescue team with its special submersible vessel, LR5, was standing by in case any further help were needed. Indeed, better founded Russian damage assessment of the sunken submarine was made possible only by the video footage from deep- water cameras operated by the Norwegian divers. And to cap it all it appeared, and was gleefully announced on western media, that US intelligence knew more about the state of the sunken submarine than the Russians did!

What a fall indeed. It is now absolutely clear that Russian technical capabilities, including in military matters, have been severely eroded as have the morale and performance of their personnel both civil and military. The West may crow about the fall of socialism and the collapse of the Soviet Union, but what has replaced it? The Russian economy is in shambles, even salaries of military personnel have not been paid for several months and many of them have been asked to accept payment in kind! Russian officaldom is racked by corruption, the mafia has free run of the country and the system is run on IMF hand-outs to sustain a revanchist regime. It is little wonder that the average Russian feels that Putin’s and Russia’s reputation has sunk along with the Kursk.

LESSONS TO LEARNT FROM KURSK TRAGEDY

There are many lessons that the rest of the world, and India, have to learn from the sinking of the Kursk and all the issues that have been brought to light by it.As already mentioned, however dangerous land-based nuclear weapon installations are, mobile sea-faring ones are many times more dangerous. They have the potential, in the eventuality of an accident, to spread nuclear hazards far and wide, much beyond the boundaries of the country of origin and threatening life and health of innocent people far away. These dangers are compounded by reckless and risky “games” of cat and mouse played by rival forces, such dangerous rivalry being an integral part of the nuclear weapons race.

People in India should consider carefully the consequences of a nuclear arms race, especially when it is stretched out the way the militarist and adventurist BJP/RSS wishes to. The National Security Advisor, chief mandarin of foreign policy and in the PMO, had presented a draft nuclear strategic doctrine to the nation. This doctrine had spelt out the intention of building a three-tier nuclear force comprising land, air and sea-based strike capabilities. Did any one seriously work out what this would involve in terms of sheer costs and what it implied in terms of setting up, running and maintaining the necessary infrastructure and technical capabilities?

This “draft doctrine” was quietly withdrawn, possibly in response to some frowns from the White House. But who knows how seriously it is still taken by the “Hindu superpower” clique? The Kursk tragedy reveals how even a once mighty fleet and military machine can be horribly incapacitated and dangerously handicapped if funds are in short supply and human resources are weak either in morale or capability. To think that a developing country, with half its population living in poverty, can fare much better is foolhardiness at best and madness any other way. The sooner we in India abandon this dangerous course the better for all concerned. And the sooner all countries should be persuaded that nuclear deterrence is just the opposite, that is, encouragement to others to similarly possess such a “deterrent”. If the tragedy of the Kursk would lead to more genuine reflection of the underlying message to humanity, that all nuclear weapons and their means of delivery should be eliminated the world over, then the 118 sailors aboard her would not have died totally in vain.