OT Nuclear U-Boats; how do they condense the steam?

Why have crash barriers when the whole idea is not to crash?

one that has nuclear weapons. There was no need to escalate a lttle s american adventure beyond retaking te falklands and shooting d0own a few plabes directly involved

No, our credibility was enhanced, among sane people

So, we might as well

Usual emotionally loaded false logic.

That tooo.

The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to prevent retaliation

I believe so. They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft - the chinese dont want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.

Indeed.

With nuclear power, given that they are practically fuelled for life, there is no especial demand for efficiency. There is a demand for compactness however. They may not have a low pressure rotor!

Maybe the same designers that made the old Blakes 7 series and Crossroads built the models and sets? Brian

It has *very* high ceilings for a submarine. Presumably needed for the cameras to get the right angle but means it doesn't look realistically claustrophobic like the reality would actually be.

It looks like it might be a half decent thriller but not realistic.

I would have thought that using sea water would be very difficult, due to the corrosion it might create in the heat exchanger, or whatever they use to cool the water. Besides, if heat from water changed as the sub moved, surely it would be detectable quit easily by the other side. There have been some terrible depictions of nuclear reactors in films and TV shows over the years. The one in The world is not Enough is pretty stupid in my view. I cannot see it of course but the audio describer explained the end scene and he sounded almost embarrassed at the situation.

I would have thought that many reactors these days that needed to be small may well use some other material to get the heat away to do the work. Sodium perhaps, though let that come in contact with water and you have a very bad day. Brian

...

You don't need Filipinos to have a nuclear accident. There have been 32 known accidents involving nuclear weapons or nuclear powered vessels. Six US nuclear weapons have been lost and never found again.

...

I would be most surprised if a nuclear sub put to sea relying on the memory of the crew, rather than on comprehensive check lists, to ensure that everything is done right.

I think you'll find the UK nuclear capability was intended to deter a Soviet conventional invasion of Europe. That is why we retained a first strike option.

Militarily nukes are now virtually useless to the UK. As GB illustrates we can't use them in normal conflicts. Nuclear weapons are mainly useful for small, militarily weak, nations deterring conventional attacks/intimidation by much more powerful nations. North Korea and Iran being obvious examples where they have/would have utility. Obviously giving nutters nukes is not a good idea. I'm just pointing out the way things are, like it or not.

There is some benefit to a US deterrent against intimidation by other nuclear powers and maybe we should contribute to that. However the current US arsenal is ludicrously oversized.

The Natural Philosopher snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid wrote

There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.

Even the USA doesn?t have what it takes to do that.

No, although they can be used that way, that is not the purpose of them. The idea is that once out at sea, no-one knows where they are, so they cannot be targetted to be knocked out before an attack on their home country and will remain available to respond.

Indeed, they may not even respond - each Prime Minister gives a letter to the sub commanders, to be opened *after* an attack on the UK. That letter tells them whether to fire back or not in such an event. The idea being that an enemy won't know whether we would respond or not, but the PM has that control.

But subs hide much better. Time taken to arrive is not a problem for a retaliatory weapon though.

Agreed.

Although not used much, there have been commercial nuclear ships before

- and a number of icebreakers.

Every possibility I would say - Australia is not very heavily populated. And is not very defensible. And is full of pacifists who would probably welcome them with open arms

Course it does.

On 17/09/2021 11:33, Steve Walker wrote: ...

One of which had to jettison its reactor after what is thought to have been a partial meltdown. At it was a Soviet vessel, details are not available.

More fool you...

- Australia is not very heavily populated.

That is mindless bullshit.

And is full of pacifists who would probably

More mindless bullshit.

Fraid not. No possibility of holding it.

They couldn?t even manage that with Afghanistan.

Maybe 50 years ago, maybe in the future, but at the moment they are the dominant regional power. Additionally, they are protected against these weaker enemies by US backing.

I think a lot of the reason Israel and the US suspect Iran of seeking nuclear weapons is because it is what they would do in Iran's position.

Personally I'm not so sure. I think the Iranian leadership may think differently.

Do they? With modern equipment. I actually suspect subs are more vulnerable to being taken out in a pre-emptive strike. I think the UK often has just one operational trident sub.

Governments lie about the real reasons to placate the public.

Most of the cash poor nuclear powers rely on mobile land nukes. Trains, lorries, multiple geographically distance launch sites. More weapons for your money. These are countries which are most likely to face a first strike.

wow. You START with an ad hominem!

And carry on with insults without addressing the basic point, that the north of Australia is huge and empty, and there is nothing there to stop chinese landing craft waltzing in, apart from submarines..

More insults and ad hominems. And complete lack of rational arguments

No possibility of retaking it. How many men did it take to

(a) take (b) retake the falklands?

They didn't even try

And the Afghans are far more likely to resist invasion than limp wristed latte drinking urban hipster Australians

Subs are far more hidden than any land-based system. At times of high tension, they will usually arrange for more than one to be at sea at the same time - indeed this was one of the arguments against the Lib-Dem proposal to save money by buying fewer.

More weapons, but easier to wipe-out pre-emptively.