Nuclear Ships And Subs Pose Huge Risk To Humanity; Could Easily Start WW III Accidentally

Did you know that in 1962, a global nuclear was almost started by a Soviet nuclear submarine? It was only due to one man aboard that sub who refused to carry out the order to launch nuclear missiles that we are all still here. If that sub had launched even ONE nuclear missile, it would have resulted in mutual assured destruction (MAD) of the whole world, and all life on the planet would have been extinguished. We are all about 5 minutes away from this.. At any moment, global nuclear war can still break out. 

Soviet Nuclear Sub Almost Started Global Nuclear War in 1962; via @AGreenRoad 

If a nuclear war is started by any nuclear sub, we can look forward to the launching of all nuclear submarine missiles globally in response, as well as all land and ship based nuclear missiles. 

In the following picture, you can see the number of nuclear bombs that are contained on just ONE nuclear sub. The USA has at least 14 subs just like this, so multiply all of these nuclear bombs times 14 and you end up with what the US could launch all by itself, just from nuclear subs. 

The insane risk of a global nuclear World War III is just cruising around waiting for the right ‘accident’ to trigger nuclear war. Each nuclear sub carries over 100 nuclear  missiles as shown above in the picture. 

Imagine what would happen to a major city you live in or near if just ONE nuclear sub sent all of these nuclear missiles on their way, due to a mistake, a command from a leader who temporarily ‘lost it’ due to drinking alcohol or losing control of his anger, or due to some technical/computer malfunction. 

Listen to Dr. Helen Caldicott MD in this video….

Nuclear subs pose a most direct threat to the survival of humanity and global civilization. Why? A nuclear sub can cruise silently underwater, just minutes away from any nation that borders an ocean. A nuclear sub can easily be seen as a provocation to war by other countries who must now keep their fingers literally glued to THEIR nuclear launch buttons, just to get their missiles off in time.  

Each nuclear sub can carry  many nuclear missiles as shown above. Each missile can carry multiple nuclear bombs that can be steered towards separate targets. It only takes about five minutes from launch for these nuclear missiles launched from just ONE nuclear submarine, to hit their target. Just one nuclear sub can carry over 100 and up to 154 nuclear bombs, enough to kill everyone on Earth, living in any major city. 

This fact makes our whole world much less safe, because there is much less room and time for any nation to respond. If a nation thinks it is being provoked or attacked by ANY nuclear sub, it must launch everything it has within about one minute of detection of a nuclear attack or it will probably lose most or all of it’s nuclear missiles. It would then be unable to respond, because everything would be destroyed. 

The recent meteor blowing out windows in Russia and exploding high up in the air above a town with nuclear reactors and military facilities is an example of something that could have set off World War III. We came very close to nuclear war there, as at least one Russian government official accused the US of attacking Russia with a nuclear weapon. 
Since no nation knows where any of these super silent nuclear subs are located, other nations have to assume the worst and believe that these US nuclear subs are parked right off of their coasts, giving them only about 1 minute warning from a suspected nuclear missile launch. 
This means in effect, the whole world is only 1 minute away from World War III, which might be started accidentally, because someone thinks that an attack has been started by the US, or anyone else with a nuclear sub. 
Wikipedia shows us what a nuclear missile launch would look like, and the bombs coming in would look much like a meteor shower, until they hit the ground, that is. 

“Montage of the launch of a Trident C4 SLBM and the paths of its reentry vehicles.
George Washington’s missiles could be fired while the boat was submerged, meaning that it was far less likely to be detected before firing. The nuclear power of the boat also meant that, like Nautilus, George Washington’s patrol length was limited only by the amount of food the boat could carry.
Ballistic missile submarines, carrying Polaris missiles, eventually superseded all other strategic nuclear systems in the USN. Deterrent patrols continue to this day, although now with Ohio-class submarines and Trident II missiles.
Post Cold War (1991–Present)
Submarines fitted with the Tomahawk can hit targets up to 1,000 miles inland.[14] The mainstay of the Tomahawk equipped vessels in the early days of the missile’s deployment were.. the submarine fleet.[14] 
The Virginia-class and Los Angeles-class submarines since USS San Juan (SSN-751) have been fitted with vertical launch systems to enable them to carry more of the weapons.[14] (These missiles can also launch nuclear weapons).
Since the early 21st century, the US submarine fleet is made up entirely of nuclear-powered vessels.
Composition of the current force
Ohio class (18 in commission) — 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)
Virginia class (7 in commission, 3 under construction, 4 on order) — fast attack submarines
Seawolf class (3 in commission) — attack submarines
Los Angeles class (43 in commission, 2 in reserve) — attack submarines
Fast attack submarines
The U.S. has 43 Los Angeles-class submarines on active duty and 19 retired, making it the most numerous nuclear-powered submarine class in the world. The class was preceded by the Sturgeon class and followed by the Seawolf and Virginia classes
Ballistic and guided missile submarines
The U.S. has 18 Ohio-class submarines, of which 14 are Trident II SSBNs (Ship, Submersible, Ballistic, Nuclear), each capable of carrying 24 SLBMs. 
The first four which were all equipped with the older Trident I missiles have been converted to SSGN’s each capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk guided missiles and have been further equipped to support Special Operations (SEALS). 
If the maximum of 154 Tomahawk missiles were loaded, one Ohio-class SSGN would carry an entire Battle Group’s equivalent of cruise missiles. Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs or boomers in American slang) carry submarine-launched ballistic missiles(SLBMs) with nuclear warheads for attacking strategic targets such as cities or missile silos anywhere in the world. 
Some 5,000 officers and 55,000 enlisted sailors make up the submarine force. In addition to submarines, they are assigned to submarine tenders, submarine rescue ships, deep-diving submersibles, floating dry docks, shore support facilities, submarine staffs, and senior command staffs.[23]
There are other risks that are posed by nuclear subs and ships however. Each of these subs or ships has to eventually come into a port that is usually located in a major city, with millions of people living there. 

In the video above, we can see a massive nuclear  powered and nuclear weaponized US Navy carrier being pulled out of harbor, ready to go to sea. 

What if this carrier was bombed in a surprise attack while it was in port, with all of it’s nuclear weapons on board? What if those weapons went off, while the ship was tied up right next to a major city? 

What if the reactor on board melted down and the corium from the melted reactor went through the ship and then into the harbor? Terrorists do not even need a nuclear weapon to destroy a major city and bring a whole nation to it’s knees.

Do you believe that nuclear subs and/or ships cannot be sunk? 

Russia Dumped 19 Radioactive Ships Plus 14 Nuclear Reactors Into the Ocean – September 18, 2012

“Another accident in 1968 in the North Pacific 1,796 miles / 2,890 kilometers northwest of the Hawaiian island of Oahu led to the sinking of a diesel-electric Soviet sub sank carrying nuclear ballistic missiles”.

Sunken Soviet N-sub leaking radioactivity

“…Altogether, there are a total of 339 nuclear-powered ships and submarines in the five nuclear navies. Between them, they carry a total of 513 nuclear reactors, more than the total number of reactors based on land. At least seven have sunk, either at sea or in port. The navy of what was the former Soviet Union is the largest nuclear navy, with 294 reactors on its nuclear-powered submarines….

“To this day, no official statistics concerning sunken nuclear submarines, leaks, fires or explosions exists. Seven sunken nuclear submarines are documented. The number of accidents is estimated to be a few hundred. Only a few are known…”

In the video above, a description of a British nuclear powered sub describes how a man burst into the nuclear power control room, shooting two officers there. No details have been released. However, this incident describes how vulnerable a sub is to terrorist attack. What if this man had succeeded in taking over the control room, and then purposely melted down the reactor?

The above web sites list numerous accidents involving nuclear submarines. At least some and possibly ALL non nuclear military submarines and/or ships carry either nuclear torpedoes, and/or other types of nuclear weapons that can be launched in a variety of ways. When these non nuclear subs and ships sink, these nuclear weapons can leak into the ocean as they degrade and fall apart. The above site lists at least one submarine which is doing this. 

According to Wikipedia; “Eight nuclear submarines have sunk as a consequence of either accident or extensive damage: two from the United States Navy, four from the Soviet Navy, and two from the Russian Navy. Only three were lost with all hands: two from the United States Navy and one from the Russian Navy. 

All sank as a result of accident with the exception of K-27, which was scuttled in the Kara Sea when repair was deemed impossible and decommissioning too expensive. All of the Soviet/Russian submarines belonged to the Northern Fleet. Although the Soviet submarine K-129 (Golf II) carried nuclear ballistic missiles when it sank, it was a diesel-electric submarine and is not in the list below.

The location of sunken submarines in the Atlantic

Of the 8 sinkings, 2 were due to fires, 2 were due to explosions of weapons systems, 1 was due to flooding, 1 was weather-related, and 1 was sunk intentionally due to a damaged nuclear reactor. In 1 case, the cause of sinking is unknown. All of the subs are in the Northern Hemisphere, and there are none in either the Indian or Pacific Oceans.

United States

Thresher (SSN-593), the first submarine in its class, sank April 10, 1963 during deep-diving trials after flooding, loss of propulsion, and an attempt to blow the emergency ballast tanks failed, causing it to exceed crush depth. All 129 men on board died. Location: 350 km (190 nmi) east of Cape Cod.

Scorpion (SSN-589), a Skipjack-class submarine, sank May 22, 1968, evidently due to implosion upon reaching its crush depth. What caused the Scorpion to descend to its crush depth is not known. All 99 men died. Location: 740 kilometres (400 nmi) southwest of the Azores.

United States 

Thresher (SSN-593), the first submarine in its class, sank April 10, 1963 during deep-diving trials after flooding, loss of propulsion, and an attempt to blow the emergency ballast tanks failed, causing it to exceed crush depth. All 129 men on board died. Location: 350 km (190 nmi) east of Cape Cod.

Scorpion (SSN-589), a Skipjack-class submarine, sank May 22, 1968, evidently due to implosion upon reaching its crush depth. What caused the Scorpion to descend to its crush depth is not known. All 99 men on board died. Location: 740 kilometres (400 nmi) southwest of the Azores.

Soviet Union

K-27: The only Project 645 submarine, equipped with a liquid metal cooled reactor, was irreparably damaged by a reactor accident (control rod failure) on May 24, 1968. 9 were killed in the reactor accident. After shutting down the reactor and sealing the compartment, the Soviet Navy scuttled her in shallow water of the Kara Sea on September 6, 1982,[1]contrary to the recommendation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).[2]

K-8: A Project 627 November class submarine was lost April 11, 1970 while being towed in rough seas following a fire on board. The vessel was initially evacuated, but 52 reembarked for the towing operation. All hands on board were lost (52), while 73 crewmen survived on the rescue vessel.[1] Location: Bay of Biscay, 490 kilometres (260 nmi) northwest of Spainin the North Atlantic Ocean.

K-219: A Project 667A Yankee I class sub was damaged in a missile explosion October 3, 1986, then sank suddenly while being towed after all crew had transferred off. 6 crew members were killed. Location: 950 kilometres (510 nmi) east of Bermuda in the North Atlantic Ocean.

K-278 Komsomolets: The only Mike-class sub built sank due to a raging fire April 7, 1989. All but 5 evacuated prior to sinking. 42 perished, many from smoke inhalation and exposure to the cold waters of the Barents Sea. A total of 27 crew members survived.


K-141 Kursk: The Oscar II class sub sank in the Barents Sea on August 12, 2000 after an explosion on board. See Russian submarine Kursk explosion. All 118 men on board were lost. However, all except the extreme bow section was later salvaged.

K-159: The hulk of the decommissioned Soviet-era November class submarine sank in the Barents Sea on August 28, 2003, when a storm ripped away the pontoons necessary to keep it afloat under tow. 9 men perished in the accident.”

This nightmare scenario is quite real. This is why nuclear ships and subs should be banned and dismantled. This is why the Soviets took such pains to cover up the sinking of one of their nuclear subs. 

Once the secret came out and the sinking became public, the Soviets eventually retrieved their sunk nuclear sub that was lost with all hands onboard, after it sank due to an accident in a fairly deep part of the ocean.  To watch more details about this nuclear sub sinking and retrieval;

The nuclear experts know that just one nuclear reactor going out of control and melting down in the ocean, (caused by the intentional or unintentional sinking of a nuclear ship or sub) can potentially make the entire food chain of that ocean contaminated with radiation and uneatable. 

Can you imagine uncountable future generations not being able to eat any seafood due to it being contaminated with nuclear radiation? This has already happened, and it is actively being covered up, even more so than the Soviet nuclear sub sinking, because the extent of this disaster is so much worse…

Comparing Contaminated Zones Around Chernobyl And Fukushima Ocean Radiation Released; via A Green Road

Fukushima; Pacific Ocean Catastrophe Confirmed; via A Green Road

Fukushima Leaking Radioactive Water Into Ocean Plume; via A Green Road

Whether that sinking of a nuclear ship or sub is due to a war, collision, accident, storm or other causes, does any nation really want to have that kind of Damacles sword hanging over their head? Is it worth the risk? 

There are many other risks to all life on the planet posed by nuclear ships and subs. For example, we have the historical record of one nation attacking another when all of their ships were in port, such as when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. This same thing may  and very likely will happen again. War seems to be the ONLY thing that humanity can count on, despite continuous and never ending prayers for peace.

But instead of being a horrific but temporary Pearl Harbor disaster with thousands of casualties caused by bombs and fire, the next time it happens, it may mean that a nation will lose millions of people due to high amounts of radiation. 

Entire states and quite possibly the entire nation will become uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years, and an ocean may be so contaminated, that no fish or other creature can be consumed out of it, due to the sinking of multiple nuclear ships and subs, with out of control nuclear reactors melting through into the ocean and/or air, plus nuclear weapons going off in the explosions of the ships or subs.  Is it worth it, to have that kind of risk due to a war that will probably happen at some point in the future? 


Do you believe that this cannot happen? People and the military become complacent, relaxed and let their guard down. All it takes is parking the US fleet with multiple nuclear carriers or nuclear submarines parked in one place, at the same time, as shown in the above picture. This picture shows a Pearl Harbor risk times 1 MILLION, or worse. 

Pearl Harbor should have taught nations that own nuclear subs and ships a lesson. It is too risky to park a major part of your nuclear fleet all in one place, especially the whole nuclear fleet, with all of their nuclear weapons on board. 

Imagine what would happen if their hundreds of nuclear missiles all went off at the same time, while their were tied up here, due to a surprise attack, or an accident, whether Nature caused, or via terrorists or human mistake. 

Accidents involving nuclear ships and subs in port have happened already, numerous times. Here is just ONE example,, out of MANY…

But it looks like the lesson was not learned, and history may have to repeat itself, only this time, the consequences will be MUCH worse. Bottom line, any nuclear ship is a terrorist target, especially when it is tied up in any port. How does the US guard against terrorists or sabotage? 

If a surprise attack happens whether from a nation attacking the USA, or via terrorists committing an act of sabotage against one or more nuclear ships or subs, the consequences will be horrific. When multiple nuclear ships and/or subs with all of their nuclear weapons on board are sunk and then their nuclear reactors/bombs/missiles explode or melt through, the consequences will be too terrible to even contemplate. There will be no ship to visit as a tourist attraction, as is the case in Pearl Harbor. 

Where a nuclear ship or sub sinks, there will be a zone around this area where no one can live, no one can even visit, that may extend for hundreds of miles in all directions. Millions of people may be made homeless and have to be evacuated. It will be a Chernobyl or Fukushima type of event, and quite possibly worse, especially if multiple nuclear warheads that are on board, all explode and/or release their radioactive contents via melting in fires and releasing their contents into the air as well.

It is only a matter of time until this happens, because humans are imperfect, even if the machines are perfect, which is never the case. Human imperfection or war will eventually cause the above nightmare scenario to happen with at least one US ship or sub, and it is only a question of when it happens, and where, not if. 

There are other dangers posed by radioactive nuclear materials. The continuous dumping of ‘normal’ amounts of radiation from recycling of nuclear materials is resulting in the contamination of large sections of the ocean and the release of enough radiation to equal the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, each year. 

La Hague; France’s Nuclear Waste Nightmare; via A Green Road

UK Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant Loses $1.2 Billion Pounds, Then Closes; via A Green Road

Pu-239, The Half Life of Timofey Berezin; via A Green Road

Hanford; Lethal And Leaking; A Race To Armageddon? via A Green Road

Savannah River Site; Most Severely Radiation Polluted Place on Earth? via A Green Road

Another danger is posed by the dumping of radioactive waste in the oceans. 

Radioactive Waste Dumping In Oceans via A Green Road

A further danger is the use of low level nuclear bullets, bombs and depleted uranium weapons.

Depleted Uranium Effects In The Human Body; via A Green Road 

Beyond Treason: The True Story of Depleted Uranium; via A Green Road

Depleted Uranium – Physicians For Social Responsibility; via A Green Road

The worst possible thing that could happen would be a nuclear war. With over 20,000 nuclear weapons still in the world, we cannot even contemplate what would happen if all of those bombs were dropped on all cities globally, and then all nuclear subs unleashed their missiles, plus all nations trying to sink the other nations nuclear ships and subs on top of all that. 

Dr. Helen Caldicott MD On Nuclear Weapons, MAD/Nuclear Armageddon; via A Green Road

Some people believe that nuclear bombs, ships and subs make us safer. Let us imagine that no war is started either accidentally or purpose for the next fifty years. Now all of these nuclear subs, ships, and weapons are obsolete and at the end of their lifetime. 

These worn out, obsolete rusting weapons of war must now be taken apart, or abandoned. Who will guard and safely store all of these nuclear bombs, missiles and nuclear reactors inside of all of these ships and subs for the next 100,000 years? Where is the money going to come from? To see this abandonment of nuclear subs happening today, watch the following video…

If you have watched the videos and listened to the material in the articles above, you will more than  likely realize and understand that we humans are actually much less safe with the increased number of nuclear bombs, ships and subs around the world. 

Many thousands of square miles of the world have ALREADY become a toxic, radioactively contaminated wasteland where no human can safely live, through numerous low level ‘nuclear’ wars where multiple nations have been using depleted uranium as ‘weapons’, or through normal emissions, (via recycling) or via nuclear accidents or through nuclear waste dumping. 

Lists of 100+ Worst Nuclear Disasters And Radioactivity Release Incidents; via A Green Road

An accident in the ocean involving anything nuclear would be much worse than any equivalent accident on land. The scary part of this story is yet to come.. Did you know standard freight carrying ships carry nuclear materials on a very frequent basis? 

Did you know that very often, explosives are combined with the radioactive cargo, in the same boat, often located right next to each other? Does this sound illegal? Surprise, surprise, there is no law prohibiting this. As long as a ship ‘declares’ the cargo, there is no restriction.

Any ship can carry whatever it wants with no restriction. So what happens when bad things occur, like a combination of explosives and radiation materials in the same cargo hold?

In the following example, a ship containing radioactive uranium hexaflouride plus tons of explosive caught fire in a harbor of a busy city in Europe. Would you believe that the authorities took no action to warn anyone?  

“Fire fighters were able to quickly identify the containers which had the radioactive cargo and remove them before anything worse happened. The authorities confirmed that the ship had been carrying around nine tons of the dangerous uranium hexafluoride, a toxic chemical used in the nuclear industry, as well as four tons of explosives, the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported. 

The Green party forced the information into the open with a written question to the city government, local radio station NDR 90.3 reported.

“Hamburg just managed to scrape past a catastrophe on May 1st,” Anjes Tjarks, Green spokesman for harbour policy told the Süddeutsche Zeitung.”

Paper: Nuclear meltdown at sea “would have a far more devastating effect” than on land — Thousands of cubic miles of ocean contaminated.

What if the slow death of all oceans has begun already, due to the dumping of radioactive subs and ships, plus nuclear reactors ‘leftovers’ from land based nuclear power plants? How much nuclear waste can the oceans take, before bioaccumulation of those wastes comes back up the food chain to destroy humanity?

The promoters of nuclear power believe that dilution is the never ending solution, so they keep dumping everything dangerous into the oceans, including radioactive wastes. What they do not want to look at is the bio concentration effect, in which small amounts of radiation concentrate back up the food chain, right back to humans at the top of it.  

The best thing all nations on Earth can do is to dismantle all of these nuclear bombs, bullets, ships, subs, and plants plus storage pools and beat any remaining non radioactive metal into plowshares, plus bury the radioactive building materials deep underground. 

The more nuclear weapons, subs, ships and bullets there are the in the world, the worse it will get for humanity, bottom line. The current use of depleted uranium weapons in major cities around the world proves this point. 

Nuclear Ships And Subs Pose Huge Risk To Humanity; Could Easily Start WW III Accidentally via @AGreenRoad

4 thoughts on “Nuclear Ships And Subs Pose Huge Risk To Humanity; Could Easily Start WW III Accidentally

  1. You realize that it is extremely hard to accidentally set of a nuke, the way they are designed requires many (10-50, I don't know) simultaneous points of detonation and if ONE is even one thousandth of a second off, the nuclear part of the bomb will not trigger and the core will simply go splat, as opposed to perfectly imploding(anything much less of perfect and nothing will happen). also yo referred to 'corium', do you honestly think that the core of a reactor is 'corium', its going to be plutonium or uranium, depending on the reactor


  2. Agreed; nuclear weapons need a trigger to go off, but there is always that first time when the 'experts' are proven wrong.. Titanic was an unsinkable ship. It sunk, and many people died because they did not have enough liferafts. Why bother? The ship would never sink. Fukushima – Nuclear plants cannot melt down, especially not multiple reactors at the same time and certainly never in combination with ALL of their spent fuel pools all at once. Guess what? It happened at Fukushima, but that is all being covered up now. Corium is the end result of a melt down and meltthrough of a nuclear reactor that could not be cooled, due to loss of coolant, or something going wrong with the moderator rods/fluid; as in Three Mile Island. Corium is the melted down, liquified, 2,500 to 5,000 degree radioactive fire blob that melts down through everything, no matter what it is. And that radioactive fire does not go out, as is the case right now with multiple coriums underground at Fukushima. But that is also being covered up, because that would spell the end of nuclear globally if the news ever got out.


  3. Youre right of course; implosion weapon works by, surprise surprise implosion!! The way these weapons are designed they have many geometrically perfect lenses to direct the explosion inwards towards the plutonium core, creating immensely high temperatures to trigger the nuclear chain reaction of atoms splitting atoms, which we know as “fission”, the breaking apart of solid matter and its component atoms. Most modern strategic weapons are thermonuclear; this uses the tremendous heat of an atomic (fission) bomb to trigger the secondary “fusion” reaction, of two hydrogen atoms fusing to become one helium atom; the difference is given off as energy, as in E=MC 2. And of course,, all of this must happen in perfect sequence, as you said, otherwise you get a “fizzle”.


Comments are closed.