Soviet navy 'left 20 nuclear warheads in Bay of Naples'

[420inTN]

By Peter Popham in Rome

19 March 2005

Italy has an unwanted legacy from the Cold War in the form of 20 nuclear warheads on the seabed in the Bay of Naples, left there by the Soviet navy 25 years ago, it has been claimed.

An expert on Soviet-era intelligence, Mario Scaramella, sent a memo confirming the existence of the missiles to Guido Bertolaso, the head of Protezione Civile, Italy's civil defence agency.

"On 10 January 1970," the memo read, "a submarine of the November class detached itself from the Fifth Squadron (Mediterranean) of the Soviet navy with orders ... to place an imprecise number of tactical atomic torpedoes in the Bay of Naples. The submarine was armed with 24 nuclear torpedoes of two different types, for anti-aircraft carrier and anti-submarine use. They were used to mine the area used by the American Seventh Fleet."

{snip}

According to Mr Scaramella, the Soviet submarine in question sank months afterwards with only four nuclear torpedoes on board, leading experts to conclude that it had laid 20 torpedoes on the sea floor.

more, full story here

[uppityperson]

1. Might there not be a problem with leakage?

I don't think nuclear material sinks to the bottom. Oh lord help us (non-religious prayer there)

[420inTN]

2. Yes

Leakage and contamination is very definite, possible problem.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. I hate it when people don't clean up after themselves. n/t

[420inTN]

4. Makes one wonder how isolated this problem is?

How many more nukes were dumped and left laying?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Think of it this way.

At least they're at the bottom of the ocean, instead of some rusting ex-Soviet missile base guarded by two drunken conscripts (where al Qaeda or maybe Finland could get them.)

[420inTN]

9. I don't think that they are very deep

they are also in a seismically active area where there is a lot of fishing.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. Sounds like they hit the trifecta. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. If something like this had really happened, those torpedoes would....

...have been detected almost immediately.

This story is simply not credible.

[420inTN]

20. How's that?

How would they "have been detected almost immediately" in 1970?

How many broken arrows and empty quivers have there been that we don't know about?

What is not credible about the story?

[onehandle]

5. What does this have to do with the Peterson or Blake verdict?

Or the cruel treatment of a dead woman in a machine supported living body?

Honestly, some people just don't know what important news is.

[420inTN]

6. My bad. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. £50 says they're both tied to Jeff Gannon n/t

[Massacure]

11. They are probably unusable by now. Sea water can be harsh.

[jpak]

12. The 7th Fleet??? Don't think so...

The 6th Fleet is based in Naples - not the 7th (which is based in Okinawa).

Someone has their bullshit wrong...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. I'm sorry, but torpedoes armed with nuclear warheads lying on the....

...ocean bottom are next to worthless, if not totally worthless. Those kinds of weapons must either strike a surface while moving at its' cruising speed, or come within a certain distance of a target in order to detonate.

If the Soviets had wanted to mine the harbor, they would have left behind actual inert mines capable of being activiated electronically from a distance.

This story is not very credible, if at all.

[oneighty]

18. The USA

had a mine the (Mark 60 Captor) an encapsulated Mark 46 Mod 4 acoustic homing light weight torpedo. Bottom time ranged from several weeks to 'Many months'. The torpedo is certainly large enough to carry a modern nuclear war head. The torpedo targeted submarines and ignored surface ships.

Developed in very early sixties.

180

[Zynx]

15. This story is garbage - not LBN

You cannot mine with torpedos and I cannot imagine the Soviets actually putting nuclear weapons in place where they could easily detonate on their own.

Nevermind that this is about the most impractical way of using nukes I can think of. Not to mention the monstrous inefficiency involved. And it being an act of war. And...

Bunk. Someone move this to GD or the garbage bin.

[Silverhair]

16. Don't you mean 35 years ago, not 25?

2005 - 1970 = 35.

If a nuke has been in sea water for 35 years, it is extremely doubtful that it would work. However, it could be a source of plutonium, but the A-bomb would have to be re-manufactured.

[applegrove]

17. Amazing that they have not gone off!

[MaryBear]

19. My guess

is that the story is made up. It does make for interesting chatter, though. If any truth to it, I expect it is not a secret from Naval powers in the area and whatever might have been there is long since neutralized. Just like all the nukes we are storing in the good old USA.