|low graphics version | feedback | help|
|You are in: Talking Point|
Wednesday, 23 May, 2001, 09:12 GMT 10:12 UK
Should the Kursk be raised?
Russia says it hopes to raise the wreck of the nuclear submarine, Kursk, from the bottom of the Barents Sea before the end of September.
The vessel sank in August 2000 after a mysterious explosion and all 118 crew were killed.
But it will be a costly and complicated salvage operation. The mission is expected to take three months, starting in mid-June, and could cost in excess of $100m.
There is also the risk that the submarine could be further damaged and leak radioactive material into the sea.
Is this a risk that should be taken? Is the operation too expensive to be considered?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
Should it be raised? Without question, at least the sections of the
submarine which contain radioactive material (wherever that may be) should be raised, and made safe. The sailors should be left where they are, as they have already been traumatised enough. Will it be raised? There isn't enough money in the world to convince the Russian military to bring their most sensitive pieces of military hardware within the grasp of other countries. I fear that in a few years time when it starts leaking, and it gets into the food chain, they will still be as
A nuclear submarine sitting on the seabed for eternity... spells disaster! I believe we should put the brakes on nuclear power and weaponry because no one has yet devised a way to safely dispose of the waste products. Russia, and any other nation which has interest in nuclear power and nuclear weaponry, should have the capabilities to safely dispose of and clean up their mess before they begin the whole process. It would be an even greater tragedy if they assumed the 'out of sight, out of mind' frame of mind and left the wreckage to 'ferment'. The families who lost their loved ones need answers, and the seamen deserve a more appropriate resting place.
Nowadays the Kursk is a bomb of delayed-action. Definitely the dangerous part should be raised, but do not break the rest of lost sailors.
The Kursk should be left where she lies. It is part of the traditions of the sea to leave ships alone, as they are sailors' graves. These sailors died doing their duty to Mother Russia. I wonder if we in Britain would remember and honour our sailors if an RN submarine were to sink in the same manner the Russian one did. I doubt it.
From all the reading I have done, it seems that the Russians are not very keen on having it lifted. I believe the Russians most likely already know what sank the boat, as they will have examined the video footage taken by the robot cameras and also interrogated the divers who recovered the bodies. If it was an internal explosion that ripped a hole in the double hull, then the plates should be bent outwards. If it was a collision, as the Russian top brass keep claiming, then the plates should have an inward-facing inclination.
The Kursk should be raised to establish the cause of the mishap and to bring closure to the families of those who sailed. To date Russia refuses to acknowledge the view that a torpedo malfunction was the cause of the disaster. The raising of the Kursk will confirm or deny that. I am uncomfortable with the fact that a nuclear reactor is sitting at the ocean bottom and will not contaminate indefinitely.
The Kursk must be raised at least to make sure that future Russian generations will not have a burden of raising it. This time will come anyway, so better to do it now. The sailors must be properly buried - it is time to become more civilised.
The brave sailors of the Kursk died in the performance of their duties. Burial at sea with your ship is not a dishonourable end for a naval sailor. Let them lie where they are.
Daniel McDermott, England
I doubt very much whether the decision to raise the submarine has anything to do with giving those who perished a proper funeral. The one and only reason to raise it should be due to radioactive contamination concerns. As for establishing once and for all the real cause of the accident, I doubt whether a visual inspection on the surface will change any minds. From all accounts, the front of the sub was devastated. Those Russian officials who still want to perpetuate the collision or old mine theory will still stand their ground. Just like the Egypt Air disaster, it doesn't matter what the evidence shows; these people have their interests to protect.
The fact almost never mentioned is that the Kursk had on board nuclear-tipped warheads and torpedoes, which Command of the Northern Fleet desperately tried to deny. It is them that cause more danger than the plutonium on the submarine's reactor.
K.S. Barnes, USA
Raising the Kursk submarine is a bad idea for many reasons. It is a very risky operation that could ultimately see salvage workers and the environment in the Barents Sea area destroyed. It will cost a backbreaking amount of money, for an ailing Russian economy, that could better use this money to keep accidents such as the K-141 disaster from occurring again. Many of the families who lost their loved ones on August 12, 2000, wish their men to remain buried at sea. It would be heartbreaking to see them further upset by an already extremely painful incident.
Furthermore, the Russians will probably omit the infamous torpedo room compartment from this recovery mission. Without compartment I, it is unlikely that new answers can be provided as to what really caused this accident in the first place.
Whilst it was a tragic incident, which left many questions unanswered, is it really our place to make decisions for the Russians? They've had people in space and have the technological know-how to do many things which the UK can't. Let them decide for themselves. How would we appreciate it if the Russians told us how to solve the foot-and-mouth crisis?
John Butt, Ex Royal Naval Senior Rate, UK
Given it will only become more dangerous with time due to corrosion, I think there is a duty to remove this dangerous wreck from the sea (along with several others) as soon as possible. It should be done using the combined expertise of joint international effort.
The Kursk should be raised if Russians want to keep their dignity and reputation. Those servicemen who died should be given patriotic burial by the Russians. These are men and women who died in the line of duty for the safety of the rest of Russia.
As an ex-submariner, I think the sea makes an
appropriate burial location for seamen whose ships
sink beneath them. If the concern is for the
radioactivity in the reactor, then perhaps other
nuclear submarines which have sunk, including
the USS Threasher and USS Scorpion, should
Has anyone asked the kin of the victims? If it is their wish, raise the Kursk and do it now while the summer lasts.
Raising the Kursk may well be a costly and dangerous operation. The Kursk should be raised if only to secure the nuclear weapons on board and make sure the reactor core has not been damaged or exposed in any way. If left where she lies now, then the ecological consequences in years to come due to possible radioactive discharge into the sea will be catastrophic. It is time to put cost aside as a minor consideration and make sure we do the right thing.
These experimental supersonic torpedoes are why there was an explosion. And they are also why Russia was so reluctant to accept salvage and rescue assistance. The technology used to be top secret, as it will completely alter submarine warfare. It will also defeat Bush's missile shield system. But it's no longer secret. You can read about it in 'Scientific American.'
If they raise the Kursk, what then? How will they dispose of the radioactive material? Simply raising it from the seabed is not enough... they need to have a long term plan for it. Plus the relatives need to have some physical, tangible monument to their lost men, somewhere to go and to mourn.
If they don't raise it, they will have to commit to guarding the wreckage from foreign intelligence agencies forever. There's just too much to be learned from a modern Russian submarine in a few hundred feet of water. It has not been mentioned much in the media, but more than likely there are nuclear missiles on board with state-of-the-art guidance systems.
Michael Litvinov, Belgium
As the wife of a serving submariner, this topic is uncomfortably close to home, and not an easy question to answer. The relevant authorities should work quickly to finally end the speculation about what will happen to the bodies of the submariners involved. The continuing media attention and uncertainty about what will happen is merely prolonging the agony of the families in Russia.
Russia should raise the Kursk for two reasons: 1) Eliminate the chance of a radioactive leakage that could be devastating for everybody 2) Give the Russian sailors back the dignity. However, I believe the operation should be carried out jointly by Russia and International authorities to avoid any further disasters.
Peter and Charlotte, New Zealand
With its two 190MW reactors, the Kursk cannot stay at the seabed in one of the most important fishing areas in northern Europe. So far, no radioactive leakage is measured from the submarine. Considering lifting the Kursk we should hurry, but not rush. We can wait another year without risking radioactive leakages. Most likely, we cannot wait 10 years. Another important question to be answered is of course what to do with the submarine after it's lifted. The plan is to take it into the naval yard between Murmansk and Severomorsk. That does not solve the problem, only moves it. Therefore, the lifting plan should also involve a plan for a proper decommissioning of Kursk's two reactors.
It will be hard, risky, dangerous and expensive... But necessary! The sea isn't a trashcan!
Brian W, U K
The Kursk must be raised. Think of the nuclear reactors that it has on board. Think of the problems there will be in the future about radioactivity. For next generation this will be a very big problem. We must think now.
It is my opinion that the feelings of the bereaved relatives must be taken into account and, if it is possible to remove only the radioactive material, then the bodies of the submariners should be left in peace. However, if this is not possible and the only safe method of removal is to raise the entire submarine, then the environmental considerations MUST take precedence.
Ned , UK
I think by now Russia should be thinking of raising
the Kursk from the ocean. This should also sound a warning
to our leaders that a nation is supreme because of its men
and not its military exploits.
I do not know (like most other people) what state the main body of the submarine is in, but I do realise that the easiest and least dangerous way to raise the reactor will probably be whilst it remains in the submarine. It sounds harsh, but I therefore feel that the bodies of the seamen are somewhat of a lesser priority than the making safe of a nuclear reactor that will stay radioactive for a number of centuries - long after the submarine itself will have rusted to pieces.
The German battleship Blucher sunk in Oslofjord in World War II. Leaks of diesel 50 years later led to a substantial and dangerous operation to drain what remained. The Kursk is storing-up a similar, only worse, fate for future generations. Better to attempt the nuclear recovery now whilst information is available and the vessels structural integrity is intact. The needs of the relatives are also important. This may help them come to terms with their grief. Ideally the reactor and grave could be separated and the grave left alone, but this is unlikely. Better to plan how to deal with the bodies, and comfort the relatives as part of the operation.
John Grace, Canada
Ever since man ventured from the shore he has had to live with the possibility that he might never make it back. This is particularly true for the sailors in every navy in every period of time in the world's history. Submariners more than any other have had to live with the frightening reality that death under the waves would at best be quick and sudden, at the worst, slow and terrifying. These men knew the risks they had to take in order for them to do their jobs, and despite the dangers went to sea to serve their country. It is only fitting that men of this calibre, courage and tenacity should have the sea as their shroud. They are in gallant company. Do what can be done to contain any radioactivity, but let the men lie in peace.
The Kursk must be raised. We cannot afford to leave nuclear reactors, along with their sordid contents, rotting on the bottom of the ocean ready to mutate the DNA of any creature that swims past. Look at all the deformities and disease caused by the Chernobyl incident. Being out of sight under the sea does not make these evil substances any less harmful!
Charlie Richardson, England
While my heart goes out to the families of those poor sailors who died, I'm sure they would be the first to agree that there is no point in bringing up the bodies of their loved ones if others may die as a result. If, and only if, it is going to be 100% safe to bring up this submarine, should it be done. But the relatives of the dead should be asked first whether they want this to happen, or whether they would rather mourn them where they are.
It depends purely on the dangers in involved in such an operation versus the dangers of doing nothing and letting the waste leak out and contaminate the sea. While I have sympathy for the families of those who lost their sons on the sub, I am sure every soldier that enters any kind of army is aware of the risk to life and limb this implies, and Putin was wise not to interrupt the rescue effort with his personal presence
It should be raised and the dead bodies given a decent mass grave and the Kursk taken as national monument.
Recovery of the bodies of the crew is not a sufficient reason for raising the Kursk -- the hundreds of ships that went down during the Second World War (many of them in shallow water) were not raised for that purpose either, nor, more recently, was the ferry Estonia which sank in the Baltic. If recovery of the reactor separately is sufficient to prevent environmental harm and is possible, then that should certainly be done. On the other hand I hardly doubt that the Russian Navy already knows exactly what caused the Kursk to sink.
Governments should stop riding roughshod over the feelings of the people and relatives of those that have lost their lives for their country.
Equally, who are we in the Western world to tell the Russians what to do? they are a civilised country and can come to their own decisions as to what is the correct thing to do within their culture.
If it isn't raised, the environmental impact will be massive. However, to risk raising a hull weakened by two explosions could be even worse. The safest thing for all would be to make the reactors safe and no more.
Too many questions lie unanswered over the wreck of the Kursk. By raising the ship, perhaps we may be able to establish what happened to her and her crew, and how to prevent it happening again. When the complex issue of nuclear material lying on the ocean bed also comes into the equation, I don't think we can afford to let the Kursk lie. Any attempts to raise her should be executed and funded by the UN, so the truth is known and the cost not borne by a country with financial difficulties.
The Kursk should be raised not only to clarify the circumstances of its sinking but also to give the seamen who died a befitting burial. The Russian nation should be given the opportunity to honour these men posthumously. They died a horrific death, they do not deserve eternal imprisonment on the seabed.
Jordan Medeiros, USA
Our Russian allies should raise the Kursk, only if such action is the consensus of those families who lost loved ones.
The question is do we raise it now while the hull is in reasonable sound condition or wait until the radio activity leaks causing a barren sea in which nobody can work. An alternative may be to encapsulate it in concrete and wait for technology to advance. Either way at some point those reactors must be raised.
I think only the radioactive material and arms should be salvaged from the Kursk. No doubt this would cost a lot less than salvaging the whole submarine and it reduce the risk to near by Norway.
Alex Duggan, UK
There would obviously be an ongoing risk of contamination in the future if the site weren't cleaned up now. Also it is necessary to find out exactly what happened in order to reduce the chance of another incident in the future. When there is an air crash at sea, all possible material is recovered for investigation. The same principle should be applied here.
The Kursk should be raised purely so the families of those who died can lay their dead to rest. The Russian government is obviously only thinking of the money.
The Kursk submarine has a nuclear reactor on board. I presume that it is full of radioactive material, plutonium, which is a very dangerous substance. Has anybody considered the future costs and other implications of not raising the sub?
The Kursk cannot be left as it is anyway, because the radioactive material will be more dangerous in the long run. But wouldn't it be safer if those materials simply removed by divers?
I can understand the victim's families wanting to have their loved ones returned to them for proper burial and since Russia is financing this venture I see nothing wrong in that. But I am a little wary in regards to whether or not this is a health hazard and if there are not sufficient guarantees it might be better to wait until an international body of experts examines the feasibility of such an undertaking first.
Elaine, Dorset, UK
Only the nuclear part should be raised. The bodies should be left there and it should be marked as a sea grave. As long as we are respectful of the dead we can still give them some dignity and take away the nuclear waste.
The Russians are the least qualified to raise the Kursk, or even to say if it should be.
I have worked for the company that will raise the Kursk. If T.J. Cassidy knew anything about it, the raising companies are American and Dutch. The Norwegian government are the ones who have requested and partially funded the recovery.
14 May 01 | Europe
Analysis: Raising the Kursk
Other Talking Points:
Links to more Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy