Twenty are dead and 21 injured out of a crew of 208 in a Russian nuclear sub accident. The reactor section is reportedly normal. The incicent occurred during the Russian Pacific Fleet’s exercises at sea. The class of the submarine has not been given, but 208 persons is a large number. The BBC says the accident was caused by a failure in the fire-extinguishing system of the vessel. Dockyard workers were said to be aboard and this may account for the size of the complement. Former Spook says the vessel may have been an Akula-type sub that had been leased to the Indian Navy.
Initial reports suggest the mishap began with the “unsanctioned functioning of the fire extinguishing systems.” The Russian spokesman didn’t explain what that means, but it suggests that crew members were caught in spaces where oxygen was in short supply; without access to emergency breathing equipment–and training in how to use it–survival would be difficult.
Neither human nor physical systems work perfectly or consistently. The more complex a system the greater the chance that some “emergent” event — caused by the unforseen interaction of parts — can take place. It’s ironic that the accident may have been caused by a malfunction in a safety system. Charles Perrow in his book, Normal Accidents, argues that our desire to make things safer and more predictable can actually increase risk.
Charles Perrow argues that the conventional engineering approach to ensuring safety–building in more warnings and safeguards–fails because systems complexity makes failures inevitable. He asserts that typical precautions, by adding to complexity, may help create new categories of accidents. (At Chernobyl, tests of a new safety system helped produce the meltdown and subsequent fire.)
We try to reduce risk in complex social systems through government regulation and social programs. But sometimes these regulations and programs become a source of risk themselves. For example the social security and retirement systems which were originally created to provide a secure future may be on their way to a meltdown. It would be ironic if whole populations were impoverished by the very precautions taken to avert this outcome.
Tip Jar
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
28 Comments
1. bonzo:We should assume 45 were fleeing….
Nov 8, 2008 - 6:59 pm 2. Henry H:FYI, the crew of a Project 971 class sub is normally 73.
Nov 8, 2008 - 7:04 pm 3. Brock:This is why it’s bad to have 17 different regulators of financial markets. Like the USA has.
Nov 8, 2008 - 8:18 pm 4. outa my league:Several years ago in our area an unfortunate fellow doing railroad right of way maintenance (weed clearing) was blindsided and killed by a train. Needless to say, he was wearing OSHA-mandated hearing protection to protect him from his noisy rig.
Nov 8, 2008 - 8:34 pm 5. Cannoneer No. 4:Accident on Akula II K-152 Nerpa?
Nov 8, 2008 - 9:38 pm 6. jaymaster:This reminds me of one of the best jokes I ever wrote, just after the Kursk incident.
And with a Democratic president about to enter the White House for the first time since then, maybe we’re in for good times again!
Sooo,
What’s the difference between Monica Lewinski and a Russian sub?
When a Russian sub goes down, you never see the seaman again….
Nov 8, 2008 - 10:06 pm 7. JFSanders:Baa dumpa dump!
Jim
Nov 8, 2008 - 10:32 pm 8. NahnCee:These repeated “accidents” are why it’s hard to take Russia seriously as a world power. Sure they can sweep into a rinky-dink country like Georgia pillaging and stealing toilets as they go, but what would happen to them if they ever had to go up against a top-flight army like China, Japan, or that ex-global power that used to be so good but is now about to be dis-assembled by internal traitorous peaceniks.
Nov 8, 2008 - 11:23 pm 9. Utopia Parkway:NahnCee, there’s some truth in what you say. There was always speculation about what percent of the Soviet missiles were available to be used on any given day. 30%? And of those what percent would actually fly to their targets if a war broke out?
I wonder what would happen if the Israeli’s decided the Ruskies were shipping nuclear materials to Syria on board ships. Would they sink a Russian ship? Would they have the stones to threaten to nuke the city of Moscow in order to make the Russians back off?
Nov 9, 2008 - 12:25 am 10. SpeakEasy:Don’t rule out a misinformation exercise. We keep track of Russian vessels so what better way to “account” for one if it was sold to Iran for example? Paranoia? Maybe but these questions have to be considered or we suffer through our own myopia.
Nov 9, 2008 - 1:31 am 11. Rob Murphy:I saw the newspaper headline about 20 crew dying on a nuclear submarine and knew it was Russian before I read the first para.
Upper Volta with missiles, AND submarines.
They’re going to have a lot of breakdowns and other FUBARs running their Navy ships between Russia and Venezuela. It’ll be the marine equivalent of a destruction derby without a shot being fired (except maybe by accident).
Nov 9, 2008 - 4:18 am 12. KennyB:What a hoot.
As I always said, the database’s worst enemy is the DBA.
Nov 9, 2008 - 5:11 am 13. cedarford:NahnCee:
These repeated “accidents” are why it’s hard to take Russia seriously as a world power.
Yeah, as if America losing a whole nuke sub on sea trials and another on a malfunctioning torpedo never happened, so we can take America seriously. A nation with 6800 nuke warheads on the other side of the world? No, not seriously at all…because they have accidents!!
A complete non-sequiter.
Sounds like they failed to lock out a high-tech halon fire suppression system on an Advanced Akula.
****************
Rob Murphy – Upper Volta with missiles, AND submarines.
There is an American tendency to gravely underestimate our economic competitors and military rivals. It usually ends with our arrogance and complacency being shoved back down our throats. It began with people believing that the Chinese were too primitive and backwards to ever dare taking on our “magnificent well-trained and equipped heroes” in Korea, with lectures on how a squad of scrawny, tiny Vietnamese would be easily beaten in football by a high school team thus no match for any US military, how Japan lacked ability to make anything because they only “ape” others and the US worker can outthink, outproduce any on the planet, by Jingo!
Lately of course, we saw our “high tech special supersoldier heroes” in Iraq fed a shit sandwich by a pack of defeated civilians that have cost 34,000 casualties, nearly a trillion, and cost the then ruling political party in the USA a long penance in the wilderness.
Russia is a strange place that combines the clumsy with the brilliant. With a pile of tough bastard survivors that will toss lives away to get victory at a high price without much regret.
NahnCee:
These repeated “accidents” are why it’s hard to take Russia seriously as a world power. Sure they can sweep into a rinky-dink country like Georgia pillaging and stealing toilets as they go, but what would happen to them if they ever had to go up against a top-flight army like China, Japan, or that ex-global power that used to be so good but is now about to be dis-assembled by internal traitorous peaceniks.
The easy Jap victory in the 1905 Russo-Japan War led to near American-level military arrogance in the Japanese. Which caused them to overextend militarism into Chinese adventures, then the war at Nomonhan in 1939 when General Zhukov completely thrashed Jap ass. And of course, at the end of WWII, when Russia shattered and nearly annihilated the whole Kwantung Army with a wall of armor and 30,000 artillery pieces in a few weeks – something that shocked the Japanese as much with it’s ease – as the A-Bombs dropped.
What they did with the premier military of the 20th Century, the Wehrmacht, is obvious to all. They beat them at a high price, but they beat them. Nor do many military historians believe America was essential to the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany. Helpful, brought the European conflict to a quicker close, but Germany had lost before the 1st American soldier had set foot on the Continent. From mid-43 onwards, it was all about retreat and mopping up and beating Germany on other fields after the rout in the East had begun.
Nov 9, 2008 - 10:02 am 14. RWE:The idea that France or Italy would be speaking German if not for America is thought of as ridiculous talk. They’d speak the same language regardless…what they ARE grateful to America for intervening is that America stopped them from sharing the dismal 40 years that the Soviets inflicted on East Europe.
I did a study a few years ago that rocked people back on their heels in the space launch community. It seems that more complex launch systems are just as reliable as the simpler ones, and even a bit more reliable in many cases. In fact, the traditional space launch approach to correcting problems was increasing complexity, not decreasing it. A larger parts count has always been assumed to result in a greater probability of failure, so this was a real shocker in some circles.
More complex systems get that way as a result of people who know what they are doing adding upgrades to the vehicle. They get it to work and then add strap-on boosters and upper stages. Adding complexity to a vehicle that is not reliable only makes it worse – but most such vehicles fail and never get upgraded for obvious reasons.
It all really comes down to people and the programs they have running in their heads.
Nov 9, 2008 - 10:17 am 15. NahnCee:You’d think PUtin would take some of Russia’s newfound wealth and start a program to update their rusty army and navy, maybe save a few sailors and/or soldiers’ lives.
But that would probably take rubles away from the oligarchs whom he needs to stay in power.
Vladimir is a pumped-up pigmy and his country is still collapsing, despite his posturing, threats and bullying invasions. Good.
Nov 9, 2008 - 10:28 am 16. Biff:Perrow’s books are definitely worth reading. I took one of his courses when I was an undergrad – he was a raving Marxian, but his insightful analysis of the impact of systems design, incentives, complexity, etc. on risk changed the way I looked at a wide range of phenomena. Strange how he failed to apply the insights to his own ideology, however.
Nov 9, 2008 - 11:26 am 17. exhelodrvr:Cedarford,
Nov 9, 2008 - 12:02 pm 18. Utopia Parkway:But historically, while the Soviets/Russians weapons systems are good, they do have poorer maintenance and less training in their military.
The russians lost in Afghanistan. I’m not exactly sure what they’ve done in Chechnya but they’ve been doing it a long time.
Their design philosophy of weapons does tend towards simple over complex. Their Kalishnikov rifle is certainly popular, not to mention the Katyusha.
Nov 9, 2008 - 12:43 pm 19. Ron Hardin:John Gall: fail safe systems fail by failing to fail safe.
_Systemantics_, the closer to the original edition the better.
Nov 9, 2008 - 12:56 pm 20. jkftl:Some reports call the fire extinguishing agent “Freon” but the actual agent SHOULD be (super-expensive)”Halon” which suppresses fire while allowing people to breathe (a bit).
It could actually have been the MUCH CHEAPER Freon refrigerant, since it CAN have fire suppressing properties in sufficient concentration; of course a concentration that won’t support human life. Further, the refrigerant, when introduced into a fire, generates fatal-edema-producing phosgene. It’s just like the ex-Soviet Navy to cut costs while ignoring the human risk.
The manufacture, worldwide, of all the ozone-depleting halogens including Halon and Freon was virtually halted several years ago by international treaty. Interestingly, the Halon extinguishing agent has over ten times the ozone-depleting effect of the commercial refrigerants. Its market value continues to rise as the worldwide supply of Halon diminishes despite recycling.
Nov 9, 2008 - 8:50 pm 21. OldSalt:re: cedarford
I don’t know who or what this guy is (even after reading his many posts), but his ignorance of the history of WWII leaves one in awe.
The Russian’s had so impoverished the country through successive “reforms” between 1917 and the late 1930s, that she could scarcely feed herself, let alone field modern military equipment. Russia may have endured and keep Germany at bay until Hitler or his people gave up on dominating Russia, but Russia could have taken NO GERMAN TERRITORY without American arms and financial support. American installed entire factories in Russian to produce war material.
CF- Laughable communist propaganda.
As far as the Russian Navy, it’s a barely passable 1st world military machine with a 3rd world level command and control. The USN has never been just about the technology. It’s the individual US sailor who tops any other in any fleet. Our sailors are better trained as well as better equiped. And as far as comparison between the US Navy submarine fleet and the Russian, not even Russians will make that comparison amongst themselves. The US Navy submarine fleet is the class of the world, and while Russians make some terrific technology, and their sailors are patriotic and loyal as any others, they fail at competence and in execution. I guarantee you that when the sh*t hits the fan, any Russian sailor would rather be on the crew of an American sub than a Russian sub.
Nov 9, 2008 - 8:55 pm 22. OldSalt:One last comment: I said any sailor in any fleet:
Hmmm… honorable mention to the Brits. They have a fine, if tiny Navy. I’d serve on a Brit platform with pride and confidence any day of the week, based upon their competence at the individual and command level. (Have cross-decked with them once, so this is experience not conjecture speaking.)
Nov 9, 2008 - 8:58 pm 23. NahnCee:Ummm, OldSalt – what about the British Navy that allowed its sailors to be scooped up by the Iranians without a shot being fired? Are you sure today’s British Navy is the same one as you were familiar with?
Nov 9, 2008 - 11:01 pm 24. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e40v1:[...] Disaster at sea. [...]
Nov 10, 2008 - 5:10 am 25. Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Monday Highlights:[...] Disaster at sea. [...]
Nov 10, 2008 - 5:11 am 26. 907ie:You do have to remember the function of the “Soviet” Navy. They considered the oceans as a “jungle”.
The fact that literally all ships would be lost in WW III was a forgone conclusion by Soviet naval experts, and an acceptable price for the destruction of the US Fleet.
US Carrier battlegroups were even targeted by SS-18 ICBMs, which might explain some of the performance of the Aegis air defense weapon systems.
Nov 10, 2008 - 5:32 pm 27. kitegiant:jkftl:
“Some reports call the fire extinguishing agent “Freon” but the actual agent SHOULD be (super-expensive)”Halon” which suppresses fire while allowing people to breathe (a bit).”
Halon is a “clean” agent, however when it comes in contact with flames or surfaces abov 300C it breaks down into halon acids and free agents, which are highly toxic to humans.
Halon is also an ozone depleting gas, and is being phased out, with other more dangerous fire suppressants being used. These suppressants generate Hydrogen Flouride at dangerous levels.
Nov 11, 2008 - 7:21 pm 28. Ms. Know:Question. Is the left-wing illuminati equipped enough to handle Russia? No, I didn’t think so.
Nov 15, 2008 - 9:15 amSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.