5 ms·

Life Aboard a Nuclear Submarine

58 points by LastNevadan 3y ago

blackbear_ 3y ago
Smarter Every Day filmed a series on the same topic, strongly recommended: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHf9jaFs8XWoGULb2HQRvhzBclS1yimW https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHf9jaFs8XWoGULb2HQR...
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
  Incredible series, Destin is such a joy to watch.
- turblety 3y ago
  It was an amazing watch. They were so well done and every second was addictive to watch.
latchkey 3y ago
Discussions on similar submissions: Life Aboard a Nuclear Submarine as the US Responds to Threats Around the Globe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39400834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39400834 (February 16, 2024 — 4 points, 12 comments)
- Semaphor 3y ago
  Notably, no discussion on the article, only about the archive.ph site not working ;)
Semaphor 3y ago
> The military’s rationale for offering us access seemed clear. The brass, apparently, wanted to help get Americans accustomed to the increasingly real prospect of conflict with a genuinely powerful opponent. They wanted to humanize the otherwise inhuman—some would say inhumane—reality of nuclear deterrence. And, finally, they wanted to convey a message to China and Russia about US forces and their strategic capabilities, resolve, and, for the moment at least, superiority. Not a paragraph I normally see in military reporting.
- dataflow 3y ago
  Doesn't this project weakness? Is there any reason to believe China or Russia have had doubts about US capabilities that this would now... resolve?
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    I’d assume that it’s targeted mainly at the US’ population, not any foreign adversary. It’s also relevant that this is the author explaining what they think is the rationale, not the military explaining their reasoning.
  - zabzonk 3y ago
    given two consecutive failures of uk launched tridents, i think a lot of people have doubts, and that is very dangerous.
    - cm2187 3y ago
      This was highly embarrassing though I doubt it changes the equation of nuclear deterrence. Even if only half the trident are functional, no nation in its right mind will want half of the UK ICBMs heading their way. Even if you think you can shoot down most of them. It only takes a handful to flatten your largest cities.
    - gherkinnn 3y ago
      Some loose thoughts on Trident - Yes, Minister was a prescient show - Trident is the UK's only nuclear deterrent. - While the UK fired them, they are taken from a common US-UK pool of interchangeable missiles. - NATO governments are on the open side. Failures are likely to be made public. - It is, of course, embarrassing
      - arethuza 3y ago
        The UK Tridents currently are on patrol with 8 missiles (they can carry more). What we don't want is someone thinking that out of the 8 a few won't work and maybe the missile defences around their capital city could surely shoot down the remainder?
ZhongDongLong 3y ago
"We’d been told that the number of civilians who had been given this level of access (carrying cameras, no less) was roughly the same as that who have walked on the moon." Dang, they're still having retention problems in the sub force? Also Boomer life is like the Waldorf Astoria in comparison to a fast attack's Motel 6.
paranoidrobot 3y ago
There's a picture in there titled something like "Missile keys on lanyards". Is it just me, or are they all key blanks? I.e there's no pin bitting?
- dguest 3y ago
  Either 1. They don't want to post the launch codes to the internet, or 2. The code is just 000000 (hey it's not the worst I've ever seen)
  - livueta 3y ago
    Well... https://sgs.princeton.edu/00000000 https://sgs.princeton.edu/00000000 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link > According to nuclear safety expert Bruce G. Blair, the US Air Force's Strategic Air Command worried that in times of need the codes for the Minuteman ICBM force would not be available, so it decided to set the codes to 00000000 in all missile launch control centers. Blair said the missile launch checklists included an item confirming this combination until 1977.[7] A 2014 article in Foreign Policy said that the US Air Force told the United States House Committee on Armed Services that "A code consisting of eight zeroes has never been used to enable a MM ICBM, as claimed by Dr. Bruce Blair."[8] The Air Force's statement (that 00000000 was never used to enable an ICBM, i.e. the weapons were not actually launched) does not contradict Blair's statement (that 00000000 was the code for doing so).
    - lukan 3y ago
      It is probably a miracle, that no nukes were used by accidents or random madmen yet. But those sort of incidents really don't make me feel save, by all that destruction potential guarded by 00000000. I don't really trust, that today it somehow became really save. Even if they changed it, it probably is still attached in a pinup note next to it.
orthecreedence 3y ago
I just don't get it. Why do we even need nuclear submarines? Solar is much cheaper and has been deployed massively already.
- saagarjha 3y ago
  Solar on a submarine?
  - papa-whisky 3y ago
    It's a joke. Every time there's a thread on HN about nuclear power someone inevitably comments something like the above about solar.
ggm 3y ago
There's a very old post which was on USENET and then on Reddit, which was a wry look at life on a sub, and an even funnier post of how to re-create the experience at home. Mostly it consisted of getting your SO to lock you in a cupboard under the stairs, run a vacuum cleaner outside the cupboard 24/7 and periodically throw a bucket of shit over you, while you were wrapped in a black plastic bag (CBW)
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  That reminds me of how you can simulate sailing by standing in a cold shower tearing up £10 notes
- hef19898 3y ago
  Modern subs, especially the missile ones, are way more comfortable than subs back the day. What I was told by someone who served on German navy subs in the 2000s so is, that the depiction of sub life shown in the movie "Das Boot" (I recommend the 7 (?) hour long mini series) is actually not too far of the mark. Better sanitation, but other than that, it is pretty much the same experience. They did have great food so!
  - nomonnai 3y ago
    Life on submarines differs substantially between nations and types. Nuclear boats are pretty large, operate in the ocean, and spend their deployment below the surface. In contrast, non-nuclear boats (diesel-electric, hydrogen fuel cells) are primarily small, tend to operate in littoral zones, and may spend time on the surface regularly. In any case, WW2 submarines were torpedo boats only diving when necessary. The battery capacity of a German Type VII or an American Balao class was measured in hours, not days. Before snorkels reached operational status, boats had to completely surface for recharging; that is not the case anymore. I think life on a Type VII was much nastier than on a modern Type 214. The engine was extremely loud, exhaust fumes were regularly in the air, and it was cold and incredibly cramped. Living conditions are much better on modern subs, even if space is still at a premium, especially on smaller boats. What surely remains is the sense of camaraderie because of a shared fate; each sailor's life depends on the boat functioning as a unit. In that sense, nothing has changed.
MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
We could debate endlessly about why you are seeing this article right now amongst a huge recruitment crisis in the US military, but instead, why don't you check out the best submarine song ever made, a glorious piece of Boomer Yacht Rock by Al Steward. [0] The last crew member of a submarine, possibly gone insane, hiding out from the world above: Now there's nobody from the crew left Five hundred years supply of food just for me [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ocl_yXUa_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ocl_yXUa_s
lifestyleguru 3y ago
Tired of American military propaganda. Show me boobs and butterflies.
paganel 3y ago
Interesting that in times of major geo-political worldwide distress the US "glamour" media is quite quick to turn back to being propaganda vehicles, reminds me of how Life magazine was used back in the '40s and '50s.
nickelpro 3y ago
These articles come up every so often and they're always a little strange as a former submariner. Firstly, they're always aboard US boomers, which are immensely spacious by submarine standards (lol'd at "The ship seemed cramped, with narrow passageways."). You can walk two-abreast in some US boomer passageways, a completely unheard of feat on any other class of sub. They also have relatively relaxed, predictable schedules, with deployments rarely lasting more than 3 months. It's easy to say you've got good food when you're not rationing beans because the 4 month deployment became a 5 1/2 month deployment. Secondly, one of the core social divides in the US submarine force is between members of the engineering department ("nukes", also A-gangers, though they exist in a sort of limbo) and everyone else on the boat ("coners"). These pieces only ever interview and report on coners (not in small part due to the intense security concerns surrounding nuclear propulsion technology). The lives of the submariners on either side of the watertight door are different in many significant respects, there's no nuke in the fleet that appreciates being represented in the public eye by sonar techs and torpedomen, but nukes only get talked about when they're killing themselves [1]. This is the nature of the secrecy surrounding US subs of course, and I'm not complaining, but it's weird. These articles show the best possible life aboard a US submarine, likely the best possible life aboard any submarine. It's the US Navy putting its best foot forward for the benefit of reporters. Note they talk about the integration of US boomers, but don't mention that US fast attacks remain male-only with no plans to change in the near future. It is, without attaching any sentiment to the word positive or negative, propaganda. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nuclear-trained-sailors-considered-navys-best-brightest-face-mental-he-rcna65393 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nuclear-trained-sailors...
- bubblehed 3y ago
  Former MMCS(SS) here. You are spot on with this assessment.

58 points by LastNevadan 3y ago

Smarter Every Day filmed a series on the same topic, strongly recommended: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHf9jaFs8XWoGULb2HQRvhzBclS1yimW https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjHf9jaFs8XWoGULb2HQR...

8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
Incredible series, Destin is such a joy to watch.
turblety 3y ago
It was an amazing watch. They were so well done and every second was addictive to watch.

latchkey 3y ago

Discussions on similar submissions: Life Aboard a Nuclear Submarine as the US Responds to Threats Around the Globe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39400834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39400834 (February 16, 2024 — 4 points, 12 comments)

Semaphor 3y ago
Notably, no discussion on the article, only about the archive.ph site not working ;)

Semaphor 3y ago

> The military’s rationale for offering us access seemed clear. The brass, apparently, wanted to help get Americans accustomed to the increasingly real prospect of conflict with a genuinely powerful opponent. They wanted to humanize the otherwise inhuman—some would say inhumane—reality of nuclear deterrence. And, finally, they wanted to convey a message to China and Russia about US forces and their strategic capabilities, resolve, and, for the moment at least, superiority. Not a paragraph I normally see in military reporting.

dataflow 3y ago
Doesn't this project weakness? Is there any reason to believe China or Russia have had doubts about US capabilities that this would now... resolve?
- Semaphor 3y ago
  I’d assume that it’s targeted mainly at the US’ population, not any foreign adversary. It’s also relevant that this is the author explaining what they think is the rationale, not the military explaining their reasoning.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  given two consecutive failures of uk launched tridents, i think a lot of people have doubts, and that is very dangerous.
  - cm2187 3y ago
    This was highly embarrassing though I doubt it changes the equation of nuclear deterrence. Even if only half the trident are functional, no nation in its right mind will want half of the UK ICBMs heading their way. Even if you think you can shoot down most of them. It only takes a handful to flatten your largest cities.
  - gherkinnn 3y ago
    Some loose thoughts on Trident - Yes, Minister was a prescient show - Trident is the UK's only nuclear deterrent. - While the UK fired them, they are taken from a common US-UK pool of interchangeable missiles. - NATO governments are on the open side. Failures are likely to be made public. - It is, of course, embarrassing
    - arethuza 3y ago
      The UK Tridents currently are on patrol with 8 missiles (they can carry more). What we don't want is someone thinking that out of the 8 a few won't work and maybe the missile defences around their capital city could surely shoot down the remainder?

ZhongDongLong 3y ago

"We’d been told that the number of civilians who had been given this level of access (carrying cameras, no less) was roughly the same as that who have walked on the moon." Dang, they're still having retention problems in the sub force? Also Boomer life is like the Waldorf Astoria in comparison to a fast attack's Motel 6.

paranoidrobot 3y ago

There's a picture in there titled something like "Missile keys on lanyards". Is it just me, or are they all key blanks? I.e there's no pin bitting?

dguest 3y ago
Either 1. They don't want to post the launch codes to the internet, or 2. The code is just 000000 (hey it's not the worst I've ever seen)
- livueta 3y ago
  Well... https://sgs.princeton.edu/00000000 https://sgs.princeton.edu/00000000 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link > According to nuclear safety expert Bruce G. Blair, the US Air Force's Strategic Air Command worried that in times of need the codes for the Minuteman ICBM force would not be available, so it decided to set the codes to 00000000 in all missile launch control centers. Blair said the missile launch checklists included an item confirming this combination until 1977.[7] A 2014 article in Foreign Policy said that the US Air Force told the United States House Committee on Armed Services that "A code consisting of eight zeroes has never been used to enable a MM ICBM, as claimed by Dr. Bruce Blair."[8] The Air Force's statement (that 00000000 was never used to enable an ICBM, i.e. the weapons were not actually launched) does not contradict Blair's statement (that 00000000 was the code for doing so).
  - lukan 3y ago
    It is probably a miracle, that no nukes were used by accidents or random madmen yet. But those sort of incidents really don't make me feel save, by all that destruction potential guarded by 00000000. I don't really trust, that today it somehow became really save. Even if they changed it, it probably is still attached in a pinup note next to it.

orthecreedence 3y ago

I just don't get it. Why do we even need nuclear submarines? Solar is much cheaper and has been deployed massively already.

saagarjha 3y ago
Solar on a submarine?
- papa-whisky 3y ago
  It's a joke. Every time there's a thread on HN about nuclear power someone inevitably comments something like the above about solar.

ggm 3y ago

There's a very old post which was on USENET and then on Reddit, which was a wry look at life on a sub, and an even funnier post of how to re-create the experience at home. Mostly it consisted of getting your SO to lock you in a cupboard under the stairs, run a vacuum cleaner outside the cupboard 24/7 and periodically throw a bucket of shit over you, while you were wrapped in a black plastic bag (CBW)

KineticLensman 3y ago
That reminds me of how you can simulate sailing by standing in a cold shower tearing up £10 notes
hef19898 3y ago
Modern subs, especially the missile ones, are way more comfortable than subs back the day. What I was told by someone who served on German navy subs in the 2000s so is, that the depiction of sub life shown in the movie "Das Boot" (I recommend the 7 (?) hour long mini series) is actually not too far of the mark. Better sanitation, but other than that, it is pretty much the same experience. They did have great food so!
- nomonnai 3y ago
  Life on submarines differs substantially between nations and types. Nuclear boats are pretty large, operate in the ocean, and spend their deployment below the surface. In contrast, non-nuclear boats (diesel-electric, hydrogen fuel cells) are primarily small, tend to operate in littoral zones, and may spend time on the surface regularly. In any case, WW2 submarines were torpedo boats only diving when necessary. The battery capacity of a German Type VII or an American Balao class was measured in hours, not days. Before snorkels reached operational status, boats had to completely surface for recharging; that is not the case anymore. I think life on a Type VII was much nastier than on a modern Type 214. The engine was extremely loud, exhaust fumes were regularly in the air, and it was cold and incredibly cramped. Living conditions are much better on modern subs, even if space is still at a premium, especially on smaller boats. What surely remains is the sense of camaraderie because of a shared fate; each sailor's life depends on the boat functioning as a unit. In that sense, nothing has changed.

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago

We could debate endlessly about why you are seeing this article right now amongst a huge recruitment crisis in the US military, but instead, why don't you check out the best submarine song ever made, a glorious piece of Boomer Yacht Rock by Al Steward. [0] The last crew member of a submarine, possibly gone insane, hiding out from the world above: Now there's nobody from the crew left Five hundred years supply of food just for me [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ocl_yXUa_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ocl_yXUa_s

lifestyleguru 3y ago

Tired of American military propaganda. Show me boobs and butterflies.

paganel 3y ago

Interesting that in times of major geo-political worldwide distress the US "glamour" media is quite quick to turn back to being propaganda vehicles, reminds me of how Life magazine was used back in the '40s and '50s.

nickelpro 3y ago

These articles come up every so often and they're always a little strange as a former submariner. Firstly, they're always aboard US boomers, which are immensely spacious by submarine standards (lol'd at "The ship seemed cramped, with narrow passageways."). You can walk two-abreast in some US boomer passageways, a completely unheard of feat on any other class of sub. They also have relatively relaxed, predictable schedules, with deployments rarely lasting more than 3 months. It's easy to say you've got good food when you're not rationing beans because the 4 month deployment became a 5 1/2 month deployment. Secondly, one of the core social divides in the US submarine force is between members of the engineering department ("nukes", also A-gangers, though they exist in a sort of limbo) and everyone else on the boat ("coners"). These pieces only ever interview and report on coners (not in small part due to the intense security concerns surrounding nuclear propulsion technology). The lives of the submariners on either side of the watertight door are different in many significant respects, there's no nuke in the fleet that appreciates being represented in the public eye by sonar techs and torpedomen, but nukes only get talked about when they're killing themselves [1]. This is the nature of the secrecy surrounding US subs of course, and I'm not complaining, but it's weird. These articles show the best possible life aboard a US submarine, likely the best possible life aboard any submarine. It's the US Navy putting its best foot forward for the benefit of reporters. Note they talk about the integration of US boomers, but don't mention that US fast attacks remain male-only with no plans to change in the near future. It is, without attaching any sentiment to the word positive or negative, propaganda. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nuclear-trained-sailors-considered-navys-best-brightest-face-mental-he-rcna65393 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nuclear-trained-sailors...

bubblehed 3y ago
Former MMCS(SS) here. You are spot on with this assessment.