I don’t think it is particularly likely myself, but we are being presented with evidence that it may have been done. Some here are closed minded and refuse to discuss it.

West = good, Soviets = bad…

So, we are in some agreement here…the problem here is one of quantifying how likely…and there comes a point where something is so unlikely that it becomes ridiculous, preposterous or irrational even to consider it.

I’ve put my cards on the table and said I think it is ten-thousand-to-one that Britain would even attempt this operation. Could you help us by giving us a similar estimate? Having said that, if the positions were reversed, I’d give similar odds for Russia planting mines on a British vessel.

So not really a case of good versus evil rather a case of discussing the technical difficulties, which are many, and the benefits of a successful operation against the possible consequences of a successful operation or the possible consequences of an embarrassing failure.

By arguing that the technical difficulties could be easily overcome and championing the benefits of a successful operation you are by default suggesting that the British were more likely to undertake such an operation in the first place.

A US submarine was known to be in the area and was seen docked in port a few days later in Europe… which is unusual as they normally remain at sea for a month.

Unusual maybe, but it doesn’t prove it had been involved in a collision.

If the Kursk had been hit by another submarine the single hulled western sub would have been the vessel at the bottom of the ocean, not the massively double hulled Oscar class Kursk.

So that would seem to suggest that a collision was less likely as no other submarine was found.

Collisions are actually quite common too.

Collisions have been known but how many nuclear submarines have been lost as a direct result of a collision?

Far more Russian (and American) nuclear submarines have been lost in accidents that didn’t involve a collision.

I heard individual reports of interviews of retired Naval officers making claims of a collision but no reports of inservice officers making such claims.

So, really nothing more than circumstantial ‘evidence’ then but only a matter of hours after the loss of Kursk Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, said he was 80% sure that the loss of Kursk was due to it being rammed by a NATO submarine, Northern Fleet commander Vyacheslav Popov told the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta there was growing evidence the Kursk sank after a collision with a foreign submarine, Russian Defence Minister, Igor Sergeyev, claimed satellite images had shown the foreign submarine moving away damaged and Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov said investigators had collected video proof that the Kursk went down after colliding with another submarine.

So hardly ‘retired naval officers’ making such claims…

…and no evidence there of propaganda being ingrained in the Russian psyche!

In 2002 after an investigation, General Vladimir Ustinov confirmed “There is no information whatsoever about another vessel being involved.”

Ironically president Vladimir Putin sacked Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov following another Russian submarine accident in 2005 when the seven crew of a mini-submarine who were trapped on the seabed were saved by a British ROV.

So two completely different cases and perfect logic in one case and fatally flawed logic in the other…

Well, you said it, not me.

Do you see the similarities between the alleged polonium assassination and the killing of Crabb?

A headless body washes up on a beach, hardly the sort of thing that the press is likely to ignore, but why headless, there was no need to hide his identity? How did he die, no stab or gunshot wounds and what sort of misadventure could have resulted in him ending up like this…’this was no boating accident!’

To me, the message the Russians were sending to the British is clear, “don’t try spying on us or this is what happens, we are not afraid to do this, even in your own back yard.”

There is an apocryphal story told about the British ambassador to the UN or somewhere.

He was phoned by a journalist from a national newspaper or magazine and asked the question “what would he like for Christmas?” He had been briefed by the Foreign Office that, when in conversation, to beware of saying anything that could be interpreted as soliciting a bribe from those cultures where bribery was the accepted norm. Mindful of this he responded to the question accordingly.

Later he was horrified to discover that a list had been published detailing what all the other ambassadors had asked for.

The American Ambassador had asked for “democracy to be accepted throughout the world”, the French Ambassador had asked for “world peace”, the Indian Ambassador had asked for “greater understanding between different religions and cultures” and the British Ambassador had asked for…”a pipe and some slippers!”

Doesn’t the British Library have a copy of every book published in Britain…if they don’t know of this book you are probably correct that it was never published.

Could it possibly have been produced by Bristol Aero Engines themselves for corporate use?

Hope you do find a copy…it sounds very interesting. 🙂

The Royal Navy has and does plant mines so it is not an impossible event.

There is a very big difference between it being ‘technically possible’ and it being likely.

Timed explosive fuses can be days or weeks long…

Please stop talking about timed fuses…I get it, alright.

I’m not disputing a mine could have been planted, I’m not disputing that an unusually large mine could have been used, I’m not disputing a timed fuse could have been used, I’m not disputing that the mine could have been planted close to where the British assumed the magazines could be, I’m not disputing that the mine could have triggered a massive magazine explosion that totally destroyed the ship.

What I am saying is that I believe such an operation would be very unlikely to be attempted.

Why? Because although it is ‘technically possible’ in reality it would be extremely unlikely to succeed and either way the most probable outcome of such a blatant act of aggression against a diplomatic mission would be war.

…I doubt the Russians care about Crabb…

I didn’t claim the Russians would care about Crabb, better in their eyes if he is a enemy of the state planting a mine…but they will care about the reputation of their own man…and he will care how he is received by them.

Russian political and military history is full of ‘heroic’ figures, many of them with highly dubious claims, this sort of propaganda is ingrained in the Russian psyche so I don’t think it is unrealistic the suggest the truth may have suffered in this case.

When the Kursk sank what did the Russians claim…that it had been rammed by a Royal Navy submarine on a spying mission!

Did you believe them? Do they still claim this? Was it an accident? Do you believe that?

What has logic to do with anything these days…polonium worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and traceable back to only Russia…

There is perfect logic in what is alleged. What better way to warn your outspoken critics abroad than by murdering one of them using a method that leaves no doubt as to who was responsible for the murder and so demonstrating that they are not beyond your reach and that you do not care if the country who has given them sanctuary knows it.

Stabbing somebody to death in a faked mugging would not have been so good a warning!

What ever happened to the Queens Flight Wessex helicopters after demob?

Is one of the Royal Wessex egg-beaters in the RAF Museum at Hendon, or did I only thought I saw one.

Yes. 🙂

Wessex HCC4 serial XV733 is at the Helicopter Museum at Weston-Super-Mare (as is former Queen’s Flight Whirlwind HCC12 serial XR486) and (as Wessex Fan says) Wessex HCC4 serial XV732 is at Hendon.

Where exactly did I state “The game is up. The Royal Navy is guilty of an act of war. It was caught red handed planting mines on a ship in its own harbours.”

I was possibly confused by the following statements you made:

Does the Royal Navy not plant mines?

Has the British secret service never killed anyone?

A timed explosive that detonates a day or two later near an ammo storage area on the vessel so that the resulting explosion is enormous and might sink the ship.

A delayed fuse would mean if it was sunk or damaged it would be after it left British waters. There were plenty of mines floating around the place that could be blamed for the incident…

Placed over the position where an internal ammo magazine is the likelihood of sinking the vessel would be pretty good.

The loss of a major flagship might bring into question their safety record and reduce confidence in their navy.

I am saying that if we can’t believe this diver why believe the Royal Navy or the British government. They admit to losing a diver on a clandestine mission. Makes sense for them to say he was just looking at the hull rather than anything more sinister.

There are plenty of fuses developed during WWII that operated over minutes, hours, days and weeks. They would know when the vessel would depart and ensure the vessel was well away before the “incident” happened.

The Sverdlov has three main gun turrets with 152mm guns. It wouldn’t be hard to work out where the ammo would be stored even without espionage.

A shaped charge weapon can easily penetrate armoured belt and if it sets of an internal magazine its own weight is irrelevant, though with buoyancy aides you could carry a rather large weapon.

Unless Buster signed the side of the hull how would they be able to point the finger… they could make claims but with no real proof they could do nothing…

The British ministry of defence have not stated he wasn’t planting mines either.

Sorry, I thought you were making an argument…or were you just arguing?