70 Years Ago, the U.S. Military Set Off a Nuke Underwater, And It Went Very Badly

[n2doc]

Then they tried it four more times.

By Sarah Laskow JULY 19, 2016


Seventy years ago, on July 26, 1946, the U.S. military tried a new type of nuclear test.

A joint Army/Navy task force had suspended a nuclear device, oddly named Helen of Bikini, 90 feet below the surface of the water, in the middle of Bikini Atoll, one of the isolated rings of coral and land that make up the Marshall Islands. Arrayed around the 21-kiloton bomb were dozens of target ships.

The Navy had a point to prove. In this new era of nuclear warfare, in which the Air Force could rain down explosives on entire cities, what use was a naval force? The military leaders who proposed the test wanted to show that their ships could ride out a nuclear attack and that the fleet was not obsolete.

But the underwater test was controversial, perhaps even more so than land-based test blasts. Even nuclear scientists questioned its point—would it offer useful, scientific information or was this all just for show?

When Helen of Bikini exploded, it created a giant, underwater bubble of hot gas. In seconds, the bubble hit the seafloor, where it blasted a crater 30 feet deep and at least 1,800 feet wide. At the same time, the surface of lagoon erupted into a giant column of water, 2 million tons of it, which shot more than 5,000 feet into the air, over an area a half-mile wide. In the seconds after the blast hit the surface, a cloud of radioactive condensation unfurled across the lagoon, hiding the column of water shooting upwards; at the top, a mushroom cloud of gas bloomed against the sky.

more
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/70-years-ago-the-us-military-set-off-a-nuke-underwater-and-it-went-very-badly

[Silver_Witch]

1. I am surprised we have survived this long.

Seems mankind is destined to destroy ourselves !

[tonyt53]

2. Ships are sitting ducks in modern warfare. Even crude missiles can sink them.

[mopinko]

3. really disturbing.

the way the military clings to defending itself and its ridiculous budgets continues to this day. and no one will take it on.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. I knew someone who witnessed this first-hand

(He was on a ship.)

[happyslug]

5. One thread I read said the Port Chicago diaster was an underwater A-bomb

http://www.petervogel.us/

Now the premise is that an early version of an Uranium bomb had been built for use against a Japanese port and to be delivered by an unmanned submarine. The sub was to been sent into a Japanese Port and then exploded, but the bomb went off early and destroyed Port Chicago instead. There are problems with this theory and those are set forth in the following Wikipedia article on the Port Chicago disaster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Chicago_disaster

Direct like to the section that "Debunked" the atomic bomb theory as to Port Chicago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Chicago_disaster#Debunked_nuclear_bomb_theory

Port Chicago had enough conventional explosives to mimic a small Atomic bomb (Which is all the author ever suggested as the size of the bomb) and thus the comparisons of Port Chicago with sub surface atomic bombs. That is the preferred theory as to Port Chicago, but I do mention the Atomic Bomb theory to show some of the damages that such a large explosion would do were known BEFORE the first under water atomic bomb explosion.