Kursk torpedoed by US Sub?

The Russian government badly mishandled the fallout following the sinking of the Kursk submarine and, as a consequence, conspiracy theories are flourishing.

The latest claims come from Maurice Stradling, a British defence expert who, despite previously saying that the Kursk sank due to an on-board accident, now believes it was the Americans what done it

"On the balance of probabilities, the Kursk was sunk by an American MK-48 torpedo," said Mr Stradling, formerly a senior member of the British Defence Ministry. […]

The new explanation for the Kursk’s sinking is based on film footage of a hole in the side of the vessel, and evidence placing US submarines in the area at the time it was sunk.

The French film shows stills of the Kursk raised above the water after being salvaged, with a precise circular hole in its right side. The hole clearly bends inwards, consistent with an attack from outside the submarine. […]

The film suggests the attack happened while two US submarines, the Toledo and Memphis, were shadowing the Kursk in a routine military exercise. […]

The cause of the sinking was covered up at the time in an act of diplomacy between then US presidents Bill Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin – a deal that included the cancellation of $US10 billion ($12.5 billion) of Russian debt, the film states.

$10 billion?  That’s a big hole to cover up.  Anybody out there with a knowledge of US aid to Russia have any idea where the money went, and why nobody in the House even raised an eyebrow?

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Alexei says:

    It wouldn’t have gone anywhere. The other way round, when debt is cancelled, no money changes hands by definition. The question is who the real creditors are, and who is going to shoulder the losses from the write-off.

    I bet it’s all a hoax anyway.

  2. Daniel says:

    This analysis is outrageous. If it were true, Zhirinovsky or any wacky Russia nationalist would find out.

    Russia would not be able to contain a secret like that – some nationalist in Russia would of gotten hold of such an incident and easily use it to confirm the Western/mondialist conspiracy against Russia.

    Still – very interesting post.

  3. Andy says:

    Alexei – the US government would be expecting this money to come in. It would be in their accounts forecasts as a predicted income. If that large amount of income didn’t come in, it would have had to have raised eyebrows at the very least.

    Which is why I think the loan section of this conspiracy can be written off as daft pretty easily. The rest, well who knows? I don’t know my submarine affairs well enough to comment. Although I think the idea that a US sub was involved is bound to be far-fetched – especially when you consider that every downed plane/sub/boat has a ‘US shot them down’ conspiracy attached to it.

  4. Nathan says:

    Not that I read it that well, but it seems that at least at the time the President had unilateral authority to forgive or delay portions of Russia’s debt. HR 4118 (which never made it out of the Senate) tried to stop this. This was the administration’s position.

  5. Scott says:

    B.S.

    The old Russian joke when their large TV tower in Moscow caught fire was “we’re looking for the American TV tower that collided with our TV tower.”

    C. theorists must provide ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Not guesswork. Not hopeful theories.

    The Kursk blew herself up in a missle test. Not that that’s ever happened in the Russian Navy.

    Prove me wrong.

  6. herberthoover says:

    As far as the $10billion is concerned that was explained at the time as paying russia for some former soviet military bases that the us now uses in Asia and Eastern Europe. Another interesting thing is that when they raised the Kursk they cut off the front portion of the Sub and left it on the ocean floor. That is where the damage occured.

  7. J S says:

    The damage pictures would be impossible involving a MK-48 adcap torpedo. Stradling is an idiot. He should do some research before presenting a theory. If it was a US torpedo attack, there wouldn’t have been any survivors for any amount of time. It wouldn’t have created a hole, it would have broken the ship in half. Also, I was in a position with access to priveleged information, and a torpedo attack didn’t happen. The Soviet/Russian navy has always been negligent and dangerous. The Kursk sunk like all of the rest, incompetence and an insane idea of duty.

  1. May 16, 2005

    Kursk torpedoed by US Sub?

    Isn’t there a word for this:…