[HN Gopher] Judge Orders Navy to Release USS Thresher Disaster D...
___________________________________________________________________
Judge Orders Navy to Release USS Thresher Disaster Documents
Author : protomyth
Score : 63 points
Date : 2020-02-11 20:53 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.usni.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.usni.org)
| protomyth wrote:
| I cannot imagine the journey Lieutenant Raymond McCoole must have
| taken after the disaster. He truly believe he could have save the
| ship if he was still on it.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Context:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)#Sinking
| MurMan wrote:
| I was a nuclear-trained operator on a boat of the same vintage as
| the Thresher. I joined it in 1970 just after it had been
| retrofitted with SubSafe systems and better operational
| procedures that came directly from the loss of the Thresher.
|
| I'm convinced that the loss of the Thresher, as tragic as it was,
| saved a lot of lives.
|
| As for the documents, you need to know that Rickover classified
| almost everything about the nuclear program. I suspect that kind
| of thinking still exists and is responsible for the slow release
| of the document.
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| The currently-available reports[0-3] are a worthwhile read for
| anyone interested. The evidence (given the silver braze joint
| failures on Thresher and other boats) was there before the
| accident, but nobody connected the dots.
|
| [0]https://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20THRESH..
| .
|
| [1]https://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20THRESH..
| .
|
| [2]https://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20THRESH..
| .
|
| [3]https://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20THRESH..
| .
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Assuming the silver braze joints played a role of course:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)#Alterna...
|
| Pretty legit theory considering the mysterious lack of evidence
| of very loud leaking onboard.
|
| PS - Technically it doesn't matter which version of the story
| is true. The safety improvements that resulted from the
| accident would have been the same in both cases (since the
| reactor was still scram-ed, with possible steam restriction,
| and ballast tanks still faulty).
| kryogen1c wrote:
| For what its worth, I used to hold a clearance in the US nuclear
| navy and the story on wikipedia is what I was always told. Im not
| sure there is anything of value in the documents to be released,
| but im sure curious to find out.
| Alupis wrote:
| Sure, but a great deal of people hold clearances in and outside
| of the US Military (over 1.5 million hold Top Secret according
| to Wikipedia) - doesn't mean you were privy to information that
| was sensitive or you didn't need to know.
|
| Not saying there's anything more to the USS Thresher itself,
| just commenting that a clearance doesn't automatically entitle
| you to all the information about everything.
| oneepic wrote:
| OP never implied he knew everything.
| duxup wrote:
| I think it is important to clarify that "have clearance"
| here is effectively meaningless all by itself.
| kryogen1c wrote:
| Definitely true, but the article is about releasing
| unclassified documents
| [deleted]
| Alupis wrote:
| > unclassified documents
|
| That part seems odd from the article. If they were not
| classified, seems the FOIA request would have had an easier
| time getting them released... or they would have been
| released already. The Navy generates enough paperwork that
| it's not reasonable to expect all unclassified documents to
| be released... but these seem to have been a little more
| closely guarded than that. They are releasing them in
| batches after they are reviewed too - which is usually part
| of a declassification process.
|
| I'd wager they are being unclassified as part of the
| release here.
| vonmoltke wrote:
| From the wording of the article
|
| > The requested documents - more than 50 years old -
| should be unclassified and releasable by now under
| federal declassification rules
|
| ...
|
| > "The plaintiff believes this document review is overly
| complex," Eatinger said during the hearing. "When we
| filed this case, the records were in an automatic 50-year
| review project. We were told it would be complete in May
| 2019."
|
| these are (or should be) formerly classified documents.
| The Navy seems to be dragging its feet with the mandatory
| declassification review. As Eatinger said, it is well
| past time that the review should have completed and de-
| or re-classified as appropriate.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-02-11 23:00 UTC)