Could an nuclear powered carrier explode like a nuclear bomb?

[Jono]

A couple of years ago I read a novel that had a scene where a US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is steaming into whatever port they stay at in Japan and a suicide squad manage to penetrate the escort and blow up a small nuclear bomb right next to the hull of the carrier. Japan goes nuts and evicts US forces from its territory as they blame the explosion on the carrier. This is all part of a Chinese plot to secret push the US from the region so to make it easier for them to invade and take Taiwan...but that's just plot stuff.

Now, I'm under the impression that the nuclear reactor mushroom clouding was a myth so is the author just using dramatic licence or could a reactor on a carrier or submarine explode just like a nuclear weapon?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

What little I can recall of reactor physics, I wouldn't think it possible, no, but the general public might and that's all you sometimes need. The point here is that the incident happens in Japan where the first and only use of nuclear weapons during wartime occurred. The Japanese might well not be rational in reaction to it. It does stretch credulity, however.

 

[Wally]

The little I recall is: no. Nuclear reactors do not use near high enough grade or concentrations to do such a thing. A modest explosion and radioactive steam would probably be the result.

 

[trekkiedane]

A couple of years ago I read a novel that had a scene where a US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is steaming into whatever port they stay at in Japan and a suicide squad manage to penetrate the escort and blow up a small nuclear bomb right next to the hull of the carrier.

Sounds to me as if someone wanted to make it look as if a nuclear device on the carrier blew up -not the reactor. Nuclear reactors can't 'blow up'.

 

[Christopher]

Fission reactors can't blow up like atomic bombs. The worst they can do is melt down and release radioactive material into the environment. If there's an explosion involved, it would be a steam explosion as the superheated steam ruptures its containment vessel.

 

[John Clark]

Sounds to me as if someone wanted to make it look as if a nuclear device on the carrier blew up -not the reactor. Nuclear reactors can't 'blow up'.

That's how I remember it (If I'm thinking of the same novel - Dale Brown perhaps?)

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Nah, no nuclear explosion. China Syndrome throught he hull, radioactive steam, radioactive sodium (IIRC, our naval propulsion systems are still liquid sodium cooled) releases are possible in the event of a meltdown or other catastropic failure.

They're built better than tanks though.

 

[Jono]

Sounds to me as if someone wanted to make it look as if a nuclear device on the carrier blew up -not the reactor. Nuclear reactors can't 'blow up'.

That's how I remember it (If I'm thinking of the same novel - Dale Brown perhaps?)

I think it was a Dale Brown novel. Have to hunt them out of storage but I'm leaning towards it been from the novel Battle Born. In that case it probably as they wanted it to appear to be a nuclear device on the carrier not the reactor.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

No, a nuclear reactor is not designed in such a way that it can go nuclear. It can melt down and release a lot of radiation though...

CuttingEdge100

 

[Birdog]

Nah, no nuclear explosion. China Syndrome throught he hull, radioactive steam, radioactive sodium (IIRC, our naval propulsion systems are still liquid sodium cooled) releases are possible in the event of a meltdown or other catastropic failure.

They're built better than tanks though.

With three exceptions in the history of USN shipboard reactors they have always been water cooled.

 

[Plecostomus]

A couple of years ago I read a novel that had a scene where a US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is steaming into whatever port they stay at in Japan and a suicide squad manage to penetrate the escort and blow up a small nuclear bomb right next to the hull of the carrier. Japan goes nuts and evicts US forces from its territory as they blame the explosion on the carrier. This is all part of a Chinese plot to secret push the US from the region so to make it easier for them to invade and take Taiwan...but that's just plot stuff.

Now, I'm under the impression that the nuclear reactor mushroom clouding was a myth so is the author just using dramatic licence or could a reactor on a carrier or submarine explode just like a nuclear weapon?

I am an expert on the subject.

The answer is no. A pressurized water reactor or boiling water reactor cannot explode like that. The Japanese would know that as a major fraction of their power comes from nuclear power.

There could be a tiny remote chance of a stored nuclear WEAPON aboard the carrier detonating, but blaming it on a nuclear reactor accident is asinine, and shows the author is a scare-monger.

Further reading, look up the Borax Experiments and the SL-1 accident. American designed and licensed technology cannot create a runaway reaction/explosion. Steam explosion yes. Meltdown, yes. But not a nuclear explosion.

Other technologies (such as the Soviet RMBK, our early "piles" in Washington, the British Windscale piles) can create a runaway reaction. Canadian CANDU technology cannot explode, British gas-cooled technology cannot explode.

Does this answer the question or shall I bring out the charts, graphs and my enormous pile of notes?


Oh... one other thing. We only had one sodium cooled nuclear sub in service and it was such a kludge they took it apart and replaced the reactor with a PWR like the rest of the fleet. The Russians had a love affair with them, built two classes around the things and lost all of the boats to reactor technical issues... mostly while tied up along the docks while trying to do routine repairs. As for power plant reactors, America played with them from 1950 to the 1970s and gave up on the technology... France deployed a workable model, Russia struggled with it, and England had moderate success while the Japanese had the same issues we did.

*whew* Don't get me going on this subject I'll never shut up.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

With three exceptions in the history of USN shipboard reactors they have always been water cooled.

My bad. I thought the Seawolf design was typical.

 

[Plecostomus]

Nope! Seawolf was a dead end, and due to it's complexity and other issues it was replaced by a water cooled reactor.

 

[Brolan]

Nope! Seawolf was a dead end, and due to it's complexity and other issues it was replaced by a water cooled reactor.

A good friend of mine worked on Seawolf but because of all the secrecy he could never tell me about anything he was doing.

 

[Chaos Descending]

^^^ The current Seawolf (SSN-21, commissioned in 1997) or the mid 20th Century Seawolf (SSN-575, commissioned in 1957)? Because there were two different nuke subs named Seawolf. It was the older one that had the funky liquid sodium cooled reactor.

 

[Christopher]

Being more of a TV geek than a military geek, I see the name "Seawolf" and I can't help thinking of it as the name for an ill-fated aquatic knockoff of Airwolf. Maybe a sister show to Knightboat -- "The crime-solving boat!" (There's always a canal....)

 

[Myasishchev]

Being more of a TV geek than a military geek, I see the name "Seawolf" and I can't help thinking of it as the name for an ill-fated aquatic knockoff of Airwolf. Maybe a sister show to Knightboat -- "The crime-solving boat!" (There's always a canal....)

I miss Airwolf.

Anyway, the odds of even a nuclear device accidentally exploding is pretty nil, too, aren't they?

 

[Christopher]

^They're designed to be pretty much foolproof. Given the cost of an accidental detonation on one's home turf, they have to be. Basically, everything has to go just right for the detonation to happen; if anything damages the weapon, then it won't work at all.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Yeah, it's amazingly difficult to get a nuke to go off on purpose, and about impossible on accident.

 

[Plecostomus]

Seawolf was designed to use the superheated steam produced by the liquid sodium reactor and when they replaced the reactor they did just that: Replaced the reactor. Everything else (turbine, support equipment) was designed to run with superheated steam not saturated steam. Performance suffered, and availability declined.

Adm. Rickover refused to admit that one of his prized boats was a failure, so the Seawolf limped along as a sub-par boat for most of it's career.

That didn't stop them from using it for some kick-ass spy work and espionage missions.