Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Russia Offered Nz Nuclear Sub To Settle Milk Bill

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/15/russia-offered-newzealand-military-hardware

How do you settle a rather sizeable bill for your milk delivery? If you are a cash-strapped superpower the answer is, apparently, to offer up a pair of fighter jets and a nuclear submarine as payment.

The extraordinary offer was made by Russia to New Zealand in 1993, a new book reveals.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was struggling to pay the $100m it owed New Zealand for a range of imported dairy products.

..

Perhaps most remarkably, Shokhin then offered a nuclear submarine to wipe out Russia's buttery debt. Noting that New Zealand was a staunchly non-nuclear-powered country, he suggested hooking the vessel up to the national grid and using it as a power plant for a coastal city.

"Bolger recalled the reaction he would have got if he returned to a nuclear-free New Zealand and told people that he hadn't got any money for them but had secured a nuclear submarine instead," Lind said. "It simply wasn't going to fly."

Sorry I've got no money but would you like one of these instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Laughable, that $100 million is now the price of some bricks and mortar in central london!

Yeah, I always think along those lines when people mention Nick Leeson. What was the eye-watering sum involved? About £800M? Chickenfeed by the standards of today's city whizzkids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shokhin then offered a nuclear submarine to wipe out Russia's buttery debt ... he suggested hooking the vessel up to the national grid and using it as a power plant for a coastal city.

You've got to love Russians. This is just such a Russian solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shokhin then offered a nuclear submarine to wipe out Russia's buttery debt ... he suggested hooking the vessel up to the national grid and using it as a power plant for a coastal city.

You've got to love Russians. This is just such a Russian solution.

Ive thought of the same thing TBH, albeit driven by the NIMBY factor. Such resistance to any new powerplants why not just order lots of 'replacement' engines for our nuclear submarines and hook them up. I may be wrong but i heard they only cost £25million a piece, last a quarter of a century or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Ive thought of the same thing TBH, albeit driven by the NIMBY factor. Such resistance to any new powerplants why not just order lots of 'replacement' engines for our nuclear submarines and hook them up. I may be wrong but i heard they only cost £25million a piece, last a quarter of a century or so.

At the height of the property madness, and before they imploded financially, Portsmouth FC were planning an offshore stadium that would only be berthed on matchdays.

Maybe since we value the sanctity of our land so highly we should turn the sea into some kind of gigantic cupboard for things that we will only need temporarily (ie. < 100 years)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the height of the property madness, and before they imploded financially, Portsmouth FC were planning an offshore stadium that would only be berthed on matchdays.

Maybe since we value the sanctity of our land so highly we should turn the sea into some kind of gigantic cupboard for things that we will only need temporarily (ie. < 100 years)?

:lol::lol::lol:

Genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian nuclear sub reactors are considered very dodgy - give off loads of radiation. Used to read reports that your average Russian submariner would be exposed to more radiation in one cruise than a US or Brit submariner in their entire career.

The Yank nuclear sub reactors areamazing and it has always amazed me why loads of small towns and cities, in the US at least, don't have one of these powering them.

The history of how the US sub reactors were developed is fascinating - Hyman G. Rickover is the man to read up about. Fascinating character. One of those types who gets the job done but is loathed by all the paper shufflers. A man who actually believing for taking full responsibility for whatever his team did - not many of them around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Brilliant.

And in rough seas what was the plan?

"Portsmouth vs. Sheffield United..... Match postponed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive thought of the same thing TBH, albeit driven by the NIMBY factor. Such resistance to any new powerplants why not just order lots of 'replacement' engines for our nuclear submarines and hook them up. I may be wrong but i heard they only cost £25million a piece, last a quarter of a century or so.

I remember reading this stuff somewhere. Maybe after fukashima. The idea is you build your nuclear power plant on a floating platform. Then when it goes t8ts up you tow it out to sea and sink it.

It's why my idea of nuclear power plants on the moon is a goer. No bioshield required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

I remember reading this stuff somewhere. Maybe after fukashima. The idea is you build your nuclear power plant on a floating platform. Then when it goes t8ts up you tow it out to sea and sink it.

It's why my idea of nuclear power plants on the moon is a goer. No bioshield required.

Need a effing long transmission cable though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Boil off the Earth's oceans and pipe them through a giant turbine.

Good idea but it pisses it down here often enough, and I can guess where it would all recondense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.