PC/WI. WWIII caused by disabled US SSBN/SSN?

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
In 1989, I remember watching a political/murder thriller called "Rules of Engagement" starring Kenneth Crantham on ITV.

The backdrop to a investigation into a high level govt murder was a build up of NATO-WARPAC tensions leading to possible WWIII due to a US SSBN/SSN breaking down after a reactor fire either in the Baltic or off the USSR northern sea's (I can't remember)

As the US sailors battled to regain power and steering while US & NATO assets steamed at full speed to her aid, the boat drifted towards Soviet home waters at which point the Soviets said that upon entering Soviet waters she would be boarded by the Red Fleet.

The US on the other hand told the Soviets that the sub was US territory and that any boarding of the sub would be an act of war.

How plausible was this story plot?

Would the US/NATO actually go to war over a sub in Soviet waters?

Regards filers
 

Puzzle

Donor
No. They'd much rather scuttle the submarine and have the crew get on lifeboats than risk the Soviets somehow boarding it. Even if they did board it, nuclear war isn't worth it for a ship and a hundred men.

SSBNs would also never be that close to Russia I'm pretty sure.
 
International law is clear. While the sub is American territory, if it's within Soviet home waters, it's in Soviet territory. However, there are probably laws regarding damaged ships, even military ones and, ultimately, the Soviets would have wanted to investigate the ship instead of sinking it.

So I'm going to guess they kindly offer to tow it towards the nearest Soviet port as a... ehem... "humanitarian gesture". As in, "we recover the crew and return the submarine, in parts, within a year or two"

Which the Americans would refuse, for obvious reasons. Worst case scenario, wouldn't the USN ordered the crew to get to the surface to wait to be rescued by helicopters and sink the submarine? And that's assuming a submarine can drift in such a wait
 
Top