USA Today articles from 1992

These two articles are from USA Today, courtesy of NewsBank, about the USS Baton Rouge collision around the time of the incident.

U.S. and Russian subs have a close encounter – USA TODAY (Arlington, VA) – February 19, 1992 – page 5A February 19, 1992 | USA TODAY (Arlington, VA) | Laurence Jolidon | Page 5A

U.S. officials said Tuesday that the nuclear attack submarine submarine Baton Baton Rouge Rouge and a Russian nuclear submarine submarine collided last week in the Barents Sea.

Although the incident revealed that U.S. warships continue to hunt or monitor the former Soviet fleet – despite the Cold War's thaw – it triggered only mild grumbling from Russia and is not expected to renew Cold War tension. Accounts from Washington and Moscow indicated the Baton Baton Rouge Rouge was submerged at periscope depth” near Russia's northern fleet base of Murmansk when the Russian sub, sailing directly below, suddenly surfaced and glanced off the U.S. ship's hull. The Baton Baton Rouge Rouge, one of 85 U.S. nuclear attack subs, then stole away.

Possible reasons for the collision, military experts say, include human error, crowded sea lanes and possible equipment malfunctions.
Such ships are equipped with sophisticated electronic monitors, but Pentagon spokesman Bob Hall said, they're also stealthy” to avoid detection by enemy sensors. Said Tom Clancy, author of the submarine submarine-chase thriller, The Hunt for Red October: Sounds like the Russians were at fault. Before you surface, you're supposed to look.”

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, traveling in Panama, said he was not surprised a collision had occurred: We have a number of subs operating out of there. It's an important part of our security.” Moscow's Interfax news agency said the Russian navy charged the Baton Baton Rouge Rouge was operating in Russian territorial waters. Hall refused to cite the Baton Baton Rouge Rouge's exact location but insisted it was outside the international 12- mile limit. Interfax said the Russian sub's tower was slightly damaged but not its nuclear power plant. The Baton Baton Rouge Rouge reported no damage, but Hall said the ship is returning to its homeport of Norfolk, Va., as a routine precaution.”

Secretary of State James Baker briefed Russian President Boris Yeltsin in Moscow about the incident, first disclosed last week when Russia announced one of its submarines had struck an underwater object.” Dale Herspring, a Soviet military scholar at the Wilson Center in Washington, said he expects the Russians to protest, but only as a formality. We'll go ahead and look at it, and say not much we can do. Sort of a case of no harm, no foul.”

CITATION (APA STYLE) CITATION (APA STYLE) Jolidon, L. (1992, February 19). U.S. and Russian subs have a close encounter. U S A T O D A Y , p. 5A. Available from NewsBank: https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view? p=AWNB&docref=news/0EB568088147CEBD.

RUSSIAN-U.S. SUB COLLISION IS LIKE TWO TEEN-AGERS – USA TODAY (Arlington, VA) – February 26, 1992 February 26, 1992 | USA TODAY (Arlington, VA) | SHIRLEY RAGSDALE

It was just a fender bender.

Two nuclear submarines, one U.S. and the other Russian, banged into each other Feb. 11, somewhere off the Russian Arctic coast. The fact that the collision didn't start a war is amazing to those of us who lived through the duckand-cover days of the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis.

There wasn't much tension connected to the accident. The accident wasn't reported to the public until the 19th (after the Bush administration had made a call to Boris Yeltsin).

For me, the delay put the participants in the same category as a couple of teen-agers who banged up the family cars on a Saturday night. They probably dreaded reporting the collision to superiors. Like parents, it's a sure thing that neither government was satisfied with the driving ability of the guys at the helm of these souped-up, nuclear boats.

Had the collision been between a Detroit-made Ford Pinto and a Soviet-made Lada, the drivers could have checked out the damage and cussed one another appropriately. Once they cooled off, they could have exchanged drivers licenses and insurance info.

In the submarine submarine vs. submarine submarine pileup, it appears the driver of vehicle No. 1 and that of vehicle No. 2 peered out of their periscopes at one another, checked to see if the other one was able to float and split. A clear case of shipwreck-and-run, if you ask me.

The traffic reports given by Russian and U.S. admirals didn't agree any more than the stories you might hear from youthful joy riders. The Russians said that pieces of the U.S. sub were found hanging from the rails of the deckhouse barrier on the Russian boat. The Russians were sure the U.S. sub was seriously damaged. After all, it's common knowledge in Russia that U.S. subs have “weak metal” bodies. (You remember this one, “It barely scratched the car, Dad, but you should have seen the other guy!”)

The U.S. sub sustained “no serious damage,” merely a scrape on the hull, according to Cmdr. Mark Van Dyke, a Pentagon spokesman. (“You can't hardly see it, Mom!”) The wreck probably had something to do with those Japanese- made submarine submarine propellers the Soviets bought a while back. Our sub didn't hear it coming.

If there was any agreement, it was that everybody involved wanted everybody else to know that there was NO radiation contamination. Repeat, no contamination. Zero. Zilch. (“It didn't leak, Dad! Honest!) It must be the mother in me, but my second question to the Navy (after the first, “Was anybody hurt?”) would be “What were you doing driving around over there?”

The collision is supposed to have taken place in the Barents Sea, not far from Murmansk. Murmansk is a strategic naval port on the Kola Peninsula. It is the headquarters of the Northern Fleet, the largest in the Russian Navy. The Russians said it happened in Russian waters. The U.S. Navy said it happened in international waters.

We've all seen the reports that the Northern Fleet doesn't have enough fuel to move away from the docks. The U.S. Navy has reported that since the end of the Cold War, Russian subs have quit patrolling the U.S. coastline. A U.S. submarine submarine patrolling so close to a major Russian port would have been begging to be a major international incident a couple of years ago. It would be the same as dragging main in an unfriendly town right after your football team trounces the other guy's. It doesn't matter if the Soviets are no longer a security threat. It's just not smart to be sticking one's nose (or submarine submarine) where it doesn't belong.

The U.S. Navy, as belligerent as little boys caught in the act, is insisting that the United States should be able to move its ships and forces wherever it darned well pleases.

“That's what John Paul Jones got his name for, driving ships in places of the world where people might not have expected American ships to go,” Adm. Frank B. Kelso II, chief of U.S. naval operations told the Associated Press. “I don't think this incident is going to change that.”

Maybe not. But as the person paying for the gas (or nuclear fuel), I'd sure like the Navy to restrict its cruising to places where there's a security threat.
The only quote I remember about John Paul Jones is, “I have not yet begun to fight!” This seems a little out of date, considering communism is basically dead and the Navy could probably get a grand tour of Murmansk for the asking.

CITATION (APA STYLE) CITATION (APA STYLE) RAGSDALE, S. (1992, February 26). RUSSIAN-U.S. SUB COLLISION IS LIKE TWO TEEN-AGERS AT PLAY. U S A T O D A Y ( A rlin g t o n, V A ) . Available from NewsBank: https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view? p=AWNB&docref=news/1280D5378EB2D140.