What is the consequence of sinking a nuclear ship in battle?

>>34633423
That's silly, The US and France would both respond differently. The Americans would retaliate differently depending on the means by which this was achieved. The French would no longer have a carrier.

>>34633423
Depends on how deep the water is/where.

I you sink a nuclear powered ship in the middle of the ocean, it will sink to the bottom. Water is a a moderator and a reflector, so you pretty much just have a very hot rock at the bottom f the ocean. Local critters might ot have a great day, but the overall impact is minimal. Eventually it will corrode/melt through everything to the ground, so there is going to be a material release, but the ocean is gigantic and dilution would prevent any meaningful increase (again assuming the where and how deep is middle of the ocean tier.) Closer to shore, they would probably try drop a shield over it if they could. In the case of a carrier, probably not feasible.

It would provide a comfy house for a lot of species.

>>34633439
But they still have smaller ones

>>34633423
Nothing really

In terms of size the reactor isn't very big and in terms of radiation it isn't very potent. If it was damaged or the boat was sunk, it would probably cool off immediately and sink with it. This isn't like a Nuclear Power Plant reactor in raw size.

File: 1370561624190.gif (904KB, 500x224px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 500x224px

>>34633423
>What is the consequence of sinking a nuclear ship in battle?
kaijus
kaijus everywhere

>>34633423

I guess the US flattops have B61s on-board, but I'm sure the magazine is pretty solid so there'd be little chance of them dispersing (which would require a lot of effort to find them all).

Reactors can breach and all that, but it won't be too much of a problem in comparison to land based ones (a lot smaller and underwater).

Sinking a CVN is going to require a lot of ordnance, and it probably won't happen outside of a nuclear torp or cruise missile, which means shit is about to get very real.

File: IMG_1466.jpg (154KB, 600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 600x1067px

>>34633467
Is this true?

File: 1369707673363.jpg (284KB, 1460x996px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1460x996px

>>34633498
why would anyone go into the internet and tell lies?
see this chart? is very real, it has a chart

>>34633498
Yeah, mutated fish that will eventually turn into city-busting monsters.

File: 027_tell.jpg (65KB, 970x344px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 970x344px

>>34633467
lulz

>>34633495
Pretty much this. Remember that several nuclear subs have sunk, with no terrible long-term effects.

>>34633456
its still a boiling water reactor and the boiler would still explode if either it hit cold sea water or if it ran dry

the only difference between boilers of today and boilers of 150 years ago are we weld instead of rivet them together now