Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

This sounds like BS stories tbh. Never ever will be metal from the botton of the seas be worth the cost to extract it. In fact metal prices have all fallen over the last years (here ofc scrap metal too and so called "scrappers" were already complaining). If the prices had tripled then yes, perhaps. And then not steel but if itwas copper, nickel, silver etc.

The fact remains that they are gone or missing significant parts. It will all depends on how cheap they can do it really,

You need underwater acetylene torches and perhaps even cutter charges and heavy cranes to lift the pieces from the seabed... big operation which does not sound some locals could do it and even get a gain in selling the pieces as scrap. This would be a loss business I would estimate on 1:3 at current prices (or the last 2 years). But I do not trust many media stories anyway.

Edit, this sounds more realistic:

"Some experts raised the possibility that heavy storms, shifts in tectonic plates, or even the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami may have caused the ships to drift to a different location. "

(from BBC)

There has been some talk about the possibility that the tsunami which destroyed Banda Aceh may have moved them to a different location. This seems unlikely to me, if I understand it tsunamis are primarily surface phenomenon and it is a misunderstanding that huge volumes of water are moving laterally until it reaches shallow water and shores. A wave is moving laterally but the water is primarily moving up and down. These ships were at a depth of 60 to 70 meters and it would take a truly titanic tsunami to cause significant lateral movement. What happens near the shore is that the wave (the progression of an up and down oscillation) begins to suck water forward because of the unavailability of the anti-amplitude due to the shallowness of the sea at that point. In other words, every hill needs a valley and when the valley cannot exist the hill falls forward.

ORIGINAL: General Patton

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Not your "bad" GP, you are just too wrapped up in WITP AE!!!! Which says something for the game!

You read me like a book dr.hal[:'(]....GP

If he reads you like a book, that suggests that you have pages. I doubt that and I certainly wouldn't think you were abusing them in any way. Therefor it follows that you have leaves and are green like me. To determine whether you are simply a friend of the Earth or an ecoterrorist I would require more data. -Sherlock Gorn

I don't agree with the logic in this thread.

By the same line, it was terrible that the French cleaned up all the debris after the First World War. They should have left the countryside a complete mess as a reminder of the dead...

By all means, keep something for a memorial, such as the ships bell, but put the rest to some use.

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

This sounds like BS stories tbh. Never ever will be metal from the botton of the seas be worth the cost to extract it. In fact metal prices have all fallen over the last years (here ofc scrap metal too and so called "scrappers" were already complaining). If the prices had tripled then yes, perhaps. And then not steel but if itwas copper, nickel, silver etc.

On the General Discussion page, someone shared a tidbit about "low background" steel being sold at a premium. This steel can only be derived from steel sunk underwater prior to 1945. It's worth a thought.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I don't agree with the logic in this thread.

By the same line, it was terrible that the French cleaned up all the debris after the First World War. They should have left the countryside a complete mess as a reminder of the dead...

By all means, keep something for a memorial, such as the ships bell, but put the rest to some use.

I think upon this more and more too. Many civilian cemeteries are 'turned over' every so often or repurposed. My mother's family plot has a lease which expires in 100 years. If it's 'kosher' for civilians worldwide to be reburied and the land repurposed, it's worth considering for military deaths on land or at sea.

Here's a thought: Back in 'the day', pretty much any shipwreck-even in shallow waters-was pretty much a goner. The US, even with a Herculean effort, was hard-pressed to refloat the Oklahoma from Pearl Harbor. Anything outside of a massive port facility was-for all intents and purposes-impossible to raise, salvage pieces or extract the dead.

But now we're not quite as limited. In all but the deepest waters, if we REALLY wanted to, we could likely bring up some parts of a shipwreck and / or the dead. The Russians / Norwegians did it with the Kursk in 2000-2002, also a shallow-water wreck. And they extricated the vast majority of the ship as well.

So, has technology now changed the way that we should look at shipwrecks and their dead? Now that we can do something about it, should all men that go down with the ship still be left on the seabed? And if it's not a grave site (assuming all bodies are extricated), why should the material -particularly if it's of salvage value-be left there?

Lastly, if there is clear evidence of illegal / immoral / unethical foreign salvage of our existing wrecks, shouldn't there be an effort to 'properly' reclaim those shipwrecks (and their dead) that are most at risk? I'd rather we reclaim what we can of the Houston, for example, then some salvage pirates.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I don't agree with the logic in this thread.

At first I thought you were referring to my logic. I was nearly outraged. [:D]

On the "low background" issue, does this mean that iron ore processed today into steel will not be "low background"? Or that scrap is less expensive than "virgin", including "low background" scrap?

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

On the "low background" issue, does this mean that iron ore processed today into steel will not be "low background"? Or that scrap is less expensive than "virgin", including "low background" scrap?

On the reply to geofflambert issue, did you mean to start a conversation with yourself (sorry for interrupting if that's the case) or were you replying to my comment? [:'(]

ETA: On the chance that you were responding to my comment: It is my understanding that all steel milled in the atmosphere post-1945 contains radioactivity from the open-air tests conducted. This apparently peaked in the mid-1960s. Today's milled steel still contains *some* background radiation from this atmospheric testing.

The low background steel is prized for radiation detection equipment including interstellar radio-telescopes, Geiger counters, and the like. Even small background radiation in these sensitive devices degrades their function.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

On the "low background" issue, does this mean that iron ore processed today into steel will not be "low background"? Or that scrap is less expensive than "virgin", including "low background" scrap?

I was definitely talking to myself. As you all know, this gorn fellow is a nitwit and on occasion I must intervene. [;)]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

On the "low background" issue, does this mean that iron ore processed today into steel will not be "low background"? Or that scrap is less expensive than "virgin", including "low background" scrap?

I was definitely talking to myself. As you all know, this gorn fellow is a nitwit and on occasion I must intervene. [;)]

I hear you.

And you.

And you too.

A big reason why the possible (probable) salvage is happening is that the steel on those wrecks would be "pre-trinity" steel which, I've been told is far more valuable then steel produced or exposed above sea level after the Trinity tests in July 1945.

If the salvage occurred because it is better steel, is this steel being used for a certain project.

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

If the salvage occurred because it is better steel, is this steel being used for a certain project.

Scientific and medical instruments that measure radiation as part of their function do not want the metal they are made of to mess up their readings. When they split atomic particles to research quarks, they used battleship armour in the measuring chamber to reduce the chance that atmospheric radiation would mess up their experiments.

From reading the articles, they may be using explosives to tear apart the ships. Wouldn't this potentially set off munitions as well as cause further leakage of fuel that would have been an indication that this salvage was going on?

Pictures of rusting hulks I have seen show ammo heavily rusted and I think the impact type fuses are inoperable. It would take quite an explosion to breach the thick wall of a shell. Any cordite propellant would be dissolved away by now.

The scuttled Imperial German Fleet is said to have been the largest accessible repository of this pre-atom steel. I gather they are still picking through that lot nearly 100 years later.

According to the Washington Post these are clear legal issues. Shipwrecks do belong to the original country. Indonesian citizens have no legal right to take possession of those shipwrecks. But it certainly looks like the poor local 'wreckers' have found a source of income and got away with it. The Indonesian government is put in an embarrassing position and I believe the world lost a little dignity for not respecting the sacrifice of these victims of war. As Mister Doorman phrased it, SAD.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/11/ ... ngers.html