Customer Reviews

Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S.

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(18)

 

 

"Red Star Rogue", written by Kenneth Sewell and Clint Richmond, examines one of the most intriguing incidents of the Cold War. This was the loss of the Soviet Golf II class ballistic missile submarine (SSB) K-129, and the subsequent examination and recovery of the wreck by the United States. Previous books that have examined this incident include Clyde Burleson's 1977 "The Jennifer Project", and the CIA sanctioned story of the recovery in the 1978 "A Matter of Risk" by Roy Varner and Wayne Collier. Additional information can be gleaned from chapters in the books "Blind Man's Bluff" (Sontag & Drews), Dr. Roger Dunham's "Spy Sub", and John P. Craven's "The Silent War". In this new book, Sewell and Richmond take advantage of the opportunity to conduct research within the former Soviet Union, and to interview those involved or affected on both sides of the story. However, they end up with a sensationalist scenario to explain the intense interest the American government took in an obsolete, sunken diesel powered ballistic missile submarine.

Sewell claims to have uncovered previously unknown facts about the rapid resupply and hasty departure of the K-129 from its base on the Kamchatka Pennisula, and "extra" last minute crew additions. The basic thesis of this book is that the submarine was part of a secret plot by an inner "cabal" within the highest levels of Soviet Government (centered around Mikhail Suslov and Yuri Andropov), hidden from Premier Leonid Brezhnev. The plot was to have K-129 emulate a Chinese Golf I submarine (an earlier transfer from the USSR before the split with China) and launch a one megaton nuclear missile toward Pearl Harbor. The purpose was to precipitate a nuclear exchange between the US and China, removing the China threat to the USSR and simultaneously permitting Soviet troops to move south into China, establishing a Soviet hegemony in Asia. The resulting geopolitical shift would have left the USSR in a much stronger position (and possibly promote leadership change to the hard liner Suslov circle).

The book describes the submarine's frantic last minute crew changes and probable steps along the way on the voyage towards Hawaii. The submarine apparently failed to broadcast scheduled mandatory radio checks, and ended up quite far from its assigned patrol area. The authors build a somewhat shaky case by piecing together seemingly disparate evidence that the K-129 was just 350 miles from Pearl Harbor and on the surface when it attempted missile launch. This profile would have simulated a Golf I submarine with the shorter range R-13 (NATO SS-N-4 Sark) missile with the earlier D-2 launch system, which required surface firing. In fact, the Golf II K-129 carried the longer range R-21 (NATO SS-N-5 Serb) and the D-4 system that permitted submerged missile firing. There would be no reason to be that close and on the surface if this were a sanctioned attack by the Soviet government. The authors speculate that a nuclear fail-safe system led to an aborted launch and missile explosion, resulting in the sinking of the K-129 in 16,400 feet of water. Unlike the CIA account, which had the submarine some 1800 miles northwest of Hawaii (well out of missile range for either system), the current book places the submarine dangerously close to Hawaii. Sewell is alone in making this claim, as previous authors, including John P. Craven in his 2001 book "Silent War" put the K-129 wreck at 40 latitude, 180 longitude, basically on the International Date Line. Declassified documents released in 2001 support the Craven location.

The subsequent detailed covert examination of the K-129 wreck by the Special Operations submarine USS Halibut is described. Earlier accounts (Burleson, Varner & Collier) did not include the highly successful work of Halibut as the details of its capabilities were classified until 1994. A desription of this operation is however provided in Sontag & Drew's "Blind Man's Bluff" None of the over 22,000 photos taken by the ROVS deployed by Halibut have ever been declassified, but the present authors did speak with some who have seen the photos. The thorough examination and possible recovery of small pieces of K-129 revealed almost all of the technical details of this older diesel powered SSB class. The submarine was not in a single piece as claimed by the CIA (A point made earlier by Burleson in his book), and the photos showed damage consistent, upon detailed technical analysis, with the possibility of an attempted failed missile launch. The analysts concluded that the most probable case might be that the submarine was "rogue", as the USSR was not on high alert nor were they other signs of other preparations for war on the date the K-129 had sunk. Additionally, it is alleged that when the Soviet Navy searched for the lost K-129 when it was overdue in reporting, the search was concentrated in the submarine's patrol area, well away from the actual wreck site. However, others have offered a more plausible alternative scenario in which the K-129 developed problems with the R-21 liquid fueled missile, leading to a somewhat similar accident as occurred with the Yankee class K-219 in the Atlantic in 1986.

According to Sewell, it was this "rogue" conclusion which stimulated the effort to build the Glomar Explorer and associated recovery equipment for the expressed purpose of recovery of the K-129, in order to examine and prove the supposition that it was in fact a "rogue" submarine. This proof would have been shared with the Soviet leadership. The construction and deployment of the Glomar Explorer, costing over $500 million (1970 dollars), in a remarkably short period of time during a time of rising inflation and the costs of the Vietnam War, underlines the apparent high priority given to examine and attempt to understand waht happened to the K-129. The remarkable technical details of the recovery of K-129 wreckage from over 16,000 feet of water (much deeper than the Titanic wreck) are reviewed, along with the argument that the Glomar Explorer was on station long enough to recover several large pieces of the submarine. However, many of the details of the actual recovery operation described by Sewell do not agree with widely published accounts of the actual operation of the Glomar Explorer and claw system equipment (e.g., Burleson; Collier & Varner), and the consistent claim by others has always been that the K-129 broke apart during the lifting operation, with only 38 feet of the bow recovered. Among the "new information" reported for the first time in this book are that the majority of the K-129 crew was jammed into forward compartments of the submarine, away from the command and control centers. Their speculation is that an Osnaz Special Operations unit, boarded at the last moment before sailing, seized control of the submarine as it neared its patrol area, confined the crew, diverted it to the firing position and attempted the missile launch. In fact, Sewell claims that a recent memorial ceremony for the lost crew members lists 99 men lost, well above the normal 83 man crew number for this submarine class. Another fact claimed herein is that the explosion which sank the K-129 was not in the battery compartment, as indicated in "Blind Man's Bluff", but instead was in a missile tube in the sail of the Golf II. The submarine wreckage, which was highly radioactive, was carefully dissected once on board the Glomar Explorer. Whether the missile launch guidance data was also recovered from the wreck is undisclosed; this would have been critical to proving the intent of K-129 to launch on Hawaii. Reasons for the disinformation and coverup to the American public about the K-129 and the Glomar Explorer operation are also discussed. Among these would have been the shear panic around how close we came to having Pearl Harbor and Honolulu destroyed in a large nuclear blast in March of 1968. There were repercussions within the Soviet Union as well, as apparently some of the recovered information from Halibut and the Glomar Explorer were shared with senior Soviet leaders and naval personnel. This was to underline the deep seriousness of this episode and the need for effective controls on nuclear weapons by the Soviets in the future. However, what is unclear is how Suslov & Andropov could have possibly "survived" such a reckless and dangerous plot, and continue to wield power in the Soviet Leadership.

In assembling the rather loose chain of "evidence" to build this story, the authors claim to have searched widely to present a plausible set of events. Much of the new material is said to come from conversations with former officials and naval personnel in Russia, which unfortunately are poorly referenced and documented in the book. This is another major weakness, as it relies on shadowy sources and innuendo, rather than on solid, documented facts. I doubt the writers are anywhere near correct. Among several weak points in the argument is why the proposed Osnaz operatives on board would not have been provided with the proper failsafe launch codes if the conspiracy included some members at the highest levels of the Communist leadership. Other "facts" in the book are also in error, as has been pointed out by several other reviewers. If true, the book's arguments and conclusions would be intriguing and deeply disturbing. This particular Cold War incident has recently become another touchstone for those interested in conspiracy theories and speculation. One might hope that these discussions will stimulate the US government to be forthcoming in the near future as to what really occurred to K-129 some 37 years ago in the Pacific, and what we learned from the investigation of the wreckage. This is a book that needs to be widely read and debated. If the authors are anywhere near the truth (which is highly questionable), the important lessons learned cannot afford to be held by a mere handful of people. If on the other hand they are not correct, it might also be an opportune time to release more facts & documentation to clarify why the US undertook such a venture.

2007 Addendum. In the two years since I have written the above review, I have been involved in a documentary film project attempting to discover the truth behind K-129 and the Glomar Explorer. Without going into details that will be part of the documentary, the research for the production has convinced me that the scenario presented in "Red Star Rogue" is absolutely wrong, and many claims made in the book, including that the location of the sunken submarine was near the Hawaiian islands, are erroneous. Please see Ray Feldman's review for a more accurate depiction of reality!

Mr. Sewell has compiled an interesting set of half-truths, conjecture and outright fabrications interspersed with Soviet operational procedures and human-interest details to advance a frightening scenario that a rogue Soviet submarine attempted to launch a nuclear missile at Pearl Harbor. Mr. Sewell has taken advantage of the recent spate of books about cold war submarine activities to publish his version of a specific event, no doubt to his benefit. One sentence from John Craven's book "The Silent War" i.e. "there existed a possibility, small though it might be, that the skipper of this rogue submarine was attempting to launch or had actually launched a ballistic missile with a live warhead in the direction of Hawaii." is the basis of his doomsday premise. He take this conditional conjecture, throws in a cabal of high level KGB conspirators, and delivers an almost 300 page book. The central thesis behind his assertion of a rogue launch is his claim that the sub went down at 163º W Lon, 24º N Lat. This is critical since the K-129 was armed with three SS-N-5 Serb missiles with a range of approximately 760 nautical miles. Pearl Harbor is 327 nautical miles from the claimed sinking site, well within the range of the Serb missile. If the sub sank at the official claimed site of 180º Lon, 40º N Lat, it would be more than 800 nautical miles short of the presumed target.

As a senior staff engineer, now retired, with Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., I was the responsible engineer for the Digital Data Link (DDL) which provided commands to and telemetry from the "claw", we designated the Capture Vehicle (CV), and the control van on the HGE. Since the DDL was a complex poorly documented one-off system and vital for the mission, I was recruited to go on the mission to ensure its operation. I was a member of the crew that sailed out of Long Beach on June 19, 1974 and maintained the link during the entire operation, and at times manned one of the consoles in the control van. As a result of my direct experience with the mission, I have some valid observations to make.

There are many inaccuracies in his description of the Hughes Glomar Explorer (HGE) and the raising of the Golf II class K-129. Without getting into details that are interesting but not really germane, the essential facts are: The location of the recovery site was not restricted to "ranking members of the Glomar crew and the CIA managers" as Mr. Sewell claims. Certainly the seamen (ship drivers) were well aware of the recovery position, as was the recovery team. Contrary to his assertion, there were no restricted areas on the ship except the communication van and the rig floor during dangerous pipe handling conditions. Others, and I would frequently visit the bridge where we could observe the Transit Nav Sat position being displayed on the navigation console. Besides, anyone with a boy scout's knowledge and protractor could observe the sun at local noon and determine the latitude to within a couple of degrees. The upshot of all this is:
The position of the K-129 recovery site was on the180º meridian, approximately 40º N Lat. The longitude was so spot on the International Date Line, that there was some discussion as to the date to use in the recovery log. Since the voyage originated east of the date line, we continued to use this date.

Even John Craven doesn't dispute this position. In page 212 of his book he writes "she would have filled with water and would have sunk like a rock-and we would find her at exactly 180/40."

Additionally, I can absolutely confirm that:
1 Only the forward 38 or 40 foot (depending how you measure) section of the bow was recovered.
2 There were only 6 to 10 bodies (depending on how you reassembled body parts) in the recovered section rather than the 60 or so that Sewell claims.
3 The ship's bell was recovered from its attachment near the bow, not from "the center section of the conning tower" as Sewell alleges. This is an important point because Sewell claims its retrieval in the conning tower proves that the center section of the sub was recovered.
4 No missiles or warheads were recovered.
5 No codebooks or encryption equipment was recovered.
6 Two crushed almost unrecognizable objects were identified as nuclear tipped torpedoes by a naval officer in mufti.
7 The interior of the recovered section appeared much like an archaeological site with everything compacted into a dense mass.
8 The K-129 had broken into two major pieces, probably on impact since the sections were so close together. The forward section was approximately 136 feet in length and designated the Target Object (TO). The CV was configured to only recover the TO in its specific attitude on the ocean floor. There was no intention to make more than one round trip, nor would it have been possible due to the strain on the heavy lift system and its frequent breakdown.
9 Charring of some combustible material in the recovered section indicates that dieseling, as a result of implosion may have occurred.

It is true that the recovered section was radioactively contaminated with what turned out to be weapons grade plutonium. This would certainly indicate that some sort of catastrophic event took place. Not surprising given the inherently dangerous nature of liquid fueled rockets, and the Soviet submarine service's very poor safety record.

I have discussed these details with a former Lockheed colleague and shipmate on the HGE, and we agree on the facts stated above. I am not employed by any entity, governmental or private. I have no motive beyond the desire to squelch half-baked conspiracy theories by advocates who profit from their advancement.

As a maritime lawyer now and, in 1967, a very junior officer on a diesel submarine in a NATO navy, I found Red Star Rogue a fascinating yarn. The way it assembles its facts, inferences and speculation is unsatisfactory but there is a story here that ultimately I find convincing.

There are six objective factual elements that suggest truth:

1. The early departure on 24 February 1968 before completion of scheduled maintenance and R & R. The prior mission had lasted 10 weeks and had ended 6 January 1968. The authors indicate a four month turnaround was standard. This is logical because long term submergence in a diesel submarine is a deeply unhealthy environment for the crew - and its equipment, even on a newish vessel like K129, is pushed to its limit by normal use. It is rare and remarkable in the military to miss scheduled maintenance in peacetime - and this was not a tank, one of thousands, but a precious national strategic asset. It needed, and normally got, TLC.

2. 98 crew on an 84 crew ship for a lengthy mission. This is so extraordinary as to be unique. In World War II U.S. submarines rescued European missionaries and downed flyers, and all anecdotes say it was noticeably cramped even for a 48-hour voyage. In "my" submarine, we took on a platoon of soldiers on a brief exercise, and operating the boat became very difficult due to cramped accommodations. The presence of an extra 14 bodies for weeks would be extraordinary - and I cannot comprehend how they were victualed. There just isn't space for that much extra food for a 70-day mission. The stress here is incomprehensible. The "loss" of the crew manifest is also remarkable, but perhaps SOP.

3. The absence of routine signals, and the lack of response. K129 missed sending the check-in signals on crossing the International Date Line and on entering the mission box. This was a strategic asset: no matter how drunk or inefficient the boys at base, they would have had a message board to record these. If they aren't sent, a "subsunk" routine ensues. Here, they weren't sent and no routine subsunk inquiry ensued for a month - so the logical conclusion is that the messages weren't intended to be sent. This is mysterious. Even more interestingly to me, K129 surfaced without sending a "surfaced" signal. This is unprecedented for a missile boat which does not normally, ever, fully surface in a hostile environment. The absence of any signal suggests to me that, notwithstanding an overcrowded boat in poor maintenance, K129 did not surface for mechanical or medical reasons, but for nefarious reasons.

4. An external crew member in outdoor clothing. Shorts, shoes and singlets are likely to have been worn inside K129 in tropical waters. Noone is likely to wear external clothing unless he was on the fin, surfaced. A suggestion exists he was tethered, which is unusual, since it delays diving time. But it certainly appears K129 was surreptitiously surfaced immediately prior to sinking.

5. An irradiated light oil slick off Western Hawaii in March 1968. It is just possible, in my personal experience, for an oil slick to extend 325 nautical miles, although it becomes the merest sheen. It could move that far in six days. The book is quite unconvincing when it suggests this was Chinese fissile material, and gets its compass directions badly wrong, all on page 113. The time, date and location of Teritu's sampling of the spill are wholly obscure, and it should not have occurred before 12 March, but there is enough innuendo here to suggest strongly this was K129's slick from the Necker Seamount, and could not have come from the official sinking point at 180/40.

6. Plutonium contaminated steelwork. I have never so much as glimpsed a nuclear warhead but assume it is securely protected by an armature or shell, and that this shell is itself specially strengthened against a hydrazine or liquid propellant fire from below. The high explosive surrounding the plutonium core will be designed to be unusually stable and heat resistant to survive re-entry. So a fire in a launch tube will not release plutonium. However, a mechanical failsafe is likely to destroy one or two of the high explosive plates and intentionally to penetrate the plutonium core, rendering it safe against spontaneous explosion and unapproachable by a thief. In my opinion, the existence of radiation on the steel retrieved by the GLOMAR EXPLORER is evidence that a failsafe prevented a launch.

I was in the Far East in 1967 and remember well the feeling that China was ready to burst under the Cultural Revolution and Mao's Red Guards. The idea of a surfaced Golf launching a missile at Honolulu within SSN4 range would have played immediately into all our fears of renegade China.

The whole book stands or falls on the time and place of sinking. This book is either true in its outline, and so very important; or utterly false, and needs to be demolished.

Our government can do so by identifying the date, time and coordinates of the failed missile launch bloom seen by our ?MIDAS? satellite, 37 years ago. Until they do, I think these guys have got it right.

I pulled my copy of The Silent War from the book shelf and read the chapter where Dr. Craven talks about K-129, the submarine featured in Red Star Rogue. I counted the times Craven mentions the status of the Soviet submarine. In chapter fifteen Dr. Craven states that the Soviet ballistic missile submarine K-129 was either rogue, or had the highest probability of being a rogue, no less than SEVEN TIMES!

I'm not a submariner, but I am a retired naval officer and history buff. As far as I'm concerned, a submarine would go rogue for only two reasons, to defect or to start a war. Soviet submarine officers were the elite of the Soviet Navy, dedicated family men, loyal to a fault. I don't believe this submarine was defecting.

I found that Red Star Rogue made a solid case for the failed rogue submarine attack on Hawaii. But after reading chapter 15 in Craven's book, The Hunt for Red September, I've elevated its credibility to a ranking of the highest probability.

Instead, the authors claim it to be non-fiction. The book is so full of technical and chronological errors (many quite basic) that all possible credibility is destroyed. For example, the book states that the one-megaton nuclear warheads carried on the K-129's missile have a yield equivalent to 1000 tons of TNT; in reality, one megaton = one million tons TNT equivalent. Another simple, verifiable error is that the authors claim that the crews of USS Parche & USS (Richard B.) Russell received awards for their part in the K-129 recovery efforts in late 1968/early 1969. These two subs weren't even built yet! Also, the authors repeatedly use presented hypotheses as facts later in the book - a cardinal flaw in any form of deductive reasoning. The end result is just populist conspiracy theory trash.

History records that in March 1968, President Johnson, succumbing to mounting pressures from the war in Vietnam, declined to stand for re-election. But Johnson may have had more than Vietnam on his mind. Earlier that fateful month, a nuclear-armed Soviet Golf-II submarine sank just 350 miles from Hawaii.

What the sub was doing there and how it met its demise may never be proven definitively. But author Kenneth Sewell presents a convincing case -- though one not without caveat, conjecture and speculation -- that the sub was a rogue executing a furtive mission to provoke a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China. As Sewell presents it, the KGB commandeered the sub, K-129, with the intention of delivering a nuclear strike on Pearl Harbor. The audacious plan -- masterminded by KGB Boss Yuri Andropov and his mentor, Mikhail Suslov -- would be executed in a way that pointed responsibility at China, capitalizing on growing U.S. fears of a bellicose Mao Zedong. A U.S.-developed fail-safe mechanism, designed to prevent an unauthorized missile launch, is all the prevented the sinister plan from succeeding. The Johnson Administration had shared the fail-safe technology with Moscow only a couple of years before the incident. Instead of incinerating Pearl and a good part of Oahu, the nuclear missile destroyed the K-129, sending all 98 crewmen to their final resting place at the bottom of the Pacific.

Sewell relates at length the K-129 incident's diplomatic impact -- he speculates that it facilitated both Nixon's detente with the Soviets and his rapprochement with the Chinese -- as well as elaborate CIA efforts to recover the enemy sub (in violation of international law) and to keep the truth about the renegade sub's motives from ever being revealed.

I don't go in much for conspiracy theories. And a casual reader has no way of knowing how much of Sewell's tale is truth and how much is fiction. But the case he makes certainly sounds plausible - or at least possible.

I've never believed the story about the CIA's Project Jennifer being a failure. If the claw broke and the sub was lost, the Glomar Explorer would have returned home..maximum time out of a week to ten days. So why didn't they come home? Why did it stay out on station for 41 days--enough time to make six or seven trips to the bottom? It's because the submarine wasn't in one piece as we were told. It, like most submarines that sink in deep water, broke into multiple pieces when it hit the bottom. Want proof? Look at the pictures of the USS Scorpion.

Another thing that never made sense is: why would the CIA spend $500 million dollars to retrieve an outdated, diesel submarine? That's $500 million in 1968 dollars. (I seem to remember that you could buy pickup for about $2,500 back then.) That Gold sub was an old piece of crap when it sank. The newer nuclear powered Yankee subs were alaredy replacing these WWII style subs. Retrieving that sub six years after it sank, would only have yielded a water logged piece of trash that was still out of date and six years older. By the time the Glomar sailed, there were several newer Soviet submarines on the bottom--subs with newer technology, newer crypto gear, newer codes and nuclear power plants.

Finally---some real answers! A book you will not want to put down.

...are just some words with discrete meanings nevertheless confused in "Red Star Rogue", which tells the story of the Soviets' K-129, a diesel-powered, nuclear armed sub that sank in the Pacific in early 1968. Already famous for the American effort to salvage it using the "Glomar Explorer" (documented in 1998's "Blind Man's Bluff", but already well-known), K-129 had long been assumed lost due to catastrophic accident. "Rogue" instead boldly argues that K-129's loss resulted from a botched attempt to launch missiles against Hawaii - a plan sanctioned at the top of the Soviet leadership in the hopes of instigating a Sino/American war. Almost as dramatically, the authors also repudiate accounts that the Americans recovered only part of K-129.

To call the author's case "circumstantial" doesn't begin to cover "Rogue"'s problems. Intriguing at first for its depiction of life aboard a crude Russian sub, "Rogue" soon veers into "Philadelphia Experiment" territory when the authors demonstrate a willingness to piece together any evidence regardless of how poor the fit, how little it supports the author's case or excludes more reasonable alternatives. (Contrary to popular belief, "circumstantial evidence" isn't insufficient or even just lower-grade evidence - it's still bound by old-fashioned rules of reasonability, which the authors bury at sea.) Most of the story relies on information which suggests what would or could have happened, but with too little if anything to establish what did happen. The authors avoid any reasonable explanation undermining their claims with such painful obviousness, that just finishing this book will test your suspension of disbelief. "Rogue" is loaded with footnotes - most of which cite to meetings with anonymous sources, or to either "Blind Man's Bluff" or Burleson's history of the "Glomar Explorer", but few sources corroborate either of the book's central theses of a rogue-attack or a successful salvage. The authors assault the reader's intelligence by making claims only corroborated by the author's other unsubstantiated claims, and sometimes not even supported by them.

Like a house of cards, the authors balance a host of possibilities on top of each other as supportive proof - there were extra men on K-129 placed at the last minute, but there's no record of them (a memorial later carries extra names, but the authors never follow up on them) - but if they had been there, they could have been KGB "Oznaz" commandos who could have commandeered the ship, and would have had training in using nukes; the Americans determine the truth, but kept quiet for "political" reasons (for the authors, it's enough to say how tense the American political situation is and say that the considerations for the cover-up were indeed political without having to explain why the political situation tilted against disclosure; in our "Wag the Dog" era, it's quaint to think that our national leadership was so preoccupied in 1968, that it actually smothered any word of a homeland security issue). The authors lunge for every possible conclusion, and drop a few sensationalist hints that they never bother to follow up (links to convicted turncoat John Walker & the mysterious loss of the USS Scorpion being two examples; my guess is that Walker's role is overblown here - there's no explanation for how the former USN radioman had access to sensitive diplomatic documents).

The authors' proof is also selectively analyzed. Extra crewmen are "established" to have been on K-129, even though there's no record of their being aboard, and any record, the authors say, could have been falsified by the high-ranking plotters. The authors never consider that evidence establishing that these men ever existed may have been a simple clerical error (if the plotters were highly placed, couldn't they have simply substituted the desired crewmen?). The authors discount a voluntary role played by the actual executive staff because their high rank made them loyal - but then implicate higher ranking members of Soviet leadership; the extra crew accidentally destroy the ship trying to bypass safeguards on the ship's warheads, but it's never explained why loyal agents of such highly authorized sources lacked access to the weapons that obviated a bypass; the authors determine that a missile explosion destroyed the ship - but make the leap to an explosion caused by an attempted launch, and ignore any other hardware failure like the one that caused the Nedelin tragedy, or the one involved in the loss of Submarine K-219 in 1986 (K-219 rates nary a mention in "Rogue"). The authors posit conspirators trained on nuclear-weapons, but not trained adequately. Lastly, the Americans go out of their way to recover K-129 intact because they can use it as proof of the Soviets' plot as leverage against them - even though the sub itself (according to "Rogue") is likely cut up for scrap by those same Americans almost as soon as it's brought back to California.

Though claiming the attack was meant to frame the Chinese, the authors utterly fail to present evidence pointing to China: K-129 was an advanced member of a class of subs found only in Soviet service, crewed by uniformed Soviet sailors and armed with Soviet missiles. The authors utterly fail to provide information that Americans in 1968 would have needed to link the attack to China, or explain how the Soviets could have refuted suspicions that the attack was their own. It's as if the authors spent most of the book hyping some horrible plot - then neglecting to include the plot as well.

Finally, and most egregiously, the author's spend most of the book "debunking" the nearly-official story of K-129 & her recovery, dismissing some claims as ludicrous - but still relying on many such sources for corroboration. Why the accepted story is the wrong story, but sufficient for their purposes will remain a mystery the authors are not likely to reveal in the near future.

As reader of many conspiracy theories most of which have little or no substanciated facts...the Author has certainly done his homework to make sure there is little doubt over the factualisation of the book...makes compelling reading... my previous readings of project Jennifer left me with plenty of unanswered questions which this book seems to piece together.....A GREAT read..........

I looked at this book as an academic. I study nuclear weapons development, delivery systems, and all that stuff. If it blows up real big, I am into it. So please do take this into consideration as I go into my review.

This book is about as plausible as the last Sasquatch sighting. But perhaps that is why so many people seem to desperately want to cling to it. The author makes several unforgivable lapses in judgement, such as reconstructing the last days of the K-129 - a Golf II class ballistic missile sub that he asserts was on its way with 11 "mysterious" personnel who somehow were trying to launch an SLBM at Pearl Harbor in 1968, in the hopes that the U.S. would automatically suspect the CHINESE and attack them, thus eliminating Russia's main continental threat. He furthermore maintains that the warhead suffered a low-order detonation of the warhead as a result of the Permissive Action Lock failsafe device triggering some of its plastic explosives as a means of somehow punishing a crew severely if it tried something sneaky.

PUH-LEEZE!!!!!

First, the author needs to content himself with some facts: he claims to have worked as in the reactor space of one of our snooper-boats, yet he obviously doesn't recall ever having "Spooks," or CIA intelligence-gathering operatives on his boat. If he does, then why doesn't he think that the Soviets did the same thing? Or they could have been technicians working on the newly-installed navigational gear. But of course, these were just mystery men who seized the boat. I'm getting spooked already...

Then there is his reconstruction of the events of the sub just prior to its loss. HE CANNOT KNOW THIS STUFF - THE ONLY ONES WHO DID DIED ON THE BOAT. But it is a "Non-fiction novel," right? La la la la la... Now the psychopathic commies raise to fire their missile and...

This gets goofy: he describes a "cold launch" system to fire the missiles FROM A SURFACED POSITION - in essence this system uses compressed air to blow the missile free from its launch tube AS THE SUBMARINE IS SUBMERGED. The predecessor to the submarine, the Golf I class HAD to fire while surfaced, and used an elevator platform to lift the missile clear of the launch tube, of which there were three located in the sail. The Golf II was specifically created to be able to utilize the R-21 missile, which GAVE IT AN UNDERWATER LAUNCH CAPABILITY. If the author had even bothered to actually read Pavel podvig's book, "Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces," WHICH HE CITES, he would know that the K-129 would not have fired from the surface, but submerged. But well, that would conflict with the story... La la la la la....

So the permissive action lock triggered the missile's warhead to self destruct? IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. It prevents the missile from firing, or the warhead from detonating, but it DOESN'T POP THE EXPLOSIVES ON THE WARHEAD. It would render it inert - and THAT IS ASSUMING THAT THE R-21 HAD A PAL SYSTEM. Not to mention that such an explosion would have opened up the missile's fuel tanks (it was a liquid-fuelled missile after all) and most likely would have blown open the missile hatches covering the other two birds in their tubes. GUESS WHAT HAPPENS THEN? You have two more missiles blowing their fuel tanks, and in the end, there wouldn't be enough of that sub left to fit in a sardine can. Boom. Big rocket fuel explosion. Bye bye boat, and Mr. Hughes doesn't build the Glomar Explorer.

I hope that I haven't ruined anyone's fun here, and if you like sea stories, this one might keep you company on a rainy night, but it is absolutely implausible. Oh, I didn't mention that he states that a secret "Jennifer" satellite "detected" the missile fuel explosion. I thought that "Jennifer" was the code name for the attempted recovery, not surveillance of the world for infrared sources... And being able to discern "between house fires and rocket fuel." Errr, right. I am familiar with the Vela satellites, and I am familiar with the early warning satellites that sit in geosynchronous orbits at great distance that look for rocket plumes, but this satellite system is unfamiliar to me... OH, THAT'S RIGHT - he cites THAT information FROM A DISCOVERY CHANNEL TV PROGRAM. Now if that isn't an accurate source, I don't know what is. When the television becomes part of the basis of a book that claims to be somewhat factual, I blanch. If that is the case, the author may wish to ask Starfleet if Scotty would be so kind as to beam him up to the Enterprise so he can look at the dilithium crystals.

He discounts the possibility that there was a missile fuel leak, or another scenario where the sub might have surfaced briefly to try and vent its missile tube - such as in the scenario portrayed in the book "Hostile Waters" where a leaking launch tube caused a missile detonation and the eventual loss of the sub and several of its crew. But that would dismiss the idea that psycho Reds were trying to get us to blow up the Chinese...

AND THE CHINESE DID NOT HAVE A BALLISTIC MISSILE SUB OF THEIR OWN UNTIL 1988. How would they have nuked us at Pearl Harbor?

Oh, and there's lots of Glomar Explorer conspiracy hooplah, but I have probably taken up enough of your time.

This book requires a willing suspense of disbelief. As I study this stuff for a living, I ain't that willing.