What evidence supports the theory that K-129 was attempting a nuclear strike when it sank?
Word Count: 2198
Section A: Identification and Evaluation of Sources
This paper will explore the question: What evidence supports the theory that K-129 was attempting a nuclear strike when it sank. The first source I have chosen for this investigation is ‘The CIA’s greatest covert operation’, written by David H. Sharp, a Director of Recovery Systems of the operation, provides an insiders account of the event. My second source, ‘Red Star Rogue’ is written by Kenneth Sewell and Clint Richmond who present the theory that the K-129 was on an unauthorized mission to launch a nuclear missile at Hawaii.
SOURCE A: THE CIA’S GREATEST COVERT OPERATION
The first source I have selected is “The CIA’s Greatest Covert Operation” by David Sharp, published in 2012. This is a highly relevant source for this investigation as it provides firsthand information about the CIA’s efforts to recover the K-129, potentially supporting or opposing theories about its missions. Sharp’s role as Director of Recovery Systems gave him unique access to classified information and physical evidence from the submarine. The book’s purpose appears to be providing an accurate historical account of the CIA’s operation, however within the constraints of what is deemed safe for national security. Sharp’s insider perspective offers valuable insights into the submarine's condition upon recovery, which provides implications for its mission depending on the condition it was in. His detailed descriptions of the recovery and the submarine’s damage patterns are particularly useful in evaluating the possibility of a planned nuclear strike. However, the source has significant limitations. As a former CIA employee, Sharp’s manuscript underwent review by the Publications Review Board, resulting in redactions and potential omissions of crucial detail. This censorship may have excluded information vital to understanding the K-129’s true mission. Nevertheless, Sharp’s account remains invaluable to this investigation for its unique perspective on the recovery operation.
SOURCE B: RED STAR ROGUE
“Red Star Rogue”, published in 2005 by Kenneth Sewell and Clint Richmond, directly addresses this investigation's question by proposing that K-129 was on a rogue mission to launch a nuclear strike against Hawaii. Sewell’s background as a U.S Navy veteran with experience in submarine operations lends credibility to his technical analysis. The book’s purpose is to challenge the official narrative – that it experienced an accident during a routine patrol – and presents a controversial theory about the K-129 incident. Sewell bases his hypothesis on declassified documents and confidential interviews, providing a detailed narrative of K-129’s alleged final mission. His naval expertise allows for a more based interpretation of technical data, offering valuable insights into the submarine's possible intentions. Both a limitation and value, the book reads like a mystery novel. While on one hand, it makes the complex matter more accessible to a general audience, this style may also blur the line between facts and fiction. A significant limitation is Sewell’s reliance on speculation to fill gaps in historical records. His claims about the extent of the CIA’s recovery of K-129 often contradicts official accounts, raising questions about the reliability of his sources. However, given the secretive nature of submarine operation, it's possible that official accounts may not tell the full story. Despite its limitations, “Red Star Rogue” is valuable for this investigation as it presents an alternative perspective that challenges the dominant narrative, backed with its own credible sources.
Section B: Investigation
On March 8th, 1968, an explosion would echo through the Pacific Ocean. Five months later, the United States would locate the wreckage of a Soviet “G” class ballistic missile submarine: the K-129. With its planned route close to Hawaii– ideal for a nuclear strike– and conflicting reports about its sinking location, the incident raises a chilling question: was the K-129 attempting a nuclear strike? The event has brought much debate, with Kenneth Sewell’s “Red Star Rogue” suggesting a rogue mission, while David H. Sharp’s “The CIAs Greatest Covert Operation” presents the alternative. This essay will evaluate the geographical and technical evidence provided by both books in order to determine whether or not Hawaii would have faced terrible consequences.
The main theory driving the idea of a potential strike is the K-129’s location of where it sank. The K-129’s reported location is a key point of contention between Sewell and Sharp, with significant implications of the submarine’s alleged mission and the nuclear strike theory. Around the 25th of February, the submarine departed from Rybachiy, a Soviet naval base located in the Kamchatka peninsula, traveling south-east towards its patrol station near Hawaii. As ordered from the headquarters, Captain Vladimir I. Kozbar was expected to regularly report the progress of their voyage. The K-129 did not come up for the first communications. Nor did it respond to control radio messages. After multiple desperate attempts to establish communication, the Soviets presumed that the submarine had been lost. Whilst the Soviets efforts in locating the submarine came out empty, the U.S Navy would use Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) and hydrophone arrays recordings in order to pinpoint where the sounds of a sinking submarine came from (Sharp 4). The CIA would later claim that the K-129 had sunk at the exact coordinates 40°N, 180°W, a claim supported by Sharp, a former member involved in Project ARIZONIAN (recovery of K-129) The coordinates would be 1,600 nautical miles away from Hawaii, a safe distance away from a the 323 nautical mile range of its SS-N-4 type missiles. With this evidence, it is unlikely that the K-129 was planning an attack, and theories proposing a fatal failure during a launch attempt seem implausible given the pointless of launching missiles from such a great distance.
In contrast, Sewell’s account in “Red Star Rogue” offers a radically different interpretation of the K-129’s mission, primarily focusing on its coordinates and suggesting an aggressive intent. While agreeing that the submarine was en route to its patrol box, Sewell argues that the K-129 sank past it opposed to before it, providing alternative coordinates of 24°N, 163°W; 303 nautical miles away from Hawaii. Sewell’s theory raises two critical points: firstly, it suggests the submarine was operating outside its usual patrol area, a significant detour from standard protocol. The only time this would be permitted is if the K-129 hit into something or had to evade an enemy submarine or fleet. However, it is highly unlikely a Soviet repair ship was stationed near Hawaii. Another theory is whether the K-129’s navigation system broke, causing it to go so far out of its patrol box and accidentally towards the islands. Nevertheless, sailors learn celestial navigation, thus it is unnatural for the submarine to go towards enemy territory instead of north or generally back towards their own base when having other alternatives for navigation. Additionally, it is unlikely that the K-129 would move towards Hawaii– one of the US Navy’s bases– had it come across an enemy fleet. Secondly, the closer proximity to Hawaii would make an attempted strike more feasible, as the unusual behaviour and closeness imply aggressive behaviour.
The difference between these two locations is crucial to understanding the K-129’s mission and fate. If Sharp and the CIA’s coordinates are correct, it completely denies the theory of an intended attack. Contrarily, if Sewell’s coordinates are right, it provides evidence of a more aggressive mission. This disagreement highlights the challenges in accurately determining the submarine’s intentions and circumstances of its sinking. Furthermore, the reliability of “Red Star Rogue” and “The CIA’s Greatest Covert Operation” must be considered. While Sharp’s account aligns with official CIA statements, it is important to consider the potential biases inherent in government sources. The CIA’s primary objective is national security, which could lead to the withholding or distortion of information. This raises questions about the true nature of the K-129’s mission and whether submarine was indeed on a path to strike Hawaii. This raises important questions about potential cover-ups or misrepresentations of the incident.
Other evidence that can answer the question of the K-129’s intentions, is its technical malfunction and its implications. Aforementioned, the main tool allowing the CIA to locate the submarine was its SOSUS system and hydrophone arrays. They were able to detect the presence and track routes of Soviet submarines. Sharp briefly outlines outlines how acoustic recordings tracked the K-129’s sinking – where analysts were able to pinpoint a search area – but fails to clarify the nature of the sound. Were they an implosion, suggesting structural failure, or an explosion, implying a missile malfunction? The lack of clarity about the sound detected, which could point to either cause, undercuts the reliability of Sharp’s conclusion and leaves room for alternative explanations. While Sewell also mentions the use of the SOUS systems, he does not provide a detailed analysis of what the recordings actually indicated. The absence of crucial detail – whether the noise was an implosion or explosion – makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. This oversight undermines Sewell’s argument that a missile failure led to the submarine’s sinking, as the lack of specific technical evidence makes his hypothesis speculative rather than conclusive.
Alternatively, Sewell and Sharp provide information as to the damages done to the submarine, potentially providing evidence if the K-129 was planning an attack. Within “The CIA’s Greatest Covert Operation”, Sharp mentions the claims of two other authors, Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew, who wrote, “Although severely damaged, the submarine looked basically intact. . . . Inside the first [silo] was twisted pipe where a nuclear warhead had once sat. . . Inside the second silo, the warhead was completely gone. The third silo was intact”. Following this description, there was no further explanation as to what exactly could have caused this damage. Lieutenant Commander Joseph Doyle, a former submariner of the U.S Navy, explains that this simple description, paired with the lack of published photographs of the K-129, makes it difficult to exactly determine what had happened. Too many factors can cause damage to a submarine’s sail: hydrogen explosion from the batteries, collisions with other vessels, implosion, mechanical failures and so on. Moreover, Sharp’s lack of follow up information diminishes the reliability of his claim that the K-129 was not planning an attack, likely due to the classified nature of Project Azorian, which prevents the release of all relevant information.
On the other hand, Sewell in “Red Star Rogue” provides a more direct answer, claiming that a failure in the fail-safe during launch caused the missile to explode. In order to launch a missile, the crew has to go through many steps beforehand given the significant damage it can make. One of the final preventions to stop unauthorized attacks was a fail-safe device. It was designed to render the warhead useless, yet in the case of the K-129 the missile was blown apart. The explosion would open a ten foot wide gap, and another through the pressure hull which protected the submarine. In no time, the K-129 would sink, sailors overwhelmed with fire, gas and water. Notably, Sewell only mentions two missiles being damaged during the failure, which aligns with Sharp's description in which two out of the three missiles were either gone or damaged. The CIA’s account alone does not offer much evidence that points to the K-129 attempting an attack, in which it is clear that there is more information than they are willing to make public and have reasons to lie in order to protect national security, thus their statements are hard to consider as evidence. However, when paired with Sewell’s own theory an attempted attack seems more plausible as they combine into one piece of evidence.
In conclusion, the evidence surrounding the K-129 incident remains inconclusive, with conflicting accounts from Sewell and Sharp that present contrasting perspectives on the submarine's location and intentions. Sewell’s theory of an attempted nuclear strike lacks substantial evidence, while Sharp’s account, aligned with the CIA, could be hiding the full story. The technical evidence is given vaguely and thus not enough to definitively support either narrative. Given the classified nature of most information regarding K-129, whether or not a nuclear strike was about to happen remains a mystery.
Section C: Reflection
This investigation into the K-129 had highlighted key challenges faced by historians, particularly when working with classified or sensitive information. One of the main issues was the difficulty in establishing historical truth, especially when sources present conflicting accounts. For example, Kenneth Sewell and David Sharp offer opposing narratives and facts, illustrating how historians must critically assess sources for bias and reliability. Evaluating an author’s background, potential biases, and access to classified data is crucial before deciding whether it is reliable or not.
The dissimilarity between the reported location of the K-129’s sinking further emphasizes the challenges of source reliability. These inconsistencies raise questions about government censorship, as certain details were likely suppressed. Both authors, while knowledgeable, provide incomplete evidence, which complicates the task of reaching a definitive conclusion.
Moreover, the lack of technical data – such as specific SOSUS recordings or photos of the wreck – forces historians to rely on speculation. Without detailed descriptions of the K-129’s navigation systems or weaponry, understanding of its operations becomes increasingly difficult. The lack of concrete evidence and explanation, for any reader or historian uneducated in the field of submarine mechanisms or military systems, highlights the historians reliance on opinion rather than hard facts. In the end, both sources fail to provide clarification resulting in a conclusion based mostly on opinion rather than facts.
Bibliography
1. Lieutenant Lock, Adrian. 2024. Former submariner. Personal Communication, September 29, 2024.
2. Lieutenant Commander Doyle, Joseph. 2024. Former submariner. Personal Communication, July 7, 2024.
3. “ON the TRAIL of SUBMARINE DISASTERS | CIA FOIA (Foia.cia.gov).” 2017. Cia.gov. 2017. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0000078940.
4. Polmar, Norman, and Michael White. Project Azorian, the CIA and the Raising of the K-129. Annapolis, Maryland Naval Institute Press, 2012.
5. “Project AZORIAN - CIA.” n.d. Www.cia.gov. https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/exhibit/project-azorian/.
6. Raymond. 1966. Jane’s Fighting Ships, 1966-67. Sampson Low.
7. Sewell, Kenneth, and Clint Richmond. 2006. Red Star Rogue. Simon and Schuster.
8. Sharp, David H. 2013. Cia’s Greatest Covert Operation: Inside the Daring Mission to Recover a Nuclear-Armed Soviet Sub. Univ Pr Of Kansas.
9. Sontag, Sherry, et al. Blind Man’s Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage. New York, Public Affairs, 2016.