Author: Ed Offley
Publisher: Basic Books (A member of the Perseus Books Group)
Year: 2007
Reviewer: Daryl Carpenter
The May 22, 1968 sinking of the American nuclear-powered
attack submarine Scorpion, 450 miles Southwest of the Azores
Islands, is one of the most perplexing mysteries of the Cold War. The
focus of the largest search operation in American naval history, the
Scorpion's wreck wasn't discovered until October, 1968, laying on
it's side in 11,000 feet of water. The hull was torn into three
sections, the fairwater had been torn off, and the stern was shoved 50
feet forward into the auxiliary machinery space. All of the compartments
except for the torpedo room had suffered massive implosion damage,
implying that it alone had flooded before Scorpion exceeded crush
depth.
No one has ever been able to determine what happened to the Scorpion.
Had one of the torpedoes "gone hot" and exploded while still inside it's
tube? Could the Trash Disposal Unit have failed? Did the diving planes
jam themselves in full down position, sending the submarine into an out
of control dive? A small percentage believed that foul play on the part
of Soviet Navy had caused the destruction of the Scorpion. Most
of these theories have been pretty thoroughly debunked, but that didn't
stop Ed Offley from writing Scorpion Down.
Scorpion Down - Sunk By The Soviets, Buried By The Pentagon: The
Untold Story of the USS Scorpion is a tough book to review. It's so
riddled with logic flaws, second-hand circumstantial evidence posing as
"smoking guns," idle speculation regarding conspiracy theories, and
convenient side-stepping, that it reads more like a bad spy novel than a
"shocking expose." Scorpion Down begins with a quote from George
Orwell's 1984, and ends with a statement from the author that
responsibility for the book's accuracy is his alone. A fine example of
comedic irony, however unintentional it might have been.
Ed Offley wants me to accept a number of questionable assertions that go
against much of what I've learned over the years. He wants me to believe
that the Soviets, tired of American submarines poking their noses into
their naval bases and fleet exercises, sank the Scorpion as a
warning to the United States. He wants me to believe that the Soviet
submarine that sank the Scorpion (a hot-rod attack submarine
presumably capable of speeds of up to 35 knots) was one of the
slowest and noisiest boats in their fleet, not to mention ill-equipped
to hunt other submarines. He wants me to believe that the Scorpion
was destroyed by a torpedo, despite reams of evidence to the contrary.
He wants me to believe that the Russians spilled the beans to the
Americans just days after the sinking, something he never expands upon,
and that a small elite tried to cover up the truth.
Ed Offley began his research for Scorpion Down back in 1983, when
he was writing an article for the Norfolk Ledger-Star on the 15th
anniversary of the sinking. I imagine he would have simply given up if
it weren't for the 2006 release of Stephen Johnson's Silent Steel,
a vastly superior book on the same subject. Silent Steel was a
calm, in-depth examination of the last 18 months of the Scorpion's
life. While Johnson devoted a sizable portion of Silent Steel to
describing the large number of mechanical causalities that occurred
during the sub's final deployment and how they could have contributed to
her loss, Offley sweeps most of it under the rug to further his
conspiracy theory.
In fact, Offley sweeps pretty much anything that doesn't jive
with his "Soviet torpedo" scenario under the rug. As I mentioned before,
the torpedo compartment is the only section of Scorpion to
survive mostly intact, and photos taken of the wreck fail to show any
torpedo damage. Had the Scorpion been actually torpedoed,
the entire submarine would have been flooded, and wouldn't have been
crushed (or not crushed to such an extent) by hydrostatic pressure.
Except for a single picture of the dismembered fairwater, Offley fails
to mention the condition of the wreck anywhere in this book!
Scorpion Down also asserts that the Navy conducted a secret
attempt to locate the Scorpion beginning on May 23rd, several
days before the sub was officially listed as "overdue." I can buy that -
submarine operations at the time were so secret that the Navy frequently
had to "fudge the truth" (okay...lie) about the reality of what
their submarines were really up to. This doesn't surprise me one
bit. It was the height of the Cold War after all, and security was a
premium. At the same time I can't find anything terribly insidious about
the operation as Offley describes it. In his recounting, it becomes
another part of a grand cover-up, another piece in a bodyguard of lies.
Offley's "smoking gun" came from a
sonar technician who graduated from the Anti-Submarine Warfare Training
Center in 1982. The technician came forward and revealed that his
instructor had shown his class a drum paper recording (not an
audio recording) from a SOSUS sensor that allegedly depicted a battle
between the Scorpion and a Russian submarine. The Russians fired
a torpedo, the Scorpion took off, and six minutes later was sunk
by the Russian torpedo.
Since Offley hinges his entire theory on this little bombshell, it's
worth examining in greater detail. Offley states that the submarine on
the scene of the Soviet naval exercise that Scorpion had been
monitoring, an Echo II-class, a cruise missile carrier with a top
speed of about 23 knots, had been stalking the Scorpion for
several days. The Scorpion repeatedly failed to elude its Soviet
hunter, raising one question - how could the crew of the Scorpion
have been so grossly incompetent?
In 1968, the Soviets had three types of submarine-launched
anti-submarine torpedoes in use. The first, the SET-53M, had a top speed
several knots below that of Scorpion's. The second, the SET-65, had a
top speed of 40 knots, but was so new that it probably wasn't used by
the Echo class. The third, the SAET-60, was a passive homing torpedo
with a speed of 42 knots, and a far more likely candidate for the
"Scorpion Killer." If the Scorpion really could make 35 knots, that gave
it a 7 knot speed advantage. With a run time of about 6 minutes, the
Echo would have had to close to about 1,400 yards from Scorpion
before firing. During these six minutes, the Scorpion never
returned fire and never launched any countermeasures. The same
technician who related this story to Offley also stated that the Echos
were so loud that they could be heard from miles away even when running
"silent."
Scorpion Down goes on to peddle out more
ill-researched innuendo and second and third-hand accusations with each
passing chapter. The parts that don't deal directly with the conspiracy
are loaded with padding as well, not to mention a number of
forehead-slapping historical errors. A full breakdown of Offley's
theories would stretch on for thousands of words, something I'll spare
the reader. Scorpion Down might have been terribly amusing if it
was a PDF file on a conspiracy website. Unfortunately, I'm seeing dozens
of copies of it in the Military History section of my local Borders and
Barnes and Noble, selling for $27.50.
Scorpion Down isn't just bad or merely
incompetent, it's an affront to common sense and an insult to the
submariners on both sides of the Cold War who put their lives on the
line and perhaps prevented a global catastrophe. When told by a
reporter at Newsherald.com that the government would refute his
findings, he simply said "I don't care. I don't care." Now that so many
private citizens and retired submariners are shooting down Scorpion
Down left and right, will Mr. Offley reconsider his position on not
caring?