A few nights ago I got into a discussion about a French documentary of a few years ago which laid out the case for the Kursk having been sunk by the US. Kursk (a submarin in troubled waters) For those who do not have fifty minutes at their disposal or can't retrieve the link, the key thrust of the evidence is that there is something akin to a Mark 48 strike on the Starboard side which was later hidden from view, the Russians changed their story continually and there was no meaningful rescue attempt despite the sub being in circa 350ft of water and the resources of the Royal Navy and the North Sea Oil industry not being a million miles away. I wondered what the Dark Blue view was of this on a tinfoil scale of one to ten and why. My personal view is that, despite the contributions of some certified wibblers - the yank at the end being one, there are some fairly authoritative people going on the record, the case is cogent and the circumstantial evidence is persuasive too. I have to say also that, if there was a cover-up, I am all in favour of it given the alternative.