The difference is that when the Russians damage a missile, a sub sinks and
its crew is lost (Kursk).

But if you recall, the Kursk was actually sunk by
collision with a US or possibly UK submarine.

Sat photos showed the damaged sub at a NATO base
in Norway where it had limped off to.

Is Petukhov posting under a nom de troll?

1) 99.99% of the people familiar with the event know that it occurred due to a
weapons malfunction on the Kursk. Those that know the facts and refuse to
accept them are not ignorant, just foolish.

2) The "damaged" US sub was apparently not worked on in any way, it made a port
visit and then left, as subs do - the white canopy cover, pointed at as
evidence of damage, is in its normal place over the entrance hatch at the
Quarterdeck - and if the damage WAS located there, it would mean the two
submarines collided with one of the subs upside down (or both laying on their
sides!); patently impossible, let alone in waters as shallow as the Kursk
disaster.

There are only about six conspiracy theorists left on earth that believe, in
the absense of any evidence at all, the US played a hand in the Kursk loss -
are you claiming to be one of them?

Gordon