Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Trident Doesn't Work.
A test firing of the UKs defense missile system in June was a failure. Apparently due to a cock-up with Google Maps, instead of targetting Russia, it actually hit Rusholme. There were no reports of any damage.
Interestingly, the misfire was hushed up and was not known to the majority of MPs who voted to renew it in July.
The Prime Minister refuses to say whether she knew of the apparent malfunction, when she voted. Asked several times, Mrs May refused to answer.
Should this information have been made known to MPs before they voted?
Would the result have been different if the truth was known?
http://
Interestingly, the misfire was hushed up and was not known to the majority of MPs who voted to renew it in July.
The Prime Minister refuses to say whether she knew of the apparent malfunction, when she voted. Asked several times, Mrs May refused to answer.
Should this information have been made known to MPs before they voted?
Would the result have been different if the truth was known?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theresa May was told about Trident missile test apparently :::
http://
What a pity she didn't say that in the first place !
http://
What a pity she didn't say that in the first place !
You are right Eddie, and here is some more evidence.
Its a complete omni-shambles !
http://
Its a complete omni-shambles !
http://
Nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles are a throwback to the cold war years of the 1960s!
They are useless against 21st century terrorist groups who pose the real threat now.Do you really think we are going to have a Nuclear war between the USA and the USSR ? That is what Nuclear defence was about and it has served it's purpose. Now it is outdated.The cash saved should be used to improve rapid action 'on the ground' forces and to build Aircraft carriers that can be dispatched to anywhere in the world. If for example Argentina decided to re invade the Falklands we could do nothing about it!
The French are hardly likely to let us borrow one of theres which is the current arrangement for training. The USA under Trump is not going to help either!
They are useless against 21st century terrorist groups who pose the real threat now.Do you really think we are going to have a Nuclear war between the USA and the USSR ? That is what Nuclear defence was about and it has served it's purpose. Now it is outdated.The cash saved should be used to improve rapid action 'on the ground' forces and to build Aircraft carriers that can be dispatched to anywhere in the world. If for example Argentina decided to re invade the Falklands we could do nothing about it!
The French are hardly likely to let us borrow one of theres which is the current arrangement for training. The USA under Trump is not going to help either!
Prime Minister Theresa May has said she has "absolute faith" in Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent, following reports a missile went off course in a test launch.
http://
http://
The problem is, the more detail you give your own public about the test results, the more detail you give the enemy the weapon is designed to counter.
Personally, I'm quite happy they test it rather than not, and there wouldn't be any point testing if it was 100% guaranteed to pass.
Just ask yourself ... why do they test it?
Personally, I'm quite happy they test it rather than not, and there wouldn't be any point testing if it was 100% guaranteed to pass.
Just ask yourself ... why do they test it?
The test is as much to keep the crew 'up to speed' by an actual launch (rather than just a drill) as it is to test the missile itself. Actually using a missile (even without a warhead) costs £100,000s so they don't do it often. I would think most crew members only do 1 or 2 full launch tests in their career.
"Nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles are a throwback to the cold war years of the 1960s! "
The problem is Eddie that Russia, for example, has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons: and what is more its military exercises, unlike ours, involve the deploying and firing of these. Tactical weapons like these are actually designed to be used, and NOT simply as a deterrent.
Therefore it is vital that we have something like we have, which is I believe unique, as a deterrent to that. Having said that, it is all a matter of judgment: there are honourable arguments for discontinuing the system also, and it can never be proved that they have kept us safe. It is just probable that they have.
The problem is Eddie that Russia, for example, has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons: and what is more its military exercises, unlike ours, involve the deploying and firing of these. Tactical weapons like these are actually designed to be used, and NOT simply as a deterrent.
Therefore it is vital that we have something like we have, which is I believe unique, as a deterrent to that. Having said that, it is all a matter of judgment: there are honourable arguments for discontinuing the system also, and it can never be proved that they have kept us safe. It is just probable that they have.
Listening to the Defence Sec in The Commons yesterday was quite revealing.
He had to acknowledge that the government almost always advise the media about successful nuclear tests, but tend not to mention the failures - like this one. He then banged on about the submarine and crew having passed their tests, while carefully avoiding the proverbial elephant, which was the fact that the missile the crew and submarine launched had actually failed and been destroyed.
Both he and Mrs May would have been far better to stay quiet and hidden behind 'national security'.
It would have been a lot better than constantly saying they have 'absolute faith' in a defence system which clearly malfunctions.
He had to acknowledge that the government almost always advise the media about successful nuclear tests, but tend not to mention the failures - like this one. He then banged on about the submarine and crew having passed their tests, while carefully avoiding the proverbial elephant, which was the fact that the missile the crew and submarine launched had actually failed and been destroyed.
Both he and Mrs May would have been far better to stay quiet and hidden behind 'national security'.
It would have been a lot better than constantly saying they have 'absolute faith' in a defence system which clearly malfunctions.
Fair play to Sir Michael.
He was asked the same question 66 times in the same way :-)
They would probably have benn best advised to mention the failure at the time, but it seems the US wanted it kept a secret as it was one of their missiles. Of course in the end they ended up having a leak of their own ...
I don't think the issue is that the UK system doesn't work.
He was asked the same question 66 times in the same way :-)
They would probably have benn best advised to mention the failure at the time, but it seems the US wanted it kept a secret as it was one of their missiles. Of course in the end they ended up having a leak of their own ...
I don't think the issue is that the UK system doesn't work.
danny - // On failure among hundreds of tests does not equate to "clearly malfunctions". //
A testing system either works, or it doesn't, there is no 'nearly', or 'maybe' - nor should there be in the case of something like a nuclear deterrent.
The missile was fired on a test, and malfunctioned, which is not a problem.
But if it had been fired in a genuine defence situation, it still would have malfunctioned, and that is the issue here.
It's not much use saying that our nuclear deterrent works 'most of the time', or even, if you want to be generous ' almost all the time' - the fact that it does not work all the time rather takes the 'deterrent' aspect out of it, which is after all rather the point.
A testing system either works, or it doesn't, there is no 'nearly', or 'maybe' - nor should there be in the case of something like a nuclear deterrent.
The missile was fired on a test, and malfunctioned, which is not a problem.
But if it had been fired in a genuine defence situation, it still would have malfunctioned, and that is the issue here.
It's not much use saying that our nuclear deterrent works 'most of the time', or even, if you want to be generous ' almost all the time' - the fact that it does not work all the time rather takes the 'deterrent' aspect out of it, which is after all rather the point.
ichkeria - //One failure of a carrier missile does imply the conclusion that therefore the system only works "some of the time". If it was a given that the thing would always work, it would not need to be tested. //
No argument there - no-one is suggesting that the system is, or indeed can be foolproof.
But the fact that it can - and indeed does - malfunction, hardly inspires the nation with confidence that it would perform any better under genuine war conditions.
I think the proverbial 'two minutes' would not be an ideal time to discover that any of our multi-billion pound defence system is not actually fit for purpose.
No argument there - no-one is suggesting that the system is, or indeed can be foolproof.
But the fact that it can - and indeed does - malfunction, hardly inspires the nation with confidence that it would perform any better under genuine war conditions.
I think the proverbial 'two minutes' would not be an ideal time to discover that any of our multi-billion pound defence system is not actually fit for purpose.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.