Nuking the Yanks

[JawKnee]

jmorgan said:

You are arguing from the point of one issue being the argument to ditch it. And using words like "plundered", OK, for your point of view. I like the big stick. So I am happy to go with "my taxes have been used".

Back to the defect. You have provided no information appertaining to previous successes or failures, no information as to why this failed, no information as to the fix. Other than "it went the wrong way", what else happened in the test. I see no metric to judge it as a system wide total failure and it must be binned.

Not being a missile expert or expert in anything here, I am happy to get the information to take my stance further. You do not have that info, so I stick with my big stick.

Where have I said we should ditch it?

If we are going to spend that much money on it, you'd expect it to work very reliably, no matter what caused the issue. This, "oh well, it doesn't work all the time", laissez faire attitude seems careless when it comes to such humongously deadly weapons.

[wc98]

98elise said:

JawKnee said:

jmorgan said:

JawKnee said:

Even a 1% failure rate for a nuclear weaponry system is ridiculously high. Would you feel confident using it knowing there is a 1% chance of murdering your allies or even this country?

What is the failure rate? I would be interested to know.

Probably a lot higher than you'd think. That's why they are so keen to keep this information secret.

You're an idiot

(98elise Ex RN Weapons Engineer)

that will do for me.

[anonymous-user]

JawKnee said:

Where have I said we should ditch it?

If we are going to spend that much money on it, you'd expect it to work very reliably, no matter what caused the issue. This, "oh well, it doesn't work all the time", laissez faire attitude seems careless when it comes to such humongously deadly weapons.

You think the engineers who work with these weapons systems have a laissez faire attitude?

[Halb]

They did a similar issue in the opening scene of Tomorrow Never Dies.

[HD Adam]

This is the most ridiculous thread I've seen.

So one test (presumimg they are testing something new) goes awry and a loony lefty CND type goes off on one saying the whole thing should be scrapped.

I'll presume there wasn't an actual nuclear warhead in the test missile so that makes the thread title as ridiculous as the OP.

Also, Trident is going to be replaced with something, again presumably even whizzier, high tech and more explodey which can't be a bad thing.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Surely there are numerous safeguards built in to prevent actual detonation or destroy the missile in the event of a misfire?

[Halb]

Newer, so more scope for more fk ups.

[jmorgan]

JawKnee said:

Where have I said we should ditch it?

If we are going to spend that much money on it, you'd expect it to work very reliably, no matter what caused the issue. This, "oh well, it doesn't work all the time", laissez faire attitude seems careless when it comes to such humongously deadly weapons.

My mistake. You like a nuclear deterrent then.

[hornetrider]

Can someone please close this fkwit thread. It's an embarrassment and the stupidity and/or troll level is off the scale.

[mybrainhurts]

98elise said:

JawKnee said:

jmorgan said:

JawKnee said:

Even a 1% failure rate for a nuclear weaponry system is ridiculously high. Would you feel confident using it knowing there is a 1% chance of murdering your allies or even this country?

What is the failure rate? I would be interested to know.

Probably a lot higher than you'd think. That's why they are so keen to keep this information secret.

You're an idiot

(98elise Ex RN Weapons Engineer)

He appears to think we have hundreds of missiles, tested on regular basis...

[jmorgan]

Pity the bloke that has to test them. Little known fact he is given a hammer and told to go hit them on the pointy end. He gets a bonus for that, a free hammer.

[mybrainhurts]

jmorgan said:

Pity the bloke that has to test them. Little known fact he is given a hammer and told to go hit them on the pointy end. He gets a bonus for that, a free hammer.

I hope they give him a hard hat. Does Health & Safety know about this? What if he scratches his steadying hand on a badly finished rivet? Has the world gone mad?

[JawKnee]

jmorgan said:

JawKnee said:

Where have I said we should ditch it?

If we are going to spend that much money on it, you'd expect it to work very reliably, no matter what caused the issue. This, "oh well, it doesn't work all the time", laissez faire attitude seems careless when it comes to such humongously deadly weapons.

My mistake. You like a nuclear deterrent then.

Undecided.

Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.

[ThunderGuts]

JawKnee said:

jmorgan said:

JawKnee said:

Where have I said we should ditch it?

If we are going to spend that much money on it, you'd expect it to work very reliably, no matter what caused the issue. This, "oh well, it doesn't work all the time", laissez faire attitude seems careless when it comes to such humongously deadly weapons.

My mistake. You like a nuclear deterrent then.

Undecided.

Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.

It definitely still deters

Mission accomplished.

[anonymous-user]

JawKnee said:

Undecided.

Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.

Do you use any form of engineered product or service that relies on engineered products?

[alfie2244]

JawKnee said:

Undecided.

Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.

No.............people just need to think it will work but you've just let the cat out of the bag now........is treason still a hanging offence?

[Previous]

To me, that didn't work as expected is a stronger argument for replacing it, than scrapping it....

[Jonesy23]

The weapons system isn't being replaced, just the submarines carrying it.

Trident itself will carry on with in-service updates as there have been throughout its life.

[JawKnee]

jsf said:

JawKnee said:

Undecided.

Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.

Do you use any form of engineered product or service that relies on engineered products?

Yes, I engineer software for a large bank. If our code has a major defect in testing, it simply doesn't go to production until that test passes. Scary to think the nukes deployed at the moment are capable of failing so catastrophically.

[Garvin]

JawKnee said:

. . . Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.

You think it doesn't work at all? Many successful tests over the years but you still consign it to not working at all? There is not one electro-mechanical-software product in this world that is 100% reliable or can be made that reliable. The system works just not every single time and it is plainly ridiculous to expect it to be 100% reliable.

What you should be concerned with is a) how reliable it is; and b) how fail-safe is it? Neither the MoD nor the DoD is going to tell you these figures so it's pointless worrying about them.

There are two possibilities for this failure:

- The wrong guidance information was fed into the missile prior to launch i.e. an RN failure. Seeing as the sub and crew were deemed successful this does not seem to be the case.

- The US designed and built missile failed in flight leading to it going off course towards the country of its birth. This appears to be the case. It is, then, the US that should be stting it over this failure!