Nuking the Yanks
Discussion
"An unarmed Trident II D5 missile veered in the wrong direction towards the US when it was launched from a British Submarine."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/lt...
What an collosal waste of money for something which, if ever used in anger might obliterate our allies.
Starts to make the ISIS air force look like credible opposition.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/lt...
What an collosal waste of money for something which, if ever used in anger might obliterate our allies.
Starts to make the ISIS air force look like credible opposition.
JawKnee said:
"An unarmed Trident II D5 missile veered in the wrong direction towards the US when it was launched from a British Submarine."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/lt...
What an collosal waste of money for something which, if ever used in anger might obliterate our allies.
Starts to make the ISIS air force look like credible opposition.
already running...https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/lt...
What an collosal waste of money for something which, if ever used in anger might obliterate our allies.
Starts to make the ISIS air force look like credible opposition.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Leaving aside the whole Trident is it worth/not worth it argument, this was a test designed to see if equipment, procedures and personnel are working correctly. Clearly it failed and no doubt an extensive investigation will be carried out and corrections and updates applied to the rest of the arsenal.
This is how you improve and develop what you have so when the time comes to use it, it WILL work as described.
This is how you improve and develop what you have so when the time comes to use it, it WILL work as described.
JawKnee said:
"An unarmed Trident II D5 missile veered in the wrong direction towards the US when it was launched from a British Submarine."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/lt...
What an collosal waste of money for something which, if ever used in anger might obliterate our allies.
Starts to make the ISIS air force look like credible opposition.
Yes, these things should definitely work first time, every time. It's hardly rocket science, is it?https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/lt...
What an collosal waste of money for something which, if ever used in anger might obliterate our allies.
Starts to make the ISIS air force look like credible opposition.
davepoth said:
Yes, these things should definitely work first time, every time. It's hardly rocket science, is it?
You'd think getting it to go in the right direction would be a fairly basic requirement for any weapon. 
30 years later and we are still struggling. The sort of thing we rip the piss out of North Korea for. Embarrassing. JawKnee said:
You'd think getting it to go in the right direction would be a fairly basic requirement for any weapon. 30 years later and we are still struggling. The sort of thing we rip the piss out of North Korea for. Embarrassing.
There is a difference between 99% going in the right direction as opposed to 99% going in the wrong direction 30 years later and we are still struggling. The sort of thing we rip the piss out of North Korea for. Embarrassing. 
No weapon system (or any system for that matter) will be 100% error free - especially when you are talking about something so complex.
JawKnee said:
jmorgan said:
How many tests have failed?
The latest one, which you'd assume matches as close as possible the current technologies and procedure.Who needs enemies when you've got allies like Britain?
That's a bit rich, considering the USA's record when it comes to friendly fire.
JawKnee said:
jmorgan said:
How many tests have failed?
The latest one, which you'd assume matches as close as possible the current technologies and procedure.Who needs enemies when you've got allies like Britain?
If you want to improve something then you need to find it limits 1st, so who's to say this test was not designed to do exactly that?
ps How many tests have failed JK?........Some things are best left as national secrets, results of nuclear weapons tests should be one of them IMO.
Moonhawk said:
JawKnee said:
You'd think getting it to go in the right direction would be a fairly basic requirement for any weapon. 30 years later and we are still struggling. The sort of thing we rip the piss out of North Korea for. Embarrassing.
There is a difference between 99% going in the right direction as opposed to 99% going in the wrong direction 30 years later and we are still struggling. The sort of thing we rip the piss out of North Korea for. Embarrassing. No weapon system (or any system for that matter) will be 100% error free - especially when you are talking about something so complex.
alfie2244 said:
Slasher could be the go to man for this thread?
If you want to improve something then you need to find it limits 1st, so who's to say this test was not designed to do exactly that?
ps How many tests have failed JK?........Some things are best left as national secrets, results of nuclear weapons tests should be one of them IMO.
Sure, but if you stress test something then you expect it to fail as a matter of course. So why the need for a cover up?If you want to improve something then you need to find it limits 1st, so who's to say this test was not designed to do exactly that?
ps How many tests have failed JK?........Some things are best left as national secrets, results of nuclear weapons tests should be one of them IMO.
This appeared instead to be a drill, designed to mimick the expected usage of the system. If this failure doesn't tease the nuclear payload out of your arsenal even just a little then you're a braver man than me.
JawKnee said:
alfie2244 said:
Slasher could be the go to man for this thread?
If you want to improve something then you need to find it limits 1st, so who's to say this test was not designed to do exactly that?
ps How many tests have failed JK?........Some things are best left as national secrets, results of nuclear weapons tests should be one of them IMO.
Sure, but if you stress test something then you expect it to fail as a matter of course. So why the need for a cover up?If you want to improve something then you need to find it limits 1st, so who's to say this test was not designed to do exactly that?
ps How many tests have failed JK?........Some things are best left as national secrets, results of nuclear weapons tests should be one of them IMO.
This appeared instead to be a drill, designed to mimick the expected usage of the system. If this failure doesn't tease the nuclear payload out of your arsenal even just a little then you're a braver man than me.
FWIW I am glad we have nuclear weapons to protect us and god forbid we need to rely on people like you to defend us in the future.
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.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff