Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 22, 2017
Nuclear missile test malfunction
A test firing of an unarmed British nuclear Trident missile from a submarine malfunctioned last June, the Sunday Times reported, prompting questions about why Prime Minister Theresa May did not tell parliament ahead of a vote on renewing the submarines.
The paper quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying the missile may have veered off in the wrong direction towards the American mainland when it was fired off the coast of Florida.
It was the only test firing of a British nuclear missile in four years and came shortly before May became prime minister in the wake of Britain’s vote last June to leave the European Union, the paper said.
It said May had omitted any mention of the failed test when she persuaded parliament to spend 40 billion pounds ($49.5 billion) on new Trident submarines in her first major speech to parliament as prime minister last July.
Asked four times during a BBC television interview on Sunday whether she knew about the misfire before she made that speech, May repeatedly declined to answer directly.
“I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles. When I made that speech in the House of Commons what we were talking about was whether or not we should renew our Trident, whether or not we should have Trident missiles,” she said.
“There are tests that take place all the time, regularly for our nuclear deterrent.”
The Times said Trident missiles have been test-fired only five times by UK submarines this century because they each cost 17 million pounds.
After more than five hours of debate, parliament last year voted to rubber stamp a 2007 decision to replace the deterrent system, approving the building of four submarines to ensure Britain can have nuclear weapons continuously on patrol at sea.
But more than 100 of parliament’s 650 lawmakers voted against doing so, with the Scottish nationalists and some opposition Labour members arguing the weapons were no longer needed as they are little use against terrorists and the money could be better spent elsewhere.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his finance spokesman John McDonnell, who both oppose Trident, on Sunday called for a discussion on the reported misfire.
“People on both sides of the argument on Trident would have expected that to be reported to parliament and the fact that Theresa May didn’t is extremely worrying and I think questions have to be asked about that,” McDonnell told the BBC.
In a joint statement, May’s office and Britain’s Ministry of Defence said the Royal Navy conducted a routine unarmed Trident missile test in June from HMS Vengeance, as part of an operation designed to certify the submarine and its crew. It did not confirm the failure.
“Vengeance and her crew were successfully tested and certified, allowing Vengeance to return into service. We have absolute confidence in our independent nuclear deterrent,” the statement said.
“We do not provide further details on submarine operations for obvious national security reasons.”
19 Comments on "Nuclear missile test malfunction"
Antius on Sun, 22nd Jan 2017 5:25 pm
We are supposed to be shocked and surprised by this no doubt.
Missiles do not have a 100% reliability. Its why a submarine carries at least a dozen of them. If one fails there are plenty more. It is always wise to build redundancy into a system.
In much the same way, bullets issued to soldiers have a required reliability and there will be a misfire rate. Not really a big problem, just something you have to live with.
Anonymous on Sun, 22nd Jan 2017 5:32 pm
Lol, built with pride in the uSofA…
“The paper quoted an unnamed senior naval source as saying the missile may have veered off in the wrong direction towards the American mainland when it was fired off the coast of Florida.”
What would have been ‘right’ direction? Towards Russia?…Cuba?…China?
Maybe the missile just wanted to go home, turned around, and headed for Floriduh. Still dont forget the take-away message here. The uS has the best MIC that 1.2 Trillion a year can buy. I hope in the event of an actual uS planned war, all the rest of its missiles perform just as well. If they do, neither Russia or China would need to fire a shot. Just sit back and let amerika nuke itself into the stone, or Floriduh at least.
To think, in the event of uS led first strike, over 90% of amerikas cuban population and jew retirees would perish. I wonder if the pentagon is willing to sustain those kind of losses in a nuclear war. Probably, yea.
The British are morons for keeping such weapons. Eclipsed only by their masters in Tel Aviv and washingdum.
.5mt on Sun, 22nd Jan 2017 7:10 pm
ZOG under-the-bed syndrome. Kook of the day nominee.
Sissyfuss on Sun, 22nd Jan 2017 9:07 pm
Cylindrical object filled with seamen suffers premature eventuation.
makati1 on Sun, 22nd Jan 2017 9:50 pm
If I remember correctly, the Russian missiles used in Syria, traveled over a thousand miles and hit their targets, bulls-eye, with zero ‘losses’. LOL
pointer on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 7:16 am
“I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles.”
Famous last words.
joe on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 8:02 am
The worst thing is that Trident is a retaliation weapon. In a nuke fight you will hit the enemy, then they will answer with their hidden (trident) nukes that you dont know where they are hiding. Thats the theory anyway. They are pretty useless sneak attack weapons because with spy satalites everywhere, all that noise and smoke would be picked up by the computers in an otherwise silent sea. The point im making is this, if you are in a nuke war, retaliation is pointless because you wont be around to enjoy the results, and anyone left alive, will wish they were dead. Even if you ‘win’, the destruction of your country is certain because world trade will end and the world economy will collapse and you will probobly face a civil war for what you did at minimum.
Ghung on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 9:37 am
Tridents are a retaliatory-risk deterrent that won’t work if there’s the perception that they don’t work. I expect some sort of proof-of-functionality, real or contrived, will be forthcoming.
Anyway, they aren’t the only nukes in western arsenals. MAD lives on, and we’re pretty busy ensuring our collective demise in other ways.
Apneaman on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 10:06 am
Britian, another nation now run by incompetents and thieves.
Government ‘tried to bury’ its own alarming report on climate change
Exclusive: The five-yearly assessment of what will happen to the UK as the world warms says one of an array of potential threats is the ‘significant risk’ to supplies of food
“… the potential dangers of global warming to Britain – including the doubling of the deaths during heatwaves, a “significant risk” to supplies of food and the prospect of infrastructure damage from flooding.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-risk-assessment-global-warming-government-accused-burying-report-a7540726.html
Sissyfuss on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 10:11 am
+1 to Ghung.
peakyeast on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 12:03 pm
As far as I understand US or Russia do not need rocket. They could simply blast all their nukes in situ and spare themselves a lot of suffering – and still kill the rest of human”kind”. No? 😀
Cloggie on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 12:08 pm
“… the potential dangers of global warming to Britain – including the doubling of the deaths during heatwaves
The chances of dying from a heatwave in Britain is almost zero.
The chances of being hit by an unloaded trident coming of course is higher.
peakyeast on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 12:42 pm
The scientists in the Danish(and English) newspapers are worried that the Northern atlantic gulf stream is stopping which indicates a new iceage. Here the U.K. is worried that it may get too warm (even though they are an island which temperature is stabilized by the ocean).
I certainly dont know what to believe – but I am increasingly believing noone knows much, but says too much.
aidan on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 2:17 pm
The UK imports around 60% of its food – Global warming will no doubt hit its own food production, initially with freak rainstorms, then its most productive farmland in the East will be inundated by rising sea levels. Of more immediate concern are food imports from semi-arid regions – UK imports vast quantities of fruit and veg from Spain – which is forecast to become very dry indeed.
jjhman on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 2:47 pm
Where am I?
I can’t believe the anti-American rants on this board.
A fucking missile failed.
Big deal. That’s why they test ’em.
Apneaman on Mon, 23rd Jan 2017 3:23 pm
aidan,, the UK just got a taste of high import food prices last month. Just a matter of time before it is the permanent new normal.
Britain doesn’t have enough salad to go around
“Severe flooding in Spain has led to shortages so bad in the UK that some supermarkets are flying produce in from the United States.”
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/britain-suffering-salad-shortage.html
Theedrich on Tue, 24th Jan 2017 3:16 am
May seems to have a Hollywood view of nukewar. She should read To Hell and Back: The Last Train from Hiroshima. There are all kinds of people who talk glibly about modern warfare, which the recent Negro prez made so popular with his droning. Unbeknownst to the simpleton masses, we are headed into an ultracomplex, electronic-superweapon age in which even small but high-IQ countries like N. Korea will be able extinguish whole continents in a flash.
The U.S. is biblically based on a firm commitment to terminate evolution by maintaining and importing oceans of unwhite stupidoes. (“Christian compassion,” etc.) In an age when expanding technology and complexification demand ever higher intelligence of the entire species, it is obvious how this is going to end. The Christian fantasy of the White man’s Original Sin to be expunged by creating more mulattoes is a convenient mask for soylent green. Ms. May imagines that she can somehow stave off the future with nuclear subs while miscegenating with Afroids and Sand Negroes. How appropriate for a nation that created two world wars in order to maintain its fantasies.
Cloggie on Tue, 24th Jan 2017 3:34 am
The very existence of nuclear weapons will eventually make some kind of global order inevitably. It would be the most convincing argument for the proponents of the NWO, that is one world state without nations, led by the youknowho.
But there is an alternative for that, without mixing, a world where a “Eurosphere” alliance (US, EU and Russia) agree with China to run the world together/provide global order and force the rest (apart perhaps from India) to nuclear disarm or else.
https://s17.postimg.org/6wwnomfpb/worldmap.jpg
Cloggie on Tue, 24th Jan 2017 3:40 am
One look at the map shows that it is very easy for China to “pacify” North-Korea, unify the country under a nuclear-free capitalist regime and get the Americans out.
This move would be in the interest of China, the West and the rest of the world.