Validating our long-range nuclear ballistic missile capability to the world may sound morbid, as using that capability operationally would probably mean the apocalypse, but it is entirely necessary. These missiles stand as our deterrent against such a reality ever happening. Testing them occasionally provides validation for our own military and civilian infrastructure structure that supports them, as well as reminding our potential enemies that our capabilities are very real and very, very deadly
It’s not rocket science is it? Trident…it’s a deterrent. For deterrents to work they must be convincing. That’s why the government publishes successful launches and didn’t publicise a failure. Simple…you’d have thought.
Laura Kuenssberg thinks the government is making it up as they go along….
The government seems to have decided now to resort to that answer. Business Secretary Greg Clark has been using that “security” defence as a way of avoiding the issue.
But it’s tricky because the government does indeed talk about weapons testing, even sending out press releases, and publicly awarding trophies to military teams when the tests go well.
When, as it appears they don’t and the results are kept secret, the “security” excuse sounds less convincing.
I don’t think defence matters are Kuenssberg’s strong point having already been hauled over the coals for having misled the public over an answer given by Jeremy Corbyn.
I guess you can’t win…even a successful launch generates ‘the wildest theories’…
The country was awed last weekend when the Navy executed an unannounced launch of a Trident D5 ballistic missile off the California coast. For those that watch for such things, the incredible visual event was clearly a rocket launch, for others it was a canvas on which to paint their wildest theories.
The BBC is misleading us here as well…look at this…
Conservative MP Julian Lewis, chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, said Mrs May had been “handed a no-win situation” by her predecessor as Prime Minister, David Cameron, whose “spin doctors” had been responsible for a “cover-up”.
He told Today that the government usually released film footage of the “99%” of missile tests deemed a success and that ministers could not “have it both ways” by not announcing when this had not been the case.
Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: “There’s absolutely no doubt that this would have impacted on the debate in Parliament.”
Why does the BBC tell us that CND thinks this would have impacted on the Trident renewal vote, and relates in depth what Lewis said but doesn’t tell us that Lewis also said that the failed launch was totally irrelevant to the debate, emphasising that 99% of tests are successful? In other words it would have had no relevance and no impact on the debate and vote.
Is the BBC just making trouble for May and trying to stir the pot? Kuenssberg may have provided us with the answer to that…and it’s a ‘yes’….
The refusal now to answer questions over the mistake gives even more succour to the government’s opponents.
And the refusal to say “who knew” allows those suspicious of ministers’ motives to wonder what else we don’t know.
Laura K and Emily M are quite…special.
At least some think so, and enough for the latter to proudly retweet:
Because this has nothing to do with this meaningless little missile test and everything to do with Losthis MARRbles trying o look forensic and clever by mirroring Paxman (not even original), and making May look indecisive and untrustworthy. Suspect he was hand fed the questions by the Socialist attack dogs.
It was a missile test. That’s what tests are for … to TEST things. Usual mob of ill informed left wing hysterics voicing their opinion on the millions of people that could have been killed … confusing a missile with a warhead. Probably briefed by lady Nugee.
You should have heard Matt Frei on LBC this afternoon. had an expert Professor on to discuss the issue and because he didn’t get the answers he wanted tried to coach him into using phrases that he never said. Credit to the Professor for standing up up this no mark presenter.
A test is just that a test – And generally on a highly sensitive weapon of this sort you would not want advertise any failures because these could help potential enemies.
Tests enables the testers to identify faults and put them right.
Perhaps the BBC would prefer it if there were no tests – No I suppose that would be wrong too. I suspect this stormy teacup has everything to do with BBC anti nuclear stance rather than with making any serious news point.
I think one of the most silly naive comments of the day was the Labour loon asking if the PM could guarantee that any other missiles would work as they should when fired.
The answer is of course she can’t and what exactly is the expectation? A 30 year old missile system, even with high reliability components is always going to have the odd one which goes wrong for any number of reasons, not least mixing radiation with electronics.
It’s like asking someone to guarantee 700+ 30 year old TV sets will all work when switched on, anytime up to 10 years in the future.
The Left are always anti weapons,Corbyn is a CND member (or was),our nuclear subs built at Barrow in Furness are second to none,they have been building them since 1960 when they built HMS Dreadnought, the world’s first nuclear submarine,and have had no problems yet.
The Barrow Labour MP John Woodcock is crapping himself because of Corbyn and company’s stance, because he stands to lose his seat at the next election.
Dreadnought was Britain’s first nuclear boat, the Americans had the first ever with Nautilus, and the Russians built some that weren’t the safest subs ever. Britain came a creditable third.
Our subs reactor control rods have always been lifted by electric motors with serious control systems, the Russian subs reactor control rods were lifted by ropes and pulleys.
And then there’s the fact failures in certain other departments don’t excite the BBC quite so much…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11402075/NHS-sets-aside-quarter-of-its-budget-for-medical-negligence-claims.html
Shouldn’t they have insurance for that?
There is another complication in the Trident story and that is that the US/UK missiles are pooled. That means that missiles are routinely returned to the US from both fleets and are broken down, tested and re-assembled for re-issue. Thus a UK Trident can become a US Trident and vice versa.
It also means that a UK test flight is as much part of the US reliability assurance programme as a US flight, in other words the results are a US secret too, they aren’t ours to give away.
The whole story is an attempt by the BBC to embarass the government over something which it has no control, a missile works or it doesn’t. Indeed if the BBC had had its way and Ed Milliband had been PM he too would have been quiet on the subject. That’s what government is about. Is it the BBC’s job to act as spy and traitor though?
In complement to fake news there is of course ‘art’ which, by definition is fake.
Tonight we happened across on Prime (sorry Aunty) a new movie: ‘Eye In The Sky’.
Given it was pitched with two arch luvvies and having a vague idea of the plot, I was not keen.
Glad to have been overruled, as it did what any good art form should, and provoked debate in Who Towers.
Of course plot lines demand suspensions of belief, and can create gaping holes, but on balance I felt it a fair presentation of players and dilemmas in today’s ‘wars’.
A few issues remained unexplored, such as handing those with little concern for human life a ‘get out of attack free’ card in the form of any handy shielding moppet, or one in keeping with this thread topic, namely taking on a military role voluntarily without thinking through the personal consequences of directing things that go boom into areas not always clearly defined as suitable for combat. Not much point having a nuke sub if no one in the chain of command is believed to be onside with it maybe being used to erase many moppets. It’s MAD, I know, but there you are.
I have no personal experience save conversations with military serving relatives, but the characterisations seemed all too credible, especially a succession of market rate talents kicking decisions upstairs and eroding time windows to avoid looking bad or being held to account. Until it all reaches the top and gets kicked back down with a waffled platitude leaving the poor grunts still to do the tricky stuff. And a reliance on lawyers and dodgy stats as backside covering tools.
Alan Rickman got the best line at the end, putting a government spinner in her place. Quite surprisingly military empathetic.
And there was a Minister who confronted all with the biggest issue any in power face when making decisions their positions of power demand: how will it play on Today when the BBC decides to leave bits out, and massage other bits in to suit their anti-British narrative?
The 6 o’clock news made play with the fact that a US spokesman confirmed a missile malfunction where as UK MOD stays tight lipped – the jist of how the report was framed I got was that US although not being involved knew more than our MOD. Untrue as all reports I have seen on tv fail to mention that the test firing was carried out on a US missile test range so the US would have fully involved with telemetry, radar etc.
As above comments – a test is a test and it’s not just the missile being tested but the whole onboard (boat) system – maybe the missile was 100% and it was an onboard software bug or even finger trouble prior to launch – best-blame the ruskie hackers?
It would interesting to know though who at the MOD leaked it to the press.
The US supply the missile, the US load the missile, the US arm the self-destuct system, the US supply the telemetry system, the US supply the range, the US control and monitor every aspect of the launch, the US push the destruct button if the missile doesn’t destruct itself.
The bits of the boat that interface with the missile are identical to the US bits. The operating procedures are identical and while onshore the UK crews wear US uniforms.
All pretty much a US operation and very difficult to see how or why Mrs May is to blame. As to that Obama bastard, why did he supply us with a duff missile?
I have worked at the Faslane submarine base many times and never seen our Navy wearing US uniforms?
Wild Bill, I could have worded that bit better but ‘ashore’, like the rest of the comments, applies to what happens in the US.
Whether it is because the US don’t like the idea of foreign forces wandering the streets or whether it suits our purposes by disguising the fact that there is a UK boat ‘in town’ I don’t know.