31–40 of 98 posts
The only reason to have nuclear weapons is a deterrent, but how do we modernize our nuclear systems for Safety and Security without escalating tensions?
The Russians built the largest nucleur weapon of all time just a year or two ago. Its hardly an escalation when other countries are doing the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the test and its result was orthogonal to the issue before Parliament. It's like an executive team discussing whether to adopt a mobile-first strategy and then someone blurts 'but Galaxy 7 phones caught fire!'.
It's like an executive team discussing whether to adopt a mobile-first strategy and then someone blurts 'but Galaxy 7 phones caught fire!'. It's more like an executive team discussing whether or not to equip the entire company with Galaxy Note 7 phones, and the CEO not mentioning the fires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like an executive team discussing whether to adopt a mobile-first strategy and then someone blurts 'but Galaxy 7 phones caught fire!'. It's more like an executive team discussing whether or not to equip the entire company with Galaxy Note 7 phones, and the CEO not mentioning the fires.
Only if your expectation is that missiles work 100% of the time - which nobody really expects an individual component of any weapons system to work 100% of the time and is explicitly allowed for in the way nuclear weapons are targeted.
I would also expect a politician to mention that failure mode is a possibility when politicians are considering spending £30b on renewing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if your expectation is that missiles work 100% of the time - which nobody really expects an individual component of any weapons system to work 100% of the time and is explicitly allowed for in the way nuclear weapons are targeted.
I don't expect anything to work 100% of the time. I do expect a missile to fail in a way that wouldn't mean accidentally obliterating tens of thousands of people in the wrong country though. I would also expect a politician to mention that failure mode is a possibility when politicians are considering spending £30b on renewing it.
Missiles will go wrong, Trident actually has a fairly reasonable level of success and probably is far more reliable than equivalent weapons from other countries.
It's a political mess not a military/technical one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tweet about it. Then Putin will say it's no big deal. And in fact you can make a deal trading nuclear disarmament for lifting sanctions.
And the invaded stay occupied?
Not sure why Trump gets the blame for things that already happened on Obama's watch.
The only reason to have nuclear weapons is a deterrent, but how do we modernize our nuclear systems for Safety and Security without escalating tensions?
The Russians built the largest nucleur weapon of all time just a year or two ago. Its hardly an escalation when other countries are doing the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if your expectation is that missiles work 100% of the time - which nobody really expects an individual component of any weapons system to work 100% of the time and is explicitly allowed for in the way nuclear weapons are targeted.
I don't expect anything to work 100% of the time. I do expect a missile to fail in a way that wouldn't mean accidentally obliterating tens of thousands of people in the wrong country though. I would also expect a politician to mention that failure mode is a possibility when politicians are considering spending £30b on renewing it.
It's also worth pointing out that if the UK ever needed to use Trident then the resultant nuclear fallout would probably cause that anyway.
The reason this is posted here again is that there was recently a Trident "accident" which May did not disclose to Parliament.
I've read a couple of articles, and as I understand it a missile veered off course. During a test. Which is kind of the point of a test. Oh, except apparently it 'veered' towards the US. And this was before the vote to renew, so naturally people are trying to call it a cover up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Russians built the largest nucleur weapon of all time just a year or two ago. Its hardly an escalation when other countries are doing the same thing.
If your thinking about the "Tsar Bomba" that wasn't really a weapon and it was exploded in 1961: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba [NB And making really big H-bombs isn't that difficult or indeed very useful other than for bragging rights - which was the point of this device].