Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

That's what I gathered from this. Now, I wouldn't put it past the UK to have some over-the-top rules and regulations (I work regularly with one of their largest agencies and it is a nightmare of a bureaucracy), but these seem like the complaints of a relatively low-ranking, non-technical person.

Still, there are very interesting details in his text, one just needs enough patience to read through. Pity that he, wanted to "leak" fast, hasn't had somebody more capable of presenting his info. There are nice examples of how brittle the systems he worked on were, and the broader public surely does need a "disillusionment" about them.

He personally seems to have expected everything to function like in the movies, and it can be clearly seen how he is always surprised it isn't so, up to the point that they could have all died in the submarine just because of the fire that started due to the toilet paper!

The people that usually push that line. They are mostly blaming Trump for Obama not stating WWIII. I dunno what they really expect.

There is a huge pile of problems anybody must settle before the US can demand Russia to free the Crimea (and one of them is actually establishing that Crimea wants to be freed).

I took too long so I stopped being able to edit,comment continued here:

In the end, 18 NVA divisions took over the south anyway. So, the postulation is that Sir Thompson, friend of Kissinger, did this on deliberatly, once again, to maintain the "balance of power".

Now, last but not least, we get to my war, the Global War on Terrorism. I have spent years since I got out trying to understand what happened there, so I will give you my terse summary. GWOT, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and including Africa in Libya, Somalia and Sudan, is all about the coming resource wars and prepositioning the, you guessed it, "balance of power". It wasn't about Saddam, (well, maybe a bit for ol Bushy Jr to go along with his masters Rumsfeld and Cheney), nor about Al Queda (which we had down to to control. It's a distinction that needs to be made to the leftists who just repeat the war for oil slogan. Who did we learn this from? You guessed it, the British.

It was the British who first invaded Baghdad in 1917 for the same reasons, to prevent a new arab-europe rail-line that would threaten their inherently naval trading supremecy. It was the British MI6 and London's WallStreet cronies who taught and formed the OSS/CIA. It was the British who helped the CIA conduct it's first coup in Iran in 53, and tought the vicious SAVAK/SAVAMA their tricks of the trade. The blowblack of that one is still something felt to this very day. It was the British who established the Baathist party in the first place and propped Saddam up!

It's hard to find the sources, but I highly suspect the common understanding of the UKUS relationship in the middle-east is much different than most realize, and that the US was pushed into war by Tony Blair, as the Chilcot report helps verify, for very similar reasons as all the above wars I mention. This includes the Iraq-Iran war in which the UK and US supplied weapons to Saddam, and the first gulf war.

I could go on and on, but this matter still needs more research on my part. Suffice it to say, that after reading enough Carroll Quigley, and of Cecil Rhodes, and the resulting myriad of round-table think tanks and their influence on US policy, I have come to the conclusion that the British monarchy and oligarchy has never forgiven the US for the original revolution, which Christopher Hitchens called "the only revolution with a fighting chance of survival and success", that they have been involved in entangling the US in war after war, and that it continues to seek, as Cecil Rhodes put it, "the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire".

Despite the pretend friendship on a superficial level, the disdain for Americans by the British elite was palpable to me on a recent visit, and I think the UKUS 47 agreement is the primary legislative method that will be used to usher in the totalitarian surveillance state in the US, and I highly suspect that the UK has been playing the US as a fall guy in the upcoming move to global governance. I half expect a new Neuremberg to pop up sooner or later.

That sir, is why I say, not only have we been near war multiple times in the past, but I would venture to say the British Empire, carefully disguised as the commonwealth, has never ceased being at economic and political war with the United States of America since its inception.

I think it's a question of numbers: if you're building a bunch of new ones and keeping the old ones, your absolute number of deployed weapons goes up, and raises tensions. But if you build a bunch of new ones and simultaneous retire, and remove from service, a bunch of old ones, so that your deployed number is the same, that shouldn't raise tensions at all. It's hard to imagine how other nations could object to "we're replacing a bunch of old and possibly dangerous weapons with new ones that are much safer so we don't have to worry about having a horrible accident".