Live data from Hacker News

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

wikileaks.org

81–90 of 98 posts

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

#81
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the invaded stay occupied?

If you're talking about Crimea then... well yeah, wasn't that going to happen anyway? Not sure why Trump gets the blame for things that already happened on Obama's watch.

> well yeah, wasn't that going to happen anyway?

Same "peaceniks" attitude was expressed about Hitler anschluss.

We all knew what happened next.

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

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Thank you for taking the time to write this up. I agree with some of your points, especially on Churchill. I have generally found that the more I learn about what he actually did the less I like about him. I also suppose some of the earlier naval threat came from fears over some kind of a resurgence of the Anglo-Japanese alliance that was only a couple decades before around the time of ww2

My pleasure, and you are right about to Anglo-Japanese alliance. As a matter of fact I have heard it said the formerly German controlled southeast Asian islands were given to Japan at the behest of Britain as a sort of WW2 preprogramming, but thankfully MacArthur saw through it. I also think it was Warren Harding who pushed for the 5-5-3 American British Japanese fleet ratio in some agreement or other that delayed WW2.

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

#84
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much a similar issue and their were multiple silenced whistleblowers to that as well. I am glad my whistleblowing moment passed because recent history (last 30 years) tells me you do not want to become one.

> my whistleblowing moment Can you go into further detail? Not asking to reveal what you don't want to, but I am of course curious what you mean.

I was asked the impossible, to write a complex piece of software with no ability to test it and it had to work first time without defects, and I had no specification, no one to talk to about it and no idea what hardware it would even run on. There is the impossible and then there is just the "are you even serious" type of impossible, they were serious although I still think its funny because its obvious insane to spin up a team of hundreds of engineers on that basis but that is what they did!

The moment passed because I chose to leave. I took the easy route to solving the problem for me, but its still costing people billions.

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

#85
For what it's worth the general sentiment on UK military sites and forums is that the guy hasn't got a fucking clue what he's talking about and most seem to reckon someone's upset him or he's been passed up for promotion or something and is retaliating by writing sensationalised shite that makes the Navy look bad.

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

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's blaming Trump for Putin's invasion?

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).

Wow, that's a low bar. So as long as you can demonstrate that the population likes an invasion after fact, it's all ok?

It's also ok to solve problems separately, they don't all have to be solved at the same time or in a particular order.

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

#87
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my whistleblowing moment Can you go into further detail? Not asking to reveal what you don't want to, but I am of course curious what you mean.

I was asked the impossible, to write a complex piece of software with no ability to test it and it had to work first time without defects, and I had no specification, no one to talk to about it and no idea what hardware it would even run on. There is the impossible and then there is just the "are you even serious" type of impossible, they were serious although I still think its funny because its obvious insane to spi…

That's incredible.

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

#88
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about Crimea then... well yeah, wasn't that going to happen anyway? Not sure why Trump gets the blame for things that already happened on Obama's watch.

> well yeah, wasn't that going to happen anyway? Same "peaceniks" attitude was expressed about Hitler anschluss. We all knew what happened next.

So what do you want to do? Start WW3 against Russia? Because that's the other option here.

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

#89
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> well yeah, wasn't that going to happen anyway? Same "peaceniks" attitude was expressed about Hitler anschluss. We all knew what happened next.

So what do you want to do? Start WW3 against Russia? Because that's the other option here.

Really? Do you see no other options? Like, you know, sanctions?

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

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Wow, that's a low bar. So as long as you can demonstrate that the population likes an invasion after fact, it's all ok? It's also ok to solve problems separately, they don't all have to be solved at the same time or in a particular order.

There was a plebiscite before the invasion. You have to show it was rigged (probably was, but I know nothing).

I don't think anybody even tried.

Post reply on HN