Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday May 19 2015, @11:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the pointed-commentary dept.

UK Royal Navy "Trident" nuclear weapons submariner William McNeilly, aged 25, who has been in communications with WikiLeaks since the beginning of May, has decided he wants to go public about the detailed nuclear safety problems he says he has been "gathering for over a year". An excerpt from William McNeilly's exclusive original report to WikiLeaks follows:

My name is William McNeilly. I am an Engineering Technician Weapons Engineer Submariner for UK's Trident II D5 Strategic Weapons System.

This is document will enlighten you to the shockingly extreme conditions that our nuclear weapons system is in right now, and has been in the past. It describes different threats and events that have happened and are threats that are highly likely to happen; each one individually should raise maximum concern. I need you to publish this document or send it to someone who will; please, for the safety of the people.

This will jump between things like food hygiene and a flooded toilets, till describing the complete lack of security, floods, a blazing inferno in the Missile Compartment etc. My aim is to paint an overall picture of what I've seen, and to break down the false images of a perfect system that most people envisage exists.

[More after the break...]

According to a BBC report, A Navy spokesman said:

"The Royal Navy takes security and nuclear safety extremely seriously and we are fully investigating both the issue of the unauthorised release of this document and its contents."

"The naval service operates its submarine fleet under the most stringent safety regime and submarines do not go to sea unless they are completely safe to do so."

The spokesman also said the Navy "completely disagreed" with Mr. McNeilly's report, claiming that it "contains a number of subjective and unsubstantiated personal views, made by a very junior sailor".

However, they added that it was "right" that the contents of the document were considered in detail.

At the risk of editorializing, I am not surprised a navy spokesman is delivering a point-blank denial, along with an implicit admission that the very release of classified information is more troubling to them than the probable and imminent nuclear security threat, but I am curious about the limits of the public patience. If past leaks are any indication, this report will be found accurate. What then? A navy spokesman is either lying to the press about a matter of national security, or is ordered to lie to the press. Either way, it feels like the Navy is piling new crimes on top of the old ones.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by CRCulver on Tuesday May 19 2015, @04:17PM

    by CRCulver (4390) on Tuesday May 19 2015, @04:17PM (#185110) Homepage
    Did you serve on submarines? When I was in the Navy, I very often heard that a submariner E3 is given much greater responsibilities than a Seaman anywhere else in the Navy. An E4 transferred from a submarine to my command, and the chiefs treated him like an old man who had already seen it all. I don't know whether this particular sailor's account is true or not, but I have no doubt that in many instances very junior sailors are able to ascertain if something is seriously wrong at their command.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @02:17AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 20 2015, @02:17AM (#185274) Journal

    No, I'm color blind. I was considered for a submarine crew, but ruled out for color vision, just as I was ruled out for aviation duty. I was very restricted in the Navy for that reason. I spent my career in supply department, on surface ships.

    All of that said - I'm somewhat skeptical of that bubblehead mystique. True, no truly irresponsible person is going to be allowed aboard a sub. THOSE are sent to shore commands, and to surface ships, where they can be better controlled, and restricted to non-critical jobs. On the other hand, even aboard surface ships, reliable seamen are rapidly advanced into positions of responsibility. That goofy looking character who walks about the decks with the sounding tape is usually pretty tight with the Old Man, is he not? And, why not? Those soundings are as critical to the ship's survival as any other job aboard ship.

    I might ask what years you served. That E-4 who transferred in may have been a combat veteran. I joined the Navy in 1975, and when I finally got aboard ship, I learned very quickly that the Viet Vets all knew each other, and had their own standards. Not being a combat veteran, I was an outsider for a very long time. When I finally earned the respect of those combat vets, I knew that I was doing something right.

    Not sure I'm making my point here. The respect shown to that E-4 may have been due to something more than just serving aboard a sub. Did he have any medals or awards that may have accounted for that respect?

    --
    We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.