SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A missile test involving Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent system ended in failure off the coast of Florida last year, a US defense official with direct knowledge of the incident told CNN on Monday.
The official told CNN that the incident, which happened last June in an the area off the Florida coast used by the US and the UK for missile tests, did not in involve a nuclear warhead.
Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported that the missile veered towards the US coast, but the US official told CNN that this trajectory was part of an automatic self-destruct sequence. The official said the missile diverted into the ocean -- an automatic procedure when missile electronics detect an anomaly.
A month after the test, the UK parliament approved the renewal of Trident at a cost of £40 billion. Unaware of the failure, members of the House of Commons voted by 472 votes to 117 in favor of renewal.
On Sunday, British Prime Minister Theresa May was asked four times during an interview with the BBC's Andrew Marr Show whether she knew of the missile failure before the vote. May refused to answer.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/europe/trident-missile-failure-theresa-may/index.html
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Informative) by n1 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:33AM
The Prime Minister refused to say whether she knew about the nuclear weapon’s malfunction before declaring that she would be willing to authorise a strike that would kill 100,000 people and before allowing MPs to vote on its renewal [independent.co.uk]
Emphasis added
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:38AM
From the summary:
If I understand correctly, this official is the only source through which the incident is known.
From the Independent article you quoted:
This doesn't exactly instil confidence in the accuracy of the rest of the Independent article.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:42AM
I agree that something like "nuclear-capable" would have been the accurate thing to say. The article is mainly about Ms. May's interview by Andrew Marr; the interview is available on video in various places:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2017/jan/22/theresa-may-dodges-question-trident-misfire-four-times-video [theguardian.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPGjBkwyXXI [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KINeq-N0wc8 [youtube.com] (this one I watched--it is what it says on the tin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WlVMeIEYpk [youtube.com]
Were the report of the failed test false, this interview could have served as an opportunity for Ms. May to say so. While valid military or diplomatic reasons for not saying so may exist, such a degree of secrecy would seem to be at odds with a parliamentary government.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:40AM
You can say what you like about Corbyn (and most people do) but he doesn't go in for this evasive politician bullshit. In the same situation he would have said either "Yes I knew and I should have acted differently" or "yes I knew and here's why I acted as I did."
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:21AM
I doubt he would get himself into the situation Ms. May is in. Giving Ms. May the benefit of the doubt, we could assume that as Home Secretary she wasn't apprised of the outcome of the test, and that she inherited the cover-up—which, of course, she continued—from the Cameron régime. I should think that if the failed test had happened under a Labour PM, then Mr. Corbyn had taken over, Corbyn might well be delighted to tell the public that Trident is not only immoral, but unreliable.
(Score: 1, Troll) by isostatic on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:11AM
No, Corbyn would just run away shouting "harassment!" "Safe space!" Or perhaps he'd just let his fists do the talking (unless his aides can hold him bcak)
The former is perhaps understandable thing for green MPs who have no experience, but for the leader of the opposition? The latter is someone unfit for public office.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 24 2017, @12:19PM
What the fuck are you blithering on about? Watch some interviews with him. He doesn't shy away from tough questions, and he certainly doesn't claim victimhood. As for the "fists" comment - citation please? I can't see any record of violent or aggressive behaviour.
Protip - if the bottle has words like "industrial", "antibacterial" or "lubricant" on it, you probably shouldn't be drinking it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Tuesday January 24 2017, @01:42PM
He doesn't shy away from tough questions
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ashen-faced-jeremy-corbyn-pulled-8310981 [mirror.co.uk]
But after condemning the rise in hate crimes after the poll, reporters asked him about the crisis of confidence overshadowing his leadership of the party.
As a reporter asked "Mr Corbyn, a quick question about the leadership", he was grabbed by the lapel on his blue suit jacket and led away
As for the "fists" comment - citation please
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/02/jeremy-corbyn-urged-to-retire-with-dignity-as-hard-left-recruit/ [telegraph.co.uk]
Jeremy Corbyn came under renewed criticism last night after he was seen being held back by aides as he appeared to lunge at a reporter during a rally in his constituency.
The confrontation came as it was revealed that Mr Corbyn’s aides are deliberately refusing to allow him to speak to other MPs.
(Score: 3, Touché) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:18PM
1st link: He was visiting the site of a recent hate crime to discuss hate crimes, and didn't want to turn that event into a discussion of his party's leadership contest. I can understand that. He has been quite open about leadership questions in other venues.
2nd Link: "The television reporter involved in the incident ... denied that she had been “lunged at” by the Labour leader." That's from your own link.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:20PM
> "appeared to lunge at"
Yet later in the story, the person who was "apparently" lunged at claims absolutely unambiguously that "contrary to reports I didn't feel 'lunged at'".
Torygraph fail, as expected.
Real citation please. And no, I will not let an oratorical shaking of the fist count, to "let fists do the talking" has a quite clear pugilistic meaning.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:33PM
Oh that's just not true. He does do the non-committal evasive answers.
I listened to him on radio 4 about a week ago, the interview where the only solid thing he said was putting a cap on max earnings. An example is he refused to say if immigration is too high or too low. He also does this on his position on Europe. He leads a pro-europe party but won't commit to it. Did you notice how quiet he was during the Brexit campaigning? He kept his mouth shut as he didn't agree with his own party line.
The entire rest of the interview he pontificated and refused to directly answer any question. Not as bad as Millibands interview on the World at one a few years back, but almost as bad.
Now as he does not support Nuclear weapons, I can see why if he was PM he may have given a more committal answer, however I doubt that he would have.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 5, Funny) by driverless on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:36AM
I don't see what people have against Trident. If you walked into a nuclear missile showroom you would buy Trident - it's lovely, it's elegant, it's beautiful. It is quite simply the best. And Britain should have the best. In the world of the nuclear missile it is the Saville Row suit, the Rolls Royce Corniche, the Château Lafitte 1945. It is the nuclear missile Harrods would sell you. What more can I say?
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:11AM
Perhaps post an affiliate link for interested governments to purchase said weapons system?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:20AM
Perhaps post an affiliate link for interested governments to purchase said weapons system?
Sure [youtube.com].
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:33AM
Its a classic...
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:48AM
And sad that that (brilliant) political satire from 35 years ago still applies to Teresa May and Trident right now.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday January 24 2017, @12:00PM
It is a Starbucks super grande latte mucho frappucino cascara smoked ice espresso cinnamon Dolce con Lana (Lana!!)blehblahblah.
But it maybe is a McDonald's pee toilet too.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:56PM
For limited time, the missiles come with handy toasters absolutely free.
Call now!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:59PM
Maybe an anti-missile missile?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:16AM
I don't see what people have against Trident.
Maybe an anti-missile missile?
Exactly. The Soviets might easily develop a multi-layered ballistic missile defence system which could intercept Polaris. In strategic terms, any day now [said in 1986]. 2020, but that's sooner than you think.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:04AM
I thought four out of five dentists recommended Trident...