XPost: 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.politics.scorched-earth, uk.politics.misc
XPost: uk.legal, alt.politics.uk
From: tims_new_home@yahoo.com
"abelard" wrote in message
news:lr4a8cluh0lvi4n6jjv7naiifhisncfjte@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:52:41 -0500, burfordTjustice
> wrote:
>
>>Missile failure off Florida? British leader won't say
>>
>>LONDON - The British government is being accused of concealing the
>>failure of an unarmed ballistic missile launch ahead of a debate in
>>Parliament over whether to refurbish the country's aging Trident nuclear
>>launching system.
>>
>>Britain's prime minister refused to say Sunday whether she knew about an
>>unarmed Trident missile that reportedly failed when it was test-fired off
>>the coast of Florida last year.
>>
>>Theresa May told BBC she has total confidence in Britain's Trident nuclear
>>launching system, but didn't confirm or deny a newspaper report about the
>>alleged failure of a ballistic missile designed to carry nuclear warheads.
>>
>>The prime minister was asked about the missile test after the Sunday Times
>>reported that an unarmed missile launched from a submarine off Florida's
>>coast in June veered off course and may have headed toward the U.S.
>>
>>The newspaper said top government officials decided to keep the failure of
>>a Trident II D5 ballistic missile out of the public eye because of an
>>upcoming debate the next month in Parliament over whether to spend 40
>>billion pounds to refurbish the aging Trident, the cornerstone of
>>Britain's nuclear deterrent system.
>>
>>"I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles," May said Sunday when
>>asked if she had known about a possible missile failure when she spoke to
>>Parliament in July. "When I made that speech in the House of Commons, what
>>we were talking about was whether or not we should renew our Trident,
>>whether or not we should have Trident missiles."
>>
>>The government triumphed in that debate, winning overwhelming support for
>>the Trident overhaul in July, but some opposition figures in the British
>>government now seek an inquiry into the reported missile failure and a
>>possible cover-up.
>>
>>Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon, who opposes having the
>>Trident submarine fleet based in Scotland, said reports of a failure and
>>cover-up are a "hugely serious issue."
>
> amazing that she doesn't have a clue about missiles either
>
> who would have guessed
>
>>Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, also a Trident opponent, called it "a
>>pretty catastrophic error."
>
> amazing that he doesn't have a clue about missiles either
>
> who would have guessed
>
>>The British government hasn't confirmed the newspaper's report of a
>>misfire.
>
> it wasn't a misfire
I'm not entirely convinced that nit-picking over terminology makes the
erroneous occurrence (by whatever name that you are happy for us to describe
it) any less serious.
There have been about six of these tests in history and 1 has failed.
I have worked on similar (non nuclear) military systems in the past and, at
the time, failure rates of 1 in 3 was not uncommon, so 1 in 6 is good and as
a single statistic not something that needs to be worried about. Because
you have multiple of these thing to use, if one fails you just send another
one (having hopefully exploded the errant one somewhere safe in mid air)
But the problem here is that the test sample set is small and it is the most
recent test over a very long test period, that failed.
We need to know whether this failure is just the 1 in 6 [1] that was
expected to fail, or whether the fact that the devices are now 40 years
(ish) old has caused a deterioration to a failure rate of 1 in 1.
tim
[1] and yes, I do know that the 6th one failing could be from a 1 in 10 (or
any other) expected failure rate.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
