XPost: 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.politics.scorched-earth, uk.politics.misc   
   XPost: uk.legal, alt.politics.uk   
   From: abelard3@abelard.org   
      
   On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:23:55 -0000, "tim..."    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >"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.   
      
   >[1] and yes, I do know that the 6th one failing could be from a 1 in 10 (or   
   >any other) expected failure rate.   
      
   i'll contend none of that lot   
      
   i am more concerned that putting this is in public discussion by the   
        reptiles is not helpful...   
   *among other reasons* is that they are almost all innumerate and/or   
        dishonest   
      
      
   Orwell regarding a Russian operative in Spain:   
   I watched him with some interest, for it was the first time that I had   
   seen a person whose profession was telling lies - unless one counts   
   journalists.   
   [Homage to Catalonia, 1938, p 140]   
      
   my view of reptiles is the same as that observation!   
      
      
   --   
   www.abelard.org   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)