"A British-launched nuclear missile test in January in the
presence of the head of the Royal Navy and the Minister of Defence failed and
splashed back into the sea.
A Trident missile launched off the East Coast of the United
States in January from British ‘bomber’ submarine HMS Vanguard “crashed into
the ocean” after launch. The missile had a ‘dummy’ warhead and no nuclear
material onboard.
British tabloid newspaper The Sun revealed the launch
failure, and stated the Ministry of Defence had confirmed the story. The
ministry insisted despite the training test-firing failure the nuclear
deterrent remains “effective”, and that the “anomaly” was “event specific”. The
Sun report states claims from the government that it was the test conditions
themselves which contributed to the failure, although there was no discussion
of what they may have been, although a preference towards using time-expired
older missiles due to be scrapped for training could feasibly play a part.
Update 1600: Testing equipment caused failure
UK Defence Minister says the government has “absolute
confidence” in Trident after the failed nuclear delivery system test last
month. The Times notes he called the missiles: “effective, dependable and
formidable… beyond doubt”.
The report further notes former defence committee chairman
Tobias Elwood MP said the crash was directly caused by testing equipment
“strapped on to the missile itself”. Had the equipment not been present, the
missile would have launched properly, he said. Nevertheless, the MP remarked:
“yes, of course, this is embarrassing. We don’t like to see this happen.”
A government spokesman said the weapon “could absolutely
fire in a real world situation” if required and “The issue that occurred during
the test was specific to the event and would not have occurred during a live
armed fire”.
An anonymous source cited by the paper stated “It left the
submarine but it just went plop, right next to them”, suggesting the first
launch stage — where the missile is pushed out of the submarine and to the
surface by a rush of gas, succeeded. The missile is then supposed to ride on
several rocket stages, allowing it to leave the Earth’s atmosphere at thousands
of miles an hour.
The failed launch took place off the coast of Cape
Canaveral, where the United States and United Kingdom perform all nuclear
ballistic missile testing. Another British-launched test failed there in 2016.
A specific January date was not given but British Minister
of Defence Grant Shapps, who was present for the 2024 test, was in Washington
D.C. on January 31st.
Given British and American Trident missiles come from the
same “commingled” stock, unless the U.S. consciously passed substandard
missiles to the British during routine rotation, and if the failed launch in
January occurred after the missile had left the submarine as is claimed,
circumstances suggest this could be a problem for the United States submarine
deterrent as well.
Although most aspects of the Trident missiles are of course
classified, it is well known considerable parts of the system are American in
design, construction, and even execution. The Trident missiles themselves are
leased from the U.S., and are not wholly British-owned. While the UK’s nuclear
submarines themselves are made in Britain, they depend on U.S. technology and
systems to perform their primary mission.
A 2015 summary of the 2006 Defence White Paper on Trident by
Politico notes of the degree to which elements of the ‘independent’ British
nuclear deterrent is, in fact, American and on loan at the sufferance of
Washington. While the true picture is complex, down to a combination of
official secrecy, “mingled” ownership of weapon systems, and decades of system
growth, the report stated:
The report makes
for striking reading. The UK does not even own its Trident missiles, but rather
leases them from the United States. British subs must regularly visit the US
Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming. And since
Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US
supervision at Cape Canaveral, off the Florida coast.
A huge amount of
key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas
reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software,
gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly by
Washington, and much of the technology that Britain produces itself is taken
from US designs (the four UK Trident submarines themselves are copies of
America’s Ohio-class Trident submersibles).
The list goes on.
Britain’s nuclear sites at Aldermaston and Davenport are partly run by the
American companies Lockheed Martin and Halliburton. Even the organization
responsible for the UK-run components of the program, the Atomic Weapons
Establishment (AWE), is a private consortium consisting of one British company,
Serco Group PLC, sandwiched between two American ones — Lockheed Martin and the
Jacobs Engineering Group.
The British government did however make clear that the
United States cannot prevent a British nuclear launch through a 2005 Ministry
of Defence statement. While American nuclear weapons are governed by a chain of
command flowing back to the President — the famous ‘nuclear football’ being the
President’s ever-present terminal — British nuclear weapons have no such
system, and are under the command of the submarine captain.
A government statement on the launch failure is expected
later.”
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą