6 ms·

The reason this is posted here again is that there was recently a Trident "accident" which May did not disclose to Parliament.

DigitalJack 10y ago
I read some stories about the this, but nothing definitive. Just what some unnamed source claimed. Nothing to corroborate. Do you have a story that backs up the claim?
- tritosomal 10y ago
  Here's something I quickly scraped out of a google search: https://brusselsdiplomatic.com/2017/01/22/trident-accident-pressure-mounts/ https://brusselsdiplomatic.com/2017/01/22/trident-accident-p...
- NamTaf 10y ago
  This is the latest from the BBC over it: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38714047 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38714047 Specifically this part describing how May dodged the question multiple times. The 'vote' being the vote by Parliament on whether to renew funding for the Trident system: Questioned by the BBC's Andrew Marr on Sunday, Prime Minister Theresa May refused four times to say if she had known about the test firing ahead of the vote. Mrs May said: "I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles. When I made that speech in the House of Commons, what we were talking about was whether or not we should renew our Trident."
misnome 10y ago
I've read a couple of articles, and as I understand it a missile veered off course. During a test. Which is kind of the point of a test. Oh, except apparently it 'veered' towards the US. And this was before the vote to renew, so naturally people are trying to call it a cover up.
- NamTaf 10y ago
  The test had intended to fire the missile towards the Atlantic. After launch, it turned around and flew the other way towards Florida. From the sibling posts's response I made: According to the Sunday Times, the unarmed Trident II D5 missile was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) from the coast of Florida to a sea target off the west coast of Africa - but veered towards the US.
- fidget 10y ago
  It was before the vote to renew, and was not disclosed to people making that vote.
  - dingaling 10y ago
    But the test and its result was orthogonal to the issue before Parliament. It's like an executive team discussing whether to adopt a mobile-first strategy and then someone blurts 'but Galaxy 7 phones caught fire!'.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      It's more like discussing the Galaxy 7 strategy whist hiding that they are malfunctioning.
    - PaulKeeble 10y ago
      If the missles don't work I would argue that is pertinent information! Its all well and good discussing a strategy but if its based on a range of options where some are proven to work and some are apparently not working but its being covered up so they appear to work its subverted the entire process of oversight of government.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        The question is, whether they were covering it up a real problem there, or they just wanted to avoid some idiot higher-up completely overblowing the importance of a single incident. I can somewhat understand their thinking if the latter was the case, given that overblowing stuff way beyond their importance is what politicians do as a part of their jobs.

DigitalJack 10y ago

I read some stories about the this, but nothing definitive. Just what some unnamed source claimed. Nothing to corroborate. Do you have a story that backs up the claim?

tritosomal 10y ago
Here's something I quickly scraped out of a google search: https://brusselsdiplomatic.com/2017/01/22/trident-accident-pressure-mounts/ https://brusselsdiplomatic.com/2017/01/22/trident-accident-p...
NamTaf 10y ago
This is the latest from the BBC over it: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38714047 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38714047 Specifically this part describing how May dodged the question multiple times. The 'vote' being the vote by Parliament on whether to renew funding for the Trident system: Questioned by the BBC's Andrew Marr on Sunday, Prime Minister Theresa May refused four times to say if she had known about the test firing ahead of the vote. Mrs May said: "I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles. When I made that speech in the House of Commons, what we were talking about was whether or not we should renew our Trident."

misnome 10y ago

I've read a couple of articles, and as I understand it a missile veered off course. During a test. Which is kind of the point of a test. Oh, except apparently it 'veered' towards the US. And this was before the vote to renew, so naturally people are trying to call it a cover up.

NamTaf 10y ago
The test had intended to fire the missile towards the Atlantic. After launch, it turned around and flew the other way towards Florida. From the sibling posts's response I made: According to the Sunday Times, the unarmed Trident II D5 missile was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) from the coast of Florida to a sea target off the west coast of Africa - but veered towards the US.
fidget 10y ago
It was before the vote to renew, and was not disclosed to people making that vote.
- dingaling 10y ago
  But the test and its result was orthogonal to the issue before Parliament. It's like an executive team discussing whether to adopt a mobile-first strategy and then someone blurts 'but Galaxy 7 phones caught fire!'.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    It's more like discussing the Galaxy 7 strategy whist hiding that they are malfunctioning.
  - PaulKeeble 10y ago
    If the missles don't work I would argue that is pertinent information! Its all well and good discussing a strategy but if its based on a range of options where some are proven to work and some are apparently not working but its being covered up so they appear to work its subverted the entire process of oversight of government.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      The question is, whether they were covering it up a real problem there, or they just wanted to avoid some idiot higher-up completely overblowing the importance of a single incident. I can somewhat understand their thinking if the latter was the case, given that overblowing stuff way beyond their importance is what politicians do as a part of their jobs.