The beer garden

[Derek27]

Lindsay Hoyle spending the rest of the night on the toilet.

[Archery1969]

Lindsay Hoyle spending the rest of the night on the toilet.

He is to face a no confidence motion according to Sky News.

[Derek27]

The Trident failure was due to test procedures that would not be in effect in a live launch, so they say.

[Archery1969]

The Trident failure was due to test procedures that would not be in effect in a live launch, so they say.

What I found interesting was that when interviewed the shadow defence person didn’t make a big deal about it and had accepted the governments response. I find that equally strange!!!

[sionascaig]

The Trident failure was due to test procedures that would not be in effect in a live launch, so they say.

What I found interesting was that when interviewed the shadow defence person didn’t make a big deal about it and had accepted the governments response. I find that equally strange!!!

That and the fact they have only "tested" these missiles twice over a 20yearish period. Surely you would want a lot more certainty than that on a key defence capability even if it is £17m a pop.

If there is a major issue or at least uncertainty can see why they want to keep it quiet though.

[Archery1969]

The Trident failure was due to test procedures that would not be in effect in a live launch, so they say.

What I found interesting was that when interviewed the shadow defence person didn’t make a big deal about it and had accepted the governments response. I find that equally strange!!!

That and the fact they have only "tested" these missiles twice over a 20yearish period. Surely you would want a lot more certainty than that on a key defence capability even if it is £17m a pop.

If there is a major issue or at least uncertainty can see why they want to keep it quiet though.

The submarines are ours, the missiles are USA made. I saw a program about it last night whereby an ex senior US military person said a number of their own tests had failed over the decades but it’s an acceptable amount in engineering terms.

[Derek27]

The Trident failure was due to test procedures that would not be in effect in a live launch, so they say.

What I found interesting was that when interviewed the shadow defence person didn’t make a big deal about it and had accepted the governments response. I find that equally strange!!!

That and the fact they have only "tested" these missiles twice over a 20yearish period. Surely you would want a lot more certainty than that on a key defence capability even if it is £17m a pop.

If there is a major issue or at least uncertainty can see why they want to keep it quiet though.

Nuclear/rocket science is way above my head, but I believe it is possible to develop nuclear weapons and have confidence in the technology without even carrying out a live test. The Israelis appear to have done that and they were only testing the rocket system, they're banned from carrying out actual nuclear detonations.

[Archery1969]

What I found interesting was that when interviewed the shadow defence person didn’t make a big deal about it and had accepted the governments response. I find that equally strange!!!

That and the fact they have only "tested" these missiles twice over a 20yearish period. Surely you would want a lot more certainty than that on a key defence capability even if it is £17m a pop.

If there is a major issue or at least uncertainty can see why they want to keep it quiet though.

Nuclear/rocket science is way above my head, but I believe it is possible to develop nuclear weapons and have confidence in the technology without even carrying out a live test. The Israelis appear to have done that and they were only testing the rocket system, they're banned from carrying out actual nuclear detonations.

I believe in this particular case, the rocket system failed as it was designed to as the warhead was missing and therefore the system expected it to be disarmed after launch. If a nuke is disarmed after launch then the rocket basically ditches itself as it obviously can’t fly back to its launch station. That has been explained to the necessary individuals in government and opposition, hence nobody is kicking up a fuss. If the warhead was intact and armed then it would not have failed as such but might have caused allot of dead people or fish somewhere.

There are a number of failsafe mechanisms on nukes for obvious reasons.

However, information suggests that up to 20 have failed over the decades due to different reasons.

Remember, we didn’t build them, the US did. I suspect a number of the minuteman III’s will probably fail on or soon after launch as they have been around for 30 years etc.

[greenmark]

That and the fact they have only "tested" these missiles twice over a 20yearish period. Surely you would want a lot more certainty than that on a key defence capability even if it is £17m a pop.

If there is a major issue or at least uncertainty can see why they want to keep it quiet though.

Nuclear/rocket science is way above my head, but I believe it is possible to develop nuclear weapons and have confidence in the technology without even carrying out a live test. The Israelis appear to have done that and they were only testing the rocket system, they're banned from carrying out actual nuclear detonations.

I believe in this particular case, the rocket system failed as it was designed to as the warhead was missing and therefore the system expected it to be disarmed after launch. If a nuke is disarmed after launch then the rocket basically ditches itself as it obviously can’t fly back to its launch station. That has been explained to the necessary individuals in government and opposition, hence nobody is kicking up a fuss. If the warhead was intact and armed then it would not have failed as such but might have caused allot of dead people or fish somewhere.

There are a number of failsafe mechanisms on nukes for obvious reasons.

However, information suggests that up to 20 have failed over the decades due to different reasons.

Remember, we didn’t build them, the US did. I suspect a number of the minuteman III’s will probably fail on or soon after launch as they have been around for 30 years etc.

So what!
You're talking about nuclear conflagration, the destruction of humanity and the planet as we know it.
Hiding in a bunker won't protect you from that. MAD is still the most important global strategy.
A nuclear exchange between the nuclear powers would wipe civilisation as we know it away.
A nuclear war is not winnable. The outcome would be the epitome of a pyrrhic victory
"we won, we're the winners", "Oh s***! what a mess!!!"

[Derek27]

Nuclear/rocket science is way above my head, but I believe it is possible to develop nuclear weapons and have confidence in the technology without even carrying out a live test. The Israelis appear to have done that and they were only testing the rocket system, they're banned from carrying out actual nuclear detonations.

I believe in this particular case, the rocket system failed as it was designed to as the warhead was missing and therefore the system expected it to be disarmed after launch. If a nuke is disarmed after launch then the rocket basically ditches itself as it obviously can’t fly back to its launch station. That has been explained to the necessary individuals in government and opposition, hence nobody is kicking up a fuss. If the warhead was intact and armed then it would not have failed as such but might have caused allot of dead people or fish somewhere.

There are a number of failsafe mechanisms on nukes for obvious reasons.

However, information suggests that up to 20 have failed over the decades due to different reasons.

Remember, we didn’t build them, the US did. I suspect a number of the minuteman III’s will probably fail on or soon after launch as they have been around for 30 years etc.

So what!
You're talking about nuclear conflagration, the destruction of humanity and the planet as we know it.
Hiding in a bunker won't protect you from that. MAD is still the most important global strategy.
A nuclear exchange between the nuclear powers would wipe civilisation as we know it away.
A nuclear war is not winnable. The outcome would be the epitome of a pyrrhic victory
"we won, we're the winners", "Oh s***! what a mess!!!"

It's a common misconception that nuclear war would wipe out civilisation or even life on Earth. If all the nuclear weapons were simultaneously detonated on the same spot, the explosive force would be nothing compared to the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs, and that didn't wipe out small mammals, it allowed then to take over the planet.

Another myth is that towns and cities will be wiped out with multi-megaton bombs. In reality, there's more likely to be tactical strikes on military facilities. A widespread nuclear war will result in world logistics being wiped, most people will die from starvation, not explosions and fallout, but there will be survivors in their masses.

[Archery1969]

Nuclear/rocket science is way above my head, but I believe it is possible to develop nuclear weapons and have confidence in the technology without even carrying out a live test. The Israelis appear to have done that and they were only testing the rocket system, they're banned from carrying out actual nuclear detonations.

I believe in this particular case, the rocket system failed as it was designed to as the warhead was missing and therefore the system expected it to be disarmed after launch. If a nuke is disarmed after launch then the rocket basically ditches itself as it obviously can’t fly back to its launch station. That has been explained to the necessary individuals in government and opposition, hence nobody is kicking up a fuss. If the warhead was intact and armed then it would not have failed as such but might have caused allot of dead people or fish somewhere.

There are a number of failsafe mechanisms on nukes for obvious reasons.

However, information suggests that up to 20 have failed over the decades due to different reasons.

Remember, we didn’t build them, the US did. I suspect a number of the minuteman III’s will probably fail on or soon after launch as they have been around for 30 years etc.

So what!
You're talking about nuclear conflagration, the destruction of humanity and the planet as we know it.
Hiding in a bunker won't protect you from that. MAD is still the most important global strategy.
A nuclear exchange between the nuclear powers would wipe civilisation as we know it away.
A nuclear war is not winnable. The outcome would be the epitome of a pyrrhic victory
"we won, we're the winners", "Oh s***! what a mess!!!"

Not sure what your point is ?

I didn’t build the nukes and nor will I ever be in a position to launch them ?

So why pick on me exactly ?

My bunker is safe as long as a modern nuke is detonated outside of 30 miles from my location.

For those who don’t die in the initial blast will be scrambling for food, water, shelter and protection. In such a situation my goal is to stay alive and ignore those in dire straits. Not my problem. In the hope that those fully protected come back to the UK and restore normality.

[Dublin_Flyer]

Jesus the beer garden has gotten very serious since my last visit. Just dropped in to pass time while I'm waiting for Pearl Jam tickets to go on sale.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ and
https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/in ... bomb-blast
are a couple of good time killers if you're wondering about nukes landing in your hood.

[greenmark]

I believe in this particular case, the rocket system failed as it was designed to as the warhead was missing and therefore the system expected it to be disarmed after launch. If a nuke is disarmed after launch then the rocket basically ditches itself as it obviously can’t fly back to its launch station. That has been explained to the necessary individuals in government and opposition, hence nobody is kicking up a fuss. If the warhead was intact and armed then it would not have failed as such but might have caused allot of dead people or fish somewhere.

There are a number of failsafe mechanisms on nukes for obvious reasons.

However, information suggests that up to 20 have failed over the decades due to different reasons.

Remember, we didn’t build them, the US did. I suspect a number of the minuteman III’s will probably fail on or soon after launch as they have been around for 30 years etc.

So what!
You're talking about nuclear conflagration, the destruction of humanity and the planet as we know it.
Hiding in a bunker won't protect you from that. MAD is still the most important global strategy.
A nuclear exchange between the nuclear powers would wipe civilisation as we know it away.
A nuclear war is not winnable. The outcome would be the epitome of a pyrrhic victory
"we won, we're the winners", "Oh s***! what a mess!!!"

Not sure what your point is ?

I didn’t build the nukes and nor will I ever be in a position to launch them ?

So why pick on me exactly ?

My bunker is safe as long as a modern nuke is detonated outside of 30 miles from my location.

For those who don’t die in the initial blast will be scrambling for food, water, shelter and protection. In such a situation my goal is to stay alive and ignore those in dire straits. Not my problem. In the hope that those fully protected come back to the UK and restore normality.

Sorry it came over like that. I wasn't having a go at you, merely commenting based on what I'd been reading that day.
Really the intended tone of my comment was exasperation with the concept of a winnable nuclear exchange.
Anyhow Dublin_Flyer probably has a point. All a bit serious for the Beer Garden (although I've had plenty serious discusssions over a beer tbh).

[Dublin_Flyer]

It's all good lads, got the Pearl Jam tickets

[greenmark]

It's all good lads, got the Pearl Jam tickets

No knowledge of Pearl Jam till now. First 3 tracks on Spotify and I'm intrigued. Rock guitar personified. Thx.