mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Ignore him mate. He is wrong but still pretending he thinks he knows
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trident
- Thread starter marco
- Start date
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
ThatWhen you say the NATO command structure - do you mean we a political command structure, or an actual physical one, e.g. there's a NATO guy in the physical process of launching who can stop it?
Surely if there's only a UK commander on a submarine and he's given the order, there's no physical means of intervention? (or is there? - is he physically capable of launching without any intervention / unlock codes from NATO etc?)
Imagine a rogue commander of the sub, with sole capability to launch - that seems odd.
At an absolutely wild stab in the dark.... I would have thought that EVEN if the the missiles were launched, there might be some secondary acknowledgement required whilst airborne to 'unlock' the bmb as such. That way, even an accidental misfire, or rogue commander couldn't make it happen - the missile would need a secondary confirmation via satellite or something.
Anybody know?
How are you so sure that you are correct? Are you claiming to be well ITK or have you read a lot of "stuff"You keep saying this but it really isn't truly independent. It operates under the NATO command structure normally and our NATO allies have to be consulted before we use it. Theoretically the PM could ignore that advice but I simply couldn't see that happening and neither could President Kennedy in 1962 when he agreed to let us have access to the missile technology. There was a form of words giving us freedom of action in cases where our "supreme national interest" was threatened but that was deliberately ambiguous. JFK meant that as a sop to UK public opinion and he and his advisers saw no circumstances in which that might happen outside a NATO framework.
In instances like this when discussing submarines I'm far more likely to take the word of somebody who's location is 'Deep under the ocean'what a load of crap. You honestly think the US would bomb Faslane and take outthe on patrol boat? Stop talking bollocks. Trident IS NOT an extention of US arms, where are you getting this shit from?
I asked you lastnight andyou failed to answer, but why do youthink youare an authority on this?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
What makes you an authority? Tell how you know, with 100% certainty, that Trident is absolutely under our political control.what a load of crap. You honestly think the US would bomb Faslane and take outthe on patrol boat? Stop talking bollocks. Trident IS NOT an extention of US arms, where are you getting this shit from?
I asked you lastnight andyou failed to answer, but why do youthink youare an authority on this?
Yaya_Tony
Well-Known Member
Y2JFifties and sixties actually. We tried to have a truly independent deterrent. But it never worked, was too expensive and we went cap in hand to the Yanks instead. The rest as they say is history.
Props on the Backstabbers.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Kinds of gives it away dont you think :)In instances like this when discussing submarines I'm far more likely to take the word of somebody who's location is 'Deep under the ocean'
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
My security clearance and 35 years experience in the UK programme. What,s yours ?What makes you an authority? Tell how you know, with 100% certainty, that Trident is absolutely under our political control.
Yaya_Tony
Well-Known Member
Thug life.My security clearance and 35 years experience in the UK programme. What,s yours ?
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Thug life.
And I glow in the dark !
Dirty Harry
Well-Known Member
My security clearance and 35 years experience in the UK programme. What,s yours ?
Top trumps ?