Reply With QuoteThat's what they get when their whole whole system sounds like chewing gum.Originally Posted by Ash
That's what they get when their whole whole system sounds like chewing gum.
I guess the clue is in the 'test' bit. Tests sometimes go wrong, that's why you do them
Oh, as a technology tester myself sometimes, it can be very useful for things to go wrong so one can identify and correct the wrong bits. There are tests and there are tests though. You want the really expensive ones to go well, I think.I guess the clue is in the 'test' bit. Tests sometimes go wrong, that's why you do them
"There was a major panic at the highest level of government and the military after the first test of our nuclear deterrent in four years ended in disastrous failure," the source told the paper.
According to "The Times," Britain has conducted only five tests of Trident missiles from submarines since 2000, partly due to the 17 million pound cost of each launch.
"launched from a British submarine off the coast of the US state of Florida in June."
Rather odd place for such testing I would suggest, though clearly this is not an area in which I have either experience or expertise.
Sounds like someone in the Navy has rather too big a mouth. I'd be launching a full enquiry into who the deceitful little **** is before taking him to a highly publicised trail designed to inflict maximum shame on his family.
I'm under the impression that this is sort of why we test these missiles. Indeed, isn't that the nature of a test? To see if something goes wrong? The fact that a test was failed should have had no impact on how anyone voted anyway. Why would it?
deceitful? Who is lying? And did I understand your difficult-to-parse post as a wish to take this out on someone's family. Nice.
Oh I agree. But the public are inherently stupid, you see? You tell them that a test failed and they'll assume that next week we'll have Tridents going off in Scotland like a firework factory exploding. The general public do not need to know certain things.I'm under the impression that this is sort of why we test these missiles. Indeed, isn't that the nature of a test? To see if something goes wrong? The fact that a test was failed should have had no impact on how anyone voted anyway. Why would it?
I want to know why a senior Navy official thought it wise to disclose details of the failed test to a national newspaper.
Is this information covered by FOI?
Posting Permissions