Trident replacement and June 2016 'misfire' toward US

[xmasdale]

Rory has sent us this:

Wednesday, March 14, 2007
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/03/radiation-sickness.html


Radiation sickness. posted by lenin
SEE ALSO http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com/2007/03/dedicated-to-britains-preda tor.html

No disrespect to the 95 rebels - far from it - but for how long can we be put through this pathetic charade and be told we have a functioning democracy? I accept that it is no novelty for states to take the most important decisions about the society's direction without deference to public opinion. The British state made the decision to start Britain's nuclear weapons system in the first place without even bothering to inform cabinet. At least this time they felt the need to condescend to us with a vote, even if not a free vote. But the arguments offered over the last couple of days are drawn from a lunatic's sock-drawer and reiterated by a herd of irradiated minds.

Tom Watson MP this morning said that we had to support the renewal of Trident now, because we never know what might happen in twenty years time. No, really. He actually said that. Of course we don't * know what will happen in twenty years time! I don't even know what will happen when I go to bed, but I'm not planning on getting a gun and threatening the neighbours before I hit the sack - y'know, to be on the safe side. And if you take that argument seriously, then it cuts both ways: we don't know what will have happened to Western governments or societies in twenty years, and we may not fancy finding out what they could do with limitless nuclear weaponry. But Watson's argument is exactly the same as that used by the Tories. In fact, Blair made a similar argument, with some absurd bells on, last year. Roughly he explained: what if, right, Iran gets nuclear weapons, right? And then they give them to terrorists? Or, no wait, what if North Korea gets them and Kim Il-Sung calls Osama up and plots the obliteration of all of America's national monuments? You never know. Could happen. And then if it did, wouldn't we want nuclear weapons in order to be able to... er... 'defend' ourselves? I mean, what are we supposed to be hoping for? At least if they kill a few thousand Americans we can wipe out hundreds of thousands of Arabs? (Silly me - they've already done that). One New Labour publication actually has the chutzpah to claim that it is about honouring a manifesto commitment. The Labour Party? They value manifesto pledges? Yeth ith twooo.

Are these more of those lies that aren't even designed to be convincing, I wonder? If so, it has worked spectacularly. Even the usually reliably dumb and docile intelligentsia aren't suckered into this one. Not Polly Toynbee, nor Nick Cohen, nor David Aaronovitch, nor any of the usual crowd of Blairite scum (no offense, obviously). Naturally, the televised hairdos such as Tom Bradbury will at the slightest squeeze of the nipple read out New Labour's press releases and call it political analysis. The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh thinks Iran is an oil-hungry Sunni dictatorship, so obviously he's all for it. But public opinion isn't behind it, celebrities are lining up to denounce it, the experts aren't exactly brimming with enthusiasm, Labour members show genuine signs of having an opinion about it (they're against). And almost 100 Labour MPs defied the party whip and forced the government to rely on Tory support. I grant you, the fact that this is important tells you how pathetic the House of Commons is, but it is in fact important. Parliament is always the last place that a crisis registers.

Once upon a time there was a story about nuclear weapons: we had to have them, so that we could assure another nuclear power that we could destroy them if they destroyed us. That story was believed for a while, but what we now know is that we came terrifyingly close to destroying the planet. In the grand scheme of things, the human race probably doesn't matter all that much, but we should probably avoid destroying ourselves until all other options have been considered. As it now stands, however, the theory of mutually assured destruction can't even begin to persuade, because the 'mutual' element no longer obtains - for now, anyway. Instead what we have is a one-sided threat of annihilation, more or less open. It wouldn't be the first time. In February 2003, UK Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon told the world that Britain was fully prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. What else could it mean? Why on earth does a state want nuclear weapons attached to submarines if not to threaten population centres all over the world with extinction should they fail to obey orders? What else is the purpose of redrawing the boundaries between nuclear and conventional weapons? Why else would those trying to foist the system on us be reduced to such incoherent * gibberish?

SEE ALSO http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com/2007/03/dedicated-to-britains-preda tor.html

[Newspeak International]

I think most here know this is all just a sham to exploit those in fear to part with their money through further taxes.

This and Olympic fiasco,all part of the NWO plan for acceptance to get us out of this mess.

If there were a poll I would guess that 60-70% of the country would favour the abolition of nuclear capability in the UK.

[ZUCO]

It's completely hypocritical of the UK and US governmens to build massive arsenals of nuclear weapons whist telling other nations they can't do the same. If our nuclear defences work then surely it makes no difference who else has them?

[bigyin]

I don't claim to be expert and I've not done much research on this but I think there was a time when an argument for polaris / trident could be made because essentially the russians had a similar system pointed at us. So we had to fight fire with fire. Thats not the case now and is unlikely ever to happen again. Polaris / Trident and its successor is a platform which uses ICBM ( Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles ), rockets which can travel thousands of miles to the target carrying whatever warhead you want to put on it, in this case nuclear. These rockets go into high altitude almost space but we now have space based defence systems which take these out... rendering them useless against countries with the defence system... thats us. So nobody is going to be targeting us with that kind of weapon ever again, cos it will hardly get off the ground or whatever platform before it is neutralised.

What we do have is the possibility of some countries developing nuclear capability which could be deployed in a different way. Personally i think the most likely method of deployment would be to put it in the back of a vehicle and park it in the city you want to destroy. Ie terrorist style.

Something like trident is not going to help you against that sort of tactic.

I think we could still have a nuclear capability but it should be in the form of a small short range missile which could be strapped to a jet plane, fired from a tank or artilary, or using a surface ship or even a submarine. We already have the cruise missile which works fine.

I used to work on the Polaris system many years ago. The four polaris boats are currently parked up in Rosyth Dockyard in Fife, Scotland. The main reason these boats become obsolete / unusable is that the hull becomes too radioactive to be safe for sailors to live in. This is nothing to do with the weapons system, its to do with the propulsion system as they have nuclear recators used to generate power to drive them along. It is these reactors that cause the problem. Nobody knows what to do with the old boats. They are simply tied up at Rosyth and forgotton about and in the meantime we talk about building another four boats.

The argument for Trident is that it is our nuclear detterent and as I've pointed out we can have a more effective, cheaper, and useable nuclear detterent using existing systems.

I can't think of a single reason to replace Trident.... other than to keep American manufacturers in business. Could that be the real reason we are getting it. Once again its all to do with powerful business connections bullying the UK government into doing something they dont really want to do.

The money being wasted on Trident could be used to improve conventional forces, army, navy and air force. Better still it could be used on improving things like hospitals and schools, roads and tranport, and my favourite care of the elderly, those people who worked their lives to get us to where we are now.

[wepmob2000]

The whole point of a system like Trident is unlike the other nuclear systems, its nearly impossible to wipe out with any kind of first strike. The USSR's nuclear arsenal hasn't gone away, its just the one independent state of Russia that now controls it. The self same Russia that isn't adverse to using strong-arm tactics to get its own way (energy supply blackmail, war in Chechnya). The majority of the Russian missiles are still believed to be aimed at targets across the world, including of course, all major British cities.

As much as it pains me to say this (and it really does), for once I agree with Bliar, we do need to decide now whether to update Trident, and we should keep it, once its gone, it'll be hard if not impossible to replace. Does anyone really want to put their entire faith in an 'infalliable'ABM system? A quite convincing case could be made that nuclear weapons really do work as a deterrent, as their presence breeds uncertainty, would anyone like to wager how many more World War's we would have had without them? Scrapping the NPT would probably bring more peace and reasonableness to the world.

[Ian]

"Scrapping the NPT would probably bring more peace and reasonableness to the world."

...and this forum perhaps?

[paul wright]

However diplomatically we put it, for public appearance's sake, those who genuinely support the aims of the Campaign would generally regard those in charge, whether nominally or actually, in this country as lying murderous genocidal scum, not to put too fine a point on it.
Yet there are some who would feel that it's ok for these same sorts to have their control of a £76 billion weapon capable of killing millions, and with residues that remain extremely dangerous, even if unused for tens of thousands of years, or until such time as it can be neutralised.
Come on, give me 50 no planes people any day of the week for one of them

[Ignatz]

How do Spain, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Japan manage to keep the rampaging hordes from bringing their proud and important countries to their knees with their nuclear threat ? It's a mystery to me ...

[malcks]

spend the money on RED NOSE DAY

[Thermate]

I don't see why we need a replacement. The only potential enemy we will be facing in 20years time is the rampant imperialist neocon-zionist U.S.A. dictatorship.

And by that time they will have more space based lasers and drop ship drones than we could possibly cope with and more missile defence than we could hope to overcome.

[malcks]

rampent imperialist USA! TRY RAMPENT NEW WORLD ORDER dont think and blame the good old US OF A what about the the gooood auld E of U?

[Newspeak International]

[malcks]

a bit of both mate

[wepmob2000]

Perhaps the most amazing thing of all is that Bliar and his mealy mouthed chancellor actually agreed to this upgrade at all. Its remarkable that Trident wasn't scrapped and the funds reallocated to the black hole that most of our taxes are consigned to.

A defining feature of this government seems to be its desire to strip the forces to the bone, while committing them to ever more ludicrous expeditions. We've regularly seen how British servicemen are killed because the government won't spend OUR money where its most needed.

Nonetheless, for once the Government actually seems to be thinking practically, perhaps in a few years time we'll think, 'well, at least the Labour government wasn't that stupid', when it came to the decision about Trident. Just because the threat isn't readily apparent now, doesn't mean it won't be in 10 years time. That kind of specious reasoning, when prevalent in the 1920's / 30's, nearly got us into a whole world of trouble in the 1940's. What use is a shiny new hospital if President Madman in country X wants to obliterate it, and we haven't the means to deter him?

I've never really understood the whole CND / Nuclear disarmament stance, its pretty evident that nuclear weapons have actually prevented more conflict than diplomacy alone ever could. A recent good example would be India and Pakistan, and the Kashmir dispute. Its pretty certain they would have gone to war over that worthless and pointless strip of territory if they hadn't both had nukes. After all they went to war in 1965 and 1971..... Similarly, would the USA be making aggressive noises about Iran if it had nuclear weapons? They went noticably quiet regarding North Korea after they exploded their bomb.

Bliar and his gang might be low-life scumbags, with dictatorial ambitions, but even they aren't stupid enough to misbehave with WMD, after all, they something left to dictate over.

[TonyGosling]

Thanks for this Noel
On Channel 4 News just now Paul Mason just said Gordon Brown had to promise to keep Trident before Tony Blair agreed to step down.
Couldn't say that on the BBC

Ed Balls: McBride 'despicable' spin nothing to do with me - Mon23Sep2013
http://www.channel4.com/news/ed-balls-damian-mcbride-spin-doctor-despi cable-gordon-brown
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/230913

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y8F1_bnyxA

[TonyGosling]

Britain’s nuclear deterrent isn’t 'independent'
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/britain-s-nuclear-deterrent-isn-t -independent-1589678972

Friday 15 July 2016 12:32 UTC
https://t.co/2VoPWBmBuv
Conservative and Labour advocates for the retention of the Trident system invariably describe it as an 'independent' nuclear deterrent
On Monday, 18 July 2016, the British government will seek the approval of parliament for its proposal to renew the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system. This involves the replacement of the four British-built submarines from which US-supplied Trident II missiles carrying nuclear warheads manufactured in Britain can be launched. The first of the replacement submarines is planned to enter service in the early 2030s.

The last Labour government initiated the process of replacement by publishing a White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent, in December 2006. This recommended that the new system should provide "continuous at-sea deterrence" (CASD) as the current one does – in other words, that at least one submarine be on patrol armed with Trident missiles at any time.

The White Paper asserts that the UK needs nuclear weapons:

“to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means” (Paragraph 3-4)

Obviously, this reasoning applies with even greater force to weaker states, like Iran, that are threatened by stronger ones, like the US and Israel. Indeed, on the basis of this reasoning, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that every state should get nuclear weapons, if it can possibly afford them.

The key question for those who assert the UK’s right to possess nuclear weapons is how can they reasonably deny that right to any other state in the world?

The White Paper proposal was approved by the House of Commons in March 2007 by 409 votes to 161, the Labour government enjoying solid support from the Conservative MPs for its proposal. However, around a quarter of Labour MPs defied their government and joined the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Plaid Cymru in voting against.

The final decision will be taken on Monday. The outcome is not in doubt: with an overall majority in the House of Commons, the Conservative government can win the vote on its own. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is opposed to nuclear weapons but a majority of his MPs will vote in favour. The Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Plaid Cymru will again oppose. There is little doubt that the UK will have a submarine-based nuclear weapons system that could remain operational into the 2060s.

The official estimate of the cost of building the replacement submarines is now £31 bn (US$42 bn), up from £25 bn in 2011 (see House of Commons Briefing Paper, Replacing the UK's 'Trident' Nuclear Deterrent, 12 July 2016). A contingency of £10 bn will also be set aside, giving an upper-end estimate of the submarine acquisition cost of £41 bn. As for the in-service costs of the nuclear weapons system as a whole, the Commons Briefing Paper suggests that might be as much as £140 bnn over its projected 30-year lifetime.

Deterrent independent?

Conservative and Labour advocates for the retention of the Trident system invariably describe it as an “independent” nuclear deterrent. For instance, on 9 April 2015, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said that, if a Labour government scrapped it, this “would shatter the 60-year consensus that has existed among governments of all colours in favour of an operationally independent nuclear deterrent”. Labour responded by insisting that “Labour is committed to maintaining a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a ‘continuous at-sea deterrent’.” But is Britain’s nuclear deterrent really “independent”?

At least eight (and perhaps nine) states in the world now possess functional nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. All of them, bar one, manufacture and maintain their own nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. All of them, bar one, have complete control over the use of their systems. In other words, all of them, bar one, possess what can reasonably be described as an “independent” nuclear deterrent that doesn’t rely on another state to provide vital parts of it.

The exception is Britain. China has an “independent” nuclear deterrent. So has France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the US – and perhaps North Korea. Britain hasn’t.

Unlike other states that have nuclear weapons systems, Britain is dependent on another state to manufacture an essential element of its only nuclear weapons system – the Trident missiles that are supposed to carry Britain’s weapons to target. These are manufactured by Lockheed Martin in the US.

And Britain’s dependence on the US doesn’t end with the purchase of the missiles – Britain depends on the US Navy to service the missiles as well. A common pool of missiles is maintained at the US Strategic Weapons facility at Kings Bay, Georgia, USA, from which the US itself and Britain draw serviced missiles as required.

There is some doubt about the degree of “operational” independence that Britain enjoys in respect of its nuclear weapons system (of which more later). But there is no doubt that Britain is dependent on the US for the manufacture and maintenance of a key element of the system. So, to call it an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent.

Independent foreign policy?

The plain truth is that, if Britain doesn’t maintain friendly relations with the US, then it won’t have a functional nuclear weapons system, despite having spent billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money on it – because the US would simply cease providing Britain with serviceable Trident missiles.

So, there is a strong incentive for Britain to follow the US in foreign policy, since independence from the US in foreign policy could lead to its nuclear weapons system becoming non-functional. Sustained opposition to the US in foreign policy certainly would. As long as Britain is tied to the US by a requirement for US-supplied and maintained missiles for its nuclear weapons system, it cannot have a wholly independent foreign policy.

In these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Britain would use its nuclear weapons system to strike a target without the approval of the US, whether or not it is theoretically possible for Britain to do so. So, it is absurd to describe it as an “independent” nuclear deterrent.

The above applies to the UK’s current nuclear weapons system. But it applies equally to the proposed replacement. To ask the British taxpayer to fork out upwards of £200 bn in the pretence that the UK will continue to possess an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent.

Surprisingly, the December 2006 White Paper conceded that our US-dependent nuclear deterrent will become non-functional if relations sour with the US. Paragraph 4-7 puts it this way:

“We continue to believe that the costs of developing a nuclear deterrent relying solely on UK sources outweigh the benefits. We do not see a good case for making what would be a substantial additional investment in our nuclear deterrent purely to insure against a, highly unlikely, deep and enduring breakdown in relations with the US. We therefore believe that it makes sense to continue to procure elements of the system from the US.”

Operationally independent?

British governments have always insisted that Britain’s nuclear weapons system is “operationally” independent of the US. The December 2006 White Paper (4-6) states that “the UK’s current nuclear deterrent is fully operationally independent of the US”. Apparently, if a British prime minister decides to press the nuclear button, it is impossible for the US to stop the launch of missiles or prevent them from delivering British nuclear warheads to the selected target. Maybe so.

Is a British prime minister really free to strike any target he/she chooses in this world with nuclear weapons, at a time of his choosing, using US-supplied missiles? I doubt that the US would sell any foreign power – even a close ally – a weapons system with which the foreign power is free to do catastrophic damage to US allies, not to mention the US itself. Surely, the US must have a mechanism, under its explicit control, to prevent the targeting of states that it doesn’t want targeted?

- David Morrison is the co-author of A Dangerous Delusion: Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran (published by Elliott & Thompson, 2013). Morrison has written many articles on the US-led invasion of Iraq.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photo: Britain's Trident Nuclear Submarine, HMS Victorious, on patrol off the west coast of Scotland on 4 April, 2013 (AFP).
Read more: https://t.co/2VoPWBmBuv

[scienceplease 2]

Trident is a complete waste of money not because I don't like the security blanket that is provided by the Mutually Assured Destruction policy, actually, that's quite nice... (I suggest every country should have one)... but because in a few years time submarine launched missiles will be ineffective. A submarine is big, slow and difficult to communicate with. And they will soon be completely visible by satellite or marine sensor surveillance and destruction by mini-submarine drones. That's why it is a waste of money... too easy to knock out.

The sub-drone technology is developing rapidly...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3546052/US-Navy-developing-fle et-drone-mother-submarines-release-smaller-robots-lay-mines-launch-mis siles-counter-China-threat.html

The jokers at http://www.openrov.com/ have even called their drone "Trident".

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/coming-soon-european- designed-underwater-vehicles-can-work-teams

So Trident replacement: a complete white elephant, a modern day Maginot Line.

What is likely to be more effective are hypersonic missiles:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-successfully-tests-hyper sonic-missile/

or something space-based, lifted there by Skylon.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html

or massed microdrones. In any case, subs will not be the answer.

[TonyGosling]

Downing Street 'covered up serious Trident missile malfunction' weeks before crucial Commons vote
Labour former defence minister demands inquiry into failed test
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-nuclear-missile- malfunction-downing-street-government-cover-up-commons-vote-renewal-a7 539841.html

Samuel Osborne @SamuelOsborne93 Sunday 22 January 2017

MPs voted overwhelmingly in July to back the renewal of Britain's Trident nuclear deterrence Andrew Linnett/MoD Crown Copyright via Getty Images
Downing Street has been accused of covering up a Trident missile malfunction weeks before a crucial Commons vote on the future of the submarine-based missile system.

The Sunday Times reports that a Trident II D5 missile test ended in failure after it was launched from the British submarine HMS Vengeance off the coast of Florida in June last year.

The newspaper reports that the cause of the failure remains top secret, but quotes a senior naval source saying the missile, which was unarmed for the test, suffered an in-flight malfunction after launch.

It was reportedly intended to be fired 5,600 miles to a sea target off the west coast of Africa but may have veered off towards America instead.

The source told the newspaper: “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.

“Ultimately Downing Street decided to cover up the failed test. If the information was made public, they knew how damaging it would be to the credibility of our nuclear deterrent.

“The upcoming Trident vote made it all the more sensitive.”

In July, MPs voted by 472 to 117 to back the renewal of Britain's Trident nuclear deterrence. The overwhelming vote supported the Government's plans to spend up to £40 billion on four new Successor-class submarines.

Labour former defence minister Kevan Jones has demanded an inquiry into the failed test.

“The UK’s independent nuclear deterrent is a vital cornerstone for the nation’s defence,” he told the newspaper.

“If there are problems, they should not have been covered up in this ham-fisted way. Ministers should come clean if there are problems and there should be an urgent inquiry into what happened.”

A Government spokesman said: "The capability and effectiveness of the Trident missile, should we ever need to employ it, is unquestionable.

"In June the Royal Navy conducted a routine unarmed Trident missile test launch from HMS Vengeance, as part of an operation which is designed to certify the submarine and its crew.

"Vengeance and her crew were successfully tested and certified, allowing Vengeance to return into service. We have absolute confidence in our independent nuclear deterrent.

"We do not provide further details on submarine operations for obvious national security reasons."

[TonyGosling]

British Nuclear Submarines, Microsoft and That Ransomware Attack
By Graham Vanbergen
Global Research, May 15, 2017
True Publica 14 May 2017
http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-nuclear-submarines-microsoft-and- that-ransomware-attack/5590236

The BBC has reported that the recent ransomware attack hit 100 countries. Cyber-security firm Avast said it had seen 75,000 cases of the ransomware – known as ‘WannaCry’ and variants of that name – around the world. Russia was hit the worst. State owned organisations such as health care, railway systems, water and electricity seemed target of choice. This along with telecoms infrastructure and energy suppliers, postal services, educations services and financial institutions.

The infections seem, by all accounts to be deployed via a worm – a program that parasitically spreads by itself between computers with alarming speed and effectiveness. So fast, that this cyber-attack had the potential to hit critical infrastructure that supports human life and disable it in under one day to over 3 billion people. The demands by the cyber-criminals were simple – they wanted electronic money such as BitCoin to unlock the data.

Microsoft was the only fully vulnerable operating system and said it was pushing out automatic Windows updates to defend clients from WannaCry.

Who are culprits? The BBC blame hackers known as ‘The Shadow Brokers’, who made it freely available in April, saying it was a “protest” about US President Donald Trump.


But let’s not forget who the really big culprits are here. The American and British government’s are at total fault. They both fund the NSA and GCHQ. Both advocate government snooping and spying into every citizen of the world, let alone their own. Both advocate the banning of secure encryption communication services and both have spent millions on developing tools to hack and crack these systems at will.

The NSA in America lost all of these hacking tools, specifically the one that caused this attack and subsequent mayhem across the world. The hackers exploited a piece of NSA code known as “Eternal Blue.”

From Wikileaks Vault7 Files:

“Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized “zero day” exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.”

British Ex ambassador Craig Murray:

“The arms race between major powers to develop cyber warfare and cyber surveillance capacity is a massive threat to the security of the internet. It is the very governments who most like to claim they need to intervene to protect us, who are in fact creating the dangers they cite. This is NSA software; WikiLeaks “Vault 7” leak has revealed the similar massive effort at the CIA in developing destructive software.

That is not to say the NSA or US government is behind this worldwide attack. But it is to say that western governments are spending billions of pounds on developing malware, which they cannot themselves keep safe. This should be viewed in the same light as chemical weapons programmes. Urgent international action to outlaw weaponised malware development should be a priority for the international community, as the danger to increasingly IT dependent services is extreme. The United States is the biggest aggressor and the biggest danger.”

I have stated for some time now in numerous articles that our own government are becoming our biggest enemies today. Far from being killed by a crazy swivel-eyed black flag waving extremist brandishing a scimitar with a Semtex vest, the likelihood is that a cyber-attack will disable critical services or that your personal data will be stolen causing absolute chaos to normal life.

In Britain, Theresa May was Home Secretary for 6 years. She was, and as PM still is responsible for the cyber-defences of the country. The mainstream press have not mentioned once that Theresa May has failed to protect Britain in any tangible way from this attack.

And as Craig Murray continues:

“Underfunded NHS Trusts have privatised IT management and outsourced the control and security of their computer systems to contractors, as part of the general rip-up of the NHS to provide private profit. These companies are more interested in maximising profits than safeguarding against contingent attacks. Very few NHS Trusts now employ their own NHS team of dedicated computer specialists maintaining and caring for their systems, including their defences.

Corporate profits have been great though. Remember that extraordinary numbers of MPs have financial links to private healthcare firms. If the Tories win a landslide, doubtless the numbers of MPs personally profiting from NHS privatisation will increase still further.”

But it gets potentially worse than cancelled operations and emergency ambulances being sent in the wrong direction. It’s possibly worse than people dying in corridors of hospitals when, metaphorically speaking, the lights go off.

In 2008, the UK’s nuclear submarines were fitted out with exactly the same systems that have just been involved in this cyber-attack.

From a 2008 article – The Register:

Royal Navy completes Windows for Submarines™ rollout

“The programme is called Submarine Command System Next Generation (SMCS NG), and uses varying numbers of standard multifunction consoles with two LCD screens, hooked up on an internal Ethernet network installed on each sub. Initial reports as the programme developed suggested that the OS in question would be Windows 2000, but those who have worked on it have since informed the Reg that in fact it is mostly based on XP.”

Windows were so chuffed at “Windows for Submarines” they even advertised the fact to the entire world (HERE)

“Windows for Submarines is the programme undertaken by the Royal Navy and BAE Systems to equip the nuclear-propelled and nuclear-armed warship fleet with a Windows-based command system. The transition to the Windows for Submarines command system on HMS Vigilant, a Trident nuclear missile submarine, was completed in just 18 days.”

This Microsoft blog is an open forum and even then an incredulous audience were questioning such a decision. Here are the first four reactions of dozens of responses.

Omar Amer December 18, 2008 at 4:27 am: I have to ask in all seriousness – why was windows chosen over unix or linux? Granted a nuclear sub is a very mission critical operation – which is exactly why I’m bewildered at the choice of windows operating system. please shed some light on this.

Russell Quinn December 18, 2008 at 6:31 am: 18 days? You guys tested this right?
Mjoo December 18, 2008 at 7:56 am: And what about the future when Windows 2000 and XP security is no longer supported? (Which by the look of it is right around the bend)

Reno December 18, 2008 at 8:57 am: What about the blue screen of death? What about fatal boot error due to ntfs corruption? Yikes !

Don’t think anything could possibly go wrong when a British Trident submarine, fitted with American manufactured (and maintained) nuclear warheads – managed via American developed software infected with American hacking tools when the red button is pushed? Think again.

MPs accuse Theresa May of covering up Trident malfunction


The Guardian wrote that Theresa May was

“under pressure to come clean in the House of Commons about the failure of a Trident missile test after MPs accused her of covering up the truth before a crucial parliamentary vote on renewing the nuclear deterrent.”

There was a catastrophic test-firing of the UK’s Trident II D5 ballistic missile in June last year off the coast of Florida. This was not some revolutionary new development still at the experimental stage.

The missile completed its design stage in 1989 and was deployed a year later. Nor was the Vanguard-class nuclear submarine that fired it, HMS Vengeance, new. It has been in service since 1999. So there should not have been the kind of malfunction that saw the missile targeted in the direction of west Africa head off in the opposite direction towards the US mainland. Any teething troubles should have been worked out long ago.

The Ministry of Defence said:

“The problem appears to have involved telemetry data, information gathered from various points and fed to the missile. There seem to have been a communication breakdown involving directional data.“

This is the same submarine class that was fitted with ‘Windows for Submarines’. In other words, the outdated software failed. Microsoft stopped supporting the MS XP system completely in 2014.

Think about that just for a moment. A nuclear missile was actually fired from a British submarine, albeit without being armed, and instead of heading towards Africa it went speeding off in the wrong direction towards America – a nation of warmongers, who themselves have 5,000 world obliterating nuclear weapons on a hair-trigger. Thankfully, the ‘abort mission’ button worked.
The original source of this article is True Publica
Copyright © Graham Vanbergen, True Publica, 2017