Why it matters

[The Happy Hippy]

https://news.sky.com/story/trident-missile-malfunction-sends-wrong-kind-of-message-and-is-more-than-just-an-embarrassing-blow-for-uks-nuclear-deterrent-13076954

<quotes>

The UK's nuclear deterrent submarines have one core mission - to maintain a continuous ability to launch a strike at any moment upon the order of the prime minister, without failure.

Any suggestion of vulnerability with one of the boats, the Trident missiles or their nuclear warheads undermines the protective blanket that this multiple-times-of-multiple-billions-of-pounds insurance policy is meant to provide to the UK and its NATO allies.

It is why confirmation of an "anomaly" in the test-firing of a US-made Trident II missile by a Vanguard-class submarine off the coast of Florida is more than just an embarrassing blow.

Coming after a previous missile launch in 2016 also failed, the revelation weakens the cast-iron sense of reliability that is required for the threat of a nuclear strike to have the desired deterrent effect.

The malfunction of the launch will have sent absolutely the wrong kind of message to friends and foes, regardless of the UK's assurances of "absolute confidence" in its deterrent.

</quotes>

I doubt Brits are any more likely to be buying the "it will work when we need it to work" line than Putin is.

[TWP]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:23:24 +0000, The Happy Hippy wrote:

> https://news.sky.com/story/trident-missile-malfunction-sends-wrong-kind-
of-message-and-is-more-than-just-an-embarrassing-blow-for-uks-nuclear-

deterrent-13076954
>
> <quotes>
>
> The UK's nuclear deterrent submarines have one core mission - to
> maintain a continuous ability to launch a strike at any moment upon the
> order of the prime minister, without failure.
>
> Any suggestion of vulnerability with one of the boats, the Trident
> missiles or their nuclear warheads undermines the protective blanket
> that this multiple-times-of-multiple-billions-of-pounds insurance policy
> is meant to provide to the UK and its NATO allies.
>
> It is why confirmation of an "anomaly" in the test-firing of a US-made
> Trident II missile by a Vanguard-class submarine off the coast of
> Florida is more than just an embarrassing blow.
>
> Coming after a previous missile launch in 2016 also failed, the
> revelation weakens the cast-iron sense of reliability that is required
> for the threat of a nuclear strike to have the desired deterrent effect.
>
> The malfunction of the launch will have sent absolutely the wrong kind
> of message to friends and foes, regardless of the UK's assurances of
> "absolute confidence" in its deterrent.
>
> </quotes>
>
> I doubt Brits are any more likely to be buying the "it will work when we
> need it to work" line than Putin is.

We need to invest in a Doomsday Device.

I think Russia and other interested parties will still take our ability to
retalliate seriously. There's always been an expectation that some
missiles on both sides would fail and they've hopefully got time to put
things right... as far as I know... We still fear Russia's nuclear
weapons. Maybe not so much as part of the war in Ukraine but as an
ultimate weapon if we attacked their homeland directly.