In uk.railway Clive Coleman. twisted the electrons to say:
I watched a programme years ago on a channel like National Geographical,
and if I remember, the sub had to be in contact (radio wise) with the
white house and unless they entered the right code into the system, it
won't work. Things might have changed, but I somehow doubt it.

So if the USSR had done a depressed trajectory shot onto the White House
(or more probably Cheyenne Mountain) from just off the USA's coast as
their opening move then the entire western nuclear arsenel is unworkable?
Doesn't sound too sensible to me.

People are always claiming that the UK Tridents can't be fired without
the USA authorisation (or even that only the USA controls them), but they
never seem to be able to provide any evidence for this (or any evidence
as to why the UK would be foolish enough to sign up to such a deal).
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
. ..
In uk.railway Clive Coleman. twisted the electrons to say:
I watched a programme years ago on a channel like National Geographical,
and if I remember, the sub had to be in contact (radio wise) with the
white house and unless they entered the right code into the system, it
won't work. Things might have changed, but I somehow doubt it.

So if the USSR had done a depressed trajectory shot onto the White House
(or more probably Cheyenne Mountain) from just off the USA's coast as
their opening move then the entire western nuclear arsenel is unworkable?
Doesn't sound too sensible to me.

People are always claiming that the UK Tridents can't be fired without
the USA authorisation (or even that only the USA controls them), but they
never seem to be able to provide any evidence for this (or any evidence
as to why the UK would be foolish enough to sign up to such a deal).
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

I accept this is from the New Statesman but check it out anyway -
http://www.newstatesman.com/200603270008

also, strange how Bliar is sooo anxious for US anti missile systems to be
on UK soil when Dubya seems to want them in Poland or Czechoslovakia to wind
up the Soviets

steveb

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:17:34 GMT, "steveb"
wrote:


"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
In uk.railway Clive Coleman. twisted the electrons to say:
I watched a programme years ago on a channel like National Geographical,
and if I remember, the sub had to be in contact (radio wise) with the
white house and unless they entered the right code into the system, it
won't work. Things might have changed, but I somehow doubt it.

So if the USSR had done a depressed trajectory shot onto the White House
(or more probably Cheyenne Mountain) from just off the USA's coast as
their opening move then the entire western nuclear arsenel is unworkable?
Doesn't sound too sensible to me.

People are always claiming that the UK Tridents can't be fired without
the USA authorisation (or even that only the USA controls them), but they
never seem to be able to provide any evidence for this (or any evidence
as to why the UK would be foolish enough to sign up to such a deal).
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

I accept this is from the New Statesman but check it out anyway -
http://www.newstatesman.com/200603270008

This statement

"it would know roughly where to look, starting from the last position
notified to the US and Nato while on normal patrol"

shows the article is complete rubbish.

The only people who know where a patrolling SSBN is currently located is
the Captain and and Navigator. SSBNS do *not* report their position ever to
home base.


greg
--
· "The Left accepts poverty as long as everyone is poor"
· "The Left tolerates injustice as long as everyone is equally a victim of it"

In message , Alistair Gunn
writes
People are always claiming that the UK Tridents can't be fired without
the USA authorisation (or even that only the USA controls them), but they
never seem to be able to provide any evidence for this (or any evidence
as to why the UK would be foolish enough to sign up to such a deal).
You may debate it as much as you like, I can remember when Trident was
being negotiated with the Merkins to replace Polaris, and it was sold to
us as being a steal at HALF PRICE, and hidden away in smaller print,
(the sort of thing that Newsnight picks up) was the Merkins had right of
veto.
--
Clive.

In uk.railway Clive Coleman. twisted the electrons to say:
In message , Alistair Gunn
writes
People are always claiming that the UK Tridents can't be fired without
the USA authorisation (or even that only the USA controls them), but they
never seem to be able to provide any evidence for this (or any evidence
as to why the UK would be foolish enough to sign up to such a deal).
You may debate it as much as you like, I can remember when Trident was
being negotiated with the Merkins to replace Polaris, and it was sold to
us as being a steal at HALF PRICE, and hidden away in smaller print,
(the sort of thing that Newsnight picks up) was the Merkins had right of
veto.

So "you remember" the "small print" ... Care to quote a source where the
rest of us can read it?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In message , Alistair Gunn
writes
You may debate it as much as you like, I can remember when Trident was
being negotiated with the Merkins to replace Polaris, and it was sold to
us as being a steal at HALF PRICE, and hidden away in smaller print,
(the sort of thing that Newsnight picks up) was the Merkins had right of
veto.

So "you remember" the "small print" ... Care to quote a source where the
rest of us can read it?
I was pointing out that Trident was being trumpeted as a major coup,
getting Trident at half price, however both the papers and news media
reported the bits that government spin didn't, that we didn't have real
control. It was a figure of speech. I don't ask you to believe it,
be gullible if you want.
--
Clive.

In uk.railway Clive Coleman. twisted the electrons to say:
I was pointing out that Trident was being trumpeted as a major coup,
getting Trident at half price, however both the papers and news media
reported the bits that government spin didn't, that we didn't have real
control. It was a figure of speech.

No supporting documentation provided, claim fails ...

I don't ask you to believe it, be gullible if you want.

Well, if you want to believe that 100% independence (which I'll
certainly grant the UK deterrent isn't 100% independent) is logically
equivalent to 100% lack of independence that's up to you ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In message , Alistair Gunn
writes
No supporting documentation provided, claim fails ...

I don't ask you to believe it, be gullible if you want.

Well, if you want to believe that 100% independence (which I'll
certainly grant the UK deterrent isn't 100% independent) is logically
equivalent to 100% lack of independence that's up to you .
I don't know whether it's me or you, but what I have claimed is what I
have read (or heard) I tried to avoid saying it was hard fact as it is
most probably unprovable, I don't believe this government to be any more
honest than any other especially when it comes to accounting what they
have done with our money. I think the best plan is for me to state
what I think as my opinion and for you to do likewise, maintaining the
status quo.
--
Clive.

On 25 Feb 2007 12:53:28 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote:

I don't ask you to believe it, be gullible if you want.

Well, if you want to believe that 100% independence (which I'll
certainly grant the UK deterrent isn't 100% independent) is logically
equivalent to 100% lack of independence that's up to you ...

Independence is an absolute state. Something is either independent, or
it's not. It's not possible to be 50% independent. Phrases like "A is
more independent than B" don't make sense (although you could
correctly say that "A is closer to independence than B").

In uk.railway asdf twisted the electrons to say:
Independence is an absolute state. Something is either independent, or
it's not. It's not possible to be 50% independent. Phrases like "A is
more independent than B" don't make sense (although you could
correctly say that "A is closer to independence than B").

I depend on my local bike shop for the supply of spare parts for my
bicycle. According to your logic, I don't have independent travel
facilities since the use of my bicycle is controlled by said local bike
shop.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...