I NOTE your report on the failure of the North Korean medium-range missile launch (“North Korean missile fails only seconds after launch”, The Herald, April 17). There has been speculation from the likes of Sir Malcolm Rifkind that the failure is down to US sabotage. This far from fanciful assertion exposes that notion that (our) "independent deterrent" is neither.
Sir Malcolm’s assumption is in fact not new. It has been common currency that the US has for some time had the ability to interfere remotely with the avionics of North Korean missiles.
Sir Malcolm’s assertion is very credible, as is the fact that the United States could easily ensure that the UK could not fire its nukes without US permission. If they did so they would be, at the very least, disabled and possibly even re-directed.
It is a fact that the UK does not own any Trident missiles. Although the Trafalgar class subs are British, the missiles are the property of Uncle Sam. They are rented from the US. The warheads are "sort of" British as they are copies of the US W76 warhead.
On a regular basis the missiles themselves are sent "home" to Kings Bay, Georgia, for reconditioning. There is one source pool of Trident missiles and a sufficiency of same are doled out to the Royal Navy. They all have serial numbers and during the life of a missile it will find itself for a time aboard one the Royal Navy's four Traflagar class SSBNs (Ship, Submersible, Ballistic, Nuclear) and at another time aboard one of the US Navy's 14 Ohio class SSBNs.
The notion that the US Navy will not have, over a period of time, taken the opportunity to develop override software is simply incredible. Indeed, looked at from the perspective of the US Senates Armed Forced Committee not to take the opportunity so to do would properly be seen as an act of treason against the USA by the US Navy's top brass.
Bill Ramsay,
84 Albert Avenue, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel