Reasons for error that demonstrate the United Kingdom’s nuclear weakness

A test launch of a Trident missile from a Royal Navy submarine again fails. The latest test, details of which were kept secret until Wednesday, was conducted from HMS Vanguard off the east coast of the United States in January. Defense Minister, Grant Shapps, and the head of the Navy was traveling on the nuclear submarine, which had recently been renovated for more than seven years, to monitor the testing. The missile is believed to have flown several thousand kilometers before landing in the Atlantic waters between Brazil and West Africa. Instead, the rockets failed and the missile, which was not armed with its usual nuclear warheads because it was a test, fell near the launch area.

The second consecutive failed test has troubled both the United Kingdom and its nuclear deterrent. However, Shapps claims to have “absolute confidence” in Trident submarines, missiles and nuclear weapons. In a statement sent to Parliament, the defense chief acknowledged that “an anomaly occurred” during the test conducted on January 30, but stressed that Trident was “the most reliable weapon system in the world.”

Many have questioned his statements, although the missiles used by the United Kingdom come from common funds used by both the United States and the United Kingdom, and the United States has conducted several tests without problems. Which the British Navy is facing.

British testing of Trident missiles is rare. The main reason for this is its high price. Each missile costs approximately 20 million euros. Therefore, after the last failed launch, a mission was launched to recover the missile using highly classified technology, and divers were sent into the depths of Port Canaveral, Florida, where the launch had occurred.

Shapps and the government have not said what went wrong with the testing. Now, experts are trying to understand the reasons. Examples are helpful. The 2016 test also failed when the missile deviated from its course.

Matthew Harries, director of proliferation and nuclear policy at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), admits that it is impossible to quantify the significance of the decision. “There are a number of explanations for what went wrong with what HMS Vanguard was doing in the test launch of this missile, and not enough is known about exactly what it was,” he told the BBC.

Matthew SavilleThe director of military science at RUSI said that, generally speaking, Trident had a “good track record”. And, although he acknowledged that the fact that in this case it did not go according to plan was embarrassing for the United Kingdom after the previous failure, he explained that “it is unlikely to surprise Russia or China, and on its own It is unlikely to fundamentally change your opinion on Trident’s capabilities.

“If I were the Defense Minister, I would insist that another litmus test be conducted. It has to be shown that it is a deterrent. “It’s more difficult to convince the Russians that we have a deterrent that doesn’t work,” says a Defense Ministry source cited by the newspaper. many times,

former defense minister Tobias Ellwood It believes that carrying test equipment resulted in the missile not reaching its target. “I have done some research. “I understand it was some device that was actually attached to the missile that prevented the rocket system from firing after the missile left the submarine,” he told GB News. “Of course, if it had been fired in anger, the missile would not have carried the test equipment and so, yes, of course, it is shameful. We don’t like that to happen,” he stressed.