Posts
Trident: Luke Akehurst AWE Rebuttal Attempt
Our good friend Luke Akehurst came on the blog today to rebut an amusing announcement from the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) thus:They are talking about the warheads which they make. Just because no decisions on those are required does not negate the government argument that a decision is required on the submarines (and hence the principle of the whole package).
I hope he now realises what it is like when the slings and arrows of propaganda are, er, not quite true. I confess. Luke's right of course. The AWE quote was about the warheads.
But he is absolutely wrong and still blagging like a good arms industry lobbiest when he says that "a decision is required on the submarines". This is absolutely and fabulously concise Akehurst guff. And just that bit weaselly to boot.
A decision is NOT required on the submarines. NOT for MANY years in fact. MPs should not be taken in by Mr Blair or by Luke Akehurst, Willie Rennie MP and the other industry lobbyists.
The Scotsman are among many papers carrying a balanced story on this in recent weeks. They referred to evidence to the Defense Select Committee from Dr Richard L Garwin. Someone I have rather more faith in when it comes to metallurgy and procurement than an arms industry paid lobbyist. Someone a bit like Luke, calling themselves Montie, and writing 24-carat crap about bits wearing out, commented adversely (available at the above link) and Dr Garwin responded persuasively:Montie and other readers may read the written evidence I submitted to the Defense Committee, to be posted today HERE.
1. US Trident submarines spend 2/3 of their time at sea; UK Vanguards only 1/4. Vanguard hulls should last almost 3 times as many years as US Trident, the operating life of which has been extended to 44 years..
2. The 1978 correspondence attached to my testimony is a definitive US Navy statement that metal fatigue has not been a problem with the hulls of US missile-launching submarines, and if it should arise there are low-cost ways of dealing with it. Specifically, "... the flaws which propagate to a measurable size due to strain cycling are relatively few and repairable by well established hull maintenance methods."
3. The US Polaris submarines were created in short order from nuclear attack submarines by cutting the hull and introducing the compartment with missile tubes. Steam generators can be replaced by cutting the hull and rewelding after replacement of the steam generators.
Richard L. Garwin
I don't know about you Luke but I am rather assured at this information that £75 bn of public money can be saved and that these brilliant Vanguard Subs could have a life expectancy of around 120 years because they are hardly being used. That does negate the government's argument that the subs need replacing soon. One careful owner. Hurrah!
UPDATE: FAS link corrected.
5 comments:
Chris
is there a particular reason for your obsession with my position on this issue?
You could for instance have illustrated your blog with pictures of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or Des Browne with a missile.
I'm very flattered that you think I'm so important to the debate, but also rather mystified.
Professor Garwin is NOT an expert on submarines, he is an expert on nuclear weapons and making it up as he goes along about the life expectancy of the Vanguard subs. The other expert witnesses at the Defence Committee hearing he appeared at contradicted his evidence.
The 1/4 vs 2/3 of time at sea argument doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination. They are still in the salt water at Faslane getting corroded even if they are not "at sea" - the time spent out of sea water in dry dock is minimal, and the internal systems (electronics, nuclear engine that actually powers the boat) also have a limited life term that isn't much altered by how often they are used.
Hi Luke
I'm not obsessed with your position on this issue. But there you are bloggng away and OBSESSED WITH YOUR POSITION ON THIS ISSUE and it is very hard to resist countering your fibs.
You also spend a lot of time taking pot shots at whole swathes of Labour Party comrades and colleagues and that is to me a fairly unattractive occupation of yours.
I note that you HAVE NOT made any attempt now, having been found out (AGAIN!) to deal with the real situation i.e. that because they have hardly been used compared to their US peers our nuke carrying subs are almost good as new and certainly do not need a vote on replacement this week, this year, this parliament or this decade.
Regard yourself as a surrogate for Blair and Brown and Browne if you wish. They don't blog. One of them is it seems more concerned with the hand of history than with honesty or even the electoral prospects of the Labour Party in the May elections.
The timing of this vote - irrespective of the issues - is bizarre and not in my view good politics.
Please answer the substantive points Luke.
Best w
Chris P
I've explained my position very clearly on my blog. Now you are getting me all upset.
What else are we supposed to do to protect ourselves against terrorists with back-packs and against millions of North Koreans swimming over here from Denmark to pillage our supermarkets and rape our wives?
People like you have no answer to the real questions. That's why I'm so strident on trident.
Ah, I see you've "answered" the substantive point, ish. By trying to undermine a man who knows 100 times more than you Blair, Brown and Browne combined on the subject.
As you will know if you read my blog when it isn't about you or your favoured politics I am a Trustee of a sea-faring charity.
For the Merchant Marine there is a body called the MCA which supervizes safety checks and maintenance.
Our ship is 35 years old. This is pretty old for an ex-reindeer-ferry which is of course built to a very much less exacting specification than a deep sea submarine. Horses for courses.
But although the ship is sitting still in salty water quite a bit it also has spells in fresh water and in dry dock. And very little time really on the high seas. You will not find anyone in the real world that tells you that a hard-working ship needs less TLC than a resting ship.
We Trustees recently had to decide whether to spend £30,000 on maintenance to allow us to carry out a few engagements we had been offered or not. We decided not. But it did not cross our minds to buy a new ship for £2 million!
Honestly it did not. We're dealing with publically accountable money after all.
Prof Dr Garwin is not a specialist in submarines but compared to yourself Luke and the continually scientifically challenged New Labour hordes he IS an expert. The suggestion that corrosion is more of an issue than deep sea pressure and wear and tear is frankly risible.
Clearly you wouldn't spin us a line about these subs sitting in nasty salt water all the time when it wasn't quite true so we'll let that pass.
Prof Dr Garwin has dealt skillfully with the issue of the parts that do wear out explaining that they can be replaced and that this is neither unusual nor difficult to achieve.
More questions :
- Why is it that our subs are hardly used?
- Why are you and the government spinning this yarn that a decision is needed today?
- Why should the public or the party believe Tony Blair when he says that these things (or at least the one that isn't being replaced) could wear out in 17 years time when he also span us the yarn that Saddam could attack our people in 45 minutes?
- What is the benefit or rationale for this FOOLISH timing, whatever the merits of Trident/Cruise/Vanguard/Ohio/Yes/No?
It's a pile of crap and you know it! Dodgy dossiers are us, and once again electoral madness.
Chris Paul
BSc I Hons
(Former science worker contracted to Govt of Canada Environment and Fisheries, Royal Society Hochalpine Forshungstation Jungfraujoch, Grand Dixence SA Hydroelectric, Natural Environment Research Council, Institute of Hydrology)
Alright, alright, all Postgrad Student gigs, but heh more relevant than PMH or PPE or whatever it is, never mind LLB ...
Post a Comment