This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/europe/uk-theresa-may-trident-nuclear-missile.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Theresa May Knew of British Missile That Reportedly Misfired, Official Says Why a Missile Test Is Rocking British Politics
(about 2 hours later)
LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain knew about an unarmed Trident missile that reportedly misfired during a test in June, a spokesman said on Monday, after claims that the government had kept the failure a secret. LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain found herself in political hot water on Monday over reports that an unarmed Trident missile went astray during a test at sea in June, and that the government kept the incident a secret. Ms. May was initially unwilling to acknowledge that she was aware of the test when she urged Parliament in July to invest in new Trident-armed submarines. Here is a look at the weapon and concerns about a possible cover-up.
A day earlier, Mrs. May had refused to comment about the missile test, which was first reported by The Sunday Times of London. The newspaper also said that the faulty test had been covered up by Downing Street under her predecessor, David Cameron, shortly before the referendum on Britain’s exit from the European Union. What’s a Trident missile?
Concerns about a possible cover-up were raised because Mrs. May did not mention any missile failure in her first major speech to Parliament in July, when lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to spend up to 40 billion pounds, then about $53 billion, to renew the aging Trident nuclear system. It is a strategic nuclear weapon: a 44-foot long ballistic missile launched from a submarine that can deliver eight nuclear warheads to targets thousands of miles away. Tridents are built by Lockheed Martin, a major American defense contractor, and are used by the American and British navies. The current generation, the Trident II D5, was first deployed in 1990, and is expected to remain in front-line service at least into the 2020s, and potentially the 2030s.
On Monday, the Downing Street spokesman said that the prime minister was “routinely informed on tests and their outcome.” When she took office in June, he said, she was briefed on a range of nuclear issues, including this one. “The test had been successful, and the boat and crew were certified for operational service,” he said. Have they had problems in the past?
Asked whether the Sunday Times report was accurate, the official said he was not going to “get into operational details.” The Trident II D5 is called the most reliable large missile in the world, with more than 160 successful tests over the years, according to Lockheed Martin. Most have been conducted by the United States Navy (including two tests in November). The British Navy performs them only sparingly — one every three to five years — for cost reasons: each missile is said to cost £17 million ($21 million). Failures have been rare; one expert quoted in British news reports estimated that there had been fewer than 10 failures in the weapon’s history, and the British Navy is not known to have had any go awry before June 2016.
Michael Fallon, the British defense secretary, was questioned in Parliament on Monday by lawmakers who accused him and Mrs. May of stonewalling, but he refused to comment further on the reported failure. Why do they run tests of a proven missile?
“The security of our deterrent is absolutely paramount at a time like this,” Mr. Fallon said. “I’m not going to respond to speculation about the test that occurred last June and I’m not going to give operational details.” It is done mostly to test the submarines that launch them. The Times of London reported that the June 2016 test was a required step in checking out a sub, H.M.S. Vengeance, that had just been refitted with upgraded computer systems and new launch equipment.
Referring to the July vote in Parliament, he said: “We would not have asked to endorse if there had been any question about the capability and effectiveness of our deterrent.” There is also said to be strategic value in reminding potential enemies that a weapons capability is still active by testing it from time to time.
The Sunday Times article said that the Trident II D5 missile, which is designed to carry a nuclear warhead but which was unarmed for the test, had veered off course off the coast of Florida after being fired from H.M.S. Vengeance, one of Britain’s four aging nuclear-armed submarines. Instead of heading toward a target off the coast of West Africa, it turned and headed toward the United States, the paper reported. Why did the failed test become a political issue?
It was the first test-firing in four years. Trials carried out in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2012 were all successful and publicized by the Ministry of Defense using videos and news releases. Because Prime Minister Theresa May did not reveal it when she addressed Parliament to persuade lawmakers to spend £40 billion ($49 billion) on a new generation of Trident-armed submarines that would replace Britain’s aging current fleet. Though the test took place in June, before she became prime minister, her office acknowledged on Monday that she was aware of the test results when she spoke to Parliament in July.
On Sunday, Mrs. May told the BBC that she had “absolute faith in our Trident missiles.” Critics now accuse Ms. May and her predecessor, David Cameron, of a cover-up, because earlier, successful British Trident tests — in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2012 — were routinely publicized by the Ministry of Defense, but the June 2016 test was not.
“There are tests that take place all the time, regularly, for our nuclear deterrence,” she said. “What we were talking about in that debate that took place was about the future.” What went wrong with the test in June?
Replacing Trident has been a matter of some argument, largely because of the cost. The leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is also a longtime antinuclear campaigner. He has opposed retaining the Trident system, even though his party’s official position has been to renew it. It is not clear, and the British government is not saying, beyond a statement that the test was “successfully concluded.” Michael Fallon, the British defense secretary, told Parliament on Monday that because “the security of our deterrent is absolutely paramount at a time like this,” he would not make public any operational details about the test.
“It’s a pretty catastrophic error when a missile goes in the wrong direction, and while it wasn’t armed, goodness knows what the consequences of that could have been,” Mr. Corbyn said on Sunday. Mr. Fallon refused to respond to news reports in Britain suggesting that the missile may have flown far off its intended course after launch. Such a failure could have resulted from bad information fed into the guidance system rather than a flaw in the missile itself.