• Guy leaks problems with UK nukes- Understandably gets arrested
    31 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The Royal Navy whistleblower who went on the run after alleging a catalogue of security failings at the Trident nuclear base is in custody in Scotland. Able Seaman William McNeilly, 25, went absent without leave from the Faslane naval base after publishing a 18-page report online claiming Britain’s nuclear deterrent was a “disaster waiting to happen”. He is understood to have been apprehended at Edinburgh airport on Monday night. A Royal Navy spokeswoman said: “We can confirm that AB McNeilly was apprehended last night and is now in the custody of the Royal Navy police at a military establishment in Scotland where he is being afforded the duty of care that we give to all of our people. “The Royal Navy disagrees with McNeilly’s subjective and unsubstantiated personal views but we take the operation of our submarines and the safety of our personnel extremely seriously and so continue to fully investigate the circumstances of this issue.” McNeilly’s brother, Aaron, told friends on Facebook on Tuesday morning that he was feeling “happy” and said “my brother is safe and well”. He later added that his brother was in Scotland and said he had handed himself in.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/19/trident-whistleblower-william-mcneilly-turns-himself-in-navy[/url] [QUOTE]This is document will enlighten you to the shockingly extreme conditions that our nuclear weapons system is in right now, and has been in the past. It describes different threats and events that have happened and are threats that are highly likely to happen; each one individually should raise maximum concern. I need you to publish this document or send it to someone who will; please, for the safety of the people. This will jump between things like food hygiene and a flooded toilets, till describing the complete lack of security, floods, a blazing inferno in the Missile Compartment etc. My aim is to paint an overall picture of what I've seen, and to break down the false images of a perfect system that most people envisage exists. I gathered the information by: Listening to O Group meetings, reading documents, conversation, briefs, listening in to conversations and seeing with my own eyes. O Group meetings are meetings that discuss the incidents onboard and plan all boat evolutions. They are held in the Navigation centre, which is a Top Secret compartment. My Top Secret clearance is only in the pending position. I shouldn't have been able to gain entrance to that compartment, but part of my job is Strategic Weapon System navigation, so they gave me access for training purposes. At the beginning of patrol I was kicked out of the Navigation centre when O Group were about to begin, but I found away to stay. There's a computer down the back, that I worked on. Out of sight, out of mind. I could hear everything, and no-one told me to leave when I was there. This contains references to CB8890: The instructions for the safety and security of the Trident II D5 strategic weapon system. I'm sure all the Strategic Weapon System (SWS) personnel are scratching their heads and wondering how I'm writing this on my personnel laptop and referencing a book, which is contained within a safe in the Missile Control Centre (MCC). The MCC is the compartment used to control the launch of the nuclear missiles. It can only be accessed by people on the access list, and no personnel electronics are allowed. I was on the access list but how could I have gotten a copy of every single chapter on to my phone? A hidden camera? No. Smuggled the book out then filmed it? No. What I did was walk into a room were no recording devices are allowed. I sat down; took my Samsung Galaxy SII (white) out of my pocket, and recorded the entire book word for word. I held the phone still, about a foot in front of my face and anyone who looked at the screen or used common sense, would've seen I was recording. There were other SWS personnel in the room; in the video you can see a SWS JR about 3 feet in front of me talking to another SWS JR sitting right beside me. You probably think that's impossible but I've got the evidence to prove it. The complete lack of concern for security worries me. The fact is it would've been even easier for me to cause a nuclear catastrophe than to gather that information, and gathering that information was actually quite simple, due to the amount of ignorance.[/QUOTE] [url]https://wikileaks.org/trident-safety/[/url] Pretty interesting stuff honestly. Not sure if its correct by any means, but this is just another in a long line of blowers. [url]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153362392441584&set=a.466928516583.263229.768736583&type=1&theater[/url] Also this is his facebook post they reference in the article.
Yeah TBH serving on a nuclear submarine sounds like quite the deathwish even during peace time, and it doesn't have to be a Russian one at all.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47772149]Yeah TBH serving on a nuclear submarine sounds like quite the deathwish even during peace time, and it doesn't have to be a Russian one at all.[/QUOTE] Yeah, forget about bomb squads, forget about special forces, because a sub is clearly the most dangerous place to serve. And russian ones are known for extremely high death rates among their personnel, mostly because of feral bears lurking into boats and special randomly activated guillotines installed here and there.
[QUOTE=antianan;47772699]Yeah, forget about bomb squads, forget about special forces, because a sub is clearly the most dangerous place to serve. And russian ones are known for extremely high death rates among their personnel, mostly because of feral bears lurking into boats and special randomly activated guillotines installed here and there.[/QUOTE] When did I say "most dangerous"?
[QUOTE=antianan;47772699]And russian ones are known for extremely high death rates among their personnel, mostly because of feral bears lurking into boats and special randomly activated guillotines installed here and there.[/QUOTE] In fairness, the Russians actually have by far the worst track record when it comes to nuclear submarine accidents. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines[/url]
[QUOTE=antianan;47772699]Yeah, forget about bomb squads, forget about special forces, because a sub is clearly the most dangerous place to serve. And russian ones are known for extremely high death rates among their personnel, mostly because of feral bears lurking into boats and special randomly activated guillotines installed here and there.[/QUOTE] I think he meant it would be boring
The guy is a psycho (or better to say, has a strangely naive and ignorant view of the world). The concerns are valid, but you can't change the people in general and soldiers who will operate the equipment. In every complicated place in the world there's careless or stupid stuff. If there weren't lazy soldiers, we would by now already have a global nuclear war on a whim of some political figure. When things get serious, a lot of these issues get ironed out surprisingly quick, just needs motivation to get things going. Too bad he grossly overestimates how influental his report would be and is going to suffer for nothing. It's not more than stating the obvious to anyone who actually has any means to influence how things go.
Sounds like he wanted to be the next Snowden
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47774614]Sounds like he wanted to be the next Snowden[/QUOTE] Sounds like he had valid fucking concerns. It's a fucking submarine carrying thermonuclear warheads, you'd think security would be of utmost importance. [QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;47773454]The guy is a psycho (or better to say, has a strangely naive and ignorant view of the world). The concerns are valid, but you can't change the people in general and soldiers who will operate the equipment. In every complicated place in the world there's careless or stupid stuff. If there weren't lazy soldiers, we would by now already have a global nuclear war on a whim of some political figure. When things get serious, a lot of these issues get ironed out surprisingly quick, just needs motivation to get things going. Too bad he grossly overestimates how influental his report would be and is going to suffer for nothing. It's not more than stating the obvious to anyone who actually has any means to influence how things go.[/QUOTE] How is he going to suffer for nothing, people were letting him in without showing identification, he was allowed to wander about without anyone stopping him, how is that not a high security risk. Lack of motivation is no excuse for compromising the security of billion dollar submarines carrying nuclear weapons, if this isn't influential and doesn't bring reforms to the security of the subs then how fucked the Royal Navy is.
[QUOTE=KaPow!;47774694]Sounds like he had valid fucking concerns. It's a fucking submarine carrying thermonuclear warheads, you'd think security would be of utmost importance. [/QUOTE] Screw the fact it may or may not be carrying nukes, its a very dangerous place even without those. One small mistake can lead to the death of hundreds of people.
I misread the title as UK [I]nudes[/I], and as idiotic as that makes me it left me genuinely baffled for a moment there
[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;47773454]The guy is a psycho (or better to say, has a strangely naive and ignorant view of the world). The concerns are valid, but you can't change the people in general and soldiers who will operate the equipment. In every complicated place in the world there's careless or stupid stuff. If there weren't lazy soldiers, we would by now already have a global nuclear war on a whim of some political figure.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously implying that we're here today because people were [I]too lazy[/I] to cause nuclear annihilation?
Hey, when you can look out your back window and see a convoy of trucks carrying nukes along the motorway - [B]Yes this actually happened and it was scary[/B] - then something is wrong. Seriously, taking nukes on the back of trucks through a densely populated city? Keeping them not even that far away? The place looks hardly well protected anyway, literally chain-link fences. While the guy may have been a raving lunatic, that just exposes more of the problem. Either this guy is 100% correct and we should be really worried or the system is only slightly broken but this absolute madman was allowed near nukes. Your choice. [editline]22nd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Jsm;47774771]Screw the fact it may or may not be carrying nukes, its a very dangerous place even without those. One small mistake can lead to the death of hundreds of people.[/QUOTE] You mean 60% of Scotland's population. [editline]22nd May 2015[/editline] Actually probably more like 80% [t]http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/tridentmap.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;47773454]The guy is a psycho[/QUOTE] How the shit is having a concern for the safety of society being a psycho, or ignorant of the world?
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;47775668]Hey, when you can look out your back window and see a convoy of trucks carrying nukes along the motorway - [B]Yes this actually happened and it was scary[/B] - then something is wrong. Seriously, taking nukes on the back of trucks through a densely populated city? Keeping them not even that far away? The place looks hardly well protected anyway, literally chain-link fences. [/QUOTE] And how exactly is transporting nuclear weapons through cities a problem? [editline]22nd May 2015[/editline] I posted a reponse to this in another forum so I'll just cut and past that: [quote][QUOTE=other forum dude] The submariner in question sounds like a typical obnoxious junior enlisted though.[/QUOTE] On top of everything he wrote sounding rambling. The read his 'report' (to use the term very loosely) a few days ago and it comes off as something written by a narcissist new on the job. He also doesn't seem very bright seeing as he takes the usual enlisted moaning and groaning as gospel - enlisted complain about everything. There are a lot of nitpicky things in the report which really are just common on any well used aging piece of equipment. I'm no going to bother discussing them. The only issue I will address is this: [quote]There were 31 BSQs (Unqualified submariners) running around and distracting people that are in these crucial monitoring positions such as the nuclear reactors Main Control Desk (MCD), the nuclear missiles Control and Monitoring Position (CAMP), the control room Panel etc. These are positions which require permanent manning and permanent attention. However those rules aren't followed. When I was doing my BSQ I could see the lack of attention they were paying. It was only a matter of time before a mistake was made, and of course a mistake was made. [/quote]Yes, they need to be permanently manned, but they don't need someone staring at all the dials and gauges for every second of a shift (watch?). The BSQs are there to learn things on the job and they need to ask questions to do so. Distracting the watch officer for a few seconds won't cause the reactor to explode or the ship's complement of nuclear warheads to detonate. If something is wrong, the many many layers of warning systems will tell he watch officer something is wrong far faster then he/she (has the UK got female submariners yet?) can find it on the board. The CAMP watch officer isn't really doing anything anyway as the missiles and warheads don't need much attention. All they're doing is waiting for the horrible day when they get a launch order. The report ending with his thoughts that he's going to be assassinated to me really screams how self-important he is.[/quote]
Considering i've applied and going through the process as a weapons engineer to work on either a Sub or a Destroyer in the Royal Navy.....yeah i'm a little concerned now :(
[QUOTE=download;47776027]And how exactly is transporting nuclear weapons through cities a problem? [/QUOTE] There was no guard, no police presence, just a bunch of trucks carrying the shit. That's [I]really[/I] unsafe.
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;47776776]There was no guard, no police presence, just a bunch of trucks carrying the shit. That's [I]really[/I] unsafe.[/QUOTE] Are you making the assumption that the warheads are easy to detonate, or are you suggesting someone might have been able to steal one? They don't have to have a convoy of police vehicles with flashy lights to have a significant armed presence; heck, one attack helicopter could stop any attempt at theft. Of course, all we have to go on is your eye witness account so.
No I'm not making the assumption that they're easy to detonate... It just seems odd that such an expensive and dangerous weapon has no armed guard. I [I]think[/I] the motorway was closed but that was about it.
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;47776829]No I'm not making the assumption that they're easy to detonate... It just seems odd that such an expensive and dangerous weapon has no armed guard. I [I]think[/I] the motorway was closed but that was about it.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how you could tell it was a nuclear weapons truck as the trucks look just like every other truck unless it's flanked by its security escort. The required security escort in the UK is well documented.
Because there was a news report about when it was happening and I happened to still be at my computer when they went past. They were big, they were that weird brown/green military colour. It was like 4am or something. No other vehicles on the road. I'm 99% certain it was the trucks carrying the nukes or at best some fancy diversion.
Do you think someone is going to steal the nukes from those trucks?
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;47777034]Because there was a news report about when it was happening and I happened to still be at my computer when they went past. They were big, they were that weird brown/green military colour. It was like 4am or something. No other vehicles on the road. I'm 99% certain it was the trucks carrying the nukes or at best some fancy diversion.[/QUOTE] Is it possible they did not have a detonator? Worst case scenario one gets damaged and there's a little nuclear clean up on the block. [editline]22nd May 2015[/editline] No real reason to be afraid of nuke movements because they're not going to detonate from negligence.
[QUOTE=Tinter;47777123]Do you think someone is going to steal the nukes from those trucks?[/QUOTE] Found the major heist in the next Fast and Furious film.
Also I guarantee if those trucks had nukes on them, and someone tried to steal them, they would have the entire RAF on their ass in a matter of seconds. When my brother worked at Minot AFB he said you could tell when they moved the nukes around, because there would be a convoy of semi trucks with military, police, and helicopter escorts. I'm told the the only thing that has the same level of security detail as nukes is the President.
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;47777034]Because there was a news report about when it was happening and I happened to still be at my computer when they went past. They were big, they were that weird brown/green military colour. It was like 4am or something. No other vehicles on the road. I'm 99% certain it was the trucks carrying the nukes or at best some fancy diversion.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the British Army has other trucks that are the same colour as the nuclear weapon convoy trucks. [editline]22nd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;47777154]Is it possible they did not have a detonator? Worst case scenario one gets damaged and there's a little nuclear clean up on the block. [editline]22nd May 2015[/editline] No real reason to be afraid of nuke movements because they're not going to detonate from negligence.[/QUOTE] As I understand it the weapons are sealed assembled units. Inserting detonators requires you to pull the weapons apart. There is still no risk of a nuclear explosion however as you need a precisely timed series of detonations to create a nuclear explosion.
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;47776776]There was no guard, no police presence, just a bunch of trucks carrying the shit. That's [I]really[/I] unsafe.[/QUOTE] I would argue that its safer if no one knows about it. If its just some nondescript trucks driving around its probably safer than a truck saying "I AM CARRYING NUKES".
[QUOTE=Jsm;47779055]I would argue that its safer if no one knows about it. If its just some nondescript trucks driving around its probably safer than a truck saying "I AM CARRYING NUKES".[/QUOTE] Don't they move around nuclear power plant stuff at night on the trains as well because it's safer to do when nobody is around. Pretty sure I've seen one really late at night
[QUOTE=Complifused;47779149]Don't they move around nuclear power plant stuff at night on the trains as well because it's safer to do when nobody is around. Pretty sure I've seen one really late at night[/QUOTE] I don't live next to a train track so I can't say I've ever seen any trains other that the standard Scotrail ones.
Just reading the first few paragraphs is frightening to me. Don't they have red teams? How on earth can you let this kind of complacency go on for so long?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.