My brother in law used to tell me about these missiles he was on the uss George c Marshall back in the 80s he passed away in 2004 I miss all the stories he told me and the crew he was with.
I worked in this program for 30 years.and (amazingly) I NEVER heard the missile designated, called or referred to orally or in writing as UGM, UGN etc al. They were always POLARIS A-1, 2, 3, POSEIDON C-3, and TRIDENT D-1 and D-5...odd.
Yea, I heard UK’s last missile test filed, but if I was Putin I wouldn’t count on the US Navy shooting duds. How many Tridents would you guess the US tested? 10? 20? I looked it up, 190 tested successfully!! Number 191 flew successfully in September 2023.
Yes, using US supplied missiles. One DID fly, in the wrong direction while the most rerent one popped out of the sub only to 'plop' into straight the sea.
I wonder if we could put to sea a ballistic missile carrying conventional warheads weighing about 1000lbs each. With today's accuracy, we might be able to destroy an enemy's land based missile siloes with such weapons. If we could field just 10 warheads per missile and had 200 missiles deployed at sea, where the time of impact would be just a few minutes, we would have 2000 such warheads at our disposal. It still means we would have the enemy's own sub launched missiles to deal with, as well as their bombers ( besides those land based missiles that would survive). But my view is that nothing is impossible - at least not until you give it a try. To be held hostage by the threat of nuclear annihilation is no way to live, especially if your enemy feels they have nothing to lose by using such weapons... as is the case with North Korea. The threat that they, too, will be destroyed is not always going to work as a deterrence. Let's start thinking of ways to make an enemy's nuclear weapons useless. Which, of course, means that our own nuclear weapons could be rendered useless as well by a crafty opponent.
The first problem is the fact that icbm silo they were designed to survive nuclear bombs, 500kg bomb wouldn't do much damage, the second problems is SLBM they are nearly impossible to stop from being launched so even if all land based icbm the sub launched missile will pose a threat and only a few sub need to survive to cause apocalyptic damage Also the concept of muraly assured destruction applies to every country even North Korea with does having something to lose itself
This missile can strike any target in the world
You don’t say. 😮
If the boat is in range, it’s still suborbital
You are so funny.
Can't even fly far 😂
@@LordMarksman14 Well the Uk (US Supplied) ones head the wrong way or just 'plop'
My brother in law used to tell me about these missiles he was on the uss
George c Marshall back in the 80s he passed away in 2004 I miss all the stories he told me
and the crew he was with.
I worked in this program for 30 years.and (amazingly) I NEVER heard the missile designated, called or referred to orally or in writing as UGM, UGN etc al. They were always POLARIS A-1, 2, 3, POSEIDON C-3, and TRIDENT D-1 and D-5...odd.
Good job!
This missile failed in the last two UK submarine test launches.... lol! The last time the UK had a successful launch was in 2012.
Yea, I heard UK’s last missile test filed, but if I was Putin I wouldn’t count on the US Navy shooting duds. How many Tridents would you guess the US tested? 10? 20? I looked it up, 190 tested successfully!! Number 191 flew successfully in September 2023.
16 Missles away, a mushroom cloud, and it's miller time. 41 for freedom vet
No one can beat the US,Nuclear Submarine.
British nukes 2 times did not fly crashes in sea
Yes, using US supplied missiles. One DID fly, in the wrong direction while the most rerent one popped out of the sub only to 'plop' into straight the sea.
I wonder if we could put to sea a ballistic missile carrying conventional warheads weighing about 1000lbs each. With today's accuracy, we might be able to destroy an enemy's land based missile siloes with such weapons. If we could field just 10 warheads per missile and had 200 missiles deployed at sea, where the time of impact would be just a few minutes, we would have 2000 such warheads at our disposal. It still means we would have the enemy's own sub launched missiles to deal with, as well as their bombers ( besides those land based missiles that would survive). But my view is that nothing is impossible - at least not until you give it a try. To be held hostage by the threat of nuclear annihilation is no way to live, especially if your enemy feels they have nothing to lose by using such weapons... as is the case with North Korea. The threat that they, too, will be destroyed is not always going to work as a deterrence. Let's start thinking of ways to make an enemy's nuclear weapons useless. Which, of course, means that our own nuclear weapons could be rendered useless as well by a crafty opponent.
The first problem is the fact that icbm silo they were designed to survive nuclear bombs, 500kg bomb wouldn't do much damage, the second problems is SLBM they are nearly impossible to stop from being launched so even if all land based icbm the sub launched missile will pose a threat and only a few sub need to survive to cause apocalyptic damage
Also the concept of muraly assured destruction applies to every country even North Korea with does having something to lose itself
They carry the W-88 warhead not the W-87.. I'm not looking forward to the SENTENAL Missile because the Minutman III can not be HACKED!
the only country whose nukes actually work lmfao.
France work too
France too lmao
The Trident was designed by the UK, The USA uses it but it is a UK design and is also used by the UK today
But american ones are better
“Reduce the OTHER side to a primitive society?” 🤣🤣How about reduce the planet to a primitive society or human extinction.
ALLEGEDLY...N.C.
This was my old job
No way 😂😂😂
🤢🤮🤮