Comment on Key UK Nuclear Deterrent Link Destroyed Over Yorkshire

• deltapi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It’s not. In theory they should be able to quickly deploy a replacement - towers can be easily and quickly destroyed but not quickly replaced. Aerostats can be replaced as quickly as they can inflate replacements & deploy (if needed) new ground equipment.

  They can also be deployed from a ship, not as easily done as putting a tower on a ship.

  There are a ton of good reasons to use an aerostat instead of a tower.

  source
• tenebrisnox@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Maybe because it’s the second decade of the Twenty-First Century and the tech should be much more advanced than 100 years-old balloons. It doesn’t provide confidence.

  source

  • Gladaed@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s the third decade of the twenty first century. To me this tech sounds perfectly sensible. I don’t get the obsession with spending extra to make a product worse.

    source

    • tenebrisnox@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      You are right: third decade! I’m so behind the times. I hear that the army’s going to start using bows and arrows as there’s nothing like saving a bit of cash. All does the same job in the end, I suppose.

      source
  • ohulancutash@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It is British policy to use Trident as a second-strike weapon. Advanced technology would have limited use in such a scenario. That’s why nuclear warfare relies on the simplest fallbacks possible.

    source

    • BenLeMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Oh boy, I read that as “British police use Trident as a second-strike weapon” and thought you better comply when they tase you or else.

      source