The Sub-mariner wiki leaker

Home Forum Chat Forum The Sub-mariner wiki leaker

Viewing 45 posts - 1 through 45 (of 85 total)
  • The Sub-mariner wiki leaker
  • gobuchul
    Member

    Have you ever met or worked with any ex-submariners?

    I have. A lot of them are bat-shit mental.

    Remember the HMS Astute shooting?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9791024/Police-alarm-at-routine-binge-drinking-on-nuclear-submarine-where-murderer-shot-officer.html

    bencooper
    Member

    Have you ever met or worked with any ex-submariners?

    I have. A lot of them are bat-shit mental.

    Aye, I knew one who fantasised about being able to fire the missiles – was very proud of the number of people he could kill.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    Have any of you read the wiki leaks?

    Some of the personalities onboard are already alarming. Probably the most worrying is the SWS Junior Rate who’s hobby is killing small animals. He also expressed his interest in watching dark porn, like crush porn. Which is basically women stomping kittens to death while a guy masturbates. I have no idea how that guy isn’t mentally discharged.

    which one of you lot is it?

    On a more serious note: 😯 If that’s real….

    wiki leaks stuff here

    No good deed goes unpunished. The whistleblower is probably going to get crapped on from a great height…

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    I don’t think I’d want a leaker on a submarine tbh

    gordimhor
    Member

    Well he’s not on the sub now NW, 🙂 or maybe he is,if security at faslane is as lax as he claimed

    Premier Icon kcal
    Subscriber

    Also know a few ex-submariners. For balance, found them pretty normal (having said that, have spent my career working with fellow programmers so perceptions skewed? )

    Stevet1
    Member

    He also expressed his interest in watching dark porn, like crush porn. Which is basically women stomping kittens to death while a guy masturbates

    I so hope that is not an actual thing, and I am not going to google it.

    Premier Icon jam bo
    Subscriber

    Stevet1 wrote:

    I so hope that is not an actual thing, and I am not going to google it.

    rule 34

    ninfan
    Member

    Reads more like after a week at sea being evaluated, he discovered that instead of being robo-rabbit who knows everything he is in fact the lowest of the low and has to do menial tasks, which he spent the week whining about (oh, the cleaning fluid is giving me a headache.)

    Probably got canned after failing the basic submariner and threw a hissy fit by running home to mummy’s, realised he was in the deep smelly stuff for going AWOL, and now he’s trying to paint himself as super sleuth truth warrior to get out of trouble by revealing the sum total of his secret knowledge, ie. that hugely complex machinery breaks down and requires maintenance sometimes, and that he looked at a book that said what could go wrong with nuclear missiles.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    OK, so I just read the actual leak/article and… The guy himself seems like a bit of a fantasist, I’m not saying he and the reports of issues aren’t genuine (or that they are) but he signs off with a big section about how he might be killed for What He Knows and that’ll cause a violent revolution…

    It gets pretty hard to sort the serious stuff (the suggestion that the boat did a full patrol without any certainty of being able to fire is a pretty big deal if true) from the stuff which feels like know-it-all faultfinding from a new hand…

    Premier Icon Pawsy_Bear
    Subscriber

    its bullshit, now he’s gone awol that tells you most about him. He’s no expert either after such a short time. For balalnce those subs have been operating since @ 1994 safely.

    globalti
    Member

    I’m not surprised he’s disappeared; I expect the STW Grammar Police are chasing him right now. The only common mis-spell he didn’t give us was the usual breaks/brakes.

    If that’s the state of a British nuclear sub, how bad must the Russian equivalent be?

    soobalias
    Member

    everyone wants their fifteen minutes

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Pawsy_Bear – Member

    For balalnce those subs have been operating since @ 1994 safely.

    Well, 2 things about that. First is, “hasn’t had a massive accident” =/ safe. They could have been operating unsafely since 1994 and just got away with it. A lot of what he describes, if accurate, could easily fit under that heading- “we’ve been doing it this way for ages”

    And second is your bathtub curve failure distribution, 20 years of operation could be enough to have them climbing out the other side of the tub and increasing the risk of failure cascades etc. Though it’s a metaphor that probably doesn’t work brilliantly with submarines 😀

    He doesn’t seem like a guy you want to take at 100% face value but that doesn’t mean there’s no truth.

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    I don’t find the idea that British nuclear weapons are a shambles especially amazing.

    The US nuclear forces had a torrid time in 2013.

    The unit almost failed the inspection completely, and was accused of safety violations, showing disrespect to superiors, questioning orders, and intentionally violating a rule that could have compromised the launch codes that allow missiles to be fired.

    The group’s deputy commander said the group is suffering “rot” within the ranks, and quietly removed 17 officers to undergo 60 to 90 days of intensive training to refresh their knowledge of the job.“

    That lot, plus exam cheating, drug problems and gambling addictions among missile crews.

    allthegear
    Member

    I can’t comment on the things he said but, if he broke the Official Secrets Act in releasing material, then find him, lock him up and throw away the key.

    No excuses.

    Rachel

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Whistleblowing could be a legit reason; if (if!) it genuinely exposes safety risks and lack of operational capacity. We’re about to waste billions more quid on new boats, we might at least want to be sure they’re not rubbish and dangerous.

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    Yes. There are things I’m reasonably happy for people to break the Official Secrets Act to mention, and “the nuclear submarines are broken and everyone is too bored to care” is one of them.

    maxtorque
    Member

    Northwind

    The suggestion that the boat did a full patrol without any certainty of being able to fire is a pretty big deal if true

    Is it? What is the actual probability of requiring to fire our Nuclear missiles?
    I can’t actually think of a single scenario where any Prime Minister would give clearance to do so? They are a “deterrent” and that is all.

    (you could just write “BIG SCARY NUCLEAR MISSILE” on a length of water pipe and stick that in the Sub for pretty much 99.9% of the effectiveness of a real one 😉 )

    abloo ablllooooo i had to hot bunk! i want to go home to mummy!

    bencooper
    Member

    It’d be a pretty good scam to just trouser the £100bn for Trident replacement, and tell everyone you’d bought new missiles. It’s a deterrent you’re never going to use anyway, may as well not actually bother building the things.

    Of course you’d have to make sure no-one leaked that the missiles were fake. Not a big problem – £100bn buys a lot of bribes.

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    What is the actual probability of requiring to fire our Nuclear missiles?

    Nil. However, if we’re going to pay through the nose to maintain the capability to rain down civilisation-destroying fiery death on our enemies, I’d like it to work the 0% of times someone presses the “annihilate” button.

    🙂

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    maxtorque – Member

    Is it? What is the actual probability of requiring to fire our Nuclear missiles?

    Hopefully zero. But if you’re going to spend billions of quid, why spend it on something that doesn’t work? Capability isn’t important to me personally- like you say, it’s a weapon we must never use so you could say, why have it usable? But let’s not pay through the nose for something that doesn’t work as it should. If we’re happy with a less effective system, let’s pay less for it. That’s leaving aside safety considerations entirely.

    We’re not going to get to have a debate on replacing trident, even though it costs a fortune and most people don’t seem to want it. But that conversation’d take on a pretty different tone if it turns out that we don’t have the deterrant we’re supposed to, and that the risks are greater than we’re led to believe. At that point even pro-MAD people would probably see issues.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    It painted a picture to e of a group of people that couldn’t seem to care less about what they were doing. Toilet roll catching fire? list of equipment that either didn’t work:a hydraulic system that was mostly sea water so couldn’t be operated, so can’t fire the missiles (even my brakes are better than that!), even if the boat was stable, which apparently it wasn’t anyway. or was badly designed, floods and fires commonplace.

    Even if he’s a ****, the apparent lack of security is bad enough.

    maxtorque
    Member

    I’ve got no problem replacing Trident at vast cost.

    As long as the money is spent in the UK.

    It’s kind like space science, in that it costs Billions, but all the money is spent here on Earth in our economy. Effectively it’s a gross re-distribution of Tax payers capital to the people in that economy! Falls down a bit if we just give £100B to the USA mind……..

    Junkyard
    Member

    Rachel Lawson wrote:

    I can’t comment on the things he said but, if he broke the Official Secrets Act in releasing material, then find him, lock him up and throw away the key.
    No excuses.
    Rachel

    Surprising view there from you
    There can be legitimate reasons to whistle blow and when this is done people need our protection not the full force of the state upon them

    We need a method whereby folk can raise issues legitimately without being sent to jail for dong this.

    PJM1974
    Member

    Some of it reads a little “conspiracy theory”, but bearing in mind that each Vanguard sub carries 48 nuclear missiles and is home to a nuclear reactor itself, then nothing but the most stringent safety and security standards should apply. If he’s tried to blow the whistle to the Navy and failed, then he has a duty to report it to the Minister responsible.

    Reporting it via Wikileaks is probably not the cleverest course of action.

    allthegear
    Member

    Not sure why it would be a surprising view from me, Junkyard – I’ve been pretty clear before that there is no excuse to releasing secret info into the public domain. They make it pretty clear what you are signing when you get in to defence work (either as a civil servant, a member of the armed forces or a private sector employee) and, if you don’t like it, walk away.

    This sailor is not in a position to know whether the information allegedly leaked can be combined with other information to create a serious security issue.

    Just because I have mentioned I was a Green Party candidate and would rather see the scrapping of Trident (but not Astute class etc) doesn’t mean I want people creating massive issues whilst they still exist!

    Rachel

    beaker
    Member

    I spent a night in the CIC hut on the side of Ben Nevis with some Submariners, they certainly are an odd bunch. It was when he said he could be assasinated for leaking this information I knew he was a complete Walter Mitty who is in the poop for something, and this is him attempting to wriggle out of it.

    ninfan
    Member

    If he’s tried to blow the whistle to the Navy and failed, then he has a duty to report it to the Minister responsible.

    Reporting it via Wikileaks is probably not the cleverest course of action.

    Indeed – if he was genuinley concerned and had exhausted MOD circles then he could have done a Clive Ponting and leaked it to a sympathetic opossition MP, not too hard to find one of them.

    Unless I’m much mistaken, there’s no whistleblowing defence for the Official Secrets Act… Oops, big mistake!

    I still reckon this is an effort to get himself out of the brown and smelly stuff for going AWOL

    I wonder if anyone’s ever been keelhauled on a submarine

    gobuchul
    Member

    but not Astute class etc

    I find that a very strange that a Green Party candidate supports keeping our Nuclear powered attack subs!

    Junkyard
    Member

    if you don’t like it, walk away.

    Its a fairly strong pro country anti liberal right wing view you are espousing on this issue.
    People can join the armed forces for all the right reasons, discover great wrongs and you think they have to just suck it up and not whistle blow. I disagree
    I think the citizens have a right to know what they do “in our name” and the official secrets acts makes ANY information leak a violation and it has no public interest/whistle blowing defence
    I am also surprised a Liberal and Green party candidate would be such a strident supporter of it,even Ninfan seems more liberal on this issue than you.
    I hope this is not coming over as an insult as it is not meant that way it is just surprising that is all.

    allthegear
    Member

    As it happens, I do think that the methods of “whistleblowing” to an independent yet security-cleared panel should be dramatically improved for this very purpose. It’s the releasing of information to the public I have a problem with.

    I’m not sure how “right wing” or “liberal” enter into the debate. I’m really quite a lefty but, if we are going to do something, then we do it right. I’m not a supporter of Trident, as I said. That doesn’t mean I want information about it to be leaked.

    And no insult was seen 🙂

    I find that a very strange that a Green Party candidate supports keeping our Nuclear powered attack subs!

    Astute provides a defence-of-the-UK from submarine and surface attack. The GP are not looking to get rid of UK defence at all – indeed, diverting forces/funds from invading other countries for oil and supporting a pointless system like Trident might mean we can afford to defend the country properly by regaining an anti-submarine system like the old Nimrod that we no longer have…

    Rachel

    ninfan
    Member

    i actually think that the existing legal settlement, with no legal exemption for whistleblowing, works very well, since it retains the possibility of the jury still finding someone not guilty in unusual circumstances, as happened with Ponting.

    I do hope this Walt gets prosecuted and goes down for a long stretch though.

    PJM1974
    Member

    Given the choice between attack and defence, the priority should always be defence – in my book at any rate. I can see why nuclear powered attack subs would be more desirable than SSBNs, which really only exist to bring down the whole day for some poor bugger on the other side of the world.

    Given the choice between spending £30bn plus on some new SSBNs or having trains that are affordable and run on time, I’m going to choose the latter. I doubt very much that surrendering our nuclear missile subs will make the slightest difference to some disaffected fundamentalist with a few CCs of gelignite stashed in his Reeboks.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Ponting has a public interest right when taken to trial it was later repealed in the 1989 official secrets act bill to stop anyone else doing as he did in court- i got lucky via google and you are usually much better informed and pretty clued up on legal stuff.

    His defence was that the matter and its disclosure to a Member of Parliament was in the public interest.[4] This was the first case under the Official Secrets Act that involved giving information to Parliament. Although Ponting expected to be imprisoned he was acquitted by the jury. The acquittal came despite the judge’s direction to the jury that Ponting’s official duty was not to disclose the information, and that “the public interest is what the government of the day says it is”. Earlier in the trial the judge, Sir Anthony McCowan, explicitly directed the jury to find Ponting guilty.[5] Ponting resigned from the civil service on 16 February 1985.

    Indeed juries can ignore the law [ perverse judgement iirc]when making their decisions. It’s probably not thr best fail safe mechanism to have in terms of jurisprudence

    ninfan
    Member

    I probably could have worded it better Junky

    Ponting tried to claim public interest, as yes there was that clause in the law at the time, though in the circumstances presented the judge refused that option to the jury and directed them that the only option on the evidence was to convict, which they ignored, so it was still a perverse verdict.

    Premier Icon tomd
    Subscriber

    ts bullshit, now he’s gone awol that tells you most about him. He’s no expert either after such a short time. For balalnce those subs have been operating since @ 1994 safely.

    Yes but the maximum tolerable frequency for a serious accident would be something like once in a million years. So going 30 years without an accident is the extremely probable.

    Your statement is the inverse of “There’s no chance of winning the lottery, I’ve played it every week for 30 years and never won”

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    @ninfan, that doesn’t really sound like the existing legal settlement works well at all tbh.

    cheekyboy
    Member

    I spent over ten years in the RN, looking back with rose tinted spectacles I remember mainly the good times, the bad times were exactly that only bad at the times.
    I can honestly say I have never met such a varied amount of people anywhere since, from complete out and out batshit mental nutters to some of the best friends you could wish for.

    The leaker according to the id card shown on the bbc website is an AB – Able Rate and as such will not be party to much in the way of secrets/technical info, nor will he have had much in the way of in depth training, it sounds like there may be some sour grapes or some resentment festering within him, I strongly doubt any skipper worth his salt would put to sea in a boat that was not operational.

    Some people just don`t fit in !

    crankboy
    Member

    It strikes me that a) people may not tell the new boy everything on a sub b) people will take the piss out of and wind up the new boy c) it deterrent terms it is probably better to have an internally fubbar’d but externally death dealing sub stumbling around the high seas rather than have it up on chocs so the Russians can be sure it poses no threat.

    I did read most of his leak ready to support him and am sure he identified some genuine issues but reading it actually made me think worse of him.

    I can count the number of sub mariners I even vaguely know on the noses of one face.

    It’d be a pretty good scam to just trouser the £100bn for Trident replacement, and tell everyone you’d bought new missiles. It’s a deterrent you’re never going to use anyway, may as well not actually bother building the things.

    Of course you’d have to make sure no-one leaked that the missiles were fake. Not a big problem – £100bn buys a lot of bribes.

    Arguably it’s not all to do with the missiles though.

    To make a point, I could buy a steel frames rigid bike from Decathlon and put a Kinetics sticker on it. But that doesn’t pay your rent. £100bn or whatever it will cost will pay a lot of rent’s arround Aldermarston, Barrow, etc, not just some submariners in northern Scotland.

    Can anyone explain to me who would invade Britain and why?

    wrecker
    Member

    Our beer?
    It certainly wouldn’t be because of our food, natural resources or wealth.

Viewing 45 posts - 1 through 45 (of 85 total)

The topic ‘The Sub-mariner wiki leaker’ is closed to new replies.