39
Key UK Nuclear Deterrent Link Destroyed Over Yorkshire
(bylinetimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
39 points (100.0% liked)
United Kingdom
6933 readers
227 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You couldn't make this stuff up:
So the communications with nuclear-armed submarines is a 1940s-style blimp baloon? Launched in 2003 and tethered to the ground with a wire.
I do have to ask, where are all the £billions on "defense" going? Certainly not on blimp balloons.
Building a tower antenna just seems expensive. Why is a blimp that bad?
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 is putting a tower on a ship.
There are a ton of good reasons to use an aerostat instead of a tower.
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.
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.
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.
What does being old technology make it bad. If it works, then KISS is perfectly valid.
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.
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."
This is a last resort device. If they're putting that up, we've been nuked and all the bases with comms are gone
Into the pockets of the global military industrial complex
Perhaps they should temporarily replace it with the BBC's hot air balloon.
Or Nigel Farrage in his light plane.