Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ig!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM
From: bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Basham)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Trident II failure
Keywords: misinformation?
Message-ID: <5541@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Apr 89 05:04:22 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 38
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Basham)


During all the pad launchings of the new Trident only two failed.
There was very little media coverage of these failures (read: almost
none) and no coverage on the successes (except very small mentions 
in aviation week).

Then, a missile is launched from the Tennesse with a Soviet "intelligence"
ship operating nearby.  Suddenly every news broadcast in the country
is involved.  EVERYBODY knows that the missile failed.  Despite this
dramatic (well, it was dramatic) failure, the DOD remained very calm
and indifferent.

So, I'm wondering if maybe this wasn't a setup.  Invite the media,
operate near the Soviets, and let the missile fail.  Sure, this is
expensive, but sometimes providing misinformation is more useful than
obtaining valid information.

Assuming, however, all three failures have been actual, unplanned
failures, 3 out of 20 misfires isn't all that great.  Maybe the
bugs causing each failure have been found and corrected, but if not...

Tom

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The world was going down the tubes.  They needed a scapegoat.  They
 found the gun-owners."


[mod.note:  I dunno.  I can't think of any reason to fake the results
thusly.  We *want* the people to think the Trident-II is top-notch;
nobody wants a repeat of the Sgt. York debacle.  Too, we want the
Soviets to think it's reliable, so it's a credible deterrant. To
quote Dr. Strangelove, "What good is a doomsday device if you don't
*tell* anybody ??!" - Bill ]