Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!rtech!rtech!brent@Sun.COM
From: rtech!rtech!brent@Sun.COM (Brent Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Trident II failure
Message-ID: <5683@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 17 Apr 89 02:55:23 GMT
References: <5541@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Relational Technology Inc. Alameda, CA 94501
Lines: 32
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: rtech!rtech!brent@Sun.COM (Brent Williams)

>From article <5541@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Basham):
> 
> 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.
> 
> [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 ]

A relative of mine is heavily involved with the Trident II program.
Given how miserable he's been since the crash, I think it's highly 
unlikely that this is a setup.  I raised the possibility that this was
a staged failure with him, and he laughed and told me I'd been reading 
too many Tom Clancy novels.


By the way, the soviets are present for nearly every launch of anything.
If they were absent, that would be grounds for concern.
-- 
-brent williams 			Relational Technology, Inc.
 					1080 Marina Village Parkway
{amdahl,sun,mtxinu,cpsc6a,hoptoad}	Alameda, CA   94501
	!rtech!brent			(415)-769-1400