Last June, an unarmed missile encountered a malfunction during a testing event, however, it wasn’t known until recently. Now, Theresa May has been urged by the Labour and Scottish National Party to explain the cover-up.
According to the British government, May knew all along that the test had went so horribly wrong. It wasn’t until this past weekend that the Sunday Times discovered the malfunction that took place off the Florida coast, just weeks before a vote took place that extended the system’s use.
Now, the parties are demanding that May appear before the MP’s as soon as possible after she had refused to speak about her knowledge of the incident during an interview on BBC’s Andrew Marr show. Instead, she insisted that she had “absolute faith” in Trident.
“There are tests that take place all the time, regularly, for our nuclear deterrents. What we were talking about in that debate that took place was about the future,” May said.
However, the Sunday Times reported that the unarmed Trident II D5 missile which had the ability to murder millions if armed with nuclear warheads had malfunctioned after it was launched from a British submarine, HMS Vanguard, directly off the coast of Florida. Instead of heading towards west Africa, the missile changed its path and headed towards the US.
Due to the astonishing price of 17 million Euros per missile, tests such as these rarely take place. In previous tests, any trials that were carried out were made public. In this case, the exercise was covered up due to the mishap.
Shortly after the test, and just days after May took office as prime minister, MP’s voted in favor up spending up to 40 billion Euros on replacing the Trident program. During a parliamentary debate, May stated that she would not hesitate to authorize a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 people. Of course, she made no mention of the failed test. While May failed to inform parliament about the serious malfunction, thankfully the missile wasn’t armed. If it had been, Jeremy Corbyn the Labor Leader stated that there would need to be a “serious discussion about that.”