New Whistleblower Claims UK's Nuclear Submarine Fleet A 'Disaster Waiting To Happen'
from the inspiring-others dept
There were, of course, many whistleblowers before Edward Snowden. But it is undeniable that his sudden appearance across the world's news outlets two years ago has ignited a debate about the role, rights and responsibilities of whistleblowers. One manifestation of this new interest is the creation of the Courage Foundation, dedicated to helping them:
The Courage Foundation is an international organisation that supports those who risk life or liberty to make significant contributions to the historical record. We fundraise for the legal and public defence of specific individuals who fit these criteria and are subject to serious prosecution or persecution. We also campaign for the protection of truthtellers and the public's right to know generally.
Currently the Courage Foundation is supporting two whistleblowers: Edward Snowden and Jeremy Hammond. So news that it has set up an emergency fund to help a new, and hitherto unknown, whistleblower, is significant. Here's the background:
Able Seaman William McNeilly is a 25-year-old British Engineering Technician Weapons Engineer Submariner who has blown the whistle on major safety risks and cover-ups within the British Royal Navy's Trident nuclear weapons programme, stating, "We are so close to a nuclear disaster it is shocking, and yet everybody is accepting the risk to the public."
Here are some of his claims:
Among the most startling of McNeilly’s revelations include the fact that three missile launch tests failed, missile safety alarms were ignored, torpedo compartments were flooded and bags were not properly checked for security risks. He also claims that [UK nuclear submarine] HMS Vanguard crashed into a French submarine in February 2009. McNeilly says there was a "massive cover up of the incident. For the first time the no personal electronic devices with a camera rule was enforced." At the time, the Guardian reported that "the Ministry of Defence initially refused to confirm the incident" and that Vanguard suffered mere "scrapes", but McNeilly says one officer told him, "We thought, this is it -- we’re all going to die."
You can read the long and detailed document written by McNeilly on a dedicated Wikileaks page. It includes a comment attributed to him that may sound familiar:
"Please make sure this information is released. I don't want to be in prison without anyone knowing the truth."
That's pretty much what Snowden said when he went public. Although there's no evidence that McNeilly was inspired by Snowden, it would have been hard for him to avoid the huge publicity around the leaks over the last two years. It would be interesting to know whether that played any part in his decision to publish his statement. Unfortunately, unlike Snowden still ensconced in his Russian exile, it looks almost certain that McNeilly will indeed be going to prison:
A Royal Navy spokeswoman said: “We can confirm that AB McNeilly was apprehended last night and is now in the custody of the Royal Navy police at a military establishment in Scotland where he is being afforded the duty of care that we give to all of our people.
The spokesperson went on to say:
“The Royal Navy disagrees with McNeilly’s subjective and unsubstantiated personal views but we take the operation of our submarines and the safety of our personnel extremely seriously and so continue to fully investigate the circumstances of this issue.”
As that makes clear, the UK authorities are trying to play down McNeilly's serious allegations as "subjective and unsubstantiated personal views" in the hope that public interest in the story will wane. But his decision to publish the claims and accept the consequences -- like Snowden -- looks as if it will bring about some scrutiny, not least because UK politicians have taken up his cause alongside the Courage Foundation, which is helping him with his defense costs. That's key, since it may encourage yet more whistleblowers to come forward hoping to achieve the same result.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: leaks, nuclear sub, nuclear submarine, tritan, uk, whistleblower, whistleblowing, william mcneilly
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
If there really are problems they are either administrative or mechanical, and the chain of command will take action. How fast is another story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
Who needs a mushroom cloud ...
Three Mile Island
Chernobyl
Fukushima
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
So sadly mistaken. 14 years to clean up, and you think it does not belong on the list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
As for 14 years, most of that was for removal of nuclear fuel, which is a comparable, or even less, than the time it takes to remove fuel from other reactors that did not have a breech. Furthermore, the cleanup was limited to the reactor building and the area immediate to the reactor building, and not to areas surrounding the facility.
The time frame is irrelevant to magnitude or severity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
You're saying all this as though a nuclear incident of severity comparable to Three Mile Island is not important. Again, I hope nobody actually in charge of any sort of nuclear operations thinks that way. Even the smallest nuclear accident is something to be studiously avoided. "Nobody died" or "the evacuation was only temporary" does not make it OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
The heart of the question is how you define severe. There was an apparently minimal release of radiation, with apparently no quantifiable effect to anyone. Sure, release of any radiation is highly undesirable, and not "okay," as is carbon monoxide from cars, radioactivity from burning coal, and dumping garbage in the sea.
However, you look at what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima, where thousands of acres are so contaminated with radioactivity that it is not, and will not be safe to live for decades, and maybe longer, and compare that to Three Mile Island, where the only issue, short term or long term, is the reactor building. I would say that the design of Three Mile Island shows a much more cautious approach to the design of nuclear reactors than either of the other two.
People have an irrational paranoia when it comes to nuclear energy. The reality is that a typical coal plant will release more radiation than a typical nuclear plant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
Yes, nobody is arguing that Chernobyl was not worse than Three Mile Island.
The reality is that a typical coal plant will release more radiation than a typical nuclear plant.
It's the atypical ones that are the problem. The difference in radiation output between a typical coal fired power plant and one undergoing a catastrophic failure is not that great. The same cannot be said for a nuclear power plant.
Sure, release of any radiation is highly undesirable,
That's my main point, I just wanted to push back against any minimization of "minor" nuclear accidents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
See this article...
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-23/news/mn-15781_1_design-flaws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
Or imho if the whole terrorist thing isn't as bad then those flaws don't matter and a cover up is enough of damage control.
But if you are a country making new laws based on "OMG we are all going to die by terrorists" then you don't have an option in my opinion. Because people apparently can get into places they aren't supposed to, listen to stuff they should not hear, and they can get equipment on board which they aren't allowed to have. Using a coverup (arresting the whistle blower) in this situation doesn't make you look like you have things under control imho.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuclear disaster? More like sour grapes!
That statement seems to imply that the only kind of nuclear incident worth worrying about is a mushroom-cloud scale detonation. Seems extremely shortsighted and I hope the Royal Navy doesn't share that view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Bye United Kingdom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which way is it? You can't have it both ways
Which way is it?
1. Is McNeilly arrested for telling untruths?
(his subjective and unsubstantiated personal views)
2. Or is McNeilly arrested for telling the truth?
If (1), then why arrest him at all?
If (2), then why arrest him at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which way is it? You can't have it both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which way is it? You can't have it both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which way is it? You can't have it both ways
He is facing disciplinary action for going AWOL. The MoD have specifically said they're not going to prosecute him under the Official Secrets Act for leaking precisely because they don't consider his leak true.
Quite frankly some of the new stories on this case were awful. The Guardian seems to be complaining that the MoD aren't prosecuting him for leaking of all things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No but a constant threat of terrorism lets you both get away with affording yourself privileges and downplaying civil rights issues, that you otherwise wouldn't.
As for seaman McNeilly here, while I do appreciate the honesty, frankly I don't think the leaked info was worth the price he'll end up paying. Not to mention how the rest of his family might feel about all this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, i guess he is "going for a swim".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wondering about this guy's actual knowledge...
For example, he claims that there was a massive cover up of the collision of the Vanguard and the French sub. Yet, there are not a few, not dozens, but HUNDREDS of articles from 2009 that discuss the collision, the UK's initial denials or silence, and the ultimate release of information. In other words, there was a "massive," whatever THAT means in this context, cover up in 2009, but it appears that many, and maybe even the most significant details, became known in 2009.
As another example, he claims that 65 meters is the so-called safe depth of operation for the HMS Vanguard, and yet multiple unclassified sources say the "official" safe depth is 180 meters plus, and non-military affiliated military experts (e.g., Jane's) claim operating depths of 300+ meters. So, is the safe depth 65 meters, which sounds like the safe depth for a WWII submarine, or is it 300 meters or more? I suspect the latter. I have no clue where he got 65 meters.
He also includes comments that the reactors need replaced. Except, I thought the reactors were basically built into the submarine. In other words, I do not believe they CAN be replace.
He also talks about how the submarine could be brought down from within, and how that is somehow scary. He makes me wonder whether he has been in the military for long. I've flown on really big Air Force jets. It is phenomenally easy to bring one down if that is really your desire, and if you were crazy enough to want to bring one down with you in it. Indeed, there is not really any way to prevent someone from doing all sorts of nasty stuff to big military equipment, if you have access to the equipment. Witness the guy who stole a tank a few years back and went on a rampage. Fortunately, it takes a LOT more to arm a tank and then steal it.
A few other things in his diatribe seemed a bit off, but other navy and submarine experts can chime in any time they like. Maybe the UK is not charging him under the Official Secrets Act because whatever information he claims to have is tainted by inaccuracies. Or is flat out wrong.
Is this guy another Snowden, or a Snowden wannabe who appears to be MASSIVELY FAILING in his attempt at whistleblowing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of Obscenity
The standard definition is given by Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184,197 (US 1964): ``I know it when I see it''. Thus the job of any seller or distributor is to revive the long-deceased in order to show the material to him and see if he deems it unclean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]