The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There was a time half a century ago when courageous sea captains flew the Jolly Roger and roamed the oceans in their boats, armed only with their wits, a handful of torpedoes, and a few dozen hydrogen bombs.
Hawkeye7(discuss)05:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Hm, my concern is more if it is FOUO, and non-attainable through an FOIA request, it is less behind a paywall and more unattainable in general. Could we perform an FOIA or
try to send imagery, or other method to actually show the image is PD? @
Nikkimaria: what do you normally do in this situation? Kees08 (Talk)09:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
You could do that, but it technically isn't necessary - as Hawkeye says, even with the access restriction the images themselves are still PD.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
11:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Hawkeye7: I added a little more to the author, as requested in the source material. Let me know if you disagree. Otherwise, the image review is done and I support based on that. Kees08 (Talk)04:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments from Nick-D
It's good to see a high quality article on such an important topic. I have the following comments and suggestions:
"and in June he secured the approval of the Admiralty to build a nuclear powered submarine" - wasn't he the boss of the Admiralty? Do you mean that he secured approval (from the rest of the government, and especially the Treasury) for the RN to build a nuclear sub?
"The idea of moving the nuclear deterrent away from the densely populated UK and out to sea had considerable appeal in Britain" - It could be noted that a broader issue was that the V-bomber force was by this time highly vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike (as there would only be around 3 minutes warning). Moving the deterrent to sea was important for maintaining its credibility.
"A Cabinet Defence Committee meeting on 23 January 1963 approved the plan for four boats, with the Minister of Defence, Peter Thorneycroft noting that this would be cheaper and faster to build" - it's not clear what the four subs were cheaper and faster to build than (the hybrid attack-ballistic missile boats?)
I'd suggest adding something about the operations of the Polaris force - eg, to note how the subs operated, that their crews managed to maintain a continuous deterrent, that the subs are believed to have never been tracked by the Soviets, and the problems experienced with all of the above as the boats wore out. The above book covers this.
Nick-D (
talk)
05:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Similarly with regard to opposition to the programme. Probably a two para job at most: before procurement: popular / labour see-saw; during operation: popular / labour see-saw.
Fifelfoo (
talk)
14:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)reply
References good. Short cites good. Cites in notes section checked / lmftfyed. Inflations "good" (I oppose their use as OR, but outside of OR are the "true" ones "truely" cited). en vs dash in cites and refs good. HQRS good.
Fifelfoo (
talk)
04:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There was a time half a century ago when courageous sea captains flew the Jolly Roger and roamed the oceans in their boats, armed only with their wits, a handful of torpedoes, and a few dozen hydrogen bombs.
Hawkeye7(discuss)05:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Hm, my concern is more if it is FOUO, and non-attainable through an FOIA request, it is less behind a paywall and more unattainable in general. Could we perform an FOIA or
try to send imagery, or other method to actually show the image is PD? @
Nikkimaria: what do you normally do in this situation? Kees08 (Talk)09:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
You could do that, but it technically isn't necessary - as Hawkeye says, even with the access restriction the images themselves are still PD.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
11:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Hawkeye7: I added a little more to the author, as requested in the source material. Let me know if you disagree. Otherwise, the image review is done and I support based on that. Kees08 (Talk)04:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments from Nick-D
It's good to see a high quality article on such an important topic. I have the following comments and suggestions:
"and in June he secured the approval of the Admiralty to build a nuclear powered submarine" - wasn't he the boss of the Admiralty? Do you mean that he secured approval (from the rest of the government, and especially the Treasury) for the RN to build a nuclear sub?
"The idea of moving the nuclear deterrent away from the densely populated UK and out to sea had considerable appeal in Britain" - It could be noted that a broader issue was that the V-bomber force was by this time highly vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike (as there would only be around 3 minutes warning). Moving the deterrent to sea was important for maintaining its credibility.
"A Cabinet Defence Committee meeting on 23 January 1963 approved the plan for four boats, with the Minister of Defence, Peter Thorneycroft noting that this would be cheaper and faster to build" - it's not clear what the four subs were cheaper and faster to build than (the hybrid attack-ballistic missile boats?)
I'd suggest adding something about the operations of the Polaris force - eg, to note how the subs operated, that their crews managed to maintain a continuous deterrent, that the subs are believed to have never been tracked by the Soviets, and the problems experienced with all of the above as the boats wore out. The above book covers this.
Nick-D (
talk)
05:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Similarly with regard to opposition to the programme. Probably a two para job at most: before procurement: popular / labour see-saw; during operation: popular / labour see-saw.
Fifelfoo (
talk)
14:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)reply
References good. Short cites good. Cites in notes section checked / lmftfyed. Inflations "good" (I oppose their use as OR, but outside of OR are the "true" ones "truely" cited). en vs dash in cites and refs good. HQRS good.
Fifelfoo (
talk)
04:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.