Oddbean new post about login | logout So the UK's missiles are not so hot. They accidently shot a US drone, but both missiles missed. Then their trident nuclear missile test failed. Manufacturers will cut corners and keep more profit if they think they can get away with it. Maybe they thought these missiles will probably never be used anyways, so they cut corners. Military assets in frequent use work well. US nuclear missiles might have the same problem. So might Russian nuclear missiles. I could easily believe a manufacturer thinking "If a nuclear war starts we are all dead anyways, so why bother to make a functional missile? Maybe evem with a dud missile at least the enemy will survive, so by making a dud I'm kinda saving the world." This is even more true of bombs since they don't test the warheads anymore. We might soon find out.
Interesting
In a global thermonuclear war, its not just whether the warhead works (and QA has always been poor) but whether it can even reach its target with other nukes going off everywhere. Daniel Ellsberg wrote on the topic at some length - https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceda52mlhlv2o7glq6jijquubugbtfdtmaet6wemrelqno4dkvzll2?filename=Daniel%20Ellsberg%20-%20The%20Doomsday%20Machine_%20Confessions%20of%20a%20Nuclear%20War%20Planner-Bloomsbury%20USA%20%282017%29.epub US doctrine attempted to make up for this with massive overkill of priority targets.
US: after the cold war ended, missile soldiers lost status, media... Overall the sense of urgence decreased. There were cases of neglect, not total neglect, off course, but standards not being followed, delays, lack of personnel or qualifications, subpar maintenance, etc. At least this is what reports tell. Maybe UK also got morale or personnel issues.