Nuclear Submarines: Collision Or Collusion?

There has allegedly been a mid-Atlantic collision between two nuclear submarines. The very deep and wide Atlantic Ocean is not big enough to hold only two state-of-the-art submarines (French and British) without hitting each other. Remarkable. The undetectable stealth-type capability (apparently) means that these two leviathans cannot 'see' each other. The implication here is that this type of submarine is only engaged in the potential launch of one or more of its payload of nuclear missiles and not combat situations against an enemy. Presumably, that would be too dangerous. They cannot detect one another until at the time of a collision.

'British' Trident nuclear deterrent

The collision is alleged since there is no way of verifying such a collision and HMS Vanguard (Trident) is now safely back at Faslane Naval Base away from public scrutiny. All very secret. It makes for a terrific scare scenario to maximise fear. Two 'friendly' nuclear subs supposedly colliding and possibly completely untrue. Maybe it's accurate. The scenario is clearly designed to remind everybody of the potential disaster that could exist (imagery created by force).

Who knows other than those chained by the Official Secrets Act (legally binding even without signing)? It worked for the Apollo hoax in the USA.

Perfect

Classic Conspiracy Theory demands that the subject is unprovable. The default is that it must be believed before any attempt can be made to debunk. It's a god-like scenario. There is no proof. It is the absolute belief in a concept. In parts it may be plausible. In total less so and completely unverifiable. Even religious circles accept that much that was written in the Christian Bible was by many authors over possibly hundreds of years. 'Facts' are distorted even in one's own lifetime let alone over 2000 years or more in the depths of history.

Much history should be challenged, but it is taught in schools (indoctrination) as though it is undeniable 'fact'. It remains unprovable and should be regarded as maybe. If it's realistically plausible.

The concept of the 30-year rule conspires to hide current information away for this period and much can be 'altered' in a 'private' archive of eventually public material over a 30 year period. The people involved at the time will either be dead or will have forgotten to the extent that verification of any challenge is very unlikely. Any archived documents will almost certainly be covered by the Official Secrets Act, so official copies will (almost certainly) not exist. And even if they did, they could very simply be just dismissed as fakes.

This exemplifies the most useful function of 'blogs' and journals (Comment) to record events at the time so any future distortion of 'facts' can be challenged.

Officially, the Freedom of Information Act appears to be important, but seems to be cynically disregarded by organisations who choose to not comply with requests. Not surprising in UQ (aka UK) Ltd. The official line is that some information is exempted.

• Some information may not be available because it falls within one of the exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Simply entering keywords exemption, freedom, information returns over 2,200 results. There are just too many conditions to accept that any bona fide request could retrieve any significant information that is not exempted and so remains unavailable even after 30 years. Freedom of Information should mean just that, but like the Life Sentence in UQ (aka UK) Ltd will be something much less. It's euphemistic and nonsensical. More like:

• FIA aka
• Freedom of Some Information Only Act 2009

• Life Sentence aka
• Reasonably Not Too Lengthy Sentence