Air Force Mistakenly Transports Live Nukes Across America 898
kernel panic attack writes "Surely the late Stanley Kubrick is somewhere smiling at this one. Forbes.com has a story about a B-52 Bomber that mistakenly flew 6-nuclear tipped cruise missles across several states last week.
The 3-hour flight took the plane from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30.
The incident was so serious that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were quickly informed and Gates has asked for daily briefings on the Air Force probe, said Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell."
We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Insightful)
That having been said, they weren't in a condition that they would of detonated if the plane had crashed; the worst would of been a radiation leak that could of been cleaned up. The military has egg on their face but no-one was put in danger.
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Informative)
Re:that's ok then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:that's ok then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now calculate the chance that the kid gets run over or cracks his head while playing.
Maybe I should start selling nuclear bomb shelters and cash in on all this misinformed hysteria.
Re:Your are wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Nice fear mongering but it's completely inaccurate. For starters the pilots would know what they are carrying and the days of 24/7 airborne nukes ended back in the 60s or 70s. It was too expensive, with too much room for error [wikipedia.org] and quite redundant when we have a force of boomers [wikipedia.org] that can't be detected/engaged/destroyed before launching.
Re:Your are wrong (Score:5, Informative)
For every nuke in our arsenal, there's a set of dummy weapons with exactly the same look and feel. The only people allowed near the vehicle while the ordnance is being loaded are the loaders themselves, and even they probably don't know whether the weapons are real or not.
It's a security measure. A load of nukes is both extremely valuable and extremely dangerous. If the Bad Guys knew they could get an arsenal by attacking a specific plane or by bending a few members of a specific flight crew, they'd try it. By the same token, if a few members of a flight crew managed to convince themselves it would be a good idea to convert a certain part of the planet to dirty glass, they might try that.
Running fake weapons most of the time eliminates the certainty of payoff in both cases. But an investigation and reprisals are damn well certain, so it just isn't worth attacking a plane or letting a few bombs fall on the off-chance that they might be real.
You're correct (as far as I know) that we stopped carrying live nukes at the end of the cold war, but that doesn't mean the drills with dummy weapons have ended. We really don't want to be at the low end of the learning curve if we end up needing nukes in a hurry.
In this case, it sounds like someone screwed up a requisition. Instead of calling for dummy weapons to be used in a practice flight, someone got real nukes instead. And yeah.. that's a case where the CO in charge of the base is in serious deep shit. We really don't want the people who take care of our nuclear arsenal to get confused about their inventory.
Re:Your are wrong (Score:5, Funny)
To: new.guy@fortbrag.gov
Dude, I toldya five times already... the live ones are coded OMGWTFBBQ, and the fakies are ROFLCOPTER.
Quit fucking up or I'll suspend your ass with pay.
--1_1
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Informative)
No matter where they flew them, this was a violation of nuclear handling procedures. I had to deal with these rules many years ago. This kind of screw up is a career ending move.
As much as people like to make fun of the military, there are some things the military does that it takes extremely seriously, and generally has a relatively excellent track record with. Handling nuclear weapons is one of them. Having nuclear weapons somewhere they are not supposed to be scares the military. They could fall into the wrong hands, they could cause an accident (bad publicity not needed), all kinds of issues. Then there are very stringent laws on handling nukes. Stuff you can go to jail for violating.
Maybe there was never any danger of a nuclear explosion, but there was a temporary loss of control of nuclear weapons. Someone caused (by accident, oversight, misinformation, etc.) nuclear weapons to be loaded on a plane and then flown somewhere they are not supposed to be. Each nuclear weapon has a location it is supposed to be in. They may change where from day to day, but by the will of the military they will be in that place. Nukes are not treated the same way as so many other comparatively unimportant items (like toilet seats).
So, whether the potential was there or not for some serious explosion (it was not), there is a very serious breach of handling which in the military will be treated seriously. Yeah, flying over US air space is a big no-no, but the bigger no-no was a temporary misplacement of nuclear weapons. That is huge in military terms.
InnerWeb
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:4, Interesting)
That is probably the best outcome. Can you say dereliction of duty? I would bet that people are going to facing jail time for this one. Your right when it comes to special weapons the military really doesn't play around.
I just wonder what poor enlisted guy at Barksdale thought when he found out they still had the warheads. That must have been an oh crap moment. If you don't raise the alarm fast enough your in deep trouble. If you are wrong you are in deep trouble. Is there even a protocal for dealing with that kind of a mistake? Kind of a man I hope I am right but I really wish I am wrong moment.
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Funny)
The *Bomb*, Dmitri... The *hydrogen* bomb!...
Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes... to attack your country...
Ah... Well, let me finish, Dmitri... Let me finish, Dmitri... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?... Can you *imagine* how I feel about it, Dmitri?...
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:4, Informative)
Of course that weapons grade material would be traced back to the reactor in the United States that made it in the first place, thus rendering your conspiracy theory moot. Any halfway advanced nuclear power (think, the US, Russia, UK, France, Israel, etc) can tell from the isotopes of the material where and when it was produced.
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:4, Interesting)
You're trying to tell me there's *not* any special nuke release codes, just fire and forget like a regular missile? I think not. What is scary is if one of these were to "disappear", so that someone can rig/replace the detonator. That'd save you about 99% of the work of building one yourself
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Informative)
These nukes were enroute to be decommissioned. As in destroyed. The problem wasn't that they were on the wing. The problem was that someone didn't remove the warheads from them first. This was not about dusting off the weapons, this is about dusting the weapons.
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Informative)
Well I was in the Airforce for 20 years. Ten of which was spent maintaining avionics on a B-52. And there is a huge difference between standard cruise missiles and nukes. Those nukes by treaty and national directives aren't supposed to fly anywhere unless there is direct national authority. Meaning President, Vice President,joint chiefs etc.
During the cold war, there was a lot of worry about this type of thing. Each bomber base has an alert facility. That is where the crews wait for what they hope will never come. Well most of them, hope that! There are secret sicko's in every group. There are checklists upon checklists. No enlisted person can work alone on an aircraft, there most be 2 people in view of each other at all times. Each has to have knowledge of the task to recognize when the other is deviating. Inside the aircraft cockpit in addition to the 2 maintenance, you have to have 2 officers both cockpit certified. If you notice something isn't right you stop the task. If your not sure if you trust the other guy, you radio in a 'helping hand'. You both will then spend time spread eagle on the tarmac with a gun pointed at you.
To work on nuclear weapons system, you are subject to the 'personal reliability program' , this means you can lose certification for drinking too much, divorce proceedings etc. Anything where your supervisor or commander believes you might not be thinking about the task at hand. Its non punitive, you can also be temporarily de-certified for a tooth extraction. What seems to me happened here is someone removed that aircraft from alert status and did not notify every one in the checklist. The aircraft munitions didn't get unloaded. This is a major screw up.
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Funny)
I think the menu looks like this:
(1) CONVENTIONAL WARHEAD - press any key to fire.
(2) NUCLEAR WARHEAD - enter 4-digit PIN.
(3) SONY LITHIUM-ION BATTERY - DIRECT PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED! UNAUTHORIZED DEPLOYMENT OF WMDs IS A CAPITAL OFFENCE!
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Insightful)
To err is human. To really fuck up, you need to work for the government.
Honestly, the Average Joe can get in trouble with the law for driving 47 miles per hour in a 45 mph zone.
But this? "Whoops. Looks like I accidentally put nuclear bombs in my plane." Did they ever figure out whose fault this was? I'm just trying to figure out if he'll be fired (low level employee) or given a Congressional medal (high ranking official).
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Funny)
Otherwise they have two piles of missiles - one with big happy smiley faces with "just kidding" written alongside, and the other with a big red unhappy face with "0wned!" alongside.
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Funny)
"Golly Gee, We've got SO STINKING MANY nukes around here we can't keep 'em all straight. They're just laying around! I've got one in my desk drawer, and another in my trunk. I took one home for my kids to play with. They're in VENDING MACHINES over here! Sometimes we just strap 'em on our planes and fly around for kicks! Don't make us nervous, cuz, we might accidentally shoot off a rocket, and it might have a nuke on it. We're good at that, you know, shooting off rockets..."
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:4, Insightful)
You've not seen the commercial sector much, have you?
Honestly, while this is bad, and the nuclear debris from the missles would have been a pain had the plane crashed, it's not what I would call a royal fuckup. You are more likely to win the lottery twice in a row than it would be for those bombs to go off if the plane crashed (nuclear warheads, are delicate, even if made from plutonium, and if those are uranium warheads, they are even more so).
Regardless, another three good disproofs to your comment:
Sony. Microsoft. Apple.
Each of these companies had screwed up royally. One took decades to recover.
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony. Microsoft. Apple.
Each of these companies had screwed up royally. One took decades to recover.
those are weak. i got two words for you: Union Carbide.
Re:We got some flyin' to do (Score:5, Informative)
So how many weapons were involved? (Score:5, Funny)
I know what you're thinking. 'Did they lose six warheads or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. You've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So how many weapons were involved? (Score:5, Funny)
The game's up, President. There are no more missiles left on that plane.
Oh, c'mon, you don't expect me to fall for that old trick.
It's not a trick! There was one launched at Mr. Body in the study, two for the chandelier, two at the lounge door, and one for the singing telegram.
That's not six.
One plus two plus two plus one.
Uh-uh. There was only one nuke that got the chandelier. That one plus two plus ONE plus one.
Even if you're right, that would be one plus one plus two plus one, not one plus two plus one plus one.
Alright, fine, one plus two plus one..........SHUT-UP!
Re:Tell us again? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Japanese had it coming.
Period.
Japanese abuse of anyone non-Japanese was all but government policy. Japanese troops tied women to trees in Nanking and drove sharpened bamboo poles up their vaginas. American prisoners of war prayed to be bombed by their own forces to end their suffering.
The most conservative estimates at the time by the US Military estimated that an invasion of the home islands would have cost at least 500,000 civilian Japanese lives. That's conservative, mind you.
We dropped a couple bombs, killed 80,000, and they surrendered - but even then there was a plot by Japanese extremists in the Imperial Army to steal the tapes of the Emperor's surrender radio broadcast before they could be aired, as they wanted to keep fighting.
A "demonstration" of the atomic blast for the Japanese would merely have been suppressed by the Japanese military.
The Japanese got off easy. When a nation chooses to embark on wars of aggression and piracy, its citizens must bear the consequences. It's a lesson we in the US should learn, as we meekly accept a government that appears more corrupt with each coming day, but to argue that the use of nuclear weapons during WW2 is to ignore the historical realities of the time. The world was a big old slaughterhouse back then, and with a couple of big booms we ended it.
The lesson we should take from that time is how General MacArthur turned Japan into a thriving democracy within five years. If the Bush administration had been less concerned about how to maximize profit for civilian contractors and more interested in studying what MacArthur did for Japan and what the Marshall Plan did for Europe we wouldn't have such a mess in Iraq right now.
Re:Tell us again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? The horrific firebombing of Tokyo wasn't enough to get Japan to surrender. And the first a-bomb on Hiroshima wasn't, either. Japan didn't actually surrender until after Nagasaki. How many more lives would you have been comfortable seeing lost on both sides if we'd dropped only the bomb on Hiroshima, and then gone on and on with more equally/more horrible meat-grinding/roasting conventional warfare afterwards? Several hundred thousand? Because that's what the second bomb prevented.
Re:Tell us again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, "rounding down" is more like it. Are you deliberately ignoring the months and years that preceded the events that drove their surrender?
I still cannot bear the thought of nuclear bombs being dropped on innocent civilians.
But... you're OK with the Japanese army sitting in various ports, factory towns, and other facilities and cities throughout Japan, and being "conventionally" bombed into oblivion, along with the civilians they're standing next to? How about the factories and shipping facilities (such as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), staffed and supported by civilians, but with their output entirely directed to supporting the fight-til-the-end Japanese military? What technology, available in the 1940's, are you proposing we should have used in order to get Japan to surrender? The only other one available had ALREADY BEEN TRIED: to wit, massive conventional bombing, in advance of an on-the-ground invasion. Were you paying ANY attention to what happened on the countless Pacific Islands that had to be handled that way? The Japanese mainland would have been unbelievably worse, because a devoted Emprorer-obeying population would have largely done the same things that Japanese soldiers did in Okinawa or elsewhere: fight to the death.
You're confusing the fact that, owing to their surrender, far fewer Japanese soldiers and civilians died than would have in a bloody block-by-block invasion of the mainland with anyone feeling generous about that. That fewer of them died is just frosting on the cake. The CAKE was the end of the war, without having to send half a million US solidiers and marines into horrific urban struggle that would have made the insurgency in Iraq look like a football game in terms of collateral damage to non-combatants. This was 60 years ago! The conventional conquering of that ground would have been far, far worse for everyone involved. But the motivation for getting them to surrender was to save OUR people from having to do it in a vastly bloodier, more costly way. It's just luck for the average Japanese citizen that they didn't have to have every village burned down, every town square riddled with machine gun fire, and vastly more people caught up in horror that - because of a limited but violent solution in Hiroshima, and because the Japanese military thought maybe it was some sort of one-time stunt, Nagasaki - didn't have to happen.
And we keep talking about ALL THE JAPANESE lives we saved.
Actually, "we" are simply OBSERVING that fact. You're the one that's obsessed with preferring a conventional invasion of the mainland, and somehow preferring "standard" deaths of far more people. Which is pretty perverse, really, when you think about it. But you're not really thinking about it, obviously.
We shot to kill, not to make them surrender.
False dichotomy. We shot to kill because no other action, as had been amply demonstrated by the Japanese military over and over again, would cause them to surrender.
We wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor.
Gross simplification. We wanted to shut down the entire campaign that Japan had put into motion, of which things like Pearl Harbor, or the brutal rape of Nanking, were merely episodes. The military regime that authored those events and which was torching so much of the Pacific rim, needed to be stopped. And there was no fiercely effective UN (hah!) to somehow make them do so through angry letters and corrupt sanctions. Every minute that the Japanese continued with that campaign, untold thousands of people died. You clearly think it's rude to stop them using violence, but you are spectacularly silent on just what method you think would have actually worked more quickly, and with fewer deaths.
We wanted mass carnage and devastation.
Has your shrink ever talked to you about "projection?" Regardless, we DID want devastation, in the two limited places where we deployed
Re:I know! I know! I know! *waving hand* (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it is not so simple. It is not a foregone conclusion that it really is in the US's best interest to have nukes, and to deny them to anyone they don't like.
There are plenty of arguments that argue for everyone having nukes.
Given the US has nukes and no one else does, the US is both resented and feared. Worse the US is tempted to use them as leverage to further its own goals, which in the short term leads to 'benefits' to the US, but in the long term leads to things like terrorist attacks on US cities, and violent anti-americanism around the globe.
Clearly this wouldn't be in the US's best interest.
Now I'm not saying the current situation is the result of the US having nukes, per se, but it is the result of the US leveraging its economic and military superiority against the rest of the world.
And now, its economic superiority is crumbling, and the world is faced with a lone superpower that is increasingly desperate. I don't think that is in anyone's best interest.
Its eerily frightening. Bush/Cheney in particular have shown that congress, the courts, and so-called checks and balances are weaker than we might have hoped. Calling one's opponents terrorist sympathizers, perpetrating the pretense of war, shrouding everything as a national security issue, stuffing the supreme court with allies, and all the other political tricks when taken together... well... a "Hitler" could potentially do a lot of damage at the helm of the US before he was stopped; and its not clear exactly who would stop him.
Could the US elect a madman? Why not? Its happened elsewhere. And if history has shown us anything, its shown us that it tends to repeat itself.
We have 3 options here (Score:4, Interesting)
Or maybe that's just me.
I don't think that's the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't think that's the problem (Score:4, Funny)
What extra precautions would you advise someone carrying nukes as opposed to conventional weapons?
Re:I don't think that's the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You've GOT to know where these things are always.
You can't accidentally stick them on some transport.
If anything deserves a tonne of Red Tape and Bureaucracy, it's the storage and movement of Nukes. Surely.
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:5, Informative)
Hard to take special safety measures when you're not even aware of what you're carrying.
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:4, Informative)
Practically everything but the airframe and engines is new in those jets - and some systems on the B-52 are more modern than those on the B-1 and B-2 bombers.
There's a nice list and diagram on this page [fas.org] outlining some of the upgrades to keep the B-52 effective, despite its large radar cross section. If Congress ever lets Boeing upgrade the engines, (4xCFM-56, last time I heard) it'll be able to fly farther on less fuel and with less maintenance, too.
The B-52 is quite state of the art - nothing quite compares, except for maybe stuffing the latest computer hardware inside of an original IBM XT case.
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:5, Funny)
Unloaded Gun == Loaded Gun (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:5, Interesting)
[quote] (Retired Air Force Major General)Shepperd said the United States had agreed in a Cold War-era treaty not to fly nuclear weapons. "It appears that what happened was this treaty agreement was violated," he said.
The warheads should have been removed from the missiles before they were attached to the B-52 bomber, according to military officials.[/quote]
So right away you can tell that a cover-up is happening, because decommissioned warheads would not be fixed on cruise missile tips and flown to the base where mideast bombings are staged. It is very possible that both US and Russia violate their agreements in secret, so that part is not a major issue IMHO. But something very unfunny is going on.
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I seriously doubt that nuclear weapons are staged in such a way, so it doesn't make sense that an officer would be worried about the use of the weapons. Secondly, I doubt that it's so easy to get a nuke on a plane that one can mistake a rack of nukes for a rack of anything else, so it was probably loaded by order; however, a hypothetical officer may be worried about leadership decisions that led the bombs to be put on the plan, and thought that the only way around the situation was to go to the press, otherwise an unsuitable leader would remain in a position of power, and the incident would be swept under the Air Force rug. That's plausible assessment.
This really does smell more like a political leak. The thing that bothers me most is that I'm not sure what end it's supposed to achieve.
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:4, Insightful)
OR WE CAN LEAVE THEM WHERE THEY ARE.
They weren't supposed to be transported to begin with. You obviously didn't bother to RTFA at all.
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting thing is, the B-52 was designed to carry a nuclear payload. Just, not as cruise missiles, and the B-52 upgrades were mostly conversions to carry conventional payloads after the Titan missiles were developed.
Considering what an ex-Chair Force buddy tells me about life at 'Mindrot', I'm surprised this hasn't happened before...
cargo, lots and lots of cargo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We have 3 options here (Score:5, Informative)
Three and a half hours is a long time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely true, something went wrong a lot deeper than the crew that loaded the missiles. But they should have picked up on something being wrong. Their Commander was rightfully relieved of his command.
Re:Three and a half hours is a long time (Score:5, Insightful)
As a more qualified poster indicated, it is unthinkable that the nuclear warheads would be even stored where any soldier can drive a forklift in, pick up a few crates and cart them out. James Bond movies are not a guide, I know, but don't they *lock the doors* for example, with keys stored in locked safes of base's big brass, and with two or three keys needed together to unlock? If the storage was open (by who? a lowly ground crewman can't do that, I hope!) and accessible (like no armed guard at the doors?) then the weapons were supposed to be moved, despite what the official line is, and the fsckup is just that they were loaded on a wrong plane. That is not very encouraging.
Re:Three and a half hours is a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
How do we keep track of our weapons? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would hope we would have protocols in place that would ensure we never lose track of any nuclear weapon. If a nuclear weapon were detonated in a U.S. city how could we verify it wasn't our bomb if we can't keep track of where our weapons are?
Re:How do we keep track of our weapons? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now *that's* +5 Funny.
Re:How do we keep track of our weapons? (Score:5, Informative)
We can tell U.S. Plutonium from Soviet Plutonium from Chinese Plutonium. Rather easily, I gather.
Terrorist.....who???? (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't this matter equate to national security, or is national security more a spam and IP issue?
Certainly Homeland security has to be in on this information????
But again, how is it that the media are even allowed to find out about such an insident?
Maybe the US government wanted them to media it, in order to commit more terrorism....
Now maybe someone will flamebait mod me down but seriously, how does the media find out about what
would otherwise be considered a typical US military plane flight? Did the plane accidently have a big "warheads on board" sign stuck on the side of it?
Re:Terrorist.....who???? (Score:5, Interesting)
What do you think could be the worse story?
Mistakenly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the logistical and safety related problems when transporting those weapons on the ground, could it be that they intentionally moved the weapons and now that the news got wind of the story call it a mistake?
Re:Mistakenly? (Score:5, Funny)
Because it is easier than mounting nuclear weapons on a prairie?
uh oh? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/s
This is troubling all the way around (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's one take, take your own grain of SALT. Can't take it with the ABM Treaty since Bush withdrew from that in 2001.
http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/s
So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let's call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.
Then he told me something I had not heard before.
Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can't imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?
His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.
Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can't think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don't know, but it is a question worth asking.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/09/flying_nuclea
Interesting quote (Score:5, Interesting)
He's not claiming that it never happened before, just that it's never been reported before.
Into perspective... (Score:4, Interesting)
But there was so little chance of accident detonation that it is a far smaller story than one might immediately think.
Modern Nuclear Weapons are one of those things you have to really WANT to detonate
Plus considering even the military didn't know they were moving Nuclear Weapons, the chances of someone attempting to steal them is next to nill.
Much better than crashing with a bomb on board... (Score:5, Interesting)
TERRACE, B.C. (CP) -- A determined group of local citizens wants some answers about the mysterious crash near here almost five decades ago of a B-36 bomber carrying an inactive atomic bomb. The gigantic bomber -- 50 metres long with a 70-metre wingspan -- was apparently flying without a crew when it plowed into Mount Kolaget in the vast Coast Mountains range on Feb. 13, 1950.
It was carrying an inactive Mark IV Fat Man atomic bomb similar to one dropped on Nagasaki when it got into trouble over Hecate Strait, according to a U.S. military declassified report. Three engines were ablaze and the giant aircraft was losing altitude. Crew members dropped the bomb over the strait and bailed out.
Re:Much better than crashing with a bomb on board. (Score:4, Informative)
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Scene in cockpit (Score:5, Funny)
C541: Copy, over.
Central Command: We have good news and bad news for you, over.
C541: Ready to reciev orders, over.
Central Command: Good news is you're going to be famous. Now your payload..
C541: Yes Sir.
Central Command: Can you verify your current payload?
C541: Kidney beans and tomatoes sir, over.
[Muffled laughter, static]
Central Command: Actually, those are nuclear warheads on your left wing, lieutenant.
C541: Spicy kidney beans? Over.
Broken Arrow! (Score:5, Funny)
"A what?"
"A Broken Arrow. It's when we lose a nuclear weapon."
"I don't know what's scarier, the fact that we lost nukes or the fact that it happens often enough that we have a name for it"
Re:Broken Arrow! (Score:4, Interesting)
Nukes on plane? (Score:5, Funny)
The Press around this incident could be a PR gag (Score:4, Interesting)
I smell lot's of proactive appliance of psychology here.
grin (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't it a bit early? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's always too early for that
HLS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Missing the major point (Score:5, Informative)
Imagine an inspector coming up to the commander in those three hours, "Where are those nukes?" and he says "Oh, they're here in this --- OH SHIT!" You don't know at that moment if they've been misplaced or if they've been stolen. Everybody panics. The President must be informed.
Any violation of the accountability rules is taken dead seriously. You can get punished if the nukes never moved but you messed up the paperwork, so heads will roll here.
Disclaimer: I worked with nukes before, although not these.
Noooo (Score:4, Interesting)
"...the fact remains that the Air Force didn't know where six of its nukes were for three hours."
I know the press likes to make it seem that way, but that is probably not true at all. Based on my experience I would say it isn't true at all.
They new they were on the missile. They new the missiles had been moved. If anyone went to look for them, they would have known immediately where they were.
Yes, of course the president is notified, because he will need to deal with the political ramifications of the treaty violation. Not bbecause people are 'panicking'. In my experience with nukes we don't panic, we quickly deal with the issue.
Sorry, but I feel I need to be clear The media is implying that the nation was in some sort of dangerous situation and someone could have been killed. Some sites are implying that this nearly lead to a nuclear explosion. Fortunately the main stream media has at least put the comments in saying detonation wasn't possible;which as you know is true.
"Disclaimer: I worked with nukes before, although not these."
meh, who hasn't?
Re:Why is this even a story? (Score:5, Informative)
We are supposed to know where the weapons are at all times. They were not supposed to be transported. The Air Force was supposed to transport some conventional cruise missiles.
Re:Why is this even a story? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why is this even a story? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why is this even a story? (Score:5, Funny)
Not quite right. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a big deal for two reasons:
- We're obligated by international treaty to not fly nuclear weapons.
- Anytime nuclear weapons are someplace they're not supposed to be it's a problem. If no one knew these things were not where they were supposed to be, they could have just as well been, well, anywhere.
Not to mention, the crew of the plane didn't know they had a nuclear payload. That means that if they had some sort of issue with the flight, they are in the position where they're not making the right decisions.
Re:Not quite right. (Score:5, Informative)
From the CNN article [cnn.com]
'Shepperd said the United States had agreed in a Cold War-era treaty not to fly nuclear weapons. "It appears that what happened was this treaty agreement was violated," he said.'
That's from the Air Force Major General they were interviewing about the incident. If you have something that contradicts that please speak up.
Anonymous Idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose a few months after they went missing, five of them blew up in major cities.
New York.
Washington D.C.
Chicago.
Los Angeles.
San Francisco.
Suppose one were held back to make you wonder if it was going off in your home town tomorrow.
Yeah, so it seems like a minor bookeeping error, compounded by accidental transport. However, the error also implies that they were transported by a crew that didn't know they had nukes on board, landing at a base that wasn't prepared to handle the nukes securely, since they didn't know they were receiving nukes.
It's not a minor thing. It's a big, big story. It's a bigger story than will ever be admitted.
Suppose this wasn't the first time this happened, only the missing nukes were not detected because they were removed from the cruise missiles before the receiving crew noticed they had warheads. This terrifying scenario is why a full inventory is being conducted right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why is this even a story? (Score:5, Informative)
Anything after 1980 is classified.
That's at least 11, and probably 12 missing atomic weapons, just from the US arsenal.
Then there's a handful of them that aren't missing, but were either destroyed in an accident, the detonation failed, or were destructed in the air.
The recent incident pales in comparison.
Re:The worst that could have happened (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't even know these five warheads (not armed, and not able to be armed) were off the base in Minot until someone in Louisiana noticed that they were "hot" shots.
To lose track of one warhead - much less FIVE - is a very serious transgression.
Re:Why is this even a story? (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't you read the label?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:B-52? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really wanna fly such warheads over the US in newer planes?
here is another saying "if its not broke then don't fix it."
A large load bomber does not have to be fast but steady and sure.
Another saying "Murphy loves complexity"
But here the real thing to consider. Now they we have told extremist groups that B52 Bomber may or not be caring warheads over the US, unguarded.......
Re:B-52? (Score:5, Informative)
The first Boeing B-52 Stratofortress flight took place on April 15, 1952, almost 7 years after the end of WWII. This was a test flight of a prototype, not a production plane; the B-52 was . The B-52 has been modified, updated, and adapted to meet the changing needs for a large, long-range, high-level bomber. It was initially designed as an intercontinental nuclear strategic bomber, and has since been adapted for low-level flight, conventional bombing, launching cruise missiles, tactical attack, direct- and indirect-fire ground support, photographic reconnaissance, etc.
The airframes are indeed aging (the last B-52H airframe was completed in 1962), but it boils down to efficient use of resources and adaptation of existing equipment. It's such a superb aircraft that any possible improvements to be had with an all-new design would be so small as to make it not worth the expense of said new design. There is no finer long-range, fast-subsonic, jet-powered strategic bomber aircraft on the planet right now, nor is there likely to be in the near future.
There are other examples of military equipment that hasn't undergone a significant redesign in a long time due to lack of need. The current M4 Carbine that is issued to infantrymen in the Army and Marine Corps is simply a slight evolution of a design from 1956 - the AR-15, adopted by the US Air Force in 1961, re-designated as the M16 in 1962, and type classified Standard A in 1965, meaning it became the individual weapon of choice for US military personnel. The M1911 pistol was the standard sidearm of the US military for 74 years, from 1911 to 1985. The M60 general-purpose light machine gun has been around since 1957, and was largely based on a WWII German design, the MG42.
In short, just because something's been around for a while doesn't mean it's no longer useful
Re:Nukes weren't live - Shitty reporting (Score:5, Interesting)
"Live" is not the word I'd use, except maybe as opposed to "dummy". The scary issue, as pointed out elsewhere, is that the inventory tracking broke down.
Re:Nukes weren't live - Shitty reporting (Score:5, Informative)