Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nuclear warheads mistakenly flown on B-52

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:15 AM
Original message
Nuclear warheads mistakenly flown on B-52
Source: Navy Times

Nuclear warheads mistakenly flown on B-52

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 4, 2007 21:22:50 EDT


A B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, resulting in an Air Force-wide investigation, according to three officers who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the incident.

The B-52 was loaded with Advanced Cruise Missiles, part of a Defense Department effort to decommission 400 of the ACMs. But the nuclear warheads should have been removed at Minot before being transported to Barksdale, the officers said. The missiles were mounted onto the pylons of the bombers wings.

Advanced Cruise Missiles carry a W80-1 warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons and are specifically designed for delivery by B-52 strategic bombers.

Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Ed Thomas said the transfer was safely conducted and the weapons were in Air Force custody and control at all times. However, the mistake was not discovered until the B-52 landed at Barskdale, which left the warheads unaccounted for during the approximately 3 1/2 hour flight between the two bases, the officers said.

Read more: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclear_B5... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Holy fucking shit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snarkturian Clone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
132. you can say that again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. "That page has gone AWOL" - - surprise, surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I'm glad I spotted the article before it vanished
Interesting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Like everything else in Bushworld, as long as it is scrubbed, it never happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Just a mystery.
: :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
21. Must have a bad link here is the right page
Nuclear warheads mistakenly flown on B-52

Slim Pickens as B-52 Bomber pilot Major T. J. "King" Kong, in the movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
104. ROFL!!!
>>>"The risk of the warheads falling into the hands of rogue nations or terrorists
was minimal since the weapons never left the United States..."<<<


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #104
118. Your comment may be too subtle for the Majority, Megahurtz.
(also :rofl:)

hint: "Rogue Hyperpower", + "School of the Americas", (and lots more), anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #118
124. I Know,
I probably should have thought of that. Lol! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
87. The article is spreading! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
22. The OP left the trainling "/" off the URL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. Hey I beat you to it by two minutes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
34. No - it's a bug with the DU messageboard siftware
sometimes it munges perfetly valid urls into nonsense

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chwaliszewski Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
37. New link to article
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 04:01 AM by chwaliszewski
Look before you freak. Bomb Boo-Boo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #37
155. isn't it great how the TV media is all over this--Reliable Sources??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
39. Naw, they just moved it, they do that shit frequently--here's the link, it's ALL there...
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclear_B5... /

....At no time was there a risk for a nuclear detonation, even if the B-52 crashed on its way to Barksdale, said Steve Fetter, a former Defense Department official who worked on nuclear weapons policy in 1993-94. A crash could ignite the high explosives associated with the warhead, and possibly cause a leak of the plutonium, but the warheads elaborate safeguards would prevent a nuclear detonation from occurring, he said.

The main risk would have been the way the Air Force responded to any problems with the flight because they would have handled it much differently if they would have known nuclear warheads were onboard, he said.

The risk of the warheads falling into the hands of rogue nations or terrorists was minimal since the weapons never left the United States, according to Fetter and Michael OHanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution...The crews involved with the mistaken load at the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot have been temporarily decertified from performing their duties involving munitions pending corrective actions or additional training, Thomas said.

Air Combat Command will have a command-wide mission stand down Sept. 14 to review their procedures in response to this oversight, he said.

The Air Force takes its mission to safeguard weapons seriously, he said. No effort will be spared to ensure that the matter is thoroughly and completely investigated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WileEcoyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #39
68. IT's gone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #68
133. They simply UPDATED the story.All need to cease with the paranoia.
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 08:57 PM by MADem
It has made the print edition of all four MILITARY TIMES papers.

Here--this article is MUCH MORE DETAILED than the original: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/09/airforce_nuclear_... /

Commander disciplined for nuclear mistake

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Sep 5, 2007 19:26:41 EDT

The Air Force continued handing out disciplinary actions in response to the six nuclear warheads mistakenly flown on a B-52 Stratofortress bomber from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30. The squadron commander in charge of Minots munitions crews was relieved of all duties pending the investigation.

It was originally reported that five nuclear warheads were transported, but officers who tipped Military Times to the incident who have asked to remain anonymous since they are not authorized to discuss the incident, have since updated that number to six.

Air Force and defense officials would not confirm the missiles were armed with nuclear warheads Wednesday, citing longstanding policy, but they did confirm the Air Force was investigating an error made last Thursday during the transfer of munitions from Minot...The original plan was to transport non-nuclear Advanced Cruise Missiles, mounted on the wings of a B-52, to Barksdale as part of a Defense Department effort to decommission 400 of the ACMs. It was not discovered that the six missiles had nuclear warheads until the plane landed at Barksdale, leaving the warheads unaccounted for during the approximately 3 1/2 hour flight between the two bases, the officers said.

President Bush was immediately alerted to the mistake and the Air Force launched a service-wide investigation headed by Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg, director of Air and Space Operations at Air Combat Command Headquarters...Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has requested daily briefings from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley on the progress of the probe. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., a member of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, requested a full classified briefing, not just the preliminary information being provided to lawmakers, to explain how a mistake of this magnitude could have happened.

Thomas said the transfer was conducted safely and the American public was never in any danger since the weapons were in Air Force custody and control at all times....few critics were placated Wednesday by the Air Forces reassurances.

Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible, said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass...Non-proliferation treaty experts said the Air Force didnt violate any international nuclear treaties by transporting the nuclear warheads on the B-52, but it was the first time since 1968 that its been known publicly that nuclear warheads were transported on a U.S. bomber.....


FYI, MILITARY TIMES is NOT a DOD paper. It's a for-profit entity, run by a bunch of old farts (many of whom I know) out in Springfield VA. They live for this shit...!!!

The rest of the article is interesting--it's quite long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
93. It's still showing on San Francisco Gate
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/05...


I was stationed at a SAC base and we had 5 B52 Bombers. This is so horrid. I'm thinking if a bomb had been dropped by "accident" Cheney would blame Iran or Iraq...or maybe Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
135. No mystery
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. A whole chain of people who screwed up--munitions, weapons loaders, crew chiefs, maybe
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 12:29 AM by wienerdoggie
pilots--bunch of airmen shitting their pants at Minot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shipwack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
36. I used to interact with nuke warheads in the Navy...
... (though never handling them directly), and the amount of people that would have to screw up for this to happen "accidentally" strains belief. :wtf:

My only reason to not think they intentionally did this is that if they were able to get the nukes that far along, they would have "taken care of" the person who made the initial discovery... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Well, this was the AIR FORCE that fucked up, not the Navy!!
They did one of those exercises where you put the weapons on, you load the nukes, and then you take them off, a real quickly/quickly but safely/safely type game...only some idiot forgot the last part. Bad case of the shits, maybe, and he handed the duty off to someone who was completely incompetent or didn't understand his orders, or something?

They're doing some serious downsizing of the USAF lately, in order to plus-up the Army and USMC--these bozos sure made the decision as to their futures easier, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eagle_Eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. What needs to be down-sized is the nuclear arsenal
We have more than 1000 front line nuclear warheads on alert every day.

The question is, what are the 1000 targets?

If most current nuclear scenarios involve the exchange of 5 to 10 warheads, I see no reason to have the other 990 sitting around being an accident waiting to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shipwack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #40
120. True, true, but...
I know it was the Air Force, MADem... However, occasional ribbing aside, I've always thought that the other services were just as thorough and competent as the Navy...

Knowing that it was the result of an exercise makes no sense either. In the Navy, the first indication of something not being right would be when the marine rifle butted/shot the first person to breach the security zone (which is pretty large, not just the immediate area)when the exercise was "over". They don't leave until things are in their proper place and locked down.

I guess the Air Force (or at least the small group of grossly incompetent bozos involved)are not as dedicated and security conscious as I've always given them credit for. I don't mean to slam any past or present members reading this, but seriously... :wtf:?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #120
136. Get a load of this, from the latest reports--MASSIVE CLUSTERFUCK!
We're talking mega-collossal Are-We-Living-In-Pakistan major fuckup:


    http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/09/airforce_nuclear_... /

    Nuclear weapon experts said they were shocked to find out how completely command and control over the six nuclear warheads failed to allow such a mistake to occur.

    Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said a host of security checks and warning signs must have been passed over, or completely ignored, for the warheads to have been unknowingly loaded onto the B-52.

    ACMs are specifically designed to carry a W80-1 nuclear warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons and delivered by B-52 strategic bombers.

    Its not like they had nuclear ACMs and conventional ACMs right next to each other and they just happened to load one with a nuclear warhead, Kristensen said.

    The Defense Department uses a computerized tracking program to keep tabs on each one of its nuclear warheads, he said. For the six warheads to make it onto the B-52, each one would have had to be signed out of its storage bunker and transported to the bomber. Diligent safety protocols would then have had to been ignored to load the warheads onto the plane, Kristensen said.

    All ACMs loaded with a nuclear warhead have distinct red signs distinguishing them from ACMs without a nuclear yield, he said. ACMs with nuclear warheads also weigh significantly more than missiles without them.

    I just cant imagine how all of this happened, said Philip Coyle, a senior adviser on nuclear weapons at the Center for Defense Information. The procedures are so rigid; this is the last thing thats supposed to happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #36
69. I agree - I was an "unlock" team member while in the U.S.A.F.
This could not be a mistake.

They tried to circumvent the rules and got caught.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #36
140. I was on a FBM submarine for 4 years at sea on and off. We handled nuclear missiles several times
at the Weapons Station at Goose Creek in SC and also on the Canopus sub tender at the Holy Loch in Scotland. The Marines had rifles and shotguns at every stage. You could not egress the boat when they were being handled. There were more scrambled eggs on covers than one ever saw in one place.

The entire port side of the tender was off limits while handling missiles, as well as the topsides of every boat tied up alongside us.

I don't know how flippant the AF can be. I guess they just think of them as toys and not the heaviest munitions there are. . . ulike the Navy and USMC evidently do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-11-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
162. plausible deniability?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. Here's another link to the article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. 'which left the warheads unaccounted for during the approximately 3 1/2 hour flight'
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
115. Nuclear personnel are supposed to know where every nuke is, every second of the day.
The fact that they were on the plane and no one knew that they were means that the people at Minot were absolutely not doing their jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
8. "Accident?" Or, maybe, nefarious plans that weren't executed?
What a convenient pretext ("Iran attacked us") for imposing a military government in the US as previously promoted by Tommy Franks four years ago.

See: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
9. Um...test run anyone?
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Dry runs are worse than the hershey squirts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
113. I think you nailed it, test run that was leaked. IMHO of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
134. It's certainly an INCOMPETENT method of getting America used to an old paradigm once more.
We have kids coming up who never lived in a world where bombers routinely patrolled the skies hauling nukes.

See, this is a SHOCK, because we haven't done it in DECADES.

But we used to do it all the time....and very few people gave a shit. Most people bought the argument that we had to protect ourselves from those dangerous fellahs that were gonna charge through the Fulda Gap and ruin our way of life, after all....

Not saying I approve, just saying it's one way of getting the conversational ball rolling...to maybe push the population back to an old mindset...for whatever reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
10. Mistakenly?
Yeah...right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Mistakenly? Indeed
Wouldn't they have to go out of their way to get the "wrong" war-head? Certainly they don't keep the nukes in with the conventional crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
12. Imagine the pilots afte they landed...
"We were carrying WHAT!?!?!?"

This could have been really bad if the plane crashed. Nuclear-material containment protocols might not have been initiated at the crash sight until somebody realized the missiles weren't disarmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
23. At least they didn't go on a practice bombing run
or gone on a bombing mission in the Middle East.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
33. Actually, nuclear weapons are never armed during transport.
Also, they're designed to be survivable in case of an aircraft crash. It's possible that a hard enough impact could have cracked the core, or even blown the triggering charge, which would have resulted in a small explosion scattering the fissile core material. That would have been bad in terms of cleanup, but a nuclear reaction would be nearly impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
109. That's what I meant.
Implosion-type weapons are impossible to 'accidently' detonate. The parameters of the shock waves are way to precise to happen accidently.

But smashing the plutonium or uranium cores over a few dozen acres is possible. And if the bombs were reported as 'no warhead', the first responders may not have checked for radioactivity until one of them actually said "Say, that looks like part of a nuclear warhead".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #109
117. "Say, that looks like part of a nuclear warhead"
I imagine that the real-life use of that phase would be followed by some serious brick-shitting.

Actually, a destroyed nuke has happened once in the past: in 1966 over Palomares, Spain, a B-52 bomber carrying four B28 nuclear bombs collided with the airborne tanker that was refueling it. Both aircraft were destroyed, killing seven people, and dropping the four nukes onto the Spanish coastline. Two were recovered intact: one from the ocean floor, one from a dry riverbed. The other two suffered triggering charge explosions on impact, scattering their plutonium cores over an area of a square mile. The US military ended up deciding to remove 1400 tons of soil and vegitation they deemed contaminated, sealing it up and shipping it to the States for disposal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #117
122. Tragic accident (especially for the 7 immediately dead). Meanwhile, in the ongoing real world:
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 05:55 PM by Ghost Dog
(Quick Google):

http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_11...
Jul 3, 2007 - 9:25 PM

The Nuclear Safety Commission agreed at its meeting held this Monday to triple the restricted area of land in Palomares where detailed radiation mapping is to take place.

Their decision comes after first analyses from the Centre for Energy and Environmental Investigation, CIEMAT, showed the area contaminated by the two US nuclear bombs which fell to ground 41 years ago to be three times larger than was originally estimated.

Radiation mapping will now take place over 30 hectares increased from the originally planned 10 hectares - with readings to be taken down to a depth of several metres. It is expected to take at least one to two years to complete, including laboratory analyses. /...

http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_11...
Jul 1, 2007 - 5:47 PM

El Pas newspaper reported on Sunday that scientists from CIEMAT, the Centre for Energy and Environmental Investigation, have completed their first analysis of radiation levels in Palomares where two United States nuclear bombs fell to ground after a mid-air refuelling accident four decades ago.

The scientists took readings on 6.6 million square metres of land for evidence of americium-241, which is produced by decaying plutonium. They discovered that the contaminated area in fact extends for 300,000 square metres, and not the originally estimated 90,000.

They say there is no risk to human health, but advise some restrictions on land use as a precautionary measure, including on the sale of food products grown in the affected area.

The Nuclear Safety Commission meets on Monday to debate the results of the study. /...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03333/245423.stm
'66 H-bomb accident still a concern in Spain
Saturday, November 29, 2003
By Yvonne Zanos

PALOMARES, Spain -- Almost 40 years have passed since the U.S. Air Force accidentally dropped four hydrogen bombs on Spain. But the fallout continues with a newly published scientific study that traced the spread of radiation from the accident site -- and continuing rumors about a mysterious fifth bomb that supposedly is still leaking on the Mediterranean Sea floor.

Ironically, while the scientists who conducted the study discount the fifth-bomb theory, their findings have fueled the rumors. They reported that the Mediterranean, indeed, has been contaminated -- but only from radioactive material that washed into the sea from the bombs that hit land. They also said current levels of radioactivity pose no threat to people.

The story goes back to Jan. 17, 1966, when a B-52 bomber and a KC-135 tanker aircraft collided during a refueling exercise over the sleepy farming village of Palomares on Spain's southeastern coast.

Both planes disintegrated and down went the B-52's four hydrogen bombs, creating the first U.S. nuclear weapons crisis near a populated area. Each 1.5-megaton bomb packed 100 times more explosive power than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II.

Two were found intact. One fell on land, the other into the Mediterranean, where it was recovered after an 80-day effort dramatized in the 2000 Hollywood film "Men of Honor." The movie spotlighted U.S. Navy diver Carl Brashear, who lost a leg in the effort.

Non-nuclear explosives in the other two bombs detonated when they hit the ground. Hydrogen bombs contain conventional explosives that trigger the nuclear blast. Seven pounds of plutonium were splattered over 558 acres of Palomares, forcing an $80 million clean-up by the United States.

Military crews hauled away 1,500 tons of radioactive soil and tomato plants for burial at a nuclear waste dump in Aiken, S.C. Some radioactive material inevitably was left behind, perhaps as much as 15 percent of the total.

"The remainder of the original plutonium clearly has spread, and spread widely," said William R. Schell, a University of Pittsburgh emeritus professor and a member of the international team that reported on the accident in the current edition of the journal Science and the Total Environment. "There's been quite a bit of migration into the Mediterranean."

Radioactivity was detected in western Mediterranean plankton -- tiny plants and animals that drift in the water and serve as staple food for fish and other larger organisms. "It was a surprise," said Joan-Albert Sanchez-Cabeza of the University of Barcelona, head of the research team.

Sanchez-Cabeza explained that plutonium does not dissolve easily in water. Yet somehow, plutonium and a related radioactive material, americium, got into the water and were taken up by marine organisms.

Plutonium is extremely toxic and lingers in the environment for ages. It takes 24,000 years for half of a given amount to decay.

/...

on edit: Since plenty of historical and contemporary evidence may lead many who pay attention to arrive at the conclusion that, possibly, Spanish politicians and highly-placed administration officials may be capable of being even more open to financial corruption than their US contemporaries, it is not unreasonable to speculate that, let's say 10% of those supposed $80m 1966 dollars ended up in the pockets of some interested parties under the US-supported falangist/fascist Franco regime: parties interested in downplaying truth and consequences.

Willingly exploited dumb tourists, mostly, tend to hang out in the area these days. Any complaining local resident, mostly, disappeared off the "radar screen" long ago...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #117
147. I heard there's a lost nuke in the ocean off of Georgia, too
Still haven't found it, I believe.

Might give some poor fisherman a surprise one day...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
48. Armed or not is irrelevent. They won't explode on a crash.
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 06:24 AM by BadgerLaw2010
Nuclear triggering needs to be maddeningly percise. Accidental impacts can't set off the complex HE that is used to start the reaction. If anything, the HE structure would be damaged, rendering the weapon useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #48
62. but they will crack up on impact, and spread nice little
fiendly nuculars in the immediate vicinity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #62
76. not a big deal, Pu239 isn't that dangerous.
It's an alpha emmitter which occassionaly undergoes spontaneous fission. The SF is bad, but alpha is nothing provided you don't eat or breath it in. That and it's got a very long half life, so activity is fairly low. If it happened in the middle of the desert they would probably just dig the top six inches off of the area and bag and rad waste it. It's annoying, but it's unlikely to actually hurt anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #76
110. But NASA gets a boatload of fire from the environmentalists...
every time they launch a deep-space probe that uses plutonium batteries. Much is made of the fact of how toxic it is. It's probably overblown, but still...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #110
114. The concern with the plutonium in NASA's launches is a Challenger-type disaster.
Not a very good material to have blown up in the lower atmosphere, even if the toxic and radioactive risk to any given person would be minimal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #114
148. Ah, but imagine the amorous atmosphere...
as the trees glowed gently in the night... :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #48
111. Oh, I know. But chunks of plutonium are not something to be taken lightly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
137. If the plane crashed, there'd be no mushroom cloud, but certainly not a good thing.
Here's what would have gone down: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/09/airforce_nuclear_... /

    The risk of the warheads falling into the hands of rogue nations or terrorists was minimal since the weapons never left the United States, said Michael OHanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an independent research and policy think tank in Washington D.C.

    At no time was there a risk for a nuclear detonation, even if the B-52 crashed on its way to Barksdale, said Steve Fetter, a former Defense Department official who worked on nuclear weapons policy in 1993-94. A crash would ignite the high explosives associated with the warhead, and possibly cause a leak of plutonium, but the warheads elaborate safeguards would prevent a nuclear detonation from occurring, he said.

    The main risk would have been the way the Air Force responded to any problems with the flight because they would have handled it much differently if they would have known nuclear warheads were onboard, Fetter said.

    Its still unclear specifically how the B-52s flight from Minot to Barksdale would have been different since most nuclear security protocols are classified. But, Kristensen said the flight pattern might have been different since there would have been airspace restrictions. Also, security at both airports would have heightened considerably and the communications between the pilot and the control towers would have been altered, he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
15. OMFG!
Mistake? Oh Gee officer, I didn't know that they were warheads!?!

Wonder what is going on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. The Officier is at fault
Now who gave the officer the order?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I bet one thing is for sure
This was not suppose to get out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrScorpio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
16. When we fuck up in the Air Force, we fuck up BIG!
YEAH, BABY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. Pure coincidence that it was the Navy Times that published the story
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 02:16 AM by IndianaGreen
anything that shows the flyboys in the best light.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #28
41. No--ALL the "Military Times" papers had it--Army, Navy, USAF, USMC.
See? They share stories--the placement might be different, but if it's a goodie, it goes in all the editions. This was a goodie, and it's in all of them:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclea... /


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclear_B5... /


http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
19. No wonder why we can't control nukes in Russia, Iraq or anywhere else
We can't even take care of the nukes at home.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:52 AM
Response to Original message
20. "Air Combat Command will have a command-wide mission stand down Sept. 14"
What does that mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. I hope that means that some heads are gonna roll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. Getting all their birds and crews in order before sustained combat operations
Could be...



Iran, anybody?

<sigh> you know, I really don't want to be flying when we start a war with Iran. And I'll be in the air on the 14th and 19th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrScorpio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #20
29. No sorties
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 02:44 AM by MrScorpio
Mandatory briefings and whipping out the old AFI (Air Force Instructions) and reading them


In other worlds, cover our asses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. Thanks, all; I'll sleep better now. This got me thinking about the 9-11-01 exercises
and being unfamiliar with the jargon, my imagination started running wild ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #20
44. MAYBE---It Means that Bombing Iran Is OFF!!
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 05:25 AM by Demeter
This could be a real good way to tell the Idiot in Chief--sorry, sir, we're in a command-wide mission stand down until we get to the bottom of this serious and deadly problem!

Additional thought: I bet the Air Force is royally enraged by the games played on 9/11 to "get them out of the way" for the hijackers. It's beginning to look like MIHOP is not the paranoid exercise some try to make it out to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlurker Donating Member (698 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
55. Be on the lookout
For the next 9-11 to happen on that day. It's a ready made excuse. "We weren't able to catch the bad guys because we were on stand down."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #20
60. Sounds like it means the country will be undefended on Sept. 14th.
Cheney's dream date?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #20
81. Shit. A stand down in Sept when cheney is in a corner
OH SHIT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
91. that, to me, was the scariest part of the article
it gives me flashbacks to a previous September stand-down :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
142. My guess is it will almost certainly mean
that some will count themselves lucky to get off with nothing worse than an Article 15 while others will be court-martialed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
24. Hmm, who are we going to "accidentally" nuke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
31. Opps...
Jeebus, someone didn't have their thinking cap on. What where these things even doing out of storage, much less being anywhere near the undercarriage of an aircraft, much less being moved from one airbase to another cross country? Aren't they supposed to be sequestered in their respective bases to, you know, prevent this sort of thing from accidentally happening in the first place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #31
78. The weapons should never be out of their shipping containers
unless they are being refitted or loaded for an operation.

Weapons are usually shipped by special truck convoy with armed escorts. Transporting them on the wing pylon of a bomber just doesn't compute. When they arrived at their destination, there wouldn't be the shipping containers to store them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
32. Ah, at last somebody is acting to protect our precious bodily fluids.
God bless them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 03:10 AM
Response to Original message
35. What.
Holy shit.

If the Dems had a fucking clue, they could get the entire Republican party to tear itself apart over stuff like this.

Hell, if anyone of them asked me, I'd tell them how to do it and how easy it would be.

The simple way of putting it would be; "Corner them on these particular issues and force them to attack their own administration." -Thereby making them all look bad on security... REALLY bad.

Hell, it's what the 'Republicans' would do with all the same gravitas as wiping gravy from their lips.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colorado_ufo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:17 AM
Response to Original message
38. Why were these missiles armed in the first place?
Can there be ANY reason?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. Sure. They do that shit all the time. Any service with nukes does.
You do the arming and disarming routine so, heaven forfend, you actually have to do it for REAL, you know how, and you can do it quckly/quickly AND safely/safely.

When you don't do it right, though, and fuck up in such a profound way, well .... that's worrisome. But the USAF has been worrisome for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
colorado_ufo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #42
149. Seems like there would be an overwhelming amount of security to overcome
to allow such a mistake.

Thanks for your input, though, which makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. Yep, there's checklists up the ying yang. What some of my friends are postulating is that
it's a mistake by the weapons department. They did the pencil whipping-- logging in, logging out, and so forth--of the paperwork beautifully, they just didn't do the actual WORK of removing the warheads from the delivery system...and that's a bigass OOOPS! They were probably all operating on the SODDI (some other dude did it) wavelength that day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 05:21 AM
Response to Original message
43. Mistake? MY FUCKING ASS!!!!
Those kinds of MISTAKES don't just happen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. Nobody moves nukes without a lot of controls.
There always has to be more than one person involved at every step.

The two man rule.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #47
83. So there was a big error and that requires a Stand Down to go over proceedure?
A STAND DOWN? In Sept? When things are getting hot for cheney and his chief of staff just mentioned something about what we needed was a bombing or some such comment?

Fuck the diet. I am eating chocolate cake now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #83
92. has your chocolate alert level been raised to Caramel?
funny comment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #92
123. Bleah! Life is too short to eat caramel
There is the DARK CHOCOLATE level, however.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
46. Hmm, where did we leave those pesky nukes?
Have you seen my nukes anywhere, Marge...? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
49. BFD. A hydrogen bomb was actually dropped on Albuquerque
back in 1957.

Didn't detonate, though. At least not so's you'd notice...

http://www.hkhinc.com/newmexico/albuquerque/doomsday/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #49
64. LOL
we also lost one near france, one near spain, one off shore in africa, and at least one off of each of our coasts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #64
105. The US lost 11 altogether. Globally around 50 have been lost.
Most of the lost nukes are sitting on the bottom of the ocean, dropped or sunk by the Soviets. The U.S. lost 11 over the course of the Cold War...including a hydrogen bomb that is sitting only about four miles from the outskirts of Savannah Georgia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
50. Cheney's trying to steal a bomb! IMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BridgeTheGap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
51. Headed for Iran?
Who knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
52. 2 things come to mind here
1) Did someone want those warheads to end up in the Middle East to be used, unknowingly by the pilot/crew against, Iran? Surely they would have known they would have turned up missing. 2) The Air Force apparently did the appropriate amount of freaking out over this. Does that also imply that they are aware that there are people within the military that want the use of nuclear weapons against Iran despite general orders against them? Is there some kind of internal struggle going on in the military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Good questions. I can't believe our military is so "sloppy" they
mixed up nukes with other weaponry. It wouldn't surprise me if the nukes were headed, eventually, to Iran. Now taking bets on whether we'll survive the last 500 days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #52
84. Or creating just enough worry to justify the Stand Down?
What was it cheney's chief of staff said recently about what this country needs?

The COUNTRY needs sane leadership. cheney needs a reason to put all those special executive powers into effect.

I don't want to go to work anymore. I want to spend time with kith and kin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-09-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #52
161. 2 responses
That is not the type of weapon used to start a nuclear war. If we for some reason nuke someone it will be done with b2 or other stealth jets using a device with minimal radar cross section. Like a gravity dropped nuke(s).

It implies that a fuckup on a huge scale took place.

There is a standard protocol for the release of nuclear weapons to the military. The military retains them and keeps them around. The government retains authority required to arm fuse and fire a weapon until that authority is given to the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Haole Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
54. Interesting
My mind is still toying with all the possibilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peggy Day Donating Member (859 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
56. not one link worked for me. except the one from 1957.
What's up with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JawJaw Donating Member (574 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
57. Maybe..
..USAF should be Fed-Exing the nukes, or something. At least they have rudimentary track & trace!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
58. 1. Heads better fucking roll over this
2. The "OMG, Iran" nutty conspiracy posts are hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
59. Here's a local news link that works (with video).
http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=10150

I can't get any of the links posted in this thread to come up. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #59
65. I can't even get any of the Military Times' home pages to load
Everything seems to be down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
61. MSNBC is reporting on this now as breaking news.
Saying pilot should have figured out that his load was much heavier than ususal. Squadron commander was relieved of command and decertified to handle nukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #61
71. This happened last thurday though apparently
according to CNN. Why release it now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
63. Whoops! Good thing they didn't end up getting loaded on a plane to Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
66. Another Dick Cheney moment...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
67. BushSpin - Iranian Radical Freedom Haters Smuggle Nukes aboard Peaceful B-52
They Hate our BUFS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #67
73. OMG
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #67
95. You mean BUFF's, right?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
70. Wouldn't someone need Presidential clearance
before they could even unlock the fucking things from their holding area? This is too messed up to contemplate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. They woke the bushitler up. He rolled over and said
"Don't werry, be happy," and went back to sleep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #70
88. No.
Handling of special weapons does not require Presidential approval. Just his ok if you plan to drop one/launch one for real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #88
108. Maybe That's Why
they were mounted on the wings. :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
72. Two more sources: Air Force lost track of five nuclear missiles (Flew from ND to LA on August 30)
B-52 carried 5 nuclear warheads

September 5, 2007 - Page updated at 02:07 AM


A B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, resulting in an Air Force-wide investigation, three officers told the Military Times on condition of anonymity.

The B-52 was loaded with advanced cruise missiles (ACMs), part of a Defense Department effort to decommission 400 ACMs. But the nuclear warheads should have been removed before being transported to Barksdale, the officers said. The missiles were mounted onto the pylons of the bomber's wings.

ACMs carry a warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons and are designed for delivery by B-52 strategic bombers.

Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Ed Thomas said the transfer was safely conducted and the weapons were in Air Force custody and control at all times.

Air Force officials wouldn't specify whether nuclear weapons were involved, in accord with policy, Thomas said.





Report: Air Force lost track of five nuclear missiles

Posted by Mike Carney at 07:26 AM/ET, September 05, 2007


Mistakes by U.S. Air Force personnel left five nuclear warheads unaccounted for during a three-hour period on Aug. 30, according to Army Times.

The paper, a fellow Gannett publication, cites anonymous sources who say that five Advanced Cruise Missiles were mistakenly loaded on a B-52 bomber that flew from a base in North Dakota to one in Louisiana. The missiles, set to be decommissioned, should have been removed from the plane. Instead, they were mounted on the bombers wings.

Air Force standards are very exacting when it comes to munitions handling, Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Ed Thomas says. The weapons were always in our custody and there was never a danger to the American public.

The crews that handled the warheads at Minot Air Force Base have been "decertified," according to the Times.

The paper says the W80-1 warhead has a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons, but quotes experts who say the public wasn't at risk because of safeguards that should have kept the warheads from detonating in the event of a crash or accidental launch.

CNN says the crew didn't know the weapons were on the bomber.





In its zeal to attack yet another nation, without provocation, the Bush Administration is imperiling our country and the world.

While the Bushies are trying to distract us now with Senator Larry Craig's *change of heart* about leaving his elected position in the wake of his solicitation of sex from a police officer in an airport bathroom in Minnesota, nuclear warheads are being flown over our country **by mistake**.




IMPEACH, CONVICT AND IMPRISON THIS CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION NOW.


Speaker Pelosi, you have a specific job to do immediately. Convene impeachment proceedings now against Bush and Cheney, or you will forever bear the bloody stains of America as it dies in convulsive seizure from Bush's destruction.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. Coming Soon to an Airport Near You!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #72
107. Mounted On The Wings Yet?
Oh ooops...that was an "accident". :sarcasm:

:eyes:

Riiight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
77. They forgot Rule Number One of cruise missile safety
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 09:31 AM by slackmaster
Every cruise missile is always loaded. If you handle one, you have to check it every time you pick it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
79. Just a little "oops" there guys.
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 09:48 AM by Desertrose
But seriously...HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN???I mean...doesn't anybody ever QUESTION things?

Just follow your superior and never question....


DR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
80. Please, please - explain the stand down. My gut has been telling
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 10:01 AM by higher class
me that their second Pearl Harbor (that they are wishing for - Addington) will be here in this country. We know we had an 'exercise going on Sep 11 01 that appeared to confuse the hell out of everyone. We have the report about put-option manuevers time for Sep. 21?

What is this stand down?

Getting the Dems to approve of killing Iranians is not enough. There is no proof of what we claim coming from the U.N. We have madmen with little imagination and death and profits on their minds. Bombing Iran is not a defense requirement - for the U.S. It is for the reverends and some in Israel and the corporations.

Why would they have to move nuclear stuff to LA?

Having gut feelings is not fun. Please define stand down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #80
89. In the military, when a unit screws up royally, they stand down, which
means that they stop operations and investigate, do a procedure review, check training, etc.--when a squadron in the Air Force has too many crashes, for example, they stand down to figure out why. There's no hidden meaning here--just normal policy after a major fuck-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #89
101. Why Sep 14? Why not Aug 31? Thanks for your reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shipwack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #101
119. Well, one could claim it takes a bit of planning...
Everybody -stands down- at once. No pre-scheduled flights, no delivery runs, no stocking shelves at the warehouse, etc. Only critically essential personnel and operations are exempted (and they go to a make-up session).It takes a little advance warning to coordinate a service wide work stoppage(not to mention time to make all those power point slides...).

That being said, when we had one in the Navy, we did it on only a couple of days notice... I remember 2 in twenty years; one over the Tail-hook scandal (damn effin' airdale stupidity/illegal shennanigans cost me a nights sleep) and another when we had several at-sea accidents within a couple of days, back in '89.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
82. THIS IS BEING SAFER IN A POST 9/11 WORLD??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowman1979 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
85. Now another reason why we should have no nukes!
That and there are too many Christians in the military who adhere to the fundie end of times cult. Some of them got tired of waiting on god and wanted to take care of it themselves probably. WTF indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
86. "Mistakenly"
Something may be up. What's in Louisiana that is not in North Dakota? Shipping, how else can we move large amounts of munitions quietly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Summer93 Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #86
98. Hurricanes
Whoops those last two hurricanes went the wrong way. They went to Central America instead of the gulf where they might have improved the price of gasoline for the big oil companies.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
90. BBC LINK HERE
US B-52 'in nuclear cargo error'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
94. We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when
Yikes! Engage the CRM discriminator immediately!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buck Turgidson Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
96. Turgidson advocates a further nuclear attack to prevent a Soviet response to Ripper's attack
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.
President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
97. Navy flying B-52s now?
Editors at Air Force Times must be smarting over the missed scoop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
99. Careless dumb bunch of bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
100. Just a little somthing for Putin to ponder
How will he top that story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
102. some guy on cnn said heads will roll. oh really? i'll believe that when i see it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #102
116. Oh, people will be fired for this. Someone(s) at Minot lost five nukes for 3 1/2 hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
103. Oh But We Don't Have Nuclear Weapons
so no one else should have them either. :sarcasm:

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
106. Damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snazzy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
112. 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
121. Interesting comments from Navy Times readers
Here are a couple of the many comments:

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155...

Re: B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Unless there is an indicator on the outside of the missile (which I don't think there is), there is no way for the load crew nor the pilots to "verify no warheads installed".

The load crew verifies a SAFE indicator, as do the pilots. There is no little window to see the warhead.

There are actually 2 little windows to see the warhead about the size of a dime.


Unregistered

#23 Today, 04:48 PM
WeaponsHot Posts: n/a

Re: B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Having spent many years as an Air Force Munitions Troop both overseas and CONUS, working both locations with conventional and special weapons, I don't see how this could have happened. Everyone involved, and their chain of command ,should be fired, and removed from PRP. There are far to many policies and procedures in place, that should have prevented this from happening.

I cannot agree with you more, someone was putting something over on someone. This would be an extreem comedy of errors for this to take place. I'm retiring after 28 years of being a cop in the air force. a lot of things ould have had to go wrong.


Re: B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retired B-52 Crew Chief
UNBELIEVABLE. Im not sure where to begin. Im outraged and embarrassed! Back in 1979 we had to sign for nuclear weapons verifying serial numbers, the security folks posted two man guards at the aircraft, the cops enforced two man maintenance crews access to aircraft, the 781s are annotated, maintenance job control was informed, the wing command post was informed, weapons were moved in armed convoy, etc. How were the weapons removed from storage? Who was guarding the weapons military troopers or contractors? How were they transported to the aircraft? How were the aircraft forms updated? How was the chain of custody broken? Did the flight crew and munitions maintenance OICs verify weapons status? What the hell happened here? This is dereliction of duty, Wing CC, DCM, OMS/CC Munitions Sq/CC, Security Sq Commander and a lot of other folks should be going to jail, today !!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe we have too many fighter pilots as generals. Maybe we need to split Air Combat Command back to the cold war days of SAC and TAC.

Excellent post and I heartily concur! As a former four time AF Security Police squadron commander, I have to say this is the biggest screw-up in the history of the Air Force. This incident can not be overestimated in its importance! Fire and jail all those responsible!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #121
126. "Bigger picture here folks........

**********************************************************

Bigger picture here folks........President Putin has his Cold war Bears flying patrol again (what are they carrying)?


Unread Today, 07:52 PM
Unregistered Retired USAF

Was this an "intentional mistake" staged to send a statement? If so, I'm sure he's heard it.


P.S. That puckering noise you hear is the staff at Minot. They've been advised General Lemay just rolled over in his grave, lit a cigar, and is now on an inbound flight to Minot..........whynot.

What probably happened was someone decided the USAF could save money by shipping via air instead of surface freight. This mess could be an opening scene for Dr. Strangelove II, 2007.

**********************************************************


http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrin_73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
125. Im surprised that they didn't blame al qaida
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
127. I think this story should be tied to the put-options story - I don't
know why I say that. Friday the 14th - stand-down. Friday the 21st - the rumored put date for options?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bennyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. There has to be more to the story.....
Anyways, here is an interesting story I found:

Staging Nukes for Iran?
by L C Johnson
Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:41:10 PM PDT

By Larry Johnson (bio/blog)

Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana?
Thats like getting excited if you see postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.

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, lets 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 movethe
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. Cant 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 cant 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 dont know, but it is a question worth asking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. Yep, we only have to figure out which city is going to do it for them -
here or Syria - typical would be to blame whatever it is on Iran - then good-bye beautiful innocent people.

The citizens of this country cannot say that they are not to blame.

And all those stockholders who have a choice - how's your war weapons stock?

Sorry to be so blunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
130. I suspect a made for tee-vee CNN Psy-Ops story intended for Putin.
I wish I could believe all the wishful thinking that this story got leaked to the military news sites by noble accident. By rank and file military whistleblowers. or of otherwise rank. Much as I know with all my heart our country owes a great unpaid debt to whistleblowers of many stripes and occupations (however belated, many of them) throughout the Bush admin. I just don't think anything that noble coming out of our AF was at play here.

We (our Dear leaders) are in a new Cold War of their fondest wet dreams.
This fishy smelling story was meant to be lobbed right over our heads to an intended audience abroad, and we are trivial gnats in the drama. Sorry to be so cynical, but that's my instinct.

******************************************************************

Russian bombers launch missiles over Arctic


By Richard Holt
Last Updated: 2:03am BST 04/09/2007

Twelve Russian strategic bombers are taking part in military exercises above the Arctic involving the launching of tactical cruise missiles.
# David Blair: Putin's Bear is not a frightening beast
# In pictures: President Putin reveals even more

The Russian air force spokesman did not specify the exact location of the exercises but confirmed that the TU-95MC bombers would take off from five air bases stretching from the Volga River city of Engels to Anadyr on the Chukotka Peninsula overlooking the United States.

RAF jet shadows a Russian bomber heading towards British airspace
Russian bomber being shadowed by a RAF jet last month

"The planes will also practise mid-air refuelling from Il-78 transport planes," he said.

President Vladimir Putin announced last month that Russia has resumed long-range patrols by its bomber planes for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

Mr Putin said the resumption of patrols was needed to guarantee national security.

In August RAF fighter jets were sent to intercepts a Russian bomber which was heading towards British air space over the North Atlantic.

The Arctic exercises follow a widely advertised scientific expedition to the North Pole last month with the task of finding justification for Russia's claims for a bigger slice of the Arctic zone, believed to have rich mineral resources.


Relations with both Europe and the United States have been deteriorating as Russia, buoyed by booming energy prices, has shaken off the post-Soviet malaise of the 1990s.

In June The Kremlin was angered by US plans to move missile systems into eastern Europe.

(see link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml ;jsessionid=YCVFEOGWYT1OXQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/06/04/wputin04.xml

Mr Putin threatened to aim Russian nuclear missiles at European cities in retaliation.

While Washington insists that the missiles are directed at the growing threat of Iran and North Korea, the Kremlin is convinced they are directed at Russia.



full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
131. I am soo glad it didn't crash into any "towers"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
138. Accidentally? Forgot?
You don't accidentally leave nuclear cruise missiles attached after an exercise. The pilots would have noticed. Someone forgot? Well the pilots knew they were there. And didn't forget they were there.

Maybe they will claim the missiles were indeed being transported to Barksdale and the holds were filled with candy bars for the troops and so they just left the warheads on the missiles. Gotta get those candy bars to the troops!

Someone intended this to be a warning. Maybe to Russia which just recently reminded us of its nuclear-capable bombers. Maybe to Iran.

Isn't it comforting to know that they are leaving warheads lying around somewhere. I can just hear him now.

"Gosh, darn, those al Queda evildoers must have snuck a warhead out of Barksdale. Who'd have thought there would be evildoers in Shreveport. Just goes to show you they are everywhere. None of us are safe. None of you anyway. Ooops. Sorry. Didn't mean that. Please delete that yourselves or we will as soon as it hits the internet. Or just delete you. Just kidding, Helen. Oh, well, we will rebuild New York. Just as soon as we rebuld New Orleans. But this points out why we must stay the course in Iraq. Why we must fight the evildoers there and in Iran. We must stay the course. We will attack Iran as soon as we can figure out a way to link Iran to this. Did you all get your copies of the photos of me reading the book to the children when the news hit that New York was gone?"

It definitely was a warning to us. Dr. Strangelove is alive and well and still living in the White House. Thank you, Madame Speaker.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
139. Psyops? Fiction? A terrible blunder?
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #139
143. maybe a cry for help? and that is why the story was leaked?
i was listening to malloy and he was saying that someone had to have signed off on this -- wonder who okayed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
141. Maybe it was a test run...
Next they'll mistakenly fly nukes over Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
144. I'm glad they didn't, er, drop one. Ahem. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
145. What a load of unbelievable crap -- and the Navy Times is reporting it -- ???? hmmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
146. A mix up "mistake" could allow George to do some nuclear damage while only "intending" . . . .
to drop some everyday type bombs --

hmmm......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
150. Mistake my ass.....the discovery fucked up a PLOT of some sort...IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yojon Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. Stand down September 14?
Does that mean that interceptors will be out of business in case 19 Saudis decide this is the day for each to meet 70 virgins?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. The Shortage of Virgins was met by a RUSH ORDER of those Vinyl HOOTERs with 6 batteries
No complaints were ever heard....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
154. Talk about national security issue! - why has this story been allowed leaked to us?
nuke talk, such bullshit to get a rise from the Americans. (it worked?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snazzy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
156. Fallout Continues From Bomber Flight
Fallout Continues From Bomber Flight

KXMCTV Minot
They thought it was a joke message - sent accidentally.

That was the reaction of some officers in the Pentagon when they received what's called a "bent spear" message last week.


...

Sources in Congress say the timeline shows the six nuclear warheads were not retrieved or even identified as being nuclear munitions for almost ten hours after their arrival at Barksdale.

Sources in the Air Force say it took that long because the airmen who first discovered the bombs could not believe what they were seeing and had a hard time convincing superiors that the missiles on the bomber were, in fact, carrying nuclear weapons.

The incident has led the Air Force to relieve the commander of the 5th Munitions Wing at Minot Air Force Base of his duties.

According to records from the Air Force, the commander's name is Lieutenant Colonel Paul Wheeless.

http://www.kxmc.com/News/159695.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #156
157. "...and had a hard time convincing superiors..."
Edited on Fri Sep-07-07 07:33 PM by havocmom
So those saying there was no way warheads could be accidentally left on the missiles were correct. If the officers who deal with it can't believe it....

edited for typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-07-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #156
158. 
:hi: :rofl:

Key to success: the little brown book
http://www.minot.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123032056

Commentary by Lt. Col. Paul Wheeless
5th Munitions Squadron commander

11/16/2006 - MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. -- I could never catch the first sergeant in my last squadron without his little blue Air Force core values book in his left breast pocket. It became akin to doing a coin check. A chief, he ultimately served our service 30 years (including 15 years as a first sergeant). Among the many things he continuously mentored in me and others was our commitment to being an Airman above that of our particular vocation.

During our tour together, Air Force Instruction 36-2618, The Enlisted Force Structure, was overhauled by the 14th Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force. The "little brown book" as it is sometimes referred to defines us as "Airmen, rather than merely specialists." Its philosophy recognized the technical nature of our service and the diversity of our many functional areas, but filled a need for a consistent set of expectations and professional development regardless of specialty.

The beauty of the little brown book is its clarity and simplicity. It details responsibilities for Airmen in one chapter, non-commissioned officers in the next, and, finally, the senior NCO. The responsibilities for NCO and senior NCO are additive, meaning they are responsible for meeting the expectation of the lower tiers of the enlisted force as well as their own.

Since the revision and re-publication of this powerful pocket guide to Airmanship, I have been surprised by the limited awareness of its contents (even though it is standard fare in most enlisted professional military education). I have also been a little dismayed at some who don't live up to or enforce its standards.

Many of us in more senior positions often get asked for advice on how to succeed in the Air Force. The answer is simple: do your best to live up to the expectations contained in these complementary pocket books. Airmen that do this make the biggest contribution to the mission and to the development of their subordinates.

So pick up your copy of this 20-page booklet and add it to your core values book and carry them with you. Use it in feedback sessions to guide and develop your troops.

Most importantly, review it yourself and reflect on how you are doing and what you can do better. Trust me, if you do, you will surely have a very strong future in the Air Force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Pundit Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-08-07 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
159. Inside Job
In Canada, we require a min. of 10 signatures in various log books to ship any munition by air, and since we are talking about nuclear ordinance here, that would require about 8 more. So what do we now have on our hands?

Sabre-Ratting? Maybe. It doesn't hurt, but then it never amounts to much either unless it's backed up. Four years of huffing and puffing @ Kim Jong Il have only emboldened him to force the US to finally capitulate on most of their original demands. So no.

Ineptitude? I don't think so - not from 24 signatures, in a variety of log books, on two different bases spread across the country, all officially sanctioned by their immediates.

Perimeter or Operations Test? Awfully expensive way to test operational procedure. The PSYOPS mouthpieces are in damage control mode though, so that argument is untenable.

Covert Operation? Very possible. A covert operation to strike Iran (think Nicaragua\El Salvador 70's) without the official sanction or oversight of Gates' office, perhaps to shield him, in the event things go awry.
The most tenable scenario though, is that this was an inside job, setup to 'lose' some nukes for a definite hit, either domestically, or internationally; but in either case, a false-flag operation. Why ? Because Cheney needs a poster-boy and a poster-incident to galvanize the populace around his plan to nuke Iran, and a false flag operation on American soil should do the trick.

A) They were left on the tarmak for 12 hours, fully crated and completely un-guarded, i.e. for immediate pickup & delivery, possibly by elements of a friendly nation.
B) They were fully activated and mounted in flight, no doubt to prove to the intended recipient that the weapons are fully functional and will operate as expected.

Rogue military elements sanctioned or not, these people are playing a very dangerous game and ironically the only way back to a sane (i.e. Ron Paul) US foreign policy may rest with Vladimir Putin. The Russian Bear is fully awake as of late and he is understandably, none too pleased.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leaninglib Donating Member (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-08-07 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
160. Would you like to buy a W80-1 warhead?
They are not watching these things close enough if something like this can happen.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there is an incompetent at the top of the COC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 17th 2018, 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC