PDA

View Full Version : They set us up the bomb... HOLY SH*T! THEY REALLY DID SET US UP THE BOMB!



Sun Wukong
5th September 07, 02:58 PM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Six nuclear warheads on cruise missiles were mistakenly carried on a flight fro

The plane took the cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base to Barksdale Air Force Base for decommissioning Thursday, the Air Force said.

"This is a major gaffe, and it's going to cause some heads to roll down the line," said Don Shepperd, a retired Air Force major general and military analyst for CNN.

The warheads should have been removed from the missiles before they were attached to the B-52 bomber, according to military officials.

The crew was unaware that the plane was carrying nuclear weapons, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the extraordinary sensitivity and security surrounding the case.

The mistake was discovered after the plane's flight to Louisiana.

Minot Air Force Base is in north central North Dakota and Barksdale Air Force Base is in northwest Louisiana near the Texas border.

But officials also said the incident was a major breach of security rules surrounding nuclear weapons. One Air Force official said that he could not recall anything similar happening.


The Air Force announced that all flights of fighters and bombers in the United States will be halted on September 14 to allow for a review of procedures.

Because the incident involved nuclear weapons, it was serious enough that President Bush was notified, according to military officials. Once the mistake was discovered, the Air Force immediately began an inventory of all of its nuclear weapons, a military official said.

Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg, director of Air and Space Operations at the Air Combat Command in Langley, Virginia, has been ordered to investigate how the nuclear-tipped missiles were flown across the country without anyone knowing, officials said.

One officer already has been relieved of duty, and several others "decertified" from handling nuclear weapons (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/nuclear_weapons), officials said.

A military official told CNN there was no nuclear risk to public safety because the weapons were not armed. Officials believe that if the plane had crashed or the missiles somehow had fallen off the wings, the warheads would have remained inert and there would have been no nuclear detonation, though conventional explosive material in the warhead could have detonated.

Military officials also say the missiles could not have been launched because of multiple security procedures required to be enacted before any launch would have been authorized.

Shepperd said the U.S. 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.

He agreed with military officials that the situation could not have caused a nuclear detonation, but added, "Any time you have nuclear material on board, if the airplane crashes, nuclear material can be spread in the immediate area of the crash, so you get radioactivity in the immediate area of the crash."

"This is serious business but it was not dangerous business," Shepperd said.

The story was first reported by the Army Times, a privately published newspaper.




I swear to god, a movie deal has to be in the works as we speak.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html

anarki13
5th September 07, 04:15 PM
Military officials also say the missiles could not have been launched because of multiple security procedures required to be enacted before any launch would have been authorized.


right, but cant the payloads be extracted from the bombs?

broken arrow anyone?

Sun Wukong
5th September 07, 05:04 PM
right, but cant the payloads be extracted from the bombs?

broken arrow anyone?

Oh they definitely can. What we have there is 6 temporarily lost, loaded (but not armed) and misplaced grand daddy's of all WMD's.

If this had happened on a flight going to combat target or live fire or live fire practice site going to a target destination where the bombs WOULD have been armed by the crew and dropped, we'd be in such enormous shit right now. Holy fuck, this comes as close to a nuclear disaster as we've been in a very long time.

Either it would have landed on an enemy or on one of our own target sites. Son of a bitch.

bushi_no_ki
5th September 07, 07:06 PM
Holy Shit!! How could anyone, even an Officer, be that fucking stupid. Wow, just wow. Every officer involved, including the pilots, should be relieved of duty, and every crewmember involved in loading those missiles and preflight checks needs an article 15. There is no excuse for something of that level.

Sun Wukong
5th September 07, 07:51 PM
Well, there's no way of insuring that the ground crew had any idea what they were loading. I mean, it's not like they load those things up every day or anything... unless the nuclear kind aren't marked with distinguishing features and in that case the ground crew is totally innocent.

It's the irresponsible bastard that lost track of them that needs to catch his ass in a sling.

Stick
5th September 07, 08:23 PM
That's insane.

How the fuck can they make a mistake like this?

Do they seriously keep the nukes sitting like right next to the bombs we use all the time anyways? What, are the nukes and bunker-busters packaged together like two shitty movies at a bargain price at Best Buy that couldn't be sold individually?

What the hell?

Yiktin Voxbane
5th September 07, 10:13 PM
How many other times has this happened and NOT been caught , me wonders ....

JimmyTheHutt
6th September 07, 01:24 PM
How many other times has this happened and NOT been caught , me wonders ....

That's an encouraging thought.

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Cullion
6th September 07, 02:35 PM
Next time you get a 'talking to' about some fuckup at work, go out that night, have a slow, quiet beer to yourself, think of the guys who accidentally hooked up nuclear-armed missiles to a B-52 just before it took off across the country and perhaps have a cigar.

Cullion
6th September 07, 02:48 PM
How many other times has this happened and NOT been caught , me wonders ....

Call it a hunch but I think Riddeck is about to explain what really caused that tidal wave in Asia a few years back.

But also explain how it was deliberate, just like this was.

anarki13
6th September 07, 06:25 PM
well, the important thing is this has been noticed now, and hopefully it wont ever happen again.

i dont ever want to think what would happen if they fell into the wrong hands.

or just fell even.

you can talk about safeguards all you want, all machines fail once in a lifetime.

NSLightsOut
6th September 07, 08:23 PM
Call it a hunch but I think Riddeck is about to explain what really caused that tidal wave in Asia a few years back.

But also explain how it was deliberate, just like this was.

Possibly prefaced with "You guys? I've got such a RAGING clue right now."

Tom Kagan
6th September 07, 09:38 PM
But also explain how it was deliberate, just like this was.


I don't understand why some worry about conspiracies when they really should be worried about INCOMPETENCE.

NSLightsOut
7th September 07, 12:13 AM
I don't understand why some worry about conspiracies when they really should be worried about INCOMPETENCE.

That brings up a funny point. Under just about any conspiracy theory, it is assumed that the government/illuminati/freemasons/teh j00z/evil shapeshifting reptilian aliens are all-powerful and therefore all-competent.

A question for everyone: When have you not ever met a person who has reached a level of incompetence in at least some facet of their lives?? The concept of anything or anyone being competent and perfectionist enough to pull off half of the theories exposed by conspiracy nuts is just ridiculous.

This is especially apparent when you look at the REAL government conspiracies to depose governments/finance interesting allies of convenience. It's astounding to see how simple the ones that actually succeed are, like the 1950's era US-British operation to depose the-then prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh. And then you have the ones that went tits-up, like Iran-Contra, which was overly complex, had too many middlemen and hence went public and became a huge embarrassment to the Reagan administration who were trying to play both ends against the middle in the Iran-Iraq war to stop both sides from becoming overly powerful players in the Middle Eastern political world.

anarki13
7th September 07, 06:11 AM
..like the 1950's era US-British operation to depose the-then president *cough*PM*cough* of IraN, Mohammed Mossadegh..
i mean i dont blame u, but hey, i guess i would get a remark if i referred to the U.S. as the U.K.
:)

NSLightsOut
7th September 07, 06:41 AM
thanks. My bad, will correct :(

anarki13
7th September 07, 07:01 AM
iss all good, no wry :)

GuiltySpark
7th September 07, 10:25 PM
Holy Shit!! How could anyone, even an Officer, be that fucking stupid. Wow, just wow. Every officer involved, including the pilots, should be relieved of duty, and every crewmember involved in loading those missiles and preflight checks needs an article 15. There is no excuse for something of that level.

Holy shit.

Zub-Zub
7th September 07, 10:29 PM
That's insane.

How the fuck can they make a mistake like this?

Do they seriously keep the nukes sitting like right next to the bombs we use all the time anyways? What, are the nukes and bunker-busters packaged together like two shitty movies at a bargain price at Best Buy that couldn't be sold individually?

What the hell?


Given the nature of the mistake, I am inclined to question how much of this was due to incompetence. Like you pointed out, its not likely they keep nuclear armaments right next to the non-nuclear munitions. I am not familiar with our military's nuclear security protocol, but isn't there a certain amount of security clearance needed to even SEE the damned nukes, much less handle them? This whole situation elicits a nice big:
WTF?!?!

Tom Kagan
8th September 07, 12:44 AM
Just a note: The warheads in nuclear armed cruise missles are adjustable from a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons. The actual size and weight of the warhead is small enough to carry around in a medium sized duffle bag.


... and with that thought, I present Slim Pickens:
ueuauKKjPZI


Enjoy the rest of your day as the military does a full manual count inventory of every warhead they think they have.

-gb0mxcpPOU

Sun Wukong
8th September 07, 02:07 AM
Just a note: The warheads in nuclear armed cruise missles are adjustable from a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons. The actual size and weight of the warhead is small enough to carry around in a medium sized duffle bag.
Keep this in mind, the bomb dropped at Hiroshima, "Little Boy" was a 15 kiloton bomb, and the one dropped at Nagasaki, "Fat Man" was a 21 kiloton bomb. They instanly killed over 120,000 people and many more later from fallout.

Imagine what a 150 kiloton nuke would have done had it been fired in place of a regular cruise missile. It just doesn't get any more disappointing than this.

Edit: I originally named this thread, "Operation Cluster-F*CK: How I learned to START worrying and FEAR the bomb."

Zub-Zub
8th September 07, 05:10 AM
Let's hope they weren't toting one of these on that plane:

(Culled from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb )


A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb (ER weapon), is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. The X-ray mirrors and shell of the weapon are made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons are permitted to escape. Contrast this with cobalt bombs, also known as salted bombs.

Neutron bombs have low yields compared with other nuclear weapons. This is because neutrons are absorbed by air, so a high yielding neutron bomb would not be able to radiate neutrons beyond its blast range and so would have no practical advantage over a normal hydrogen bomb. Note that using the explosive yield of a neutron weapon to measure its destructive power can be deceptive: most of the injuries caused by a neutron weapon come from ionizing radiation, not from heat and blast.

This intense burst of high-energy neutrons is intended as the principal mechanism of killing, although a large amount of heat and blast is also produced. A common idea is that a neutron bomb "leaves the infrastructure intact" however current designs have yields in the kiloton range, the detonation of which could cause heavy destruction through blast and heat effects. A yield of one kiloton is not much for a nuclear weapon but it is nearly two orders of magnitude (100x) bigger than the most powerful conventional bombs. The blast from a neutron bomb may be enough to level almost any civilian structures inside the lethal radiation range.

One of the uses for which this weapon was conceived is large-scale anti-tank weaponry. Armoured vehicles offer a relatively high degree of protection against heat and blast, the primary destructive effects released by "normal" nuclear weapons. This means that inside a tank, military personnel can be expected to survive a nuclear explosion at a much closer range, while the vehicles' NBC protection systems ensure a high degree of operability even in a nuclear fallout environment.

ER weapons are meant to kill a much higher percentage of enemy personnel inside their tanks by releasing a much higher percentage of the total yield in the form of neutron radiation, against which even tank armour does not protect very well. The term "enhanced radiation" refers only to the burst of neutron radiation released at the moment of detonation, not to any enhancement of residual radiation in fallout.

A neutron bomb requires considerable amounts of tritium, which has a half-life of 12.3 years, compounding the difficulties of extended storage. The tritium would have to be replaced periodically, and the old tritium processed to remove decay products.