Accidental transport of nukes

But Evan, if something were to happen it would be an accident and hense the intent was not to cause harm so everything is ok right? :lol: Colateral damage. We need to secure out nuclear arms to protect our freedom and if we accidently crash a plane loaded with armed nuclear weapons on some folks in the Dakotas then that is a small price to pay so we can enjoy ice cream and baseball.

I'm obviously poking fun here and am not assuming the article is 100% legit.

 

oh I think its legit alright. The news wires have picked it up ( I know that does not mean things are correct) but given that this hit the wire early this morning, I would expect to see a statement from the military to contrary by now.

can you imagine a crash (which probably wouldn't result in the expected explosion) or practice drop ? The nuke silos in the Midwest would surely react to such an "attack".... Good to know that the world will end due to a bureaucratic screw up and not a power grab, greed or religious extremism, phew !

anyone read 'The Road' yet?

 

The Washington Post website has picked up the story - I read about it there. Something about an Air Force commander being fired, and quotes from House Armed Services committee members vowing to investigate. So yeah, it's legit. Also considered "classified" so I wonder how open the investigation will be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 5 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]507409[/snapback]</div>

Evan, this wasn't a training exercise. The missiles in question were being transported to a decommissioning site, where they will be destroyed. The warheads (the nuclear part) were supposed to be removed before the old missiles were transported, so yes, they were locked away where they never get touched unless being deployed. That said, I can't imagine how the warheads got through all of the checks and counter checks. Heads are rolling even as we speak.

Tom


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Sep 5 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]507421[/snapback]</div>

This came from the military press originally.

A crash or accidental launch wouldn't produce anything close to what most people imagine. What you would get is mostly a big thud when something heavy hit the ground. These missiles were not fused, and lacking the necessary triggers, there is no way they can produce a nuclear explosion. They can make a pretty good conventional bang since they contain some explosives, but even those are hard to set off.

There have been many accidental losses of nuclear devices over the years. In military parlance they are referred to as "broken arrows". Several have not been recovered and are out there waiting for someone to find them.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 5 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]507441[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it's almost incomprehensible that any amount of weapons grade nuclear material can move an inch without the FBI, CIA, IRS, DEA, and a hundred other agencies going into red alert. It doesn't speak well of our overall controls.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Sep 5 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]507444[/snapback]</div>

It does speak well to our overall controls that the FBI, CIA, etc. are NOT informed each time something moves.

Back in <strike> xx/xx/19xx</strike>, having personally been involved in the handling and transportation of <strike>xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx </strike> from <strike>xxx xxxxxxxxx </strike> to <strike> xxx xxxx xxxxxx </strike>, I can attest to the fact that many people, even the <strike>xxxx xxxxxxxxx</strike> at the places involved - people you would think would have the need to know, don't.

SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY.

Hell, if everyone knew, we may have even ended up having a daniel standing on the runway frantically waving his arms in a show of defiance.

[attachmentid=11175]
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=454045

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Sep 6 2007, 06:31 AM) [snapback]507421[/snapback]</div>

Yes, hugely depressing. I'm afraid I can't recommend it.

Remember these "blasts from the past"?

5/27/57, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico
A B-36 accidentally drops an unarmed nuclear bomb in the New Mexico desert. The bomb's explosive trigger detonates, which obliterates the weapon, scatters debris up to a mile away, and leaves a radioactive crater 25 ft wide and 12 ft deep. (DOD)

1/24/61, Goldsboro, North Carolina
A B-52 on airborn alert begins to breakup, due to stuctural flaws in a wing, and subsequently releases two nuclear bombs. The automatic parachute of one bomb fails, and the bomb breaks apart when it lands. Of the six interlocking safety mechanisms which must be activated in sequence to set off the bomb, five are triggered, leaving only one switch in the way of detonation of the 24 megaton warhead. Additionally, a portion of uranium from the bomb is lost and never recovered. (Lapp. DOD.)

1/17/66, Palomares, SPAIN
An airborn B-52 carrying four multi-megaton nuclear weapons crashes into a refueling tanker and drops all four weapons. The explosive triggers for two of the weapons detonate, scattering plutonium. The accident requires removal of 1,500 tons of soil and plant life, to be stored in the U.S. A third weapon is lost at sea for three months. (DOD)

1/21/68, Thule, GREENLAND
A B-52 carrying four multi-megaton nuclear weapons crashes on its landing approach. The weapons are destroyed in the fire. 237,000 cubic feet of radioactive ice and debris are removed and stored in the United States. (DOD)

More recent ones are still classified...

 

i feel 100% silly for keeping my total of ~5 mCi of beta wave emitters under lock and key now. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Sep 5 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]507431[/snapback]</div>

Actually, the intensity of the cold war forced tremendous efforts to try and recover anything the other side left unrecovered. There are a lot of destroyed weapons from crashes and accidents, but no "ready for use" weapons lying somewhere. If it was not recovered, it was obliterated. (Think like the NR-1 and the lost F-14/Phoenix Missile.) The Glomar Explorer had one of it's main goals to recover the three warheads of the Golf class sinking. Results not published, but you can be pretty assured that "we gave up and left it alone" is not one of them. The reason the Glomar Explorer was built was that the Golf Sub that sunk was not located by the Soviets, but was located by the the USS Halibut instead. All other sinkings and accidents (USS Scorpion, Soviet Komosolets, etc.) were located by the owners to ensure that "their stuff" remained "their stuff".

Now a renegade nuclear country selling a bomb is a different story. This is much more realistic worry.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Sep 5 2007, 07:50 PM) [snapback]507600[/snapback]</div>

Some are assumed destroyed, without any hard evidence. One was lost off the east coast of the U.S. and never recovered. As you pointed out, it's almost impossible to lose one in "ready for use" condition. A bigger concern is the weapons grade material that can be recovered. Time helps ease those concerns, especially with triggers.

Tom

 

The problem is that soldiers and airmen are human, and will make mistakes. No matter how many safeguards are in place, there will be mistakes. And as long as the world maintains nuclear weapons, there will be a small but finite chance that in any given year a disastrous accident will occur.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 5 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]507506[/snapback]</div>

In the picture Patrick reprints above, you will note that I am not waving my arms in front of an airplane. The paper in my hand is a "Notice of Confiscation" which I politely asked the guard at the entrance to the Grand Forks, ND, Air Force base to allow me to present to the base commander. I was denied entrance to the air base, and I had a long and civil conversation with the two guards in the picture (one is only slightly visible), concerning my reasons for being there. But I refused to leave, and was eventually arrested and spent 5 days in the Grand Forks county jail, for the "crime" of standing a few feet inside the base entrance and refusing to leave. (The man with his back to the camera is the sheriff's deputy who arrested me. In the process he locked himself out of his car and I had to let him back in.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 6 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]507506[/snapback]</div>

From the photo and his record of posts, daniel doesn't strike me as particularly frantic...
Defiant, well yes.

Mind you, NZ has spent over 20 years now in the dog house with the US for simply asking to be told when ships carrying nuclear weapons came into its ports. The US will not confirm or deny anything ever, declared we were no longer an ally, and ambassadors and visiting dignitaries have not missed the chance to denigrate us about it (in public) ever since. (The exception was during Clinton's two visits here, he was quite gracious, never brought it up, and there is still a lot of affection towards him as a result).

** Edit perhaps denigrate is too harsh a word. Suffice it to say that the US political machine sees our nuclear policy as "an impediment to better relations"...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Sep 5 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]507507[/snapback]</div>

If you want to see some of these broken arrows, they have original dented casings at the Atomic Museum here in Albuquerque along with illustrated stories of their augering in. Take your geiger counter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Sep 5 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]507769[/snapback]</div>

Note I said "a daniel" not "the one and only daniel."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Sep 5 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]507769[/snapback]</div>

New Zealand was not "simply asking to be told." <_<
New Zealand was refusing nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships access to its ports. Knowing that the US military never confirms or denies the existence of nuclear weapons on any ship, New Zealand knew full well that such a demand would essentially mean all US military ships would be banned from New Zealand. If that is what New Zealand wants, so be it.

But, with a fully implemented mutual defense treaty, ANZUS, how can a nation, New Zealand, expect to be afforded protection from a military they won't even allow into their ports or waters? How can a country, the United States, rely on a mutual defense treaty from a country with a policy that actively hinders that military cooperation?

Confirming the existence of nuclear weapons on any ship would only serve to make that ship a larger target for terrorist attack. That doesn't sound like a very well thought out nuclear safety policy. <_<

If New Zealand were to be devastated by a massive earthquake and there were a US Navy carrier battle group or two nearby, would New Zealand refuse the help which would surely be offered?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Sep 5 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]507769[/snapback]</div>

"The US political machine"?????
What kind of myopic jab is that? It was New Zealand's policy which has led to this stalemate in relations between our nations.

Yes, the United States sees New Zealand as a friend, but certainly not as a military ally.

If that is what you consider being "in the dog house," that is a product of New Zealand's policy, not an unprovoked, unilateral decision by the US.

Does the United States have better relations with other nations? Of course it does . . . and why do you think that is?????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_N...ontrol_Act_1987

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 6 2007, 07:13 PM) [snapback]507824[/snapback]</div>

Apologies for the mis-quote...


As for the other, sorry guy, didn't mean to offend you.

I don't want to bang on about it, but I don't want you to think badly of NZ either. So...the anti-nuclear legislation didn't come out of the blue. There was a history behind it which (sadly) didn't make it into the wiki citations you mentioned. Not to belabor it, but the combination of how of NZ military personnel fared while asked to watch US nuclear tests, and rather liberal use of agent orange in areas where our toops were deployed while supporting the US in Vietnam, sort of set the stage. When NZ did ask to be told which which ships were carrying fissile materials into our ports (whether they knew the request would be denied or not), it quickly escalated on both sides, leading directly to our no nukes legislation. The subsequent bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by french secret service in Auckland harbor sealed the deal for good in the minds of a majority of kiwis.

The US was the only NZ ally to "fall out of alliance" with us over our no nukes legislation (and the french were the only ones to actually commit violence against us).

So maybe we do have sort of a chip on our shoulder about it, sorry.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 6 2007, 07:13 PM) [snapback]507824[/snapback]</div>

We do manage to cooperate militarily with most other nations, and we regularly send our troops where they're needed (e.g., Kosovo, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Timor, etc.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 6 2007, 07:13 PM) [snapback]507824[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I believe we would.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 6 2007, 07:13 PM) [snapback]507824[/snapback]</div>

Again, my apologies. No offense was intended.
Indeed, I was part of that machine for many years before I emigrated here (GM14 DoD).

So perhaps we'll just stay friends for now. I hope so. OK? B)

 

What are you guys on?
If I was a person you knew got around with pockets full of anthrax and I came to your house you would want me to tell you I had any anthrax in my pockets before you let me in the door. The people of New Zealand have made a decission to have nothing to do with atomic weapons, the people have chosen not to have these weapons on their territory. If the US military insist on carrying atomic weapons in their ships then why shouldn't New Zealand have the right to refuse access to their ports?

For a country whos population expresses their joy at the freedom their constitution suposedly gives them that same population seems pretty hell bent on pushing their will on others.

I raise my glass to New Zealand for standing up to the USA. There is no reason we can't all be friends without being the USAs lap dog.

Sorry if anyone finds this offensive but I don't understand why my freedom and the freedom of another country is less important than yours (US Americans)?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 6 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]507824[/snapback]</div>

To quote your previous article in this thread "SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY"

Relying on obscurity, that is a bad safety policy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Sep 6 2007, 07:15 AM) [snapback]507848[/snapback]</div>

It's a bit like religous zelots who are all for religion as long as it's their religion. We have always had some trouble with this, at least since the U.S. became a world power, but it's been worse with our current administration.

The U.S. is like a big puppy: we romp around and tear things up without intending to do harm. Most Americans are decently nice people, but most (or at least many) haven't a clue that the rest of the world is composed of a complex mix of ideas, customs, cultures, and religions. Lacking this understanding, we try to force-fit our framework on everything and everyone else. Needless to say, it doesn't always work, nor is it very welcome.

Tom