Air Force Mistakenly Transports Live Nukes Across America

kernel panic attack writes "Surely the late Stanley Kubrick is somewhere smiling at this one. Forbes.com has a story about a B-52 Bomber that mistakenly flew 6-nuclear tipped cruise missles across several states last week. The 3-hour flight took the plane from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30. The incident was so serious that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were quickly informed and Gates has asked for daily briefings on the Air Force probe, said Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell."

Comments

We have 3 options here

[tx_kanuck]

We can drive the nukes across the country, we can throw them on a train, or we can fly them. Personally, I'm much happier knowing they are being flown places then being sent via ground. I don't care how many safe guards are in place to prevent the weapons going off accidentally, there is always the risk of a crash sending radioactive material all over the place (not an explosion, but a leak). At least in the air the material is safer from accidents (how many air-to-air collisions are there?), and a plane can always find the most depopulated areas to fly over. Trucks and trains don't have that option.

Or maybe that's just me.

Re:We have 3 options here

[It doesn't come easy]

This also sounds suspicious. The plane's systems know when a real warhead is on the missile verses a dummy warhead. The only way that the electronics on the plane would not know that a real warhead was on the missile is if the missile was not properly connected to the plane. Something doesn't add up.

Re:We have 3 options here

[jjohnson]

Barksdale, where they landed, is in fact where bombing missions in the Middle East are staged out of. Politerati can't decide whether this was a real leak by a concerned officer who wanted people to know that the U.S. was staging nukes for Iran; or a deliberate leak by the Bush Administration so that Iran would know.

Re:We have 3 options here

[modecx]

I'm with you on this one. I was listening to the news earlier and I was thinking the exact same thing.

However, I seriously doubt that nuclear weapons are staged in such a way, so it doesn't make sense that an officer would be worried about the use of the weapons. Secondly, I doubt that it's so easy to get a nuke on a plane that one can mistake a rack of nukes for a rack of anything else, so it was probably loaded by order; however, a hypothetical officer may be worried about leadership decisions that led the bombs to be put on the plan, and thought that the only way around the situation was to go to the press, otherwise an unsuitable leader would remain in a position of power, and the incident would be swept under the Air Force rug. That's plausible assessment.

This really does smell more like a political leak. The thing that bothers me most is that I'm not sure what end it's supposed to achieve.

Re:We have 3 options here

[jamstar7]

Relatively few people will refer to a B-52 as a "cargo bird" except in certain rather niche circles.

Interesting thing is, the B-52 was designed to carry a nuclear payload. Just, not as cruise missiles, and the B-52 upgrades were mostly conversions to carry conventional payloads after the Titan missiles were developed.

Considering what an ex-Chair Force buddy tells me about life at 'Mindrot', I'm surprised this hasn't happened before...

Re:We have 3 options here

[Plutonite]

You have good reason for it to crawl. From the BBC coverage:

[quote] (Retired Air Force Major General)Shepperd said the United States had agreed in a Cold War-era treaty not to fly nuclear weapons. "It appears that what happened was this treaty agreement was violated," he said.

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

So right away you can tell that a cover-up is happening, because decommissioned warheads would not be fixed on cruise missile tips and flown to the base where mideast bombings are staged. It is very possible that both US and Russia violate their agreements in secret, so that part is not a major issue IMHO. But something very unfunny is going on.

Terrorist.....who????

[3seas]

First of all you have to wonder how it is that the media gets such a story and second of all how they are allowed to tell it.

Doesn't this matter equate to national security, or is national security more a spam and IP issue?

Certainly Homeland security has to be in on this information????

But again, how is it that the media are even allowed to find out about such an insident?

Maybe the US government wanted them to media it, in order to commit more terrorism....

Now maybe someone will flamebait mod me down but seriously, how does the media find out about what
would otherwise be considered a typical US military plane flight? Did the plane accidently have a big "warheads on board" sign stuck on the side of it?

Re:Terrorist.....who????

[dwater]

It is a common tactic to tell a story that makes you look bad in order to cover up the real story that is even worse.

What do you think could be the worse story?

Re:B-52?

[Dr. Eggman]

Technically, 1955 would be cold war era. But, they are just a good reliable design. They haul stuff alright, like carpet bombs for the Afganistan mountains and later in Iraq with percision guided munitions among other things. These old workhorses still make great warhorses, with proper modification. The Airforce expects to keep them inservice to about 2040, the longest design lifespan for any plane ever. And as a taxpay, I for one (continue to) welcome our superbly designed BUFF overlords.

uh oh?

[wordsnyc]

Ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson has a different take on this incident:

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/st aging_nuke_for_iran

Re:Nukes weren't live - Shitty reporting

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Having worked on relevant software, I can confirm that just the unclassified side of arming a cruise missile warhead involves multiple steps, some of which only happen after launch. For example, the onboard computer waits for a characteristic maneuver to happen before it goes to the next step in the arming process.

"Live" is not the word I'd use, except maybe as opposed to "dummy". The scary issue, as pointed out elsewhere, is that the inventory tracking broke down.

This is troubling all the way around

[jollyreaper]

I've been reading comments all over the place about this. People who say they've served in the military and worked with nukes say that this sort of thing simply cannot happen, too many people checking each other, too many safeguards. For this to happen would require an unbelievable number of screw-ups all working together. But if that's so, then the only other explanation seems crazy, that this was no accident.

Here's one take, take your own grain of SALT. Can't take it with the ABM Treaty since Bush withdrew from that in 2001.

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/st aging_nuke_for_iran

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? That's like getting excited if you see a 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, let's call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can't imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can't think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don't know, but it is a question worth asking. I dearly hope that's crazyhead speculation. But even if this is just an accident, this is fucking scary.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/09/flying_nuclear _bombs.php

"If the B-52 incident tells us that the military's command and control system cannot ensure with 100% certainty which weapons are nuclear and which ones are not, imagine the implications of the wrong weapon being used in a crisis or war. 'Sorry Mr. President, we thought it was conventional.'" As for the official story about transporting these weapons by air for decommissioning, that's fishy.

Although nuclear weapons are not flown on combat aircraft under normal circumstances, they are routinely flown on selected C-17 and C-130 transport aircraft, which as the Primary Nuclear Airlift Force (PNAF) are used to airlift Air Force nuclear warheads between operational bases and central service and storage facilities in the United States and in Europe (see overview here).

Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible," said Markey, D-Mass., co-chair of the House task force on nonproliferation. (emphasis mine).

He's not claiming that it never happened before, just that it's never been reported before.

Into perspective...

[Manip]

Is it shocking that the US Military accidentally forgot to remove live Warheads before the Cruise Missiles were moved? Yes.

But there was so little chance of accident detonation that it is a far smaller story than one might immediately think.

Modern Nuclear Weapons are one of those things you have to really WANT to detonate ... You can't just accidentally set them off. If the plane had crashed more than likely the weapons would have been destroyed in a fairly inert manor.

Plus considering even the military didn't know they were moving Nuclear Weapons, the chances of someone attempting to steal them is next to nill.

Much better than crashing with a bomb on board...

[Bobzibub]

http://www.portaec.net/library/peace/1950_bomber_c rash_in_bc.html

TERRACE, B.C. (CP) -- A determined group of local citizens wants some answers about the mysterious crash near here almost five decades ago of a B-36 bomber carrying an inactive atomic bomb. The gigantic bomber -- 50 metres long with a 70-metre wingspan -- was apparently flying without a crew when it plowed into Mount Kolaget in the vast Coast Mountains range on Feb. 13, 1950.

It was carrying an inactive Mark IV Fat Man atomic bomb similar to one dropped on Nagasaki when it got into trouble over Hecate Strait, according to a U.S. military declassified report. Three engines were ablaze and the giant aircraft was losing altitude. Crew members dropped the bomb over the strait and bailed out.

Re:We got some flyin' to do

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think it is cute, have a look at the story at Booman Tribune http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/9/5/171126 /7241 It aint funny, and it aint a mistake.

Re:Broken Arrow!

[TooMuchToDo]

When you lose a nuclear weapon, the DOD term is Pinacle - Empty Quiver. When a nuclear weapon is stolen it's Pinacle - Broken Arrow.

Re:We got some flyin' to do

[afaik_ianal]

Keep in mind, they weren't just flying them as cargo: They were flying with them attached to the wing. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not something the US has done anywhere in the world for decades.

Re:Three and a half hours is a long time

[Detritus]

I once saw a Navy weapons storage facility where many of the bunkers had their doors blocked with 20,000 pound blocks of concrete. You needed a big crane to remove the block before you could open the door of the bunker. Official policy was to neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons, but most people assumed that they were being stored there. This was back when the Navy still had tactical nukes.

Re:We got some flyin' to do

[arivanov]

You have no idea how close you are from the truth. And the truth is that cold war is back with a vengeance.

Russians have dusted off their Bears and Backfires and are sending them on patrol loaded with cruise missiles, so does the USA. As it is in these cases it is an open question who started first. The Russians are saying the that the Americans did, the Americans are saying that the Russians did it.

Anyway, it is all irrelevant now as both sides are happily dusting off their toys to show them off. As a result nukes that have stayed in storage for the last 17+ years are now out and about being loaded and unloaded on patrol bombers. This is all done by staff that has done this only as a training exercise and has never had to do it for real. It was only a matter of time until they were loaded on the wrong bomber which is most likely what happened here. Thanks god the bomber in question did not do any test firing.

The Press around this incident could be a PR gag

[Qbertino]

Mounting Nukes (armed or not) to a planes wing - as they *say* it happend - is a mistake. However, this whole thing could just be some 'sword-rattling' (as we call it in Germany) towards we-own-the-northpole Russia, we're-building-nukes Iran or both. Maybe it's just as someone here said: Someone leaked that somebody is rearanging the US nukes and they molded a PR stunt out of it. "OMFG, if someone would've dropped them, OMFG they are so dangerous, our (and this is an actual quote) potential enemies need to know that we can handle our nukes professionally."
I smell lot's of proactive appliance of psychology here.

Re:We got some flyin' to do

[Kjella]

Thanks god the bomber in question did not do any test firing.

You're trying to tell me there's *not* any special nuke release codes, just fire and forget like a regular missile? I think not. What is scary is if one of these were to "disappear", so that someone can rig/replace the detonator. That'd save you about 99% of the work of building one yourself

Re:We got some flyin' to do

[LWATCDR]

"This kind of screw up is a career ending move."
That is probably the best outcome. Can you say dereliction of duty? I would bet that people are going to facing jail time for this one. Your right when it comes to special weapons the military really doesn't play around.
I just wonder what poor enlisted guy at Barksdale thought when he found out they still had the warheads. That must have been an oh crap moment. If you don't raise the alarm fast enough your in deep trouble. If you are wrong you are in deep trouble. Is there even a protocal for dealing with that kind of a mistake? Kind of a man I hope I am right but I really wish I am wrong moment.

Noooo

[geekoid]

It is very much that nukes were flown, it is a treaty violation, and a biggie. It is the reason there is account ability in place to help ensure this doesn't happen.

"...the fact remains that the Air Force didn't know where six of its nukes were for three hours."

I know the press likes to make it seem that way, but that is probably not true at all. Based on my experience I would say it isn't true at all.
They new they were on the missile. They new the missiles had been moved. If anyone went to look for them, they would have known immediately where they were.

Yes, of course the president is notified, because he will need to deal with the political ramifications of the treaty violation. Not bbecause people are 'panicking'. In my experience with nukes we don't panic, we quickly deal with the issue.

Sorry, but I feel I need to be clear The media is implying that the nation was in some sort of dangerous situation and someone could have been killed. Some sites are implying that this nearly lead to a nuclear explosion. Fortunately the main stream media has at least put the comments in saying detonation wasn't possible;which as you know is true.

"Disclaimer: I worked with nukes before, although not these."
meh, who hasn't? ;)

Re:We got some flyin' to do

[TechNit]

The B-52H Model has two external pylon connect points. Each is located between the internal engine nacelle and the body of the plane. These pylon attach points can hold one pylon each. Said pylon can carry 6 cruise missiles each - nuke or conventional. The B-52H can also carry cruise missiles on an internal rotary launcher that can carry a total of 8 cruise missiles. So fully armed a B-52H can wreak havoc upon the world...

Having spent 4 years as a weapons technician on B-52's I have the creds to know the facts. I also KNOW that there is VERY LITTLE that is more CONTROLLED in the USAF than a nuclear weapon. How this was allowed to happen boggles my mind. The command & control system truly FAILED here and THAT scares the hell outa me.....