Slashdot Mirror


USAF Almost Nuked North Carolina In 1961 – Declassified Document

Freshly Exhumed sends in a story about how close the United States came to accidentally attacking itself with nuclear weapons just a few days after John F. Kennedy took office. "A secret document, published in declassified form for the first time by the Guardian today, reveals that the U.S. Air Force came dramatically close to detonating an atom bomb over North Carolina that would have been 260 times more powerful than the device that devastated Hiroshima. The document, obtained by the investigative journalist Eric Schlosser under the Freedom of Information Act, gives the first conclusive evidence that the US was narrowly spared a disaster of monumental proportions when two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs were accidentally dropped over Goldsboro, North Carolina on 23 January 1961. The bombs fell to earth after a B-52 bomber broke up in mid-air, and one of the devices behaved precisely as a nuclear weapon was designed to behave in warfare: its parachute opened, its trigger mechanisms engaged, and only one low-voltage switch prevented untold carnage."

586 comments

  1. A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What an improvement for NC that would have been.

    1. Re:A little drastic but... by flayzernax · · Score: 0

      I agree, not a troll!

    2. Re:A little drastic but... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      With NC as the new Right wing GOP experiment, it may become a desolate wasteland of poverty, lizards, and ignorance... without all that pesky radiation.

    3. Re:A little drastic but... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      I MISS having Lake Carolina. Sorry, Raleigh. Your coupla' good BBQ joints just ain't 'nuff to make up for the slow death, that is RTP.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:A little drastic but... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Troll

      It can't possibly be any worse than Detroit.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:A little drastic but... by magical+liopleurodon · · Score: 1, Troll

      It can't possibly be any worse than Detroit.

      a Left wing DNC experiment

    6. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What an improvement for NC that would have been.

      I have lived in North Carolina for a few years.

      I have lived all over the US, and traveled in various countries
      in Europe.

      North Carolina is by a wide margin the most unpleasant place
      I have ever lived. I could list all the reasons why but instead I will
      sum it up by saying that the quality of life in North Carolina is awful
      and no amount of money can make it better. The problem is that you
      are surrounded by millions of ignorant hateful people when you live in
      North Carolina, and unless you stay home and never leave your house
      you cannot possibly escape interacting with these people.

    7. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You guys are all laughing about this, But when I was in the USAF I was stationed at Beale, Armageddon Air Force Base. They had more B-52s loaded full of bombs ready to carpet-nuke Russia than you could count. Hundreds of B-52s with dozens or maybe even hundreds of H-bombs each, ready to rain nuclear hell on the commies.

      I was 9 in 1961, most of you weren't even born. Many of you wouldn't have been if that thing would have gone off. Laugh about that.

      I saw a lot of scary shit in the Air Force, and that was forty years ago. I can't imagine the shit they have now, when I was in the AF a computer took a whole building. Go ahead and laugh, we have more than global warming and asteroids to worry about.

      Human error could cause our extinction. Laugh away, guys.

    8. Re:A little drastic but... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stand down, soldier. One way or another, we all have to die. Beyond that, at some point, the world / galaxy / universe will end. A sense of humor helps keep things in perspective.

    9. Re:A little drastic but... by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      what nonsense, there's hardly a better place on the east coast to have a 3.8MT ground burst, with the prevailing westerlies carrying the fallout over the ocean. Not much there, who gives a shit.

    10. Re:A little drastic but... by BancBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      It can't possibly be any worse than Detroit.

      a Left wing DNC experiment

      Do you two want to take your little thing out in the hall?

      --
      [UID-HeinzIntel]
    11. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you mean nuking Goldsboro specifically. Dropping a dog turd from 30,000 feet would ever so slightly improve Goldsboro.

    12. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not very accurate...

      Hundreds of B-52s?
      Hundreds of H-bombs each?
      At a single AFB?

      In a word, No.

      If anyone is interested in the truth just do some easy-to-do research on SAC -- Strategic Air Command. Yes, the US had bombers in a state for rapid launch 24-7-365. If you look at the SAC bomber bases you can still see the relic: a small staggered parking lot at the end of the runway that resembles something like a pine tree. Off of that you will see a path to the earth covered nuclear bunkers. The US retains much of this capability but at a much smaller scale and at a much less rapid response capability.

      The planes were ready to fly, the crews were on standby, the bombs could be retrieved quickly. Fully loaded bombers could be in the air between 5 and 15 minutes.

    13. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      North Carolina - what you get if Florida and West Virginia had a baby.

    14. Re:A little drastic but... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Well, there are a whole lot of things less dramatic than an atomic bomb which could have prevented me from being born. Like my mother having a headache on that night...

      Scary in a different way.

      Anyway, look on the bright side: we aren't currently in a nuclear cold war. It would seem we either actually learned something and aren't repeating it, or got lucky enough for the moment to not make enemies with anyone else who could blow up the world. Either way, it's a good thing.

      Lastly, laughing about dangers that didn't come to pass is about the same as taking them very seriously, except that laughing relieves a bit of stress and is probably slightly better for your health.

    15. Re:A little drastic but... by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Human error could cause our extinction. Laugh away, guys.

      Human error very likely will cause our extinction yet. In fact, it's something of a minor miracle that we haven't already wiped ourselves out. As you know well, since around 1952 and continuing until present there are still hundreds of nuclear warheads on alert and ready for immediate use. Beyond that there are several thousand more which could be reactivated or made operational within hours, days or weeks. There is also the matter of climate change and the ongoing destruction of the natural environment that sustains all life on this planet. Personally, I rather doubt that humanity will see another thousand years if some big changes aren't made within the next few hundred or so. However, that doesn't mean that we cant laugh at the absurdity of it all or appreciate the irony of an intelligent species using that very intelligence, often cited as our greatest advantage, to bring about our own annihilation.

    16. Re:A little drastic but... by cusco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My nieces and nephews really can't comprehend what it was like to grow up with the constant knowledge that at any moment civilization and perhaps all multi-cellular life on the planet could end. To have 'Duck And Cover' drills in grade school and be sent home with maps for your parents showing what buildings were listed as Fallout Shelters (even though our small town was two hours from the closest reasonable target). Hearing the sonic boom of the B-52s based out of McCord AFB as they passed overhead, and seeing the radar dome of the inner-most ring of the DEW line every time we drove to Empire.

      In some ways I'm glad, but at the same time it has left them without a sense of how real the danger still is.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    17. Re: A little drastic but... by Corbets · · Score: 2

      Indeed. And given that fear is what caused most of our nuclear near-misses with apocalypse, it means the next generation is much less likely to end the world than your generation.

    18. Re:A little drastic but... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hearing the sonic boom of the B-52s

      How does an aircraft with a max speed around mach 0.86 make a sonic boom?

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    19. Re:A little drastic but... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of B-52s with dozens or maybe even hundreds of H-bombs each, ready to rain nuclear hell on the commies.

      Hmm, even Wikipedia tells us B-52s could carry 8 nuclear bombs back then, or more recently up to 20 smaller nuclear cruise missiles, definitely not "hundreds of H-bombs"... I assume your job was not as a weapons loader ;) But I kid, I'm sure it was still interesting times...

      As far as laughing - Dr. Strangelove isn't a new movie. If you can't laugh at it you might as well just go cower in a hole.

    20. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there were fewer people like you, ready to help perpetuate this madness while hiding behind a flag, the problem wouldn't exist.

    21. Re:A little drastic but... by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 1

      It's terribly difficult for younger generations to deal with hard reality in terms of just how dangerous some people and certain technologies and weapons can be. After all, all they need to do is hit the "reset" button on their favorite video game and they suddenly "come back to life." I shudder to think how the advancement of humanity may be stalled.

      You guys are all laughing about this, But when I was in the USAF I was stationed at Beale, Armageddon Air Force Base. They had more B-52s loaded full of bombs ready to carpet-nuke Russia than you could count... Go ahead and laugh, we have more than global warming and asteroids to worry about.

      Human error could cause our extinction. Laugh away, guys.

    22. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Q: How does an aircraft with a max speed around mach 0.86 make a sonic boom?
      A: By throwing a Mark 39 H bomb.

    23. Re:A little drastic but... by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Not existing doesn't bother me, its the dying part I'm afraid of. That said, if it were my job to identify less horrible ways to die than by nuke, I'd be employed for life.

    24. Re:A little drastic but... by TonyLoro · · Score: 1

      Any guesses which heat event type it will be? Not nuclear that is for sure. Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events. Robert A. Heinlein

    25. Re:A little drastic but... by unitron · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was 9 when this happened also, living about 3 counties Southeast of the crash site, certainly close enough to have seen a very bright light and heard a very loud noise if anything went off.

      The B-52 in question was trying for an emergency landing at Seymour Johnson AFB, where my Dad did his active duty Reserve obligation every summer back then

      Chances are if one of them had gone off it wouldn't have been over Wayne County but "in" it, as in buried in the dirt.

      The one with the parachute wound up with about a foot and half of the nose underground but the other one, falling unimpeded, hit a field near a swampy area, and despite digging down over 40 feet, they still haven't recovered all of it.

      Most of the stuff in this latest release was already known, though.

      http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2011/01/23/the_bomb_one_click_from_armageddon/

      http://www.ibiblio.org/bomb/story.html

      http://www.restorationsystems.com/uncategorized/whoops-atomic-bomb-dropped-in-goldsboro-nc-swamp-neuse-huc-02/

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    26. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like a sonic screwdriver... it's a boom, and it's sonic.

    27. Re:A little drastic but... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      He meant the nuclear boom caused by their bombs going off accidentally.

    28. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Good quote, but I say the optimist is often disappointed and the pessimist is often happily surprised. So I guess if it's something unthinkable you're better off being an optimist, if it's something good you're better off being a pessimist.

      I'm personally optimistic that we won't have nuclear war or an asteroid strike. I'm so pessimistic about winning the lottery I won't buy a ticket.

    29. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If it had gone off and you were outside you'd probably have been blinded, and died of cancer within twenty years, along with your neighbors.

      This book will scare the hell out of you (I was a teenager when I read it).

      Here's a PDF of the book. I wish someone would OCR it.

    30. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Ah, the younger generation.

      "The older generation had certainly pretty well ruined this world before passing it on to us," wrote one of them (John F. Carter in the Atlantic Monthly, September, 1920), expressing accurately the sentiments of innumerable contemporaries. "They give us this thing, knocked to pieces, leaky, red-hot, threatening to blow up; and then they are surprised that we don't accept it with the same attitude of pretty, decorous enthusiasm with which they received it, way back in the 'eighties."

      --Only Yestarday, Frederick Lewis Allen (1933)

      Some things never change, folks in their twenties are now blaming us geezers, using the same rhetoric that youngster who is now certainly dead from old age used in 1920. Of course, my generation was no different.

    31. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, I had no idea how many bombs they held. My job was to drive the pilot to his war machine if the Ruskies attacked.

      Best duty I ever had. Fuel, clean, and check out the vehicle and spend the rest of the day reading, playing pinball, shooting pool, and eating damned good chow.

      The worst duty I ever had was driving a busload of drunken high ranking officers to town.

    32. Re:A little drastic but... by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Always good to hear from people who were there.

      "Good" as in, oh... my.... god....

      If I may add my 2 cents, one of the trickier parts of Buddha's message seems to be how to live with care, lightness, and compassion, whilst knowing it is all just dust blowing in the wind.

    33. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hearing the sonic boom of the B-52s based out of McCord AFB as they passed overhead

      The B-52s were (and are) subsonic. I heard the booms, too, from aircraft at Scott AFB, and that was a MAC base. Probably in both cases they were fighters that were stopping off for fuel or something, because cargo and transport planes were subsonic as well.

    34. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Anyway, look on the bright side: we aren't currently in a nuclear cold war. It would seem we either actually learned something and aren't repeating it, or got lucky enough for the moment to not make enemies with anyone else who could blow up the world.

      Probably both, and it does indeed engender optimism.

    35. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airman. He's an Airman.

    36. Re:A little drastic but... by butalearner · · Score: 1

      Not existing doesn't bother me, its the dying part I'm afraid of. That said, if it were my job to identify less horrible ways to die than by nuke, I'd be employed for life.

      Depends how close you are...standing right next to one as it detonates is probably the least horrible way to die, since your brain won't even have time to register any pain before it doesn't exist anymore. If you're so lucky to be standing right on top of one, some your constituent atoms get blasted out of the atmosphere and spread across the solar system for free.

    37. Re:A little drastic but... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      We STILL face annihilation any second, we just dont make it a national talking point anymore.

      --
      Good-bye
    38. Re:A little drastic but... by supercrisp · · Score: 1

      Hearing the sonic boom of the B-52s?

    39. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know about "unnecessary" sometimes you have to do the horrible things before you realize exactly how horrible it actually was.

      had we not done that and realized the fallout of such an action then their may not have been the same amount of restraint in keeping others from using nukes during other conflicts.

    40. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i don't know that things changed so much, instead of nukes, now it is "terrorists".

      and in hindsight your duck and cover drills were just overly paranoid fear mongering and nothing more. much like the threat of terrorism today. its all just theater to make us afraid.

    41. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      If I may add my 2 cents, one of the trickier parts of Buddha's message seems to be how to live with care, lightness, and compassion, whilst knowing it is all just dust blowing in the wind.

      Yes, I learned quite a bit about Buddhism while stationed in Thailand (the B-52s there weren't nuclear-armed). I was once admonished for swatting at a fly. Oddly, the Thai boxers (surely Buddhist, every Thai I met was) had no problem at all with sending Chinese Kung-fu fighters to the hospital. Thais taught me how to use nunchucks. Practicing was good exercise until I hit myself in the funny bone with one.

      Some of the priests did some stuff that was unbelievable.

      I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone
      All my dreams, pass before my eyes, a curiosity
      Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind
      Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea
      All we do, crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

      Dust in the wind, All we are is dust in the wind

      Don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
      It slips away, all your money won't another minute buy

      Dust in the wind, All we are is dust in the wind

      -- Kansas

    42. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this part of nc could use a little excitement

    43. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was wholly unnecessary. It was the same as a guy pulling a gun in a fistfight, after knocking the other guy out and right as he's regaining consciousness. The ultimate bitch move.

    44. Re:A little drastic but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Do you two want to take your little thing out in the hall?"

      I'm pretty sure you can get arrested for that, even in North Carolina.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    45. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont think that was a B-52 with a Sonic boom, its a 8 engined long range sub-sonic bomber.

    46. Re:A little drastic but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I believe the term you are looking for is "windbag"

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    47. Re:A little drastic but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "The B-52s were (and are) subsonic."

      How did you hear them then?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    48. Re:A little drastic but... by Warshadow · · Score: 1

      You definitely weren't hearing sonic booms from a B-52! It's max speed is 650 mph which is a whopping .85 Mach.

      That being said, B-52s are really loud and their engines do have a very distinct scream.

    49. Re:A little drastic but... by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      Exaggerating just a wee bit aren't we. A wing of B-52s was at Beale, max of 26 at any one time. Each B-52 could carry up to 8 nukes if they were the smaller type. A BUFF (Big Ugly Flying Fucker) or (Big Ugly Fat Fellow) could carry a max of 26 750Lb iron bombs using both internal and external store.

      A lot of firepower but hardly hundreds of BUFFs at a single base each with hundreds of nukes on board.

      Lots of hours on SAC parking ramps pulling firefighter standby on nuke loaded B-52s.

    50. Re: A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe dozens, even hundreds"

      You worked there, you should know.

      A B52 with hundreds of nukes loaded sounds unlikely.

    51. Re:A little drastic but... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Fucking hell SlashDot, when the first poster or two corrected me about the B-52 being subsonic I thought, "Must have been the escort fighters." They would do mock attack runs on the bombers, we could see the contrails loop and spiral around the generally straight contrail of the main aircraft. Now that I've been corrected for the sixth time the only thing that I can think is, "Two thirds of the respondents have utterly missed the entire point of what I wrote." It's prissy pedantic shit like this which has gradually eroded the Online Forum format over the last few years. It's too bad, it really is my favorite format for discussion and learning. Even the trolls are disappointing now. /rant

      Sorry, just grumpy this morning.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    52. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hearing the sonic boom of the B-52s

      How does an aircraft with a max speed around mach 0.86 make a sonic boom?

      would example why it broke up...

    53. Re:A little drastic but... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't of really mattered. A kid, possibly with a slightly different genetic makeup, could easily have been generated the following night...

      Fish in a barrel!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    54. Re:A little drastic but... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a lot of AF duties involved lots of idle time (basically perennially on standby for bringing about the end of the world). Maybe a bit *too much* idle time, if my father-in-law's stories can be believed... :)

      He was AFJAG, and some of the guys he defended, man. His best story involved someone who thought it would be a good idea to get out with a dishonorable discharge by sitting on top of a Titan missile silo and lighting a joint. I think he got 5 years for it, but they wanted to give him 20...

    55. Re:A little drastic but... by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we all die. But not necessarily all at once.

    56. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days we have much smaller bombs, as CEP improves.

      I dislike the summary, as it comes down to, "The multiple safety system worked. What a disaster!"

      ETA: captcha word "disaster."

    57. Re:A little drastic but... by Occams · · Score: 1

      I saw so much collateral damage that I would not mind betting that the US military has killed more of its own than of the enemy since 1953.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    58. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Most of my 4 years I worked my ass off towing stuff on the flightline. Hard work, some of that stuff was really heavy and hard to connect to the pintile hook.

      His best story involved someone who thought it would be a good idea to get out with a dishonorable discharge by sitting on top of a Titan missile silo and lighting a joint. I think he got 5 years for it, but they wanted to give him 20

      A stupid friend stupidly and illegally brought a gun to base and accidentally shot another friend. Chuck was out of the hospital and healed before Stan's trial was over. Stan was sentenced to 6 months in Leavenworth and a dishonorable discharge.

      That's wild, one guy gets 6 months for accidentally shooting someone in the belly button, another gets 5 years for a political statement.

    59. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I didn't know how much ordinance they held, but there were a lot more than 26, although IIRC 26 seems about the amount at Utapao. AFAIK (and of course I can't really know, something like that would be a need-to-know basis and I just hauled stuff around the flightline there) none of the B-52s there were armed with nukes.

      It could have been that the year I was at Beale they were bringing back BUFs ("big ugly fucker") from Vietnam; the bombing stopped shortly after I got to Thailand and I was there a year. Maybe 26 were all that were armed and the rest were being temporarily stored there, back from deployment from the three Thai bases and afaik bases in other countries in the area.

    60. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Pedantically! My hat's off to you, sir.

    61. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      the ongoing destruction of the natural environment that sustains all life on this planet.

      Nope.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    62. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Suggest you look up the definition of the word "subsonic."

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    63. Re:A little drastic but... by cyachallenge · · Score: 1

      mcrgrew I thought your post at kuro5hin was very well written and interesting.

    64. Re:A little drastic but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I don't need to, but since you clearly do I will look it up for you. Here it is!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    65. Re:A little drastic but... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Actually - I think if he had lit a cigarette it would have been almost as bad - especially since it was a deliberate act and not just ignorance/stupidity. Rocket fuel is one of the most flammable things on the planet, and in this case it was tipped with one of the most destructive things on the planet. Smoking is prohibited (and severely punishable) near thermonuclear missiles for good reason :)

    66. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Answers.com? Really? Dude, at least look it up on Wikipedia, where you'll find that a more accurate term is "infrasound." Other terms that might work could be "inaudible" or "subaudible." Using subsonic to refer to anything but less-than-supersonic speeds is...archaic, at best.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    67. Re:A little drastic but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "at least look it up on Wikipedia"

      If that makes you feel happier: "Any speed lower than the speed of sound within a sound propagating medium is called subsonic". Good luck learning the English language!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    68. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      OP: "The B-52s were (and are) subsonic."

      You: "How did you hear them then?"

      This suggests that you thought subsonic meant inaudible. Because, obviously, an aircraft being subsonic in no way means that it does not produce an audible sound. (Either that, or you were making a poor attempt at humor.)

      Are you not following the conversation here?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    69. Re:A little drastic but... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Humanity cannot survive for long apart from the natural environment. At present we lack the necessary technology to do so and even if we could, would we really want to? For now and the foreseeable future our fates, or more accurately the fates of our descendants, are tied to that of this planet.

    70. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      You changed your assertion from the environment being destroyed to humanity depending on the environment. No one would argue with the latter.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    71. Re:A little drastic but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Subsonic does mean inaudible you idiot.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    72. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      So either you weren't aware that subsonic has a technical meaning in aeronautics--which dwarfs any other usage of the term in other fields, anyway--or you were trying to make a joke. Were you ignorant or unfunny? :p

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    73. Re:A little drastic but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      So either you are stupid enough to believe that I don't know what a false dichotomy is, or are too stupid to know how to read the English language. Which is it?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    74. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Ok, the alternative I left out is that you knowingly used the term "subsonic" in the context of aeronautics to refer to something other than the most blatantly obvious, commonly accepted meaning of the term. And, well, that still sounds to me like trying to make a joke.

      Instead of calling me stupid you could just explain why you said it.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    75. Re:A little drastic but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what I said. What matters is that you spouted off like a condescending idiot telling me I should look up a word with which only a moron would conclude I was unfamiliar. It doesn't matter if you like how I used the language, I used it properly. It doesn't matter if you like what I said. I know what I said and I meant it exactly as I said it. The OP responded for himself, and did so intelligently. You didn't need to be a condescending asshole, but I would have actually been OK with that if you were actually right. If you are going to be an asshole, at least be right. That is what matters.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    76. Re:A little drastic but... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      It's not one or the other. Both are true.

    77. Re:A little drastic but... by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      Actually the bomb fell in a relatively uninhabited area outside of Goldsboro so if it had detonated it wouldn't have killed that many stupid, white, southern conservatives.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    78. Re:A little drastic but... by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      Hearing the sonic boom of the B-52s

      How does an aircraft with a max speed around mach 0.86 make a sonic boom?

      Very carefully?

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    79. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      We both know that it was silly to use "subsonic" with respect to an airplane to mean anything other than not-supersonic. Just because you can find a dictionary somewhere that says someone has used the word to mean something else sometime doesn't make your usage here less silly.

      I asked you a question, but instead of answering it, you dodged it and went on a rant. And you're the one calling names. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    80. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Again, nope.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    81. Re:A little drastic but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Yeah. OK. Maybe you could point out the question in your post: "Suggest you look up the definition of the word "subsonic." I suppose the fact that you can't form a complete sentence should have been my first clue to your inability to understand the language.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    82. Re:A little drastic but... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Referring to, "Instead of calling me stupid you could just explain why you said it." Was an implied question. Can form complete sentences. Have been doing so this whole time. Are not following the conversation here?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    83. Re:A little drastic but... by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Did you try Asheville, NC.... It is nothing like you are saying. What area are you talking about???

    84. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yea, I agree with the policy' smoking around fuels is stupid.

    85. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I've been doing mostly fiction in my /. JEs.

    86. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a little bitch about it isn't going to change the facts.

    87. Re:A little drastic but... by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 1

      ... I wish someone would OCR it.

      Open in adobe reader x and File->Save As->Text ... OCR done. (not so hot in places, but done.)

      --
      "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    88. Re:A little drastic but... by g1zmo · · Score: 1

      This is the obverse of the equally-timeless idea that the world is going to hell because the lazy, uncultured, over-coddled kids these days look/talk/act funny and play terrible music.

      The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.

      --Kenneth John Freeman (1907)

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.
      -REK, Jr.
    89. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I don't remember which one it was, but one of the ancient Greeks expressed almost identical sentiments about the youth of his time.

    90. Re:A little drastic but... by g1zmo · · Score: 1

      That's actually why I linked to the short article about the origin of the quote, which is usually mis-attributed to Socrates.

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.
      -REK, Jr.
    91. Re:A little drastic but... by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 1

      I'm not making any claims one way or the other, but the incidence rate of apparently magical things happening *did* seem to go up a lot during my phases of hitting the bong.

    92. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Coincidences do seem magical when you're high (get stoned enough and the mundane is magical) but that doesn't explain the taxi driver not noticing that there was a fat guy in a bright orange robe sitting between us, or that the fat guy turned out to be a revered figure few had seen (the driver almost wrecked the truck when he saw the priest).

    93. Re:A little drastic but... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      After a little googling it appears that Plato attributed it to Socrates, but it seems to be controversial who came up with it first.

      Frederick Lewis Allen covered a similar thing in his book about the 1920s (it was required reading in a general studies history class I took in the '70s).

      I wouldn't doubt that Ogg the cave man said something similar. Whenever I think about bitching about "those damned kids" I remind myself that I was once one of them and was the same way they are now.

    94. Re:A little drastic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably would have only done a few hundred dollars in damage.

  2. That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wouldn't it? (Of course I'm being facetious. What disarmament?)

    1. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      no, it probably would have triggered the doomsday clock and caused armaggeddon.

    2. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The doomsday clock is already triggered. Yes, "triggered", its been ticking back and forth since 1953. The doomsday clock is actually an indicator, not a countdown timer.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    3. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      Then what am I thinking of? The doomsday device?

    4. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by rogueippacket · · Score: 1

      The Dead Hand, I believe.

    5. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      The cobalt thorium g doomsday device from Dr. Strangelove?

    6. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So... it's trying to line up for a shot?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by SYSS+Mouse · · Score: 1

      You mean the clock would struck midnight and causes actual Armageddon?

    8. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The doomsday clock is a propaganda tool.
      The only thing it indicates is how easily people are turned to unthinking sheep.

    9. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by KZigurs · · Score: 2

      You meant possible triggering of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war), right?

    10. Re:That would have sped up nuclear disarmament by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      The cobalt thorium g doomsday device from Dr. Strangelove?

      What good is a doomsday device IF YOU DON'T TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT!!!!

  3. old, really old, news by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Informative

    the triple fail-safe worked.

    1. Re:old, really old, news by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1, Troll

      the triple fail-safe worked.

      or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.

    2. Re:old, really old, news by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.

      Well, if you choose to ignore the fact that the US has successfully used two nuclear bombs in war...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:old, really old, news by timeOday · · Score: 5, Informative
      No, the amazing thing is that the triple fail-safe failed! It was only the 4th and final failsafe that did not fail!

      Jones found that of the four safety mechanisms in the Faro bomb, designed to prevent unintended detonation, three failed to operate properly. When the bomb hit the ground, a firing signal was sent to the nuclear core of the device, and it was only that final, highly vulnerable switch that averted calamity.

      Egads.

      If you had the choice between a repeat of this, vs. a certain 9/11-scale attack tomorrow, which would you choose?

    4. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the triple fail-safe worked.

      Yes definitely old news. I watched a "documentary" DVD ten years or more ago (which I think was called Nuclear 911) which went over several incidents, just like this one, both here and in Europe.

    5. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, they are designed to not go critical even when blown up in a conventional explosion. The timing has to be just right and there are at least two points (for safety) that have to be detonated at the same time and then the initiator has to produce 10-20 neutrons at the correct time. They just don't work if anything is the least bit off.

    6. Re:old, really old, news by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth

      No, the switch didn't fail - apparently three of its siblings did, but the fact that this one didn't prevented the unarmed bomb from detonating.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:old, really old, news by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      the triple fail-safe worked.

      or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.

      I don't care as much about the reliability of bombs used in the past, so much as the reliability of bombs we may use in the future. I'd prefer them to inspire confidence!
       
      btdubs, does anybody know if this switch failure was a safety feature that worked, or a malfunction of a critical piece that was a lifesaver in this scenario?

    8. Re:old, really old, news by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.

      Well, if you choose to ignore the fact that the US has successfully used two nuclear bombs in war...

      I don't care as much about the reliability of bombs used in the past, so much as the reliability of bombs we may use in the future. I'd prefer them to inspire confidence!

      btdubs, does anybody know if this switch failure was a safety feature that worked, or a malfunction of a critical piece that was a lifesaver in this scenario?

    9. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My assumption is that that switch was a safety and would have been closed when armed for war.

    10. Re:old, really old, news by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      that's a good point. which things worked right, and which things worked wrong?

    11. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on where, and the method of detonation. A ground-level detonation, as would have happened in Goldsboro, is far less destructive than an air burst -- and if it happens in the middle of nowhere, the potential for casualties is much lower than you find in places with high population density like New York.

    12. Re:old, really old, news by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, if you want to lie about it. The switch didn't fail. The switch worked perfectly. The switch was there to prevent detonation and it prevented detonation.

      Your way of looking at it is just a straight out lie.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    13. Re:old, really old, news by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      you can't lie about something if you don't know the answer! duh!

    14. Re:old, really old, news by snowraver1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point is that of 4 safeguards in place, 3 failed to properly work. That's not concerning?

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    15. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WRONG, noh8rz. THREE switches failed to PREVENT explosion, one WORKED.

    16. Re:old, really old, news by Evil+Pete · · Score: 2

      A ground-level detonation, as would have happened in Goldsboro, is far less destructive than an air burst

      You have got to be kidding. A ground burst is the worst case scenario, it would produce a horrendously radioactive plume that would spread far beyond the affected area of an air burst.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    17. Re:old, really old, news by s.petry · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure you understand how these things are really designed to work. A Bomber crashing is supposed to be in the design scope of the munition. A mid-air collision or any other type of disaster should never send active bombs downward. This is true for conventional munitions as well as nuclear weapons. Nuclear bombs are supposed to be activated prior to release so that they can detonate. They are never supposed to be loaded in an armed state except for during combat missions. An inactive bomb should never get to the first fail safe, let alone the 2nd or 3rd.

      I would be willing to bet that changes came about because the "almost" should have never been.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:old, really old, news by shentino · · Score: 2

      Both options suck and you know it.

      Especially because 9/11 takes our freedom as well as our lives.

    19. Re:old, really old, news by rhook · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most likely it was a safety feature since nukes have to be armed right before they are used. This is by design so that they do not go nuclear is the event of an accident such as this one.

    20. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      from the article:

      Jones found that of the four safety mechanisms in the Faro bomb, designed to prevent unintended detonation, three failed to operate properly. When the bomb hit the ground, a firing signal was sent to the nuclear core of the device, and it was only that final, highly vulnerable switch that averted calamity. "The MK 39 Mod 2 bomb did not possess adequate safety for the airborne alert role in the B-52," Jones concludes.

      the final switch that prevented disaster could easily have been shorted by an electrical jolt, leading to a nuclear burst.

      3/4 failed = not very confidence reassuring.

    21. Re:old, really old, news by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      That's not what the article says. It says the switch worked as designed even though everything else went wrong.

    22. Re:old, really old, news by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 2

      I'd like to think (perhaps that's not reality) that the nuke shouldn't go off no matter what---unless it was propery activated. E.g. dropping bomb out of an airplane, burning in jet fuel, putting the thing into an incinerator, or have folks go at it with blow torches until they get tired... shouldn't cause anything other than a conventional explosion---not a nuclear one. Perhaps that's too much to wish for, but I'd imagine temper proof circuitry that controls the timings of conventional explosives can enable that sort of behavior for the whole device.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    23. Re:old, really old, news by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Especially because 9/11 takes our freedom as well as our lives.

      Don't think this wouldn't have either. In the Northwoods era they probably would have used the occasion to blame it on Cuba (or another political foe) and taken the nation to war.

      Every time a second amendment argument devolves into "so you think everybody should own nuclear weapons?" feel some solace that eventually people will look back on our period and realize that nuclear weapons were a signal that States were too dangerous to keep around.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 3, Informative

      the triple fail-safe worked.

      or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.

      Nope. It was a safety mechanism that worked as intended, after three others did not. The bomb did not malfunction.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    25. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2

      The point is that of 4 safeguards in place, 3 failed to properly work. That's not concerning?

      Presumably that's why there were four instead of two or three.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    26. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's discomforting to know we were that close to disaster but situations like this are probably why they chose to use four switches instead of just one or two. They were aware of what they were dealing with and designed accordingly.

    27. Re:old, really old, news by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you understand how these things are really designed to work. A Bomber crashing is supposed to be in the design scope of the munition. A mid-air collision or any other type of disaster should never send active bombs downward. This is true for conventional munitions as well as nuclear weapons. Nuclear bombs are supposed to be activated prior to release so that they can detonate. They are never supposed to be loaded in an armed state except for during combat missions. An inactive bomb should never get to the first fail safe, let alone the 2nd or 3rd.

      I would be willing to bet that changes came about because the "almost" should have never been.

      And why shouldn't the bombs go off if the plane goes down?
      If you fall in the vicinity of the target, I say explode that shit. The bigger the munition's radius, the bigger your error margin.

      If it's war and you're intent on bombing the enemy, isn't it better to lose the plane and bomb the enemy a few miles from the target than to lose the plane, not bomb the enemy, and have a planeload of viable munitions fall into their hands? All you'd need to do is arm when you get into the target's space and leave your own (and your allies's).

      The worst that could happen is you bomb nothing instead of a factory. If you're engaged in a war (as opposed to the US's current political occupations), even bombing an unintended target (like a hospital) works out pretty well . The only other piece you need to add in is preventing detonation mid-air so your other bombers don't get hit if one goes down.

      Bombs need to be safe for us (and our allies). Not safe for the enemy.

    28. Re:old, really old, news by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, a ground bust is not the worst case scenario. A near ground burst is. My understanding is most nukes are designed to go off a few hundred meters above ground. Still plenty close enough to toss a plume of horrendously radioactive dust and debris all around but also position to expose a large area to the heat and shock of the blast.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    29. Re:old, really old, news by s.petry · · Score: 2

      You did not ready very well. In war time bombs should be active and I agree, but you are not flying over friendly space for very long. When training or transporting weapons during peace time or over your own territory, weapons should never be active.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    30. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of all places... it's an engineering trade off. A ground burst leads to more fallout, air burst leads to more blastwave & emp. Tactically, I believe air burst is preferred as fallout is not very predictable.

    31. Re:old, really old, news by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And why shouldn't the bombs go off if the plane goes down?

      You can't be serious! Surely this example of crashing in North Carolina is the exact reason why bombs shouldn't explode during crashes. Would you really want an accident during take off or landing to destroy your own airport or carrier? Do you want to take out your own troops on the ground because your plane got shot down before it reached its target?

      A plane spends a large percentage of its life flying over its own country or allied territories. Generally you prefer to not bomb those places if you can help it.

    32. Re:old, really old, news by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      btdubs, does anybody know if this switch failure was a safety feature that worked, or a malfunction of a critical piece that was a lifesaver in this scenario?

      Well, if you read TFA, you'll learn that three of the four safeties failed and this simple switch safety worked. Probably why they designed in four redundant safeties, don't you think?

      If you do read TFA, you'll also find that the author doesn't know the difference between "broke up in mid-air" and "went into a tailspin", since he claims both happened. And in either case, the bombs were not dropped (a specific action releasing the bombs), they fell out of the sky -- a normal side effect of an aircraft carrying bombs breaking up in mid-air.

      Yeah, it would have been bad if they went off, which is why we can be glad that the safety mechanism worked and not worry too much that the Air Force is busy dropping nuclear bombs on the continental US.

    33. Re:old, really old, news by gd2shoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      I forget the physics term, but they actually get a double shockwave this way. (The blast as it's coming down, and as it's coming back up. It's like the way a fold in a piece of paper is thicker.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    34. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can't be serious! Surely this example of crashing in North Carolina is the exact reason why bombs shouldn't explode during crashes.

      You'll have to excuse the grandparent post; he inadvertently had a triple safety failure and went full retard.

    35. Re:old, really old, news by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      Wow a statistically possible event occured. Do you really think alcohol wipes only get 99.9% of all bacteria? Arguably the safety factor should have been greater, but you can always end up with a transient event skirting the edge.

    36. Re:old, really old, news by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      But you probably would want the bomb to go off in the event that the bomber is shot down.

    37. Re:old, really old, news by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. You wouldn't want that either. Bombs are supposed to detonate on their target, not in random places. This is especially true for really large bombs that can level entire cities.

      Contrary to what the liberal media will tell you, real armies prefer to destroy what they're actually trying to destroy and nothing else.

      Spraying bullets is for Hollywood.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    38. Re:old, really old, news by mysidia · · Score: 1

      or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.

      Regretably... this is when it becomes a crewmember's job to parachute down, with a little wireless remote, and prepare to trigger the switch manually

    39. Re:old, really old, news by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Where did the Second Amendment come into this? Who was talking about that? Did you just pull that out of your ass or something?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    40. Re:old, really old, news by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      So, flip the switch when you cross into enemy territory. Don't switch it over North Carolina.

    41. Re:old, really old, news by egamma · · Score: 1

      But you probably would want the bomb to go off in the event that the bomber is shot down.

      No. What if the bomber just took off? You'd lose an entire AFB or carrier group.

    42. Re:old, really old, news by mysidia · · Score: 1

      But you probably would want the bomb to go off in the event that the bomber is shot down.

      Only if the bomber is deep over enemy territory, and in reasonably close proximity to a target.

      If not, the ideal thing to do would be for the bomb to "self-destruct" without detonating; by injecting chemicals causing the nuclear material to be rendered useless to any adversary, and permanently locking out the detonator assembly.

    43. Re:old, really old, news by mysidia · · Score: 5, Funny

      Presumably that's why there were four instead of two or three.

      The fourth switch has been since discontinued due to budget cuts.

    44. Re:old, really old, news by Pentium100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you are using a thermonuclear bomb (and the only reason that a bomber with such a bomb would be over enemy territory is the intent to drop it on some target) then it means that you are prepared to destroy a city or some other large area. If the plane is shot down then it won't reach the intended target, if it is over enemy territory them it may as well detonate the bomb. Also, this way you prevent the enemy from recovering the bomb and using the uranium/plutonium in his own bombs.

      Let's say in WW2 the Japanese managed to shoot down the plane carrying Little Boy. It the bomb detonated over some other city instead of Hiroshima, would that have made a difference? Even if the bomb detonated over an empty field it would still have made an impression. If the plane quietly went down, then maybe the war would not have ended as soon.

      Such large weapons would either be weapons of last resort by the losing side or an attempt to force the enemy to surrender in fear by the winning side. In any case, detonating it anywhere on the enemy territory would be preferable to having it fall to the ground and not go off.

      At least in my opinion.

    45. Re:old, really old, news by murpup · · Score: 1

      nuclear weapons are never designed to just go "critical". Nuclear reactors go "critical" (or even slightly "super-critical" for short periods). Nuclear weapons go "prompt-critical" (which is just a fancy way of saying "really, really, really super-critical"). The distinction is not just semantics, but is germane to the physics of what is happening.

    46. Re: old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically targeted for their geographic position. The US needed to test it in these places as they had specifically left both cities unbombed through out their entire campaign. The places for the bombs to detonate planned specifically to maximize the information they could gather about the bombs effect.

      Dropping nukes on a whim isn't generally considered well thought out plans.

      On a side note it is interesting to note that japan were already under the process of surrender, and were committed to leaving the war roughly two weeks after the bombs dropped. They had their own terms, to be allowed to keep their emperor as the head of Japanese political heirarchy. But you don't spend trillions of dollars in the 1940s making the most powerful weapon ever made and then don't flex your military arm with it.

      Quite a different story most of the western world is told, very unlike what they want you to believe about nukes ending the war. It just happens that the war was grinding to an industrial halt at the same time the bombs were ready, and if they didnt use them then, when would they get the chance?

    47. Re:old, really old, news by tibman · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the bombs can be armed so that they would detonate if the plane broke up mid-air and dropped them. But for the most part you'd want them to survive the crash. Those bombs are crazy expensive, it would be silly to waste them. Not to mention that damaged planes try to limp back to friendly territory and crash, not foreign territory.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    48. Re:old, really old, news by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yea, I read about this on wikipedia a while back. Its certainly not new.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    49. Re:old, really old, news by bluemonq · · Score: 2

      >At least in my opinion.

      And does your opinion about the benefits of failpositive (as opposed to failsafe) nukes take into account the plane falling apart/being destroyed just after launch from friendly territory, like a military base or a carrier air group?

    50. Re:old, really old, news by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      But you probably would want the bomb to go off in the event that the bomber is shot down.

      sure, then you arm the device.

      bombs that go off without arming are faulty by definition..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    51. Re:old, really old, news by icebike · · Score: 2

      That's why they designed in quadruple redundancy.

      You have to remember that this is a journalist understanding of what happened.

      Left unsaid was what the tree other safety mechanisms were. Presumably the first two or three were destroyed as the plane broke up and the bombs were severed from the device holding the bomb on the airplane. B52s would almost certainly carry this size of bomb internally.

      Jones never actually saw the bomb, all he did was rummage thru papers, and decide on his own, that the "switch could easily be shorted by an electrical jolt", without specifying where such a jolt would come from, or ever actually seeing the switch in question.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    52. Re:old, really old, news by Livius · · Score: 2

      Being over enemy territory but not over the target does not mean that it wouldn't be your own troops the bomb fell on.

    53. Re:old, really old, news by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      No, a ground bust is not the worst case scenario. A near ground burst is. My understanding is most nukes are designed to go off a few hundred meters above ground. Still plenty close enough to toss a plume of horrendously radioactive dust and debris all around but also position to expose a large area to the heat and shock of the blast.

      this is why it's illegal in 38 states to take a hot air balloon ride after visiting Taco Bell

    54. Re:old, really old, news by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.

      We had thousands of them, in B-52s, silos, submarines. So did the soviets. One or two duds wouldn't have saved civilization.

      In the alternate universe where the US and USSR had thermonuclear war, most of you would never have been born. Possible nobody would be alive today.

    55. Re:old, really old, news by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're in a nuclear war scenario your goal isn't to kill off everybody a few days later, but to wipe them out RIGHT NOW before they start shooting back. Military troops presumably are going to shelter against fallout or move away from it, and they're really the main targets, along with things like bridges/dams/etc which don't care a whit about fallout.

    56. Re:old, really old, news by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      If not, the ideal thing to do would be for the bomb to "self-destruct" without detonating; by injecting chemicals causing the nuclear material to be rendered useless to any adversary, and permanently locking out the detonator assembly.

      Sorry, real life doesn't work like that. Chemicals won't stop a nuclear reaction unless the chemicals target the explosive that triggers the fission explosion that triggers the fusion explosion. If it doesn't go off, the enemy has their own new bomb. And the electronics are trivial.

    57. Re:old, really old, news by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Having RTFA, I can say what was actually reported was that all three of the triple fail-safe devices FAILED. Fortunately there was a fourth device that did not fail (but was reported as highly vulnerable to failure).

      --
      Will
    58. Re:old, really old, news by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      In the alternate universe where the US and USSR had thermonuclear war, most of you would never have been born.

      I'm 89 years old, you insensitive clod!

    59. Re: old, really old, news by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > On a side note it is interesting to note that japan were already under the process of surrender

      You're talking to an amateur student of WWII history here. I have to put in my two cents on that one. :)

      Your assertion is disputed, even by Japanese historians. Yes, Hirohito had told his people in mid-summer to begin working toward surrender. But the Potsdam declaration for "unconditional surrender" knocked them back. There were many hardliners in the Japanese military who even considered a coup, followed by a scorched-earth policy. Hirohito didn't demand surrender until after the atomic bombings and after the Soviets declared war. You can decide which was the primary cause. I think it was both.

      The US dropped the bombs for several reasons. Yes, part of it was that they wanted to see the effect on a city. But another part is something that you don't hear discussed much, and that certainly didn't appear in the patriotic films from that era. The fact is, after years of war, morale was slipping in the US military. There were desertions. Some in the military made it clear -- respectfully but firmly -- that it was time to wrap up the game and head home. So, that was another pressure to use the bombs: to get it over with quickly.

      If the hardliners in Japan had held out (and the Allies had no way to know what Hirohito was thinking for certain), Army estimates are that the Allies would have lost around 1,000,000 men if they'd invaded Japan. You can dispute that nowadays, but that was their best estimate. Truman was horrified, and coupled with what I just said -- the threats of desertion and mutiny in the Pacific -- he elected to use the "doomsday weapon.".

      We'll never know for sure. But just as wars rarely start because of one simple reason, the same is true of how they end.

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    60. Re:old, really old, news by smpoole7 · · Score: 1

      > the triple fail-safe worked.

      Exactly. I lived in NC (a little kid, 5 years old) at the time, so I have only very vague memories of it. But the "one remaining switch" that the Guardian is nattering about is, in fact, the final failsafe, which was put in the bomb for that very reason, and prevented it from exploding -- as designed. It worked.

      If they were at war, as soon as they crossed into enemy territory, they would have flipped that switch to arm the bomb.

      Doesn't mean it wasn't scary. Nuclear bombs are very scary devices and (of course!) I'm glad it didn't go off. But believe me, there were many other close calls in the nuclear program over the years -- both ours and in other countries. Anyone who doubts that should do a little Googlin' or spend some time at Wikipedia. You can start with Wikipedia's articles on "the demon core" and "criticality accidents."

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    61. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I'm sitting here and trying to figure out how a bomb can inspire confidence in me, and just can't connect those dots...

    62. Re:old, really old, news by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Of course, you'd have the same blasé attitude if the bomb had detonated, right? After all, it's the same thing: a ``statistically possible transient event'' which ``skirted the edge." It would be on the other side of the edge.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    63. Re: old, really old, news by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There were significant elements in the japanese government that were comitted to fighting until they got more than just keeping the emperor (and Shinto, a secondary tier issue, because more of the Japanese had informal contacts assuring them the US had a big thing for freedom of religion). They wanted a "No War Crimes Trials" guarantee for the civilians who had overseen the military and possibly for some of the military personnel as well. The US would have probably given them the assurances on religion quickly, but the issue wasn't as far along in the negotiations as the Imperial presence was. The "No War Crimes Trials" bit, that had all the chance of success of a nitrocellulose cat being chased by an asbestos dog in a grove of already burning white phosporus trees, after word got out about Bataan.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

                      While I agree that the US wanted to test those devices, you have to include the history of the Japanese Politicians who were holding out. These were the very people who had made one wrong predicition after another, and not gotten fired (or ordered to retire for health reasons or actually to commit Sepuku), despite those mistakes. The ones who had sworn that it would be impossible for the US to hit the Japanese mainland with bombers for at least 2 years if Pearl Harbor was attacked. The ones who told the Emperor that since Hawaii wasn't a state, just a territory at the time, the US would be open to a negotiated settlement behind the scenes, whatever their public actions. The ones who swore that the US would have to let the Japanese take territory for at least 2 1/2 years before they could even possibly see a reversal. These were people who every time they made a claim and it turned out to be blowing sunshine up the emperor's kilt, somebody else died for having pointed it out and potentially embarrassing them, and they went right on proclaiming the inevetability of eventual victory.
                    The US very likely figured the negotiators US diplomats spoke with, were hoping to get a truce, but the warhawks may not have even known what the Ambassador and staff were proposing, and might simply drop the proposals and maybe shoot their own messengers at any time. There were too many well-identified lying bastards, some of whom were known for killing the whole families of people they had political disagreements with, and other such nastiness, who still seemed to be able to just jump in there and gum up any settlement on a whim without facing personal consequences.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    64. Re:old, really old, news by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      or does he ride down atop the bomb waving his cowboy hat?

    65. Re: old, really old, news by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On a side note it is interesting to note that japan were already under the process of surrender, and were committed to leaving the war roughly two weeks after the bombs dropped. They had their own terms, to be allowed to keep their emperor as the head of Japanese political heirarchy.

      Yes. The Japanese had put out feelers to see if a conditional surrender (we keep our government and our weapons, we just stop shooting and you, and you stop shooting at us. Oh yeah, and we keep China) would be accepted. None of the terms were reasonable for a nation that started a war, let alone all of them. But yes, nobody doubts the cease-fire-like surrender had been mentioned. The US was pushing for an unconditional surrender, which is generally the only one accepted when the surrendering party started the war. Yes, there could have been some armistice, but nothing that would have gotten Japan out of China and disarmed or punished the leaders that started the war.

    66. Re:old, really old, news by kermidge · · Score: 1

      As others have pointed out, three safeties failed. It was not a triple fail-safe, but quadruple. The meaning of the term 'fail-safe' is that in the event of some accident that every single element of the firing chain will fail to "off" and cannot be re-enabled. That last switch, IIRC, was the one that would have sent the signal to close the switch to release the now-charged capacitors that power the circuit that fires the individual squibs in the plastic explosive surrounding the core. That certainly qualifies as a close call. You can go look all this up if you like. All the basic info was still available last time I looked, about ten years back.

      The _story_ is old but Jones got documented verification of the story which is why this is news.

      If memory serves, after this close call the entire "fail-safe" system was re-designed to work like it was supposed to and then tested seven ways to Sunday and all devices were re-built with the new gear. The new system got called Permissive Action Link, I think. It's a little late to call my cousin who flew BUFFs for most of the '70s, so folks can look it up themselves.

    67. Re:old, really old, news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you do read TFA, you'll also find that the author doesn't know the difference between "broke up in mid-air" and "went into a tailspin", since he claims both happened.

      Both happening is common. A tailspin will often lead to overspeed, leading to airframe failure. If it went into a tailspin, it could easily have broken up mid-air as well.

    68. Re:old, really old, news by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't go off, the enemy has their own new bomb. And the electronics are trivial.

      The delivery system is not trivial. They can very well have a mechanism that shears apart the ball of enriched stuff, so it is no longer shaped appropriately or able to be delivered.

      All the better if they also deploy solutions to chemically affect the payload and reduce possible reaction rates, and then trigger a "mini reaction"; just strong enough to make it not feasible to approach and investigate the device.

    69. Re: old, really old, news by edibobb · · Score: 2

      In fact, there was an attempt by the Japanese military brass to kidnap the Emperor to prevent the surrender. The U.S. fully expected to drop 7 or so bombs before Japan surrendered. Worth the read: "The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945."

    70. Re:old, really old, news by aliquis · · Score: 1

      .. and that's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki was nuked? =P, all the military activity and factories?

    71. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If the plane quietly went down, then maybe the war would not have ended as soon.

      Nope. The Japanese already planned to surrender before the nukes were launched.

    72. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have a larger crater, and a smaller area where everything's flattened and incinerated.

      You'd also have a larger fallout plume, which could increase casualties over the long term - or it could settle onto the crater or blow out to sea. We'd need access to historical weather data from that day to be sure.

    73. Re:old, really old, news by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Who said the switch failed? Likely it operated as supposed to, keeping the device not-fully-armed ("fail safe") because it hadn't been deliberately flipped.

      --
      -- Alastair
    74. Re:old, really old, news by Chrontius · · Score: 2

      Atom bombs are notoriously difficult to detonate. It's the reason that there's no pyrotechnic initiator capable of triggering them; even detcord is far too nonuniform.

      According to Wikipedia, if the right command is sent to the permissive action link, the bomb will "explosively re-machine" the pit into something that cannot support an implosion. Reading into this euphemism of mass destruction, I suspect that since bombs are single-point safe (a single-point initiation - like a bullet - will produce no significant nuclear yield; you might detect it with lab equipment, but the destructive yield will be purely from chemical explosives) they trigger one of the initiators so as to destroy the weapon and turn the core into very expensive shrapnel that is decidedly non-trivial to recycle into a functional weapon.

    75. Re:old, really old, news by AJWM · · Score: 2

      The simplest way to do this is to detonate the explosive lenses at different times, rather than simultaneously. Rather than the implosion you need to go critical, you just blow the core into little pieces.

      There's a bit of a radioactive materials clean up job, but no earth-shattering kaboom. (Just a small kaboom.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    76. Re:old, really old, news by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Per Wikipedia, modern weapons are designed in exactly that fashion. Go read up on what they've got unless you're afraid of being on a list; it's really fascinating reading.

    77. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you heard of Tsar Bomba? Basically the Russians didn't have as good of an aim with their bombs as the US did, so they made their bombs huge instead. And how do you propose deciding who is a "real" army and who isn't?

    78. Re:old, really old, news by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

      I forget the physics term,

      Mach stem.

      You're welcome. ;)

      --
      -- Alastair
    79. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forget the physics term, but they actually get a double shockwave this way. (The blast as it's coming down, and as it's coming back up. It's like the way a fold in a piece of paper is thicker.)

      Precursor wave?

    80. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's not. And it's an educated statement, unlike your own.

      The radiation released in a nuclear explosion is a relatively fixed constant. This would be the same whether it's on the ground or in the air. The only difference would be the disbursement pattern of the weather. The worst radiation is going to be found near the blast site which coincidentally is going to be the most lethal area of the explosion anyway. You can take your pick of what will kill you first. In the long term the radiation is going to be about the same regardless of whether it was a ground burst or not. (all this excluding high altitude bursts, of course)

      The weapons' true destructive powers are in the blast pressure waves they create. For each weapon type there is a prime altitude for detonation. This altitude allows shock waves to combine and become much much more destructive, very much like being amplified. Even if not detonated at the optimal altitude the blast waves will be more destructive than a comparable detonation at ground level.

      The bottom line is that a ground burst is much more survivable at equal distances than an air burst.

    81. Re:old, really old, news by Fierlo · · Score: 1

      There should never be accidental detonation of any munition on a bomber/fighter. The entire point is that they target something. Whether a country is at war, or flying a training exercise during peace time, you never want any weapon to detonate when the plane goes down shortly after takeoff.

    82. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > A ground burst is the worst case scenario, it would produce a horrendously radioactive plume that would spread far beyond the affected area of an air burst.

      Exactly how bad are parts of Nevada? Considering all the early days testing done there...

    83. Re:old, really old, news by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      I remember reading that there is some type of conventional explosive in there that can be triggered for a variety of reasons that will destroy the bomb without the nuclear reaction taking place while causing minimal spreading of the radioactive material.

      Enter the wrong arming code, attempt to disassemble it incorrectly, or if it sustains a large unarmed impact, it goes off as a safety measure to prevent unintentional detonation, capture of the bomb, or useful radioactive material being recoverable by the enemy.

      I read about it in a story by an old timer about the dangers of upgrading and/or decommissioning old nukes at one of the US national laboratories, and I think it may have been mentioned in the story of the US and Russians cleaning up the old Russian testing grounds as well.

      Caution this nuclear weapon may explode for your safety!

    84. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's a horrible plan in practice, but if the "chemical" was a nuclear moderator, and the weapon was sufficiently cleverly designed, you could have it turn into a self-stabilizing fission reactor core, keeping itself at a nice warm temperature and its immediate surroundings sufficiently radioactive to make it impractical to salvage. Naturally, this depends on the bomb structure being sturdy enough to prevent any disruption of the interior, and it penetrating the ground far enough to keep the radiation hazard localized -- it's an insanely bad idea, but it's just feasible enough to be awesome!

    85. Re:old, really old, news by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      No. This is basic statistics in a safety system. You identify a consequence and a likelihood of a disaster and use that to get a quantitative risk number. You compare that to the risk you're willing to wear and that gives you a factor for reducing risk. Then it's up to statistics to design a system that meets this criteria.

      You design the system around likelihood of failures of any component in the system. To reduce your risk you either have to pick and maintain components of the utmost reliability or you pick and maintain components of less reliability but with added redundancy.

      Yes you investigate why a component failed, but you don't panic when the system none the less did what it was supposed to do and everyone goes home without injury.

    86. Re: old, really old, news by cusco · · Score: 1

      A former co-worker's father worked on one of the disarmament treaty teams on the US side in the '80s. He said that another reason for using the nukes in Japan was to show the Soviets what the US could do. Hiroshima, a mostly wooden city, flat, cut into sections by rivers, most closely resembled the large Siberian cities. Nagasaki, hilly, industrialized, and with a large amount of western-style buildings, more closely resembled the cities of eastern Europe.

      BTW, he also said that his father told him that Wolfowitz was every bit as looney toons as he appears.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    87. Re:old, really old, news by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Contrary to what the liberal media will tell you

      Where exactly did they tell us this, please?
               

    88. Re:old, really old, news by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Once you are dropping a 4 megaton nuclear bomb you are beyond caring about "nothing else" or you have a rather large definition for you're "actually trying to destroy".

      But yes, you don't want your nuke going off when a bomber is shot down. At the very least it might be flying near more of your bombers...

    89. Re:old, really old, news by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Contrary to what the liberal media will tell you, real armies prefer to destroy what they're actually trying to destroy and nothing else.

      You mean like W targeting Iraq to destroy Al Qaeda?

      All 4 of that fucker's fail-safes failed.

    90. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the Chinese Embassy bombing by the US, was:

      a) on purpose
      b) on purpose?

    91. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd feel much happier if they'd gone with 5, or 6, or 100.

    92. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3/4 failed = not very confidence reassuring.

      Which is why, today, the denominator in that fraction is larger than 4.

    93. Re:old, really old, news by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Gah. And now I've got mod points. (Oh, the irony.) You can just pretend that I moded you +1 informative. Thanks.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    94. Re: old, really old, news by OptimalCynic · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the aftermath if the bombs weren't dropped. What do you think was more damaging to Japan, a pair of nukes or fifty years of Communist rule over Northern Japan and half of Tokyo (best case, worst case would be the whole lot).

    95. Re:old, really old, news by Solandri · · Score: 2

      If you are using a thermonuclear bomb (and the only reason that a bomber with such a bomb would be over enemy territory is the intent to drop it on some target) then it means that you are prepared to destroy a city or some other large area.

      This is a common misconception. The nukes developed during the Cold War weren't for destroying cities. Yeah a few dozen were targeted at the larger cities as an afterthought. But the vast majority were targeted at hardened missile silos. The idea being (as silly as it sounds) to destroy the enemy nukes in their silos before they can be launched at you. Since accuracy wasn't that great back then (remember, no GPS), you had to make up for it with warheads with larger yields (sufficient to destroy several hundred feet thick reinforced concrete), and by trying to make sure you had several times more nukes than the enemy had missile silos.

      That last bit is what caused the arms race. If the nukes were only for wiping out cities, a few hundred of them would've been enough for both the U.S. and USSR and there would've been no arms race. The numbers got into the thousands because the U.S. tried to make sure it had 3x more nukes than the Soviets, the Soviets tried to make sure it had 3x more nukes than the U.S., repeat ad nauseum. Mobile launchers, nukes aboard B-52s being flow 24/7, and ballistic missile submarines were all invented as ways to avoid this vulnerability of nukes in missile silos.

    96. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst that could happen is you bomb nothing instead of a factory. If you're engaged in a war (as opposed to the US's current political occupations), even bombing an unintended target (like a hospital) works out pretty well . The only other piece you need to add in is preventing detonation mid-air so your other bombers don't get hit if one goes down.

      Bombs need to be safe for us (and our allies). Not safe for the enemy.

      You were so close to the truth, and yet so far. Close, as they say, only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. In this case, it doesn't count with nukes.

      If my mission is to fly around Moscow in order to bomb a Russian installation 20 miles to the east of Moscow at 12:12 in the morning, the guys flying behind me - whose mission it is to bomb Moscow itself at 12:07 in the morning - are never going to know if I made it or got shot down at 12:04 by western suburbia. But they're going to be really pissed off if you designed my bombs to fail in the forms of giant mushroom clouds directly in their path.

      Bombing the enemy a few miles away from the target is worse than not bombing the target at all. As long as the bombs fail safe, they can send as many planes as they want, because some of them will make it. This job is made much simpler by having tiny plane-sized craters in the ground where the planes get shot down, rather than city-sized explosions wherever someone screwed up.

    97. Re: old, really old, news by Alef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One can of course argue about hypotheticals, but the fact remains that the US chose to two densely populated civilian targets, with the intent to massacre as many civilians as possible, as efficiently as possible, most of them women, children and elderly. They did this without warning, and they chose to drop two bombs with such a short interval that the Japanese hardly had a chance to fathom what had happened before the second one dropped. The original plan even was to drop four, but they apparently had the decency to change their minds before manufacture of the other two had finished.

      No matter what rational one can come up with, there is no other word for those actions that atrocities. That a lot of Americans will not recognize this, I personally find despicable. As former US Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara said, quoting General LeMay: ""If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?".

    98. Re: old, really old, news by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Armistice. That's really what GP means, his use of the word "surrender" is misleading and probably intentionally so.

      There'd been an armistice in 1918. That turned out well, didn't it?

      Nothing, repeat nothing, that would have been acceptable to the Japanese hard-liners would have even merited consideration by the allies. Wasn't going to happen, ever.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    99. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war would have ended regardless of Little Boy. The Soviet Union was beating on the Japanese hard, taking island after island (see Sakhalin islands). Hokkaido was next. Unlike the U.S. the U.S.S.R. wasn't hesitant in loosing men (Russia had a history of this well before the Soviet Union). If Japan didn't surrender it would have ended up split like Germany,

    100. Re: old, really old, news by Howitzer86 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're wrong, but there is admittedly more to it. In addition to forcing the Japanese to surrender, the bombs were used to keep the Soviets out. They were imminently prepared for a ground invasion by August, and the use of the weapons was authorized by the author of our first containment policy President Harry Truman.

    101. Re:old, really old, news by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      The WW2 atom bombs have as much in common with a cold war H bomb as a medieval musket has with a with a modern belt-fed machine gun. The principal is vaguely the same, but the actual mechanism is almost wholly different.

    102. Re:old, really old, news by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Actually the electronics aren't trivial, because they act as the timing system for the compression explosives which set up the shock waves in the core which cause the desired critical reaction - these explosives are configured around the core in a particular pattern, and are set off in a particular sequence (talking millisecond differences here, but those differences meanthe bomb goes off as desired or fizzles). Without that exact sequence, all you have is a dirty bomb, not a nuclear one.

    103. Re: old, really old, news by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically targeted for their geographic position. The US needed to test it in these places as they had specifically left both cities unbombed through out their entire campaign. The places for the bombs to detonate planned specifically to maximize the information they could gather about the bombs effect.

      Dropping nukes on a whim isn't generally considered well thought out plans.

      An interesting historical note is that Nagasaki wasn't the intended target for the second bomb. They originally intended to drop the bomb on Kokura, but were thwarted when they got there by poor weather. Nagasaki was their secondary "target of opportunity". Because, you know, it would have been a shame to fly all the way out there without dropping a bomb on someone.

    104. Re: old, really old, news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      An Armistice would have lasted no longer than the "surrendering" government was in power, which wouldn't have been long. That's why "unconditional" is almost always demanded of the aggressor, to ensure they don't re-offend

    105. Re: old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "some armistice, but nothing that would have gotten Japan out of China and disarmed or punished the leaders that started the war."

      Yes, let's incinerate 50.000 civilians because a few hundred murderers might get away. Achievement "Superb Moral Relativity" unlocked.

      While I agree the Japanese terms were unacceptable for the US - for the simple reason that it would have given Japan time to regroup and attack, justifying a nuclear war by the need to bring justice to it's victims scores a bit too much on my bullshit detector. Yes, the Japanese public were just as much victims of the war as the Chinese and the Americans, irregardless of the ethnic origin of the warmongers.

    106. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those were just demos, put on by Uncle Sam for the benefit of Uncle Joe.

      Considering the bombs probably saved Japan from Soviet occupation, you'd think they'd be a bit more grateful...

    107. Re:old, really old, news by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      On a modern implosion bomb the electronics is the difficult bit; timing is crucial. Not so much for the gun type uranium powered bombs that were around in your day.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    108. Re: old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, Lemay was bombing Japanese cities back into the stone age, using firebombing. Firebombing was not just simply dropping incendiary bombs on a city. It involved ratios and mixes of explosive bombs and incendiary bombs of different types, patterns of bombing, etc. It actually took more than a few attempts to get it right. The British had stumbled upon a firestorm by accident. They gave up on precision bombing; most bombs fell far from the target. They first hit upon the angle of the bomb run, so it a bomb fell too soon or past the target, it was at least hitting something of value. Then they upped the ante: something of value became workers housing.

      By 1945 at the rate Lemay's group was bombing Japan there were have been no un-bombed Japanese city in a few months. When a group in the US military, including some of the scientists who were involved in making the atomic bombs, made a list of targets for the atomic bomb, they had problem. They were looking for a city that had not had any prior damage, as they wanted to assess the level of damage an atom bomb would make. Hiroshima topped the list. In fact, the list at various times only included 5 or so targets (maybe 7-8 different targets). There just wasn't that many cities left to bomb. Lemay was ordered not to bomb Hiroshima, to 'save' it for the atom bomb. (I think Lemay may not have been happy about that prohibition. I forget when he was briefed on the existence of the atomic bomb, which end any of his objection). (Secretary of War Stimson also banned any bombing, conventional or nuclear, of Kyoto; he considered it a cultural heritage site, maybe before the term was even invented).
      Nagasaki was a secondary target. Due to the hilly geography it was difficult to assess bomb damage. The primary target had some overcast and then more Zeros and flak than they wanted to deal with. The pilot flying the second bomb mission had the option of trying to make it to Nagasaki, fuel was getting low, or dropping a the bomb into the Pacific Ocean. (I forget if it would explode or sink. I think sink.)
      After the second bomb was dropped, a third one was ready to be shipped out. Truman gave the order not to ship it. Had the US waited longer after the Hiroshima bomb before dropping the second bomb, it is possible Japan may have surrendered. The US had enough plutonium for a few more bombs in several weeks, but the reactors in Hanover had problems. Other isotopes were 'poisoning' the reactors.

      To sum up: if the US had not dropped the atom bombs on Japan, conventional bombing would have destroyed any Japanese ability to wage war in a few months.

      Anyway, my source is The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes. I highly recommend this book; a great 'story' of atomic physics, the history both political and governmental (by that I mean what government actions were taken, as separate from the politics, which could be described as the decision making process) regarding the discovery of atomic science and technological inventions, like the bomb.
      Part of the book is a tour de force about :
      1. how humans started bombing cities and accepting the fact of massive civilian casualties. The death toll from fire bombing in several cities was higher than from the immediate death toll from the atomic bombs.
      2. the multiple conflicting motivations of individuals and societies/countries which allowed the use of the atomic bombs.
      3. on these two points, the end result to use the bombs cannot be attributed to one person (setting aside that Truman had the final authority), one argument, one concept etc. Rather, there were multiple and very complicated factors. For example, if some in the scientific community had been able to have some meetings with Truman, or if a different person was the Secretary of State, ..so many ifs.

      Unconditional surrender: Roosevelt used the term in a speech or press conference. He had been talking to Churchill, and speaking 'off-the-cuff', having misunderstood a point Churchill

    109. Re:old, really old, news by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      The bomb did not malfunction.

      Twist facts why not, you ought to be a politician!

      The bomb clearly malfunctioned three times at least and one more malfunction would of allowed detonation

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    110. Re: old, really old, news by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, part of it was that they wanted to see the effect on a city.

      That is the part which is inexcusable. If they just wanted to end the war there were plenty of other targets which had military value but fewer civilian casualties, or even just sparsely populated areas that could demonstrate the weapon's power. Instead they went straight for the maximum suffering, maximum casualties, maximum crime against humanity option.

      I'm sorry, but there can be no justification for testing nuclear weapons on human beings, even if they are your enemy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    111. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to think of it, most accidents involving nuclear power plants, after the early 'experimental' ones, were not 'supposed' to happen. The technology was 'supposed' to make accidents like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc, not possible.

      Of course, if you through some primates in who run the plants with the safety measures overridden (Chernobyl) or with cooling water pumps/lines out or service (Three Mile Island)....

      Anyone remember the Amazing Colossal Man/Women, giant ants, grasshopers. Jimmy Carter?

      SL

    112. Re: old, really old, news by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It was the start of a process, one where the terms could be negotiated. It suggests that a demonstration of atomic weapons would have been very effective too.

      Also, keep in mind that many Japanese, especially back then, were of the opinion that the US caused the war. Japan made the first attack, but it was an attack of desperation because it was believed that the US would inevitably start a naval assault which Japan's navy could not resist. In other words Japan did not want a war with the US, a war which it never really thought it could win outright and which was always assumed to end in a negotiated crease-fire.

      Don't mistake propaganda for policy either. There was a lot of hard talk coming from Japan, but that doesn't mean they would have fought to the last man.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    113. Re:old, really old, news by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It does suggest that quadruple redundancy is not enough though. If you get down to the last failsafe then you need more failsafes to have confidence in the future. In engineering you design for at least double, if not triple the worst failure mode imaginable.

      Of course in real life safety is offset against the need to actually detonate the bomb when you want to, so a quadruple failsafe system might be the best that is practically possible.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    114. Re:old, really old, news by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you get down to your last failsafe that suggests that you don't have enough failsafes, or that the ones you do have are not very good. When the failure mode is nuking North Carolina you don't just accept the last of four systems saving your bacon.

      It would be more interesting to know what the reaction to this event was. Were the failsafes improved?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    115. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it does. All nuclear bomb designs depend on neutron flux to initiate and sustain the reaction. Injecting something like boric acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boric_acid#Nuclear_power), a neutron poison, into the pit, underneath the tamper, or between the first and second stages, could significantly dampen the reaction. However, the efficacy would be tied to the bomb design, and since modern bomb designs try to be as compact as possible, there probably wouldn't be enough room to store a reservoir of a neutron poison as well as find a place where it could be injected in sufficient quantity; however, in principle, the idea is sound.

    116. Re:old, really old, news by fnj · · Score: 1

      ... the ideal thing to do would be for the bomb to "self-destruct" without detonating; by injecting chemicals causing the nuclear material to be rendered useless to any adversary, and permanently locking out the detonator assembly.

      It might be ideal, but it is a ludicrous fantasy. There are no magic "chemicals" you could deploy in such a situation to "cause the nuclear material to be rendered useless". You might as well say "wave a wand and disintegrate the contained fissionables into their harmless component subnuclear particles".

      There are very good politico-military reasons to have excellent safeguards against explosion in a event of a Goldsboro-type mishap even over enemy territory, because destroying unintended random locations in enemy territory is frowned upon. And that is part of the reason for the elaborate safeguards which were indeed built in. Looks like they weren't quite as reliable as they should have been, given the details of the close call at Goldsboro. However, since no accidental explosion of any US nuclear weapon has ever occurred all the way from the present back to Alamagordo, to include multiple instances of accidental jettisonings and crashes, those safeguards have in cold hard fact achieved their aim 100%.

      What you really should worry about protecting, if anything, is your design from reverse engineering, not the raw materials contained. If this is news to anyone I would be shocked, but in 1961 the only conceivable target for US nuclear weapons was the USSR, and the latter ALREADY POSSESSED hundreds to thousands of extremely high yield nuclear weapons. They would have been contemptuous of being presented with raw materials for making one more, even if handed over with bow and a flourish on a silver platter by a butler in tails.

    117. Re: old, really old, news by unitron · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that a lot of those million men would have died fighting suicidal women and children.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    118. Re: old, really old, news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We killed more civilians in Tokyo than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Would you really rather we carpet-bomb the city with standard munitions for 10x the destruction than a single more powerful bomb to make a point and end the war with many fewer civilian casualties?

    119. Re:old, really old, news by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The nukes developed during the Cold War weren't for destroying cities.

      Yes they were.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Totality
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot

      These plans for nuking the largest Soviet cities were as evil as it gets.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    120. Re:old, really old, news by unitron · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to have discontinued the 3 that failed and save even more money?

      : - )

      Or is it more dependent on in whose Congressional district which ones are made?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    121. Re: old, really old, news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Don't mistake propaganda for policy either.

      That failed us for Iraq. The main reason we thought he had WMDs is that Saddam said he did, mainly to prevent revolts or a coup.

      But for Japan, they struck first. A pre-emptive strike is a first strike. The US was "supporting" the UK, but had no popular support for full war. The US would have stayed out longer, had Japan not attacked, and the US might never have attacked first. If Japan didn't want a war with the US, attacking was a silly way to show it.

    122. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Budget cuts? For the american DoD? You're hillarious..

    123. Re:old, really old, news by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Even if the bomb detonated over an empty field it would still have made an impression.

      Yes, but not the intended impression. I believe there was some conversation (if not a formal debate) prior to Nagasaki and Hiroshima: Why not bomb Mount Fuji, and spare the lives of millions, and still have the effect of displaying military superiority?

      Apparently, merely detonating a bomb is not enough. You need to show beyond any doubt that it is what the enemy thinks it is, and that you have the will to use such a thing. Why two bombs? So there can me no mistaking what it was.

      President Truman took up to 250,000 human lives within a very short span, and alone carried that responsibility. No other human that has yet lived has ever caused as much death and destruction. The only thing to compare this to is a massive earthquake and resulting tsunami, a natural disaster.

      Regardless how one may feel conserning personal politics and a sitting president, being President is no cake walk. Even if one despises a President, one should always have reverence for the Office, and more respect for the man in it. President Truman was a human tsunami, and all Presidents since have the power to do even more damage than he if necessary.

    124. Re:old, really old, news by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to have discontinued the 3 that failed and save even more money?

      Sure... introducing the new model..... it has 3 failsafe switches, and to save money, all the electronic components have been manufactured in China, instead of the US and Japan.

    125. Re: old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      but nothing that would have gotten Japan out of China and disarmed or punished the leaders that started the war.

      ...or punished the Japanese war criminals (who swaggered about with a veneer of high civility) for unspeakable crimes committed against POWs and civilians.

      They, as with the Nazis, got what they deserved, no matter who says what.

      I have only immense respect for the American leaders of the time who made the hard choice to kill many Japanese innocents with the nukes, thereby sparing untold millions of American/Allied and other lives, all to stop a tyrannical murdering nation hellbent on conquering, raping and murdering. All supposedly for the glory of some cock sucking imperial "deity".

      How many more had to die trying to stop those fucking barbarians?

      Fuck 'em.


      The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
      Pro patria mori.
      ...and the mindlessly stupid Japanese civilians of the time drank that fucking cool aid lie by the bucket; and who cares what the cultural reason/excuse was.

    126. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the other three have since (again) been farmed out to the lowest bidders.

    127. Re:old, really old, news by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      .. and that's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki was nuked? =P, all the military activity and factories?

      Hiroshima and Nagaskai were not what I would call nuclear war scenarios. That was a conventional war ended by the use of nuclear weapons. That scenario only works when one side in a war has nuclear weapons - it isn't too likely to be repeated.

      If nuclear weapons start flying in WWIII they'll be used by both sides, and that would be a war the US could very well "lose" (the terms win/lose get a bit muddled when you're talking about a long-term where everybody is living in bronze-age conditions for the next century or so). In such a scenario you want to expend your non-bronze-age weapons with maximum effect during the hour-long period when you actually still have them to use, and you want to make sure that your enemy isn't left with too many ships/bombers/tanks to use against your spear-wielding militia.

    128. Re: old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US would have not admitted the error if it was truly an error.

    129. Re: old, really old, news by SonnyDog09 · · Score: 1

      On a side note it is interesting to note that japan were already under the process of surrender, and were committed to leaving the war roughly two weeks after the bombs dropped. They had their own terms, to be allowed to keep their emperor as the head of Japanese political heirarchy.

      Nothing says "I am ready for a peaceful resolution to the conflict" like the slogan "One Hundred Million Die Together."

      --
      Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
    130. Re:old, really old, news by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking to you, Grandpa.

    131. Re:old, really old, news by jjohn · · Score: 1

      I know, right? This "broken arrow" story isn't particularly new. I suppose the FOIA docs provide more terror-inducing details, but it is not a secret that a B-52 broke up over NC and drop two big nukes that failed to detonate.

    132. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And from the 1950's onward, a mission in the air by SAC, would have been armed to the teeth, with live munitions, because of a minor thing called the "cold War". even if the flight was just a training flight. Every incidental flight had the ability to "strike" the enemy. The buff was such a type of platform that every flight except for maintenance was armed to the teeth with whatever the latest or best killing machine was set to fly.
      Several years after that I used to watch the buffs dance in MND.

    133. Re:old, really old, news by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      or put it another way, a simple switch on a nuclear bomb failed as it fell to earth, rendering it inoperable. doesn't inspire much confidence for when it is used in war.

      Granted that a technical element failed us here, but it's not fair to condemn the whole program because of one slip up.

    134. Re: old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even back then the bomb was a message to the Soviet Union.

      Japan had been firebombed mercilessly before the nuke,entire cities wiped out almost as effectively and alot more cheaply.

      Waste of time and money nuking them for destructive purposes,but not a waste as a warning to Russia.

    135. Re:old, really old, news by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I get what you are saying but you last line is a bit off. MOST bullets used in warfare are for suppression.

      --
      Good-bye
    136. Re: old, really old, news by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      At the time, Japan was in Total War. Civilians become targets at that point. The Firebombing of Tokyo was actually worse then the atomic attacks.

      --
      Good-bye
    137. Re:old, really old, news by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      You are a fool if you think Truman bears the mark of 'Most destructive ever'.

      --
      Good-bye
    138. Re:old, really old, news by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Its all in the timing mechanism.Critical events take EXTREMELY precise shaped charges and timing sequences to work. Make the shaped charges go off in the wrong order(which can be setup as a failsafe) and you have a fizzle.

      --
      Good-bye
    139. Re:old, really old, news by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      > the "switch could easily be shorted by an electrical jolt", without specifying where such a jolt would come from, or ever actually seeing the switch in question.

      That was exactly what started the fire on the USS Forrestal that killed 134 sailors and crippled a front line carrier, nearly sinking it. An electrical surge when switching an aircraft over to internal power launched a rocket, striking another aircraft, puncturing and igniting it's fuel tank.

       

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    140. Re: old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you decides to not only punish the leaders but 80.000 people in one go by dropping two h-bombs ?

    141. Re: old, really old, news by smpoole7 · · Score: 1

      > he fact remains that the US chose to two densely populated civilian targets, with the intent to massacre as many civilians as possible ...

      Umm ... yes and no. I don't question your beliefs -- the images of people dying from radiation poisoning haunt me as well -- but in your zeal, you're ignoring some historical facts.

      For the record, Hiroshima was an army headquarters, very much involved in the planning for the final defense of the Japanese Islands. Nagasaki was the home of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and an key port for the Imperial Japanese Navy. Neither were strictly "civilian" targets .... certainly not nearly as much so as Dresden in Germany.

      Tokyo was more of a civilian target, and was firebombed extensively prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can decide if suddenly killing 100,000 with an atomic weapon is worse than repeatedly fire-bombing many other cities in Japan. I'm not going to defend it either way, I'm just pointing out the historically inaccurate (or even revisionist) claims that you're parroting.

      Germany killed millions simply because they were of the wrong ethnic group. Russia killed millions prior to the war for no better reason. War is a nasty business any way you cut it, and politics makes for reprehensible bedfellows sometimes. If you want to start pointing fingers, and if you're going to be fair about it, you'll need about three extra hands. :)

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    142. Re: old, really old, news by Alef · · Score: 1

      You can call it whatever you want, but putting a label on a situation doesn't somehow suspend moral. There are choices in a war just like there are at any other time, and people are responsible for them. If the Japanese had possessed nuclear weapons, and used them to obliterate New York and Washington before the war ended, do you think that would have been found acceptable?

      I get that people sometimes do horrible things when they are under pressure. I can even accept it, if those who are responsible have the conscience and dignity enough to fully recognise their actions and their consequences, and deal with their history honestly without rationalising or looking for excuses.

      I'm not really sure what your point is regarding the firebombing of Tokyo, the scale of which I am already fully aware. Did you think I was okay with it, and by extension should be okay with the atomic attacks?

    143. Re: old, really old, news by Alef · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know that the US firebombed Tokyo and several other cities, and that those bombings caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Why do you presume that I think they were any better?

      I also don't get what Germany and Russia have got to do with anything. We are discussing the nuclear bombings of Japan. If I were discussing Russian history with Russians, you bet I would be pointing fingers! There is nothing precluding me from recognising more than one barbarity. As far as Germany is concerned, I wouldn't need to have this discussion with a German when it comes to the holocaust.

      Honestly, both of those arguments have got to be among the lousiest you could find. The first basically amounts to something like "Yeah well, we also did much worse things. So there!", and the second is what I would expect form a child, trying to excuse a mischief by the fact that other children did something similar.

    144. Re:old, really old, news by icebike · · Score: 1

      It took many more failures in the chain of events than a simple surge because hundreds of thousands of fully armed aircraft have gone through power cut over before and after that event with no similar occurrence.
      Were all the safety ribbons pulled? Why were the pins pulled below decks? Why was the missile hot and ready to fire?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    145. Re: old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you forget a thing here. First of all, Japanese culture is extremely hierarchical. The population will follow orders made by its leaders, even if those orders are bizarre. Second of all, Japanese culture considers it more honorable to die in action, rather than surrender. Kamikaze pilots are a good example of that. Now, turn those two things into policy during a lost war, and what does one get: a country ordering its population to commit mass suicide. Which is exactly what happened on the Okinawa islands during the Battle of Okinawa. During a land invasion, they might not have fought until the very last man, but they would probably have come very close to it indeed.

    146. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      technically, considering that the other bomb did not exhibit any of the arming behavior (parachute, etc) It could be presumed that all of the safeties worked in it.

      Thus the failure rate would be 1 out of 8 in this catastrophic scenario that probably isn't very indicative of real world conditions. I can sleep peacefully at night with that, especially considering that the human element involved in their use is much more dangerous.

    147. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP has a point.

      If you're thinking of Hitler or Stalin, who both killed millions, their atrocities spanned years and decades, and neither acted alone nor accepted responsibility for what they'd done. On the contrary, they denied responsibility, and denied the atrocities occurred. They also weren't at war with the masses of people they killed... so it's just plain mass murder. You can say President Truman didn't build the bomb himself and didn't himself deploy it, but I imagine he would disagree with you. He alone commissioned it, and he alone ordered it's deployment. You are a fool if you think Truman wasn't the most destructive man.

    148. Re:old, really old, news by mrchew1982 · · Score: 1

      This was the reason that on little boy the bombardier practiced for days arming and disarming the bomb. The original plan was to arm it before takeoff by installing the powder charges. He was terrified of the plane going down and the bomb taking out the airfield and base. He spent a lot of time on the ground practicing climbing down into the bomb bay, removing the cover, inserting the charges and reinstalling the cover. For his efforts he died young of cancer.

    149. Re:old, really old, news by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      Some of the arming crews decided to speed things up by plugging in the pigtails that controlled the missiles early, so they could launch aircraft faster. That was one major mistake. The grounding plug that prevented a premature firing was also either removed early, or fell off. Both were not supposed to happen until just before launch. And the use of ancient bombs with noticeably deteriorating explosives (which made them both unstable and more powerful) greatly magnified the disaster. Finally, only some of the crew were trained fire fighters and most of them (along with a lot of their equipment) were taken out when the first bomb went off.

      Fortunately both the A-bomb broken arrow and the Forrestal fire resulted in major changes intended to prevent a similar incident from reoccurring. Tragically it took 134 lives in the later case, and very nearly an awful lot more with the near nuclear detonation.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    150. Re: old, really old, news by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      You're wrong, but there is admittedly more to it. In addition to forcing the Japanese to surrender, the bombs were used to keep the Soviets out. They were imminently prepared for a ground invasion by August, and the use of the weapons was authorized by the author of our first containment policy President Harry Truman.

      I'm not so sure about that. By that point in the war, the USSR had the most powerful army in the world, but its navy sucked. Especially in the Pacific, since quite a few of its ships had been sent to reinforce the Baltic. I was poking around on some alternate history websites a month ago, and it looks like if the bomb hadn't been used, the Russians probably wouldn't have been able to invade Hokkaido until the spring of 1946. And, even then, Hokkaido is basically the Alaska of Japan. The Russians might have been able to help with the invasion of Honshu later in 1946, but, if so, they'd probably would have been doing it in American and Canadian vessels.

      If we hadn't used the bomb, there wouldn't be too much "North Japan" to worry about (just Hokkaido, which, present day, only has a population of 5 million), but Korea might have been unified under the Communists.

    151. Re: old, really old, news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And 100,000+ civilian casualties in Tokyo was perfectly acceptable, because the bombs were smaller?

      I honestly don't get it.

    152. Re: old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. It was not an atrocity. Nothing in the laws of warfare accepted at the time prohibited this. Read, for example, the Law of Land Warfare. Throughout human history, civilians have suffered as a result of military action, often in huge numbers. A lot of nasty things can happen to civilians in war, and are condoned by the laws of land warfare because far worse things tend to happen when war is prolonged: there is merit in ending wars as quickly as possible. Real war is not nice. It's not like some pleasant video game with no real consequences that you play in your parent's basement. It's ugly, it's nasty, it's terrible, but sometimes it is necessary.

      2. Japanese factories produced weapons that Japanese solders would use to kill US and Allied soldiers, not to mention huge numbers of civilians in places like China. Putting a stop to it was doing the human race a service, and saved many lives. That meant that theoretically civilian installations became legitimate military targets.

      3. There was no distinction in Japan between civilian and military targets, because the Japanese didn't see a need to make that distinction. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained substantial military installations, as well as factories that supported the war. The civilians there had the entire war to find someplace else to be for the remainder of the war. The Japanese government had the entire war to organize an evacuation. They had all the warning any rational person could expect that cities with military installations were targets, and that Allied air power could flatten those cities.

      4. There weren't enough materials for the other two bombs. Decency wasn't even an issue, because there was nothing wrong with the decision to drop the bombs in the first place.

      Study the Allied and Japanese casualties going towards Japan. Plot them on a graph. Don't forget all the civilian casualties in Okinawa. There's a very clear trend. The atomic bombs were responsible for a small fraction of 1% of the total number of people killed during the war. Allied casualties alone in an invasion would have far exceeded the number of people killed by the bombs. Japanese casualties would have been worse.

      The US government had a responsibility first and foremost to the US children that would have died in an invasion of Japan, and their parents. That alone would have justified using the bombs.

      After you've done the basic historical research, so you'll be looking at this question from the perspective of having facts, instead of starting from wishful thinking about how the world should be if we all lived in a perfect world and everybody was nice to each other, you might want to look into the number of people Stalin killed. The Russians were, after all, only weeks or months away from an invasion of Japan. Once the Russians came in, any rational person would expect far more Japanese to have been killed, just by the Communists alone, than by the atomic bombs.

      5. Most of the comments made long after the war by historical figures were a response to the horrors of radiation, and the threat of the cold war, when the nuclear threat had gotten way out of hand. These comments do not match comments made the same figures during the war, and can be viewed as merely an attempt at political correctness appropriate to the day. In short, they are unreliable witnesses at best.

      It was an ugly situation, but the decision made was the best possible one for everyone involved (short of a spontaneous revolution in Japan that deposed the government and ended the war), and that still would have been true had they really understood the effects of radiation (which they didn't).

    153. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a few hundred meters, more like 2000-3000 meters (for megaton class bomb).

      It always seemed counterintuitive that detonation at such height is more effective, but I think it's just counterintuitive because it's hard to grasp how big the bombs really are.

    154. Re:old, really old, news by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Roosevelt firebombed the shit out of Tokyo, which killed more people. You are allowing the spectre of nuclear weaponry cloud your judgement.

      --
      Good-bye
    155. Re:old, really old, news by fnj · · Score: 1

      I tend to believe you would have to do, not only significant engineering, but real physical testing to perfect the yield of the fizzle to just what you want it to be, so you don't end up with either relatively intact fissile material, or too big of a kaboom. Physical testing is a real no-no nowadays. Also, a fizzle by its nature is apt to create a lot of radioactive contamination, which is far from ideal. I do think it is best to just make sure there can't be any nuclear discharge whatsoever unless it is intended.

      To this end they did pretty darned good, but arguably the assuredness level should have been even higher. And I rather presume it is, by now.

    156. Re:old, really old, news by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      All nuclear weapons have always worked that way. Even the one in this incident.

    157. Re:old, really old, news by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to have discontinued the 3 that failed and save even more money? : - )

      The paper was classified, so the engineering intern reviewing the design, didn't get to see it. After studying the design, he realized that money could be saved by reducing the number of switches, but at potential risks.

      So his boss got the report; ignored the bit about theoretical risk and just said "make it so"; big fat bonus for the exec.

      Or is it more dependent on in whose Congressional district which ones are made?

      Good point; the switches aren't used in the design anymore, but they still have to be purchased and stored. That's just how the government works --- they cut out the piece, but they still have to spend the money authorized to buy parts from companies in the proper congressional districts

    158. Re:old, really old, news by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Old nukes were just hard to get to go off, and were intrinsically fairly fail-safe. Unless the initiator erroneously sent a pulse, at which point you were probably pretty well boned. New nukes actually make sure they're within expected operating parameters before so much as unlocking the firing data. Things like using clocks and accelerometers to measure "How long have I been in free-fall?" before allowing a bomb to detonate, or a missile checking to see if it's been under several gees of acceleration long enough to be clear of its launch site. Wikipedia talks about deliberate misplacement of initiators, so a simple simultaneous pulse will result in no significant fission yield (or at least a fizzle). Without loading very specific timing variations for every single initiator, modern American weapons cannot reliably be detonated.

    159. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long did that take? How many planes? How many bombs was that, exactly?

      It is your perception that is clouded.

    160. Re: old, really old, news by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Because, you know, it would have been a shame to fly all the way out there without dropping a bomb on someone.

      An interesting example of projecting contemporary anti-American rhetoric backwards in time 68 years into the middle of a world war which had been going on for years.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    161. Re: old, really old, news by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      The war itself was an atrocity. So what?

      If the Axis had won, they'd have executed all sorts of members of the Allied militaries under all sorts of pretenses and accusations.

      It's so easy to sit here 68 years later and pass judgment on them. Neither of us were alive then. Neither of us can truly fathom what life was like then, what with the atrocities all over the world. If the bombs had not been dropped, just as many, if not more, civilians would have died, along with many more non-civilians.

      But oh, those evil Americans!

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    162. Re: old, really old, news by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Out with it: What do you think they should have done then? Established a no-fly zone and called it quits?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    163. Re:old, really old, news by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      If the bomb failed to detonate, why would a wireless signal be able to make it detonate?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    164. Re:old, really old, news by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If the bomb failed to detonate, why would a wireless signal be able to make it detonate?

      Activation of a trigger mechanism controlled by a secondary logic board; only activated via wireless signal.

    165. Re: old, really old, news by Alef · · Score: 1

      People are not evil, deeds are. There is no point in passing judgement on individuals who are long gone, but it is important to recognise what they did in the name of a nation and a people that is still here today. This isn't limited to the US, just because we happen to be discussing that now, nor to the nuclear bombings for that matter, as far as historical events are concerned.

    166. Re: old, really old, news by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      The question is which would have been more atrocious: dropping the nuclear bombs, or the "conventional" warfare of invading the mainland?

      Here's another consideration: nuclear weapons were going to exist whether they were used then or not. Without a graphic demonstration of their power, it might have been more likely that they would have been used later in history. Now I'm not saying that new weapons should be demonstrated on people simply for the sake of discouraging their future use; but in this particular circumstance, it seems likely that more people would have died had they not been used to end the war quickly, so that plus this consideration...

      Anyway, what do you think they should have done instead?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    167. Re: old, really old, news by Alef · · Score: 1

      I think they should have not dropped the bombs. And if they did, I think they should have dropped only one, and not on a densely populated civilian target.

      Underneath your question lies the assumption that the circumstances somehow forced them to commit these acts, and that they didn't have an option. I don't agree to that.

      I also don't buy the utilitarian argument. Not only is it speculative to the extreme (and I could argue that the war would have ended anyway), but I find it fallacious on its very principle. If not, why not use nukes in more wars? And why not use biological and chemical weapons as well? Why not rape the wives and kill the children of enemy soldiers that refuse to give up, to break their morale?

      It seems to me that you are rationalising, because the idea of the US having done inexcusable acts of barbarity doesn't fit with self-image of being a righteous nation under God (or whatever you want to call it).

    168. Re: old, really old, news by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Of course they had an option. What I've read suggests the option was between dropping the bombs and having a protracted invasion which would have resulted in far more deaths. Do you think such an invasion wouldn't have resulted in as many deaths? Or do you think the Japanese government would have surrendered quickly after an invasion began? Aren't those also speculative?

      Why not use more nukes and other WMDs? There hasn't been a war on anywhere near the scale of WW2 since then, nor for anywhere near the same reasons. I don't think that's a fair comparison. And your comment about raping is rather silly.

      It seems to me that you are rationalising, because the idea of the US having done inexcusable acts of barbarity doesn't fit with self-image of being a righteous nation under God (or whatever you want to call it).

      Nope, you're projecting onto me. The USA has done plenty of wrong things.

      I just find it a bit rich that you accuse the USA of "having done inexcusable acts of barbarity" by dropping the two bombs when the inexcusable acts of barbarity committed by both Germany and Japan are well documented, and they were trying to take over the world.

      In the end, it was a judgment call. We have no alternate universe with which to compare history. And you haven't posited any alternatives other than inaction.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    169. Re: old, really old, news by Alef · · Score: 1

      If you argument is that an atrocious act somehow resulted in the smallest amount of total (civilian?) deaths, compared to whatever events could have occurred otherwise -- an argument which, like I said, I don't even agree to on principle -- then certainly the burden of proof is on you to show that. Why bomb two cities and not one? Why civilian targets and not military? Why not wait longer between the first bomb and the second? Why not bomb mount Fuji or some other symbolic object instead? Why not warn the inhabitants before bombing? There are hundreds of alternatives, if you bother to think about it.

      I just find it a bit rich that you accuse the USA of "having done inexcusable acts of barbarity" by dropping the two bombs when the inexcusable acts of barbarity committed by both Germany and Japan are well documented [...]

      Yes, for the umpteenth time, I know that! What does that have to do with anything? This is a discussion about nuclear weapons. What's with this pre-school level logic that keeps coming up; do you believe two wrongs make one right?

      Furthermore, the difference is that if you gather a bunch of Germans and ask them about it, they will admit to that description, which is the entire point of my argument.

      Since this discussion is going in circles, this will be my final post in this thread. Sorry about that, but I just don't have the time for it.

    170. Re: old, really old, news by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      If I recall where there not Japanese diplomats in Washington during the pearl harbor attack talking about preventing the US entering the Pacific Theater?

    171. Re:old, really old, news by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that most H bombs are dial a yield. Could the Hydrogen isotope Gas not vent to reduce destructive power of a blast or was this type of design created later? Also It was my understanding the bombs had manual items that where inserted mid-fight. At least the first two plain old nuks...

    172. Re:old, really old, news by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      It's real easy to have both happen.
      Remember these planes had no computer controls.
      Pilot error or a faulty joint or control linkage and it's over. Tail spins normal rip a plane to pieces....

    173. Re:old, really old, news by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Do the dead care how many sorties it was?

      --
      Good-bye
    174. Re:old, really old, news by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      No an EMP burst 150ish miles up is the worst... Worst yet is if you have the chance to collapse a part of the earths magnetic field inward thus amplifying you 50MT device by at least one order of magnitude.

      No more computers, cars, electronics, or power grid over a huge area. Doing this is extremely stupid... But it was an idea that went around for a long time.

    175. Re: old, really old, news by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Just general anti-militarism, actually. I'm sure any military the world over would have acted the same. It doesn't make it any more pleasant.

    176. Re:old, really old, news by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      That's not the exact definition of "failsafe", but rather normal "safety".

      A design is considered "failsafe" when even the failure mode is "safe".

      --
      bickerdyke
    177. Re:old, really old, news by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      And why shouldn't the bombs go off if the plane goes down?

      Because the plane might go down over North Carolina. And you never know when having a North Carolina may become handy, so it's better to keep it.

      --
      bickerdyke
    178. Re: old, really old, news by dave420 · · Score: 1

      What happened in Tokyo was a massacre, and indefensible. What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were experiments on humans, and were not just indefensible, but morally bankrupt and the sign of pure, degenerate evil. The former could at least be argued as being a requirement of war, the latter in no way, shape, or form was anything approaching that.

    179. Re: old, really old, news by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Specifically, Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd General Army. The atomic bomb killed off the head of that army. The command staff, logistics, and a significant portion of the army itself was killed off. One bomb essentially destroyed one of the two defense armies for mainland Japan. Hiroshima was certainly a military objective it's just so easy to miss that in light of the civilian casualties.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    180. Re:old, really old, news by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Ante Pavelic was responsible for the behaviors in Croatic & Serbia that lead to over 500,000 deaths. They were among the most brutal during the war. The Jews systematically executed by the Nazis don't even come close to the atrocities committed by the Ustashi. The only thing that the Nazi's really had going for them were quantity.

      This included such horrors as forcing Serb Orthodox to dig a mass grave for themselves, after which the Croats would hack them to pieces with axes. In another similar event, an Orthodox priest for forced to say rites for all the people as they were killed. The 2nd to last person killed was the priest's own son. This ended with the priest being skinned alived.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    181. Re:old, really old, news by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Civilization has proved that spearmen can take down battleships.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    182. Re: old, really old, news by Quila · · Score: 1

      Just before the bombing, Japan had rejected the Potsdam Declaration. Japan was recalling of soldiers from China to bolster the expected attack from the Allies. They had millions of soldiers and sailors in place, and millions more civilians trained as militia.Their plan was to inflict such mass casualties, such horror, that we'd back off and negotiate a more favorable surrender.

    183. Re: old, really old, news by Quila · · Score: 1

      The movie Flags of Our Fathers did a pretty good job of showing the dire straits the US was in at the time, how desperate the leaders were to sell bonds to continue funding the war. We needed the war to end, and fast. We might not have been able to pull off a mainland invasion.

    184. Re: old, really old, news by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The former could at least be argued as being a requirement of war, the latter in no way, shape, or form was anything approaching that.

      The fact that people do argue the latter was a requirement of war proves you wrong. Reality trumps ideology.

    185. Re: old, really old, news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The US nuked two cities that were valid military targets. After the first was dropped, the Japanese government realized quite clearly what had happened, but refrained from action on the grounds that the US wouldn't have another nuke for a long time. This meant the US would still invade, and the plan to inflict a high cost on Allied advances was still valid. If the US had been producing only U-235 bombs, there would not have been another for a long time. After the dropping of the second, plutonium, bomb, the Japanese realized the US could have many more bombs, and then moved to surrender.

      That night, there was an attack on the Imperial palace with the intent to stop the surrender. Fortunately, it failed. There were reprisal attacks on the surrender-leaning ministers. Nobody knew what the Minister of War, Anami, was going to do, and whether he was going to stop the surrender. (He actually issued the orders and committed seppuki. Nobody has a good idea what he was thinking during that important time.)

      In short, nobody really knows what would have forced the Japanese to surrender. Clearly, the first nuke wasn't it. Various people have made various guesses, some more plausible than others, usually suggesting another few months of war at least. (The Japanese government was not negotiating anything at the time. They approached the Soviets as a go-between, but never could decide for what. They took quick action against Japanese diplomats seen as trying to negotiate a peace.) It's hard to estimate civilian deaths with a delayed surrender, but probably many more Chinese civilians would have died as a result of the longer war than Japanese military and civilians who died in the nuclear bombings. Considering the Japanese economy at the time, and the planned Allied invasions, probably many more Japanese civilians would have died without the nukes.

      After a good deal of reading, discussion, and thought, I think that not nuking both those cities would likely have increased the civilian death count. I think the immoral choice would have been to not use the nukes, and allow further deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians while the war continued.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    186. Re:old, really old, news by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You did not "typey" very well.
      You said "A Bomber crashing is supposed to be in the design scope of the munition. A mid-air collision or any other type of disaster should never send active bombs downward." well before you started excepting combat missions.

    187. Re:old, really old, news by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Try reading the post. I included detecting being over friendly ground as well as preventing midair detonation.

    188. Re:old, really old, news by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Try reading the post. I included detecting being over friendly ground as well as preventing midair detonation.
      Any other friendlies joining in on your run will have contact with you during the run. And modern bombers operate far above the blast ceiling. Hitting a target on the ground - early or not - will not result in your friendlies being caught in the blast. They won't be following a bomber and flying under the blast ceiling.

    189. Re:old, really old, news by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Try reading the post. I included detecting being over friendly ground as well as preventing midair detonation.
      But this is slashdot.

    190. Re:old, really old, news by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen a mid-air collision? What do you think happens to anything on board a plane?

      Are you confused because a mid-air collision is a type of crash?

      Don't answer, it won't defend your position.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    191. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you're going to change the constraints of the OP's argument to suit your argument... by proxy, Jesus killed far more than that, and did it without intent. I think the point was efficiency, i.e. the number of dead in such a short span with two bombs (granted, they were enormous, and enourmously expensive). Also, I don't think the argument had to do with anti-nuke sentiments, but with the awesome power and responsibility a President must incur as a tremendous individual sacrifice for U.S. citizens.

    192. Re: old, really old, news by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      My grandpa once casually mentioned that he was on a boat headed to invade Japan when the bomb hit. After it hit they turned around.

      Supposedly the beach they were going to storm had predicted casualties in the 60-80% range because of how heavily fortified it was. I have no idea if that is true or if that is what they were just told though.

    193. Re: old, really old, news by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you argument is that an atrocious act somehow resulted in the smallest amount of total (civilian?) deaths, compared to whatever events could have occurred otherwise -- an argument which, like I said, I don't even agree to on principle -- then certainly the burden of proof is on you to show that.

      Take a look at the fanatical defence of Okinawa, which was only a colony and a reluctant one at that. Extrapolate that to the mainland - actual proper sacred Japan.

      Or google for it. Plenty of people have done the calculation.

      Why bomb two cities and not one?

      They did bomb one, and nobody took any notice.

      Why civilian targets and not military?

      Already debunked.

      Why not wait longer between the first bomb and the second?

      If you haven't noticed you were nuked after two days, you aren't going to figure it out in any amount of time.

      Why not bomb mount Fuji or some other symbolic object instead?

      Ha ha, silly roundeyes missed Tokyo, ha ha!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    194. Re: old, really old, news by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I heard similar from an old dude once. He was going to be driving a DD Sherman. That's an inflatable boat where the tank forms the base of the hull.

      Not unsurprisingly given the inherent features of the design they have casualty rates like that even with nobody shooting at them!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    195. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that there where four switches and three failed, does NOT really mean that the device was armed and would have initiated an atomic explosion had the fourth switch failed. Atomic weapons are somewhat complicated to blow up because they involved shaped charges and extremely fine grained timing on initialing the device. Hydrogen bombs are even more so. If during a aircraft crashing and fire three of four switches where damaged enough to be shorted one would have to assume the mechanical structures of the device, along with the electronics and wiring would ALL need to survive the crash, at least long enough to have all four switches fail, trigger the initiating explosions and set off the atomic chain reaction and subsequent fusion reaction.

      Atomic weapons are NOT going to survive crashing into the ground and still be able to detonate. It might blow itself to pieces (literally) as the high explosives cook off and detonate, but in all the bomb designs I've seen, you either have some pretty difficult to time detonation sequences or a delicate mechanical system that won't survive an impact with the ground. Atomic devices simply don't go off by accident.... And if anything, are more likely not to go off when triggered than anything else.

    196. Re:old, really old, news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why shouldn't the bombs go off if the plane goes down?

      Maybe because they were over their own country?

      It is undesirable for any bombs to go off except when they are dropped on their desired targets. Conventional weapons are thus not armed until just prior (or sometimes after) they are released. Atomic weapons are even more critical in this regard, namely because of the massive damage they can cause if detonated in the wrong place.

    197. Re:old, really old, news by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      Sorry if that came off blase. I would much rather have the bombs not be built in the first place and ferried around in bombers constantly. My point is that he was getting into the well 4 aren't safe there should be 5 which is irrelavent. You will always end up with a catastrophy, dangerous or near dangerous situation occuring whenever you take risk how ever small on a large scale.

  4. Yikes! by adisakp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA: "the final switch that prevented disaster could easily have been shorted by an electrical jolt, leading to a nuclear burst."

    1. Re:Yikes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the low-voltage arming switch could have been shorted by a high-voltage arc of some sort. So, basically, if the accidentally-deployed nuclear weapon had been struck by lightning on the way down, it might have activated the arming circuit, assuming it didn't just fry the thing. I'm thinking that there's probably a higher chance of a devastating meteor impact... launched by giant space-bugs.

    2. Re:Yikes! by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm thinking that there's probably a higher chance of a devastating meteor impact... launched by giant space-bugs.

      I think I saw a documentary on that once.
      Surprising amount of tits featured for an astrophysics documentary.

    3. Re:Yikes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or you know become charged as it fell threw clouds?

    4. Re:Yikes! by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd like to know more...

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:Yikes! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Or static charges from the air rush while falling, especially if there were low humidity at the time.

    6. Re:Yikes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only if you are a citizen...

  5. I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...if it had gone off? The Ruskies?

    1. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      South Carolina.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by pspahn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Think about it... if you were the Russians back then, and you were going to drop a nuke on the US, would North Carolina be at the top of your list?

      I'll give you Fort Bragg, but outside of that, what there would be worth risking a counter strike?

      In all likelihood they would have just blamed Bush.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    3. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Those damned Yankees. To arms, To arms in Dixie!

    4. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that would be one too many Bruskies consumed by certain Amerikanskies.

    5. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Ft. Bragg is the home of the 101st Airborne division and is most surely a high value target, as is Ft. Benning, and Ft. Hood. There are very few Military bases not considered high value targets.

      Just to make the NSA happy, this is public knowledge and is not classified or sensitive information.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      South Carolina.

      Jesse Helms.

    7. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to make the NSA happy, this is public knowledge and is not classified or sensitive information.

      don't worry, you're on our list anyway.

    8. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bush

    9. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Historical documents show a silver, very fast car move away, only minutes before the bomb went off. They didnt think much of it at the time, but today, 2013, we know the truth. Bin Laden's DeLorean was discovered in his garage in pakistan."

    10. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by jimbrooking · · Score: 1

      Damned lib'rel Democrats.

    11. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Colin+Douglas+Howell · · Score: 2

      Well, at the time the air base near the crash site was the home of a B-52 bomber wing. The Strategic Air Command had dispersed its bombers among a bunch of smaller wings scattered across the country; obviously that made the bombers harder to destroy, but it also increased the number of potential strategic targets.

    12. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by skapunker21 · · Score: 1

      Ft. Campbell is home to the 101st Airborne Division, it sits next to Oak Grove, KY and Clarksville, TN.

    13. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, North Carolina sided with the North during the Civil War. In fact, that's the whole reason there's a North Carolina to begin with.

    14. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me son, but Fort Bragg is home to the 82nd Airborne Division. The only true airborne infantry division still active. The 101st is now classified as Air Calvary as they don't make combat jumps, but arrive via chopper.

      And Bragg is far more important than just being home to my beloved 82nd. It is also home to the Joint Special Operations Command, components of SOCOM, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Delta Force), U.S. Army Special Operations Command, and various other special warfare units and commands.

      Then there is also the sub installation Camp Mackall, the primary training facility for joining the Special Forces as well as being home to the Resistance Training Laboratory. That facility is a mock prisoner-of-war camp in which special operations forces soldiers are trained in resistance techniques for use if captured by enemy combatants. It's also home to "Nasty Nick", the most difficult obstacle course in the U.S. Army.

      Pope Air Force Base is attached to Fort Bragg also. If my ass is on the line, the air crews there are who I want bringing me my men and equipment. You could replace the planes but not the expertise they provide in delivering troops and supplies without need of an airfield.

      And back to the subject of Goldsboro, if it got nuked you could say goodbye to Camp Lejune Marine Base and Cherry Point Marine Air Station due to fallout and being down river from Goldsboro.

    15. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      You're confusing North Carolina with West Virginia. North Carolina existed prior to the Civil War and was even a slave state.

    16. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC who posted the "to arms..." comment. It's pretty hilarious that you think that. Sounds like you belong on Jay Leno's "jay walking" segment, which I also have a hard time believing is real. I mean, come on, you'd act stupid to get on The Tonight Show, right? Anyway... that would have put NC far behind enemy lines since Virginia was part of the Confederacy and many battles were fought there.

    17. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are correct, and I was incorrect that it's the home of the 82nd Airborne (I was discharged 2 decades ago). I was not going to list any of the special ops, because Bragg's web page lists no Units that I could find, neither does Benning. Certain special operations units at Bragg 'may' be considered confidential (such as Delta).

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Correct, I was incorrect. 82nd and Airborne training is at Bragg.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    19. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, no surprise to me.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    20. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Gman2725 · · Score: 1

      It's all good. I feel less slighted knowing you served too and weren't just making a statement as a misinformed civ. The 101st is a hell of a unit as well. They earned their due as well. Only Delta's ops are classified. Their existence at the base is stated on several publicly accessible websites as are the other commands I mentioned. There are several other non acknowledged units stationed there , as well as foreign forces of a covert nature partaking in training.

    21. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Second War of Northern Aggression.

    22. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by unitron · · Score: 1

      Bragg, Seymore Johnson (where they had lots of B-52s), the world's largest amphibious training base (Camp Lejune), MCAS Cherry Point, MCAS New River, Pope AFB, near Bragg, various Coast Guard facilities, and that's just the stuff in Eastern NC.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    23. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by unitron · · Score: 1

      Bragg, Seymore Johnson (where they had lots of B-52s), the world's largest amphibious training base (Camp Lejune), MCAS Cherry Point, MCAS New River, Pope AFB, near Bragg, various Coast Guard facilities, and that's just the stuff in Eastern NC.

      I knew I'd misspell Seymour Johnson one of these days.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    24. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by unitron · · Score: 1

      Well, the Neuse might flow past Goldsboro to somewhere near Cherry Point/Havelock, but Lejune has it's own river, although it shares it with MCAS New River.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    25. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      In all likelihood they would have just blamed Bush.

      Bush was fifteen years old. It was Kennedy's third day in office so they'd probably have blamed either him or Eisenhower.

    26. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I was one of the last to wear the 6th Cavalry crossed cutlasses. The 6th was merged into the a support command (503rd or 513?), and our nickname for their badge was "The Flaming Assholes" (obviously not just due to the patch design). I always liked the "Screaming Eagles" of the 101st too.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    27. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To quote Wikipedia:

      ...the state had just over 30,000 Free Negroes. The state did not vote to join the Confederacy...North Carolina also supplied about 15,000 Union troops.[53] Elected in 1862, Governor Zebulon Baird Vance tried to maintain state autonomy against Confederate President Jefferson Davis in Richmond...North Carolinians had refused to support the Confederacy...Approximately 2,000 North Carolinians from western North Carolina enlisted in the Union Army and fought for the North in the war...

      Essentially you are so wrong I'm surprised you even bothered to post. It is clear, from any reading of history, that North Carolina was the Carolina that didn't want anything to do with the Confederacy and was totally on the North's side. But what should I expect from someone who watches Jay Leno?

    28. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Think about it... if you were the Russians back then, and you were going to drop a nuke on the US, would North Carolina be at the top of your list?

      I'll give you Fort Bragg, but outside of that, what there would be worth risking a counter strike?

      Well, this was the Cold War, there was the air of mutually assured destruction. If the US bombed North Carolina, the Soviets would have bombed Chelyabinsk.

      Since NC was ALMOST bombed, the aliens sought to maintain peace by way of ALMOST destroying Cheylyabinsk with an asteroid, if a bit late...

      Your puny intellects can't fathom the enormity of the red tape required to file a bombardment requisition form 37b. Frackin' Vogons, I swear.

    29. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Both North & South Carolina were Confederate states. North Carolina was in the batch to join, but it was only 6 months after South Carolina.

      You're just cherry-picking some wikipedia passages that amounts to a lot of nonsense. North Carolina joined the CSA one month after Virginia.

  6. Something New? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

  7. Nuclear war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it had happened, would they have blamed it on the Russians?

  8. Wish they had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe the South would have finally surrendered.

  9. joshua by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and some person will get a fake death as well.

  10. Re:Ironical justice by exigentsky · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't be justice because those people would have had nothing to do with the massacre in Hiroshima. That logic doesn't follow at all.

  11. Here's what's new by gman003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The accident has been known about for some time (I first read about it while researching a story I was writing - the protagonist had to build a nuclear bomb, so I was looking for lost and unrecovered nuclear material).

    We have also had reports that one of the bombs was nearly armed. These were officially denied by the military, but it was confirmed by several military members.

    The new development is that the documentation saying "yeah, that bomb nearly went off" has been declassified. Basically the same deal as the Area 51 thing a while back - everyone knew, but now everyone is "allowed" to know.

    1. Re:Here's what's new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the Secretary of Defense said more or less the same thing at a press conference in 1981: http://www.ibiblio.org/bomb/story.html

    2. Re:Here's what's new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

      Five of the six arming mechanisms on one of the bombs activated, causing it to execute many of the steps needed to arm itself, such as charging the firing capacitors and, critically, deployment of a 100-foot-diameter (30 m) retard parachute. The parachute allowed that bomb to hit the ground with little damage.

      According to former military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, he saw highly classified documents indicating that the pilot's safe/arm switch was the only one of the six arming devices on the bomb that prevented detonation.[1][8] The Pentagon claims that there was no chance of an explosion and that two arming mechanisms had not activated. A United States Department of Defense spokesperson told United Press International reporter Donald May that the bomb was unarmed and could not explode.[8] Later, however, it was found that both bombs were fully functional and that a single low-voltage switch was indeed all that stood between detonation. [9][10]

      On a related note I wonder how unsafe the USSR nukes are in comparison.

    3. Re:Here's what's new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up!!! Oh, I see everyone did already.

      Prior to this post nobody here seemed to have noticed the somewhat subtle, finessed quality of this news. The fact that a declassified document has been released is the story.

    4. Re:Here's what's new by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      might be safer. they took that seriously after all.

      so seriously that if you were flying for the nuke divisions you had to abstain from drinking for twice as long as in the normal military(two days or so iirc). that's a sure sign that they took it seriously, it's russia after all!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Here's what's new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The History Channel or Discovery Channel ran an hour long documentary on this, The Guardian is really reaching at thin air anymore for stories. The special had one-two pilots, that accidentally dropped the two bombs, and a team of researchers, salvage experts and scientists trying to locate where one of the bombs could be found, there were unsuccessful in locating them at the time, not sure if they have found them since!

      It is not fully understood why the bombs were dropped or lost, but the USAF had been running practice drills, why they were doing this with actual weapons on board, as opposed to dummy bombs is actually the scary part, the USAF ran these drills all the time, they would have multiple runs through out the US at one time. But part of the USAF protocol was to have the bombs kept unarmed, and have them armed aboard the aircraft, but only if they were going to be dropped on a target. They would fly over or close to Cuba and other targets including Russia.

      I question this, it would seem as if the US was trying to invoke a nuclear war, and they would bitch and moan over Russia's antics!!

    6. Re:Here's what's new by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Good linked story, thank you. Worth the reading for those interested.

  12. Safety design was fine by mveloso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unlike the article implies, the safety design was just fine - after all, the bombs didn't go off.

    Sure, three out of four of them failed - that's why there were four.

    I'd be good for someone with actual statistics knowledge to say what the probability of 3/4/5 safeties failing would be.

    1. Re:Safety design was fine by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'd be good for someone with actual statistics knowledge to say what the probability of 3/4/5 safeties failing would be.

      You'd have to know about the system and what the probability of each type of failsafe failing is, not just the number...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Safety design was fine by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd be good for someone with actual statistics knowledge to say what the probability of 3/4/5 safeties failing would be.

      1/8 | 1/16 | 1/32. I'm a statistical god!

    3. Re:Safety design was fine by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      When 5 of the 6 arming mechanisms on a 3.8Mt bomb activate when they're not supposed to, it doesn't take an advanced knowledge of statistics to realize it was pretty close. Hopefully they went back to the drawing board on that one.

    4. Re:Safety design was fine by sehlat · · Score: 2

      NASA has a saying, "If you're running on the backups, you're already in trouble." This was the backup to the backup to the backup to the backup.

      OTOH, now we have evidence as to why you do NOT choose the lowest bidder for systems that are absolutely MUST NOT FAIL!

    5. Re:Safety design was fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Some of the arming mechanisms worked exactly as they were designed to. This validated the design.

    6. Re:Safety design was fine by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Informative

      The arming mechanisms are only supposed to work when you arm the bomb! That was not done. Wisely, the USAF decided that an airplane crash should not cause a nuclear explosion, hence the requirement to arm the bombs before detonation. The intent was right, but the execution was a close run thing.

    7. Re:Safety design was fine by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      Not sure if serious.

      The probability of multiple safeties failing is the product of all of the probabilities of failure of individual safeties, no?

    8. Re:Safety design was fine by jmv · · Score: 1

      The problem here is estimating the probabilities of failure. Assuming failures are independent and considering there's probably (I'm guessing, feel free to plug in other numbers) been somewhere between 10 to 100 similar incidents with one case where 3 safety mechanisms failed, then we can say that the probability of failure of any one safety is between 14% and 30%. From this, the probability of all four failing would be somewhere between one in 100 and one in 3000. That's way too high considering what's at stake here. I assume it's been fixed (hopefully not just patched) because there would probably have been an actual accident since then.

    9. Re:Safety design was fine by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether the causes of failure are independent. For example the probability of all 3 engines failing on an L1011 airliner would seem to be very small because they seem to be completely independent systems. I remember one case though of a cargo L1011 with a double, almost triple (last engine was dying) failure because a mechanic made the same mistake when he overhauled all 3 engines.

      We would need real details ( I assume still classified) about the design of this system. If some common problem failed 3 of the switches, but the 4th was not susceptible to that sort of common failure, then it might not have been as bad as it sounds (though still very bad!).

      On the other hand one problem with classified projects is that independent review is difficult. There may not be enough outside experts who are cleared to know the real technical details of nuclear bomb design.

      With well over 10,000 warheads for over 20 years, I think the number of accidental detonations was zero. Remember that this was a ~5 trillion $ effort,With a typical government estimate of the value of human life at $10M, that is the equivalent of 500,000 lives so even an accidental detonation (outside of a major city) would not have dramatically increased the cost of the cold war to society.

    10. Re:Safety design was fine by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

      With well over 10,000 warheads for over 20 years, I think the number of accidental detonations was zero.

      http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp says the number of US/SU/UK/FR/CH nuclear weapons reached a maximum of 65,056 in 1986.

      AFAIK, zero accidental detonations since 1945.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    11. Re:Safety design was fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well since there were two bombs, and this happened on one of them, it's 1/2. Theoretical statistics don't always conform to what actual statistics shows however.

    12. Re:Safety design was fine by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Sure, three out of four of them failed - that's why there were four.

      Little known fact: the same guy who came up with this safety plan was responsible for decades of US education policy.

    13. Re:Safety design was fine by bidule · · Score: 1

      1/8 | 1/16 | 1/32. I'm a statistical god!

      Any true american failsafe mechanism will work half the time. Anything more and it's a communist conspiracy!

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    14. Re:Safety design was fine by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Unlike the article implies, the safety design was just fine - after all, the bombs didn't go off.

      Good thinking! Because when the experts who investigated the incident say things like:

      "The MK 39 Mod 2 bomb did not possess adequate safety for the airborne alert role in the B-52,"

      Or:

      "one simple, dynamo-technology, low voltage switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe".

      Well, you KNOW you've got a PERFECTLY SAFE bit of kit, there. Right?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:Safety design was fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be good for someone with actual statistics knowledge to say what the probability of 3/4/5 safeties failing would be.

      It'd be interesting, but it'd expose things best left unexposed. You really don't want people making educated guesses about the countermeasures, because you want one more failsafe: In the once-every-30-years that a nuke lands intact in somebody's backyard, I'd like to eliminate the once-every-30,000 years scenario in which it lands in the 0.1% of the population prone to do a google and yell "Hold muh beer and watch this!"

      Nukes are one of the very few areas where security-through-obscurity is a feature, not a bug.

    16. Re:Safety design was fine by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      And why one backup is not enough.

    17. Re:Safety design was fine by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Yeah right.
      What's the probability of an elephant knocking on your door today?
      50%...

    18. Re:Safety design was fine by fnj · · Score: 1

      Remember that this was a ~5 trillion $ effort,With a typical government estimate of the value of human life at $10M, that is the equivalent of 500,000 lives

      That set off an interesting thought experiment. So you are saying if 1/2 the US population were to be wiped out by nuclear war or other devastating event, the cost would be considered to total 160 million times 10 million, $1.6 QUADRILLION, even before figuring material damage or decontamination operations.

      Or to put it another way, the value of the humanity existent in the US is presently about $3.2 quadrillion. Gee. Where the hell is MY $10 million?

    19. Re:Safety design was fine by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      The question of how to value a human life is very difficult. Clearly the population isn't worth quadrillions since there isn't that much wealth in the world. On the other hand we can't issue human hunting licenses to wealthy people at $100K / kill.

    20. Re:Safety design was fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, one can simply multiply the fraction by an average failsafe failure coefficient to keep them relevant. It all depends on the degree of accuracy you're willing to accept. Of course statistics is all hogwash. For example: The real-world probability that a 3 out of 4 failsafes could fail causing a nuclear bomb to nearly decimate a US city is over 100%, given that we have the example of this happening, and the possibility that it could happen again.

    21. Re:Safety design was fine by fnj · · Score: 1

      Just because there isn't enough liquid capital in the world to buy up all of a certain category of goods doesn't mean the aggregate valuation of those goods is too high.

    22. Re:Safety design was fine by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The probability is way to high based on numbers you pulled out of your ass.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  13. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the solution to the killing of innocents always to kill more innocents? This is one of those times that I really wished every user account started at zero and had to work hard to prove they were worth listening to just like some ACs do.

  14. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd prefer we invaded and fought house to house? You'd prefer we fire-bombed those cities instead? More would have died in both cases.

  15. One Low-Voltage Switch by Guppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    only one low-voltage switch prevented untold carnage.

    Just imagine if there had been a Tin Whisker shorting that switch.

    1. Re:One Low-Voltage Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately this was a built a time that was Lead Friendly.

      Leaded Gas, Leaded Paint, Leaded solder

    2. Re:One Low-Voltage Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think all that lead has gone to your head old timer.

    3. Re:One Low-Voltage Switch by russotto · · Score: 2

      Just imagine if there had been a Tin Whisker shorting that switch.

      Fortunately, no one used lead-free solder back then.

    4. Re:One Low-Voltage Switch by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Informative

      The military still doesn't.

    5. Re:One Low-Voltage Switch by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I don't either, I've stocked up on lead solder for electronics and plumbing to last a lifetime. No need to worry about lead contamination either, it won't happen the way hardened solder ages. Not even in plumbing with one very important exception that doesn't apply where I live. if your water has small amounts of salt in it, and it goes through pipes with lead solder, you're screwed. just a PSA for those of you in say Houston or other places where ocean water gets into your drinking water a bit

    6. Re:One Low-Voltage Switch by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      And now we know why.

    7. Re:One Low-Voltage Switch by fnj · · Score: 1

      And ***I*** sure as hell don't. The day the nazis say I can't use 63/37 eutectic resin-core in my own projects is the day I break out my stored stash of same and thumb my nose at them.

    8. Re:One Low-Voltage Switch by russotto · · Score: 1

      Lead-free solder for plumbing works fine, though it's a little harder to work with. Lead-free solder for electronics is a smaller disaster than it used to be, but rework with it is not really feasible.

  16. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So all Germans should have been gassed?

  17. Nothing Has Changed Then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One should still fear ones own government more than that of any foreign power.

  18. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would've been some ironical justice for what was done to innocent children and women in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think all U.S nuclear weapons should on completion have been pointed straight upwards and fired immediately. It would've been the most appropriate use.

    Because killing innocent American children and women is punishing whom, exactly?

  19. Almost doens't count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortunately the B-52 was not carrying horse shoes or hand grenades.

  20. Why were nukes making routine flights inside USA? by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Funny

    Article says:

    "The accident happened when a B-52 bomber got into trouble, having embarked from Seymour Johnson Air Force base in Goldsboro for a routine flight along the East Coast."

    If carrying A-Bombs across the eastern coast is a routine flight I would love to know what the USAF considers an exceptional flight.

  21. Re:Ironical justice by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    It would've been some ironical justice for what was done to innocent children and women in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think all U.S nuclear weapons should on completion have been pointed straight upwards and fired immediately. It would've been the most appropriate use.

    Ok, but what should we have done to avenge the millions killed by the Imperial Japanese forces, wiped out every last man, women and child in Japan? Thankfully the US leadership was not as vengeful and bloodthirsty as you.

  22. If at first you don't succeed .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well let's give it another shot

  23. Re:Ironical justice by mike1223 · · Score: 0

    Actually, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justice for what was done in Nanking.

    You deserve to be shot.

  24. **what caused the plane to 'drop' the bombs?** by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    the triple fail-safe worked.

    right, I agree that the article is completely burying the lead (seriously talk about FUD..."It was a single switch!"...)

    but what bothers me is the ridiculous lack of detail about **how the plane 'dropped' the bombs in the first place**

    that's the first thing I looked for as I skimmed TFA

    this is all we get:

    The accident happened when a B-52 bomber got into trouble, having embarked from Seymour Johnson Air Force base in Goldsboro for a routine flight along the East Coast. As it went into a tailspin, the hydrogen bombs

    "got into trouble" ok...so...what trouble?

    "routine flight along the East Coast" with two nukes...I'm assuming this was part of our Cold War deterrence strategy...always having airborn assests...I can buy that...

    "as it went into a tailspin" ok...again...why a tailspin?

    what happened on that plane?

    **THAT'S THE QUESTION**

    I can't help but think sabotage of some kind...it's such a fundamental detail to the story...why isn't it discussed?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:**what caused the plane to 'drop' the bombs?** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a wing fell off:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

    2. Re:**what caused the plane to 'drop' the bombs?** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia to the rescue:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

    3. Re:**what caused the plane to 'drop' the bombs?** by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      Why sabotage? Planes are complicated and any number of things can go wrong. You're right that more detail would be helpful, but there's no more reason to suspect sabotage than there is to suspect a bird strike.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    4. Re:**what caused the plane to 'drop' the bombs?** by Colin+Douglas+Howell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Others have already linked to Wikipedia's article about the crash, with one guy saying "sounds like a wing fell off". Reading the article, that seems fairly close to the mark, though not quite right. Here's a summary of what happened to the bomber:

      The bomber was on an "airborne alert mission", meaning that it was carrying live nukes while flying on a route and schedule that would make it ready to perform a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union on short notice. (This was part of a program called Operation Chrome Dome.) While it was refueling from a tanker over North Carolina, the tanker crew told the bomber crew that the bomber's right wing was leaking fuel. The bomber broke off from the refueling, informed ground control, and were ordered to fly offshore and hold to burn off most of their fuel load, to reduce the risk of an emergency landing. However, on the way to the holding point, the fuel leak rapidly worsened and became critical, and the plane was then ordered to land immediately. During the descent toward the field, while passing through 10,000 feet altitude, the pilots found they could no longer keep the aircraft under control. The captain ordered the crew to eject; those who survived reported that the plane was still intact when they last saw it. Once the airplane went out of control, it must have gone into an uncontrolled spiral dive, a "tailspin"; that's what frequently happens to a flying airplane when control is lost. Such a dive is often fatal for the airplane long before it reaches the ground; the aerodynamic stresses increase so fast that it breaks up in the air.

      From the sound of it, there was some sort of structural failure in the right wing which got rapidly worse. The wing did not actually fall off while the pilots were inside, but the failure became so bad that they couldn't maintain control and were forced to bail out. Unfortunately, even this article puts so much focus on what happened to the nukes that the important question of what caused the bomber accident in the first place is ignored. It would be nice to see what the Air Force's accident report has to say on this.

    5. Re:**what caused the plane to 'drop' the bombs?** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "got into trouble" ok...so...what trouble?

      Well, you know, he'd been hanging out in the wrong neighborhood and getting in with the wrong crowd. It's like one day the B-52 is showing up to school on time and doing his homework, and *bam*.. attack of the reefer.

  25. Broken Arrow. by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 1

    A Broken Arrow is when the US Military loses a BOMB, it happen quite a few times over they years, it even kill a Cow once when they drop a bomb but it wasn't armed.

    1. Re:Broken Arrow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the cow had been armed, it would'nt have been killed?
      (or how the saying goes from your big friendly three-letter-acronym organisation)

    2. Re:Broken Arrow. by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Funny

      They killed an unarmed cow? How could they?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Broken Arrow. by theM_xl · · Score: 1

      They used a nuke ;-)

    4. Re:Broken Arrow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he didn't say the cow was unarmed...

    5. Re:Broken Arrow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No cows have arms.

    6. Re:Broken Arrow. by tigersha · · Score: 1

      No, they almost NUKED an unarmed cow!

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    7. Re:Broken Arrow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cow was indeed armed - by design.

    8. Re:Broken Arrow. by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      They killed an unarmed cow? How could they?

      Because it was a black cow, and they had to stand their ground.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    9. Re:Broken Arrow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it wasn't a bull?

      That's abominable!

  26. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    During the Cold War, we had nuclear-armed bombers in the air 24/7 in case of a Russian strike. When you're doing something 24/7, it becomes routine.

  27. Re:Ironical justice by NikeHerc · · Score: 2

    It would've been some ironical justice for what was done to innocent children and women in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think all U.S nuclear weapons should on completion have been pointed straight upwards and fired immediately. It would've been the most appropriate use.

    I've read one of Truman's considerations in nuking Japan is that the Japanese were starving to death about a quarter of a million innocents each month in the various countries the occupied, so you might want to consider that fact in your rush to judgement.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  28. Did anyone in the USAF at least say, "Oops"? by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    From the linked article: "The accident happened when a B-52 bomber got into trouble, having embarked from Seymour Johnson Air Force base in Goldsboro for a routine flight along the East Coast. As it went into a tailspin, the hydrogen bombs it was carrying became separated. One fell into a field near Faro, North Carolina, its parachute draped in the branches of a tree; the other plummeted into a meadow off Big Daddy's Road."

    "Jones found that of the four safety mechanisms in the Faro bomb, designed to prevent unintended detonation, three failed to operate properly. When the bomb hit the ground, a firing signal was sent to the nuclear core of the device, and it was only that final, highly vulnerable switch that averted calamity. "The MK 39 Mod 2 bomb did not possess adequate safety for the airborne alert role in the B-52," Jones concludes."

    Lets hear it for the Inanimate Carbon Rod! Um, I mean..., Malfunctioning Low-Voltage Switch!

    Seriously, this was new news to me. Makes me wonder how many other near catastrophes also didn't happen due to dumb luck.

    1. Re:Did anyone in the USAF at least say, "Oops"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Malfunctioning" I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      (Seriously, the other failsafes malfunctioned, not the switch.)

  29. Where in Time is Edward Snowden? by Raved+Thrad · · Score: 1, Funny

    If this was an attempt to rewrite history and kill Snowden before he was born, then they sent the time cops back over 22 years too early.

    --
    Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
  30. It was a quadruple fail-safe. Three Failed! by anubi · · Score: 1
    From the article:

    Jones found that of the four safety mechanisms in the Faro bomb, designed to prevent unintended detonation, three failed to operate properly. When the bomb hit the ground, a firing signal was sent to the nuclear core of the device, and it was only that final, highly vulnerable switch that averted calamity.

    I guess those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.

    I should consider myself quite lucky that my screw-ups are quite limited in scope.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  31. "almost nuked" by nurb432 · · Score: 0

    Implies something other than what actually happened; a simple aviation accident.

    It just happened the cargo was nuclear weapons. It could have been pallets of toilet paper instead.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:"almost nuked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and then we would have said they almost toilet papered everything.

  32. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cold war... you know with bombers carrying nukes flying 24/7 as part of the mutually assured destruction.

  33. I know what would have happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that bomb did go off, we would have started a full-out thermo-nuclear war with Russia since our "leaders" would NEVER admit that they were responsible for the disaster! Unfortunately, that mind-set of "not our fault" persists today in the "leadership" of the Congress, NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, and office of the President...

  34. This accident happened again in 1966 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

    The 1966 Palomares B-52 crash or Palomares incident occurred on 17 January 1966, when a B-52G bomber of the USAF Strategic Air Command collided with a KC-135 tanker during mid-air refuelling at 31,000 feet (9,450 m) over the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of Spain. The KC-135 was completely destroyed when its fuel load ignited, killing all four crew members. The B-52G broke apart, killing three of the seven crew members aboard.[1]

    Of the four Mk28 type hydrogen bombs the B-52G carried,[2] three were found on land near the small fishing village of Palomares in the municipality of Cuevas del Almanzora, Almería, Spain. The non-nuclear explosives in two of the weapons detonated upon impact with the ground, resulting in the contamination of a 2-square-kilometer (490 acres) (0.78 square mile) area by plutonium.

    ...

    The B-52G began its mission from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, carrying four Type B28RI hydrogen bombs[3] on a Cold War airborne alert mission named Operation Chrome Dome.

    Guess where the B-52 that broke up over Goldsboro flew out from? That's right, Seymour Johnson Air Force base!

    What the article doesn't make clear is if the detonation of the bomb in Goldsboro would have been nuclear, or whether it would have only set off the non-nuclear charges like the two bombs in Palomeres.

    1. Re:This accident happened again in 1966 by mirix · · Score: 2

      There's been a bunch of these over the years. To get the weapon to actually initiate fission, all the charges have to be fired with very precise timing, to compress the material into critical mass. If the charges go off accidentally, you don't get fission, rather it just blows the fissile material all over the place. What murrican tv likes to call a 'dirty bomb' i guess.

      A B52 crashed and its bombs went off near Thule AFB in the late 60s (non fission, again). Greenland/Denmark had been lying to it's citizens that US planes were not carrying nuclear arms on their territory, but certainly they were. (this was a regular patrol, govn't said emergency / temporary / something). Seem to recall everything melted through the ice and recovery was a big trainwreck, they recovered maybe half of the fissile material... something like that, anyway.

      They had a big deal about it uh.. maybe 20 years ago when it came to light that the flights were regular.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
  35. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    If that's the case maybe they should have flown a little east of the coast then. That way we'd be reading a declassified report that read 'USAF almost detonated an A-bomb somewhere over the Atlantic'.

  36. Kewl! Let's make a move and call it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Goldwater, I wish you were here.

  37. Just like Monsters Incorporated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I said North Korea, not North Carolina.

  38. It's a bomb! Not magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Come on, people. It's a bomb. You have to drop it on the thing you want to blow up. You can't drop it thousands of miles from any target and expect it to kill anything. Faro, NC is the middle of fucking nowhere. You'd probably be having a bad day in Goldsboro (population a few thousand), and the fallout would fall over a swath a few hundred kilometers long. Maybe over the Hampton Roads area and the Atlantic ocean. That would probably suck and kill hundreds or thousands, but it's not going to kill millions of people and cause doomsday or whatever. You've got a Katrina-scale disaster, not a Holocaust-scale disaster. The power of nuclear weapons has been vastly exaggerated.

    1. Re:It's a bomb! Not magic! by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 0

      Fuck off troll. Go to nukemap. The article says the bomb was 256x that of Hiroshima (17kt), so we're talking 4.5Mt. Per nukemap, the Immediate casualties are over 12,000 people, and thousands more would die from radiation related illnesses and cancers. http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Now, go crawl back under your rock in your mommy's basement, dickweasel.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    2. Re:It's a bomb! Not magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per nukemap, the Immediate casualties are over 12,000 people

      Yeah, that supports my point. It doesn't refute it. At the time of this accident, the number of people living in this area was one-third of the 2010ish values used by this app. So that's thousands of people, which is what I said. Duh.

    3. Re:It's a bomb! Not magic! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's just South Carolina. Home of Gamecocks and racists. What's the loss?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:It's a bomb! Not magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ran the nukemap myself and got 2.8k 2010 people killed. Again, the population circa 1960 was 3 times lower. So my off-the-top-of-my-head estimate of hundreds to thousands is right on.

    5. Re:It's a bomb! Not magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the point. Remember that this happened back in 1961. Think of what else was going on in the world back then. Do you think those people itching for war with Cuba and the Soviet Union might not have used the incident as a pretext to attack? They weren't above employing false flag terrorism (Operation Northwoods) after the failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and it is not inconceivable that they could have used such an accident involving nuclear weapons as a pretext for an outright invasion of Cuba, which would inevitably have led to 'nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies'. While Kennedy had consistently resisted his hawkish advisers during his presidency it is hard to say what he would have done in the face of a nuclear explosion on American soil.

  39. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    This was 50 years ago. During the Cold War, there were always B-52s in the air with nuclear weapons on board.

  40. Conspiracy theories gone wild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine the conspiracy theories that would have sprung from this. An accident ? How many people would have believed that.

  41. Protective Active Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reporter has confused his bomb trigger designs. This broken arrow was more about cleaning up the nuclear materials if the krysterons had trigger some of the shaped charges. These were fusion not fission weapons.

    1. Re:Protective Active Links by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

      ...if the krysterons...

      I think you mean krytrons.

      ...had trigger[ed] some of the shaped charges.

      Has it been made public whether the last switch would have ignited all the triggers or just some of them? It makes a big difference.

      These were fusion not fission weapons.

      Fusion weapons are triggered by fission weapons.

      Finally, your title, Protective Active Links, should be Permissive Action Links.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  42. USAF Almost Nuked North Carolina In 1961 by sumergo · · Score: 1

    Oh, but it could never happen now . . .

  43. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 0
    So if it was justified to kill innocent people in Japan, you're also implying that it would've been further justified to kill innocent people in the USA?

    You deserve to be shot.

    You too deserve to be shot, for treason. Your family too, even if they're innocent I'm sure it can be justified somehow.

    The only people who should be incinerated by nuclear bombs are the people who build them.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  44. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 0

    What about the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, what did they do to deserve getting killed? And hence the irony of it... All I'm saying is that the only people who should have nukes dropped on them are the people who build them.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  45. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 0

    The bomb could've been dropped on Japanese forces to begin with, instead of on civilians, but the US leadership decided that dropping it on cityscape to maximize the effect and satisfy their curiosity of exactly how destructive it was. If that's not bloodthirsty I don't know what is.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  46. Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have read many articles about that event. This is not new news. It is old news. The FOIA just provided more details, all previously known. Big deal.

  47. still wondering after wiki... by globaljustin · · Score: 2

    Why sabotage?

    purely my imagination...if I think about it, I have to say it relates to how the story is told and the 'zomg switch!' tone of the article

    I checked the wikipedia, and there is plenty of details. The pilot reported a fuel leak in a wing during in-flight refueling. Problem got worse, were told to go into holding pattern to use up fuel to prep for landing...fuel leaks too fast (?) then:

    "As it descended through 10,000 feet (3,000 m) on its approach to the airfield, the pilots were no longer able to keep the aircraft in trim and lost control of it. "

    They 'lost control'...

    Is it from the fuel leak? Are we assuming that the wing had damage and that's why the fuel was leaking?

    Sounds plausible for sure...

    I guess I buy it, but it is a fact that our government leaks out state secrets like this...just look at the 9/11 Commission Report...or the Gulf Of Tonkein stuff...or the fact that some info about the Kennedy Assasination doesnt' get declassified for another decade at least...

    I'm just always looking for messages between the lines...

    Can you imagine someone sabotaging the plane somehow?

    Russia could get all the benefit of having nuked us with none of the blame or retaliation!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:still wondering after wiki... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      What would the benefit be?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:still wondering after wiki... by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      The way I see it is like this: if they run out of fuel the engines stop. If the engines stop they lose hydraulics. If the lose hydraulics, plane does what it pleases without regard for the pilot's wishes and/or heartfelt prayers.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    3. Re:still wondering after wiki... by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      sure that makes sense...hydraulics...this is the 60's after all

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    4. Re:still wondering after wiki... by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      assuming the Russians of the 60s weren't bloodthirsty animals (which is logical)...

      I'd say they'd get the havok of the disaster and how it weakens our economy and nation...

      ex: BP gulf oil spill...just the natural disaster effects alone did trillions of damage to the economy

      that's the effect

      plus it discredits whoever is in office, at that time Kennedy

      if these bombs had gone off, Russia would have been able to get away with more crap...

      also, any kind of anarchy like this would benefit global corporations and interests

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  48. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    My "rushed" judgement is that it's not right to use nuclear weapons on innocent civilians.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  49. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    No, but the nazi forces would've deserved it. I'm surprised how much confusion my use of the word "ironic" causes around here.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  50. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by jimbrooking · · Score: 1

    All flights by all the armed services within the US, and most outside, are "routine" or "routine training" flights. where "routine" means "Hey, we do this all the time! What could possibly go wrong go wrong go wrong..."

  51. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, since you stated that it would be justice for this bomb to detonate and kill innocent civilians.

  52. Did they put the switch in a museum? by dicobalt · · Score: 1

    It should be remembered as a hero.

    1. Re:Did they put the switch in a museum? by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      It should be remembered as a hero.

      It has a place of honor next to inanimate carbon rod.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  53. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    It seems my use of the word "irony" confused you and everyone else here.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  54. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    I agree. And I think people should work hard and prove they can read and interpret before being allowed to post.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  55. best by memnock · · Score: 1

    Joe Isuzu voice:

    "Trust Us. We're the Government."

  56. A cowboy hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the classified part of the published document was a report about a lonesome cowboy hat discovered near the end of the trajectory of the bomb.

  57. Re:Ironical justice by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Here's a homework assignment for you: Assume that you're in charge of Allied forces on August 5, 1945. This war has been going on for almost six years, and has claimed an average of around 200,000 lives per week for that entire period - most of them innocent men, women and children.

    Your task in this alternate world is to figure out how to bring an end to the war with the loss of fewer lives beyond that date than were lost in the real world, but without using any nuclear bombs. Keep in mind that tens of thousands of innocent victims are still dying on a daily basis from conventional attacs. You get zero credit for hand-waving or philosophical rants. Actionable strategic plans only.

  58. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your misapprehension of what the word means, perhaps.

  59. Re:Ironical justice by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Informative

    Japanese killed millions of Americans?

    Can you read? Where did I say Americans?

    US leadership was and is The single most bloodthirsty entity ever to have occurred on this side of the Universe. You can drink any cool-aid you want but that is a fact, you can check the list of illegal aggressions by the US.

    The Nazi invasion of the USSR killed over 30 million people. The Japanese invasion of China killed between 20 and 35 million. The Rape of Nanjing alone killed more people than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. What are you smoking?

  60. Frickin Awesome! by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    I love the smell of gamma rays in the morning.. nukes rock! But PALs took all the fun out of it.

  61. Re:Ironical justice by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    My "rushed" judgement is that it's not right to use nuclear weapons on innocent civilians.

    Regardless of whether it prevents more civilian deaths than it causes? Because that was probably the case.

  62. Re:Ironical justice by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    You deserve to be shot.

    You too deserve to be shot, for treason.

    You guys both deserve to sit down and have a beer and a pizza -- you'd probably each find that the other is a perfectly agreeable person. It's silly to rhetorically condemn people to death over a difference in opinion about the meaning of justice.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  63. Re:Ironical justice by mike1223 · · Score: 0

    So if it was justified to kill innocent people in Japan, you're also implying that it would've been further justified to kill innocent people in the USA?

    As the US was not the aggressor nation in that conflict, any attacks on the US for using the atomic bombs would be illegitimate.

    You too deserve to be shot, for treason.

    Sorry, but I'm not levying war against the US, nor am I giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

  64. DAMN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (no offense to NC)

    ((okay maybe a little))

  65. Re:Ironical justice by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    Actionable strategic plans only.

    Unleash the Red Army. Ok, that was done, but it didn't last long. Given their track record, I've no doubt that they would've finished off the Imperial Japanese forces. And given their track record, they would have killed a lot more civilians than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did. We would also have had a communist Japan and South Korea, to the delight of the inhabitants there, and with more fun in the Cold War.

  66. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bomb could've been dropped on Japanese forces to begin with, instead of on civilians, but the US leadership decided that dropping it on cityscape to maximize the effect and satisfy their curiosity of exactly how destructive it was. If that's not bloodthirsty I don't know what is.

    The U.S. maximized the effect of the only 2 bombs it had, but did not let on that it only had the two. The idea was to keep a long, drawn out ground war from beginning on Japanese soil, saving many soldiers from many countries from fighting and dying there.

  67. very old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the bomb is still stuck in the carolina mud as well.

  68. Makes we wonder about Japan and the nukes deployed by Centurix · · Score: 1

    Maybe the two that the US dropped on Japan were the only two which detonated successfully? If generals are really that gung-ho about this stuff, then I don't call two bombs "Bombing the shit out of Japan"...

    --
    Task Mangler
  69. Re:Ironical justice by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > What about the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, what did they do to deserve getting killed?

    What did they do to deserve being singled out by clueless bleeding heart morons and elevated above all of the other civilian casualties of the war including those that died in Dresden and Tokyo and many other places?

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  70. That kind of thinking blew up a Shuttle by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    The engineers had decided that since the O-ring had only burned through partway on previous launches, they had a safety margin.

    The problem is that it wasn't supposed to burn through at all and they didn't understand what was happening.

    If you build a system and 3/4 of mission-critical safety features fail, you take the system out of service for a *thorough* rethink and overhaul.

  71. Re:Ironical justice by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    You know squat about the war in the Pacific. You are clearly the one drinking the kool-aid.

    "Drinking the kool-aid" is an especially ironic metaphor considering how the Japanese conducted themselves in those battles.

    Clueless idiot.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  72. Whatever happened to "failsafe"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would a switch have to 'prevent' detonation? Should it be designed to fail the other way?

  73. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 2

    An incredibly murderous, careless and risky bet, wouldn't you agree? What about dropping the bomb on enemy forces instead of civilians, wouldn't that have gotten the message across? There is no way to justify dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  74. It was called "Airborne Alert" by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    I don't know exactly when, but it was eventually canceled in favor of keeping bombers on the ground with crews ready to go in no time flat and "minimum interval takeoffs".

    Eventually SAC realized that airborne alert was too dangerous to continue.

  75. Re:Ironical justice by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > My "rushed" judgement is that it's not right to use nuclear weapons on innocent civilians.

    Yes. It would have been better that we repeated Iwo Jima and Okinawa across the entirely of Japan.

    Clueless idiot.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  76. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 0
    What my post is saying is that justice is getting nuclear weapons dropped back on you if you drop them on someone else, but it's not right to kill innocent civilians, hence the irony of that justice. Is that simple enough for you?

    You get zero credit for hand-waving or philosophical rants.

    Keep your stupid homework assignments to yourself.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  77. Re:Ironical justice by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > An incredibly murderous, careless and risky bet, wouldn't you agree?

    Based on an understanding of the actual facts involved, no.

    Although there's just the absurdity of the idea, that you can cleanly separate out the military targets from the civilian casualties. Even now that's an extraordinarily difficult thing to do and really only possible for 2 or 3 nations on the entire planet.

    Any target of military interest is likely to come with unavoidable civilian casualties. Some armies even go out of their way to make this unavoidable.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  78. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    No you're the clueless idiot. Read my original post and note particularly my expression "ironic justice" and let it hit you this time around. It completely flew over your head the first time.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  79. Re:Ironical justice by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    F: philosophical rant.

  80. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, again: You think it is just to kill innocent civilians for something their country did. Which is exactly what the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did: killed innocent Japanese civilians because they were citizens of a country that was at war with the US.

  81. A bomb WAS dropped in South Carolina! by rblivingston · · Score: 1

    In 1958, a Mark 6 bomb WAS dropped at Mars Bluff, South Carolina. It lacked fissionable material, but had 7,600 pounds of conventional explosives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Bluff%2C_South_Carolina Nuclear weapons are no joke-- on purpose or as accidents waiting to happen.

  82. 9/11 for sure... unless it was an attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we need to be put in our place. if that means another 9/11 or a few hundred more of similar style attacks... so be it.

    However we must lose.

    Then if it is just an accident... pointless. We should have another 9/11 style attack over a nuke simply because it's better to have lost a few thousand lives than millions and have a significant negative impact on the whole world economy.

    1. Re:9/11 for sure... unless it was an attack by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Even in NYC a single warhead would not kill millions. Anywhere else and it wouldn't be even close to a million.

  83. Re:Ironical justice by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Your task in this alternate world is to figure out how to bring an end to the war with the loss of fewer lives beyond that date than were lost in the real world, but without using any nuclear bombs.

    Do you have something hard? All Americans had to do was negotiate a surrender with the Japanese, who were trying to do so while keeping their Emperor as a face-saving gesture. The idea that we just HAD to occupy the country was a joke, as the two most powerful navies in the world no longer had to focus on containing Germany, and Japan's was destroyed.

    Instead, we nuked two cities to get our "unconditional surrender", and then....let the Japanese keep their Emperor.

  84. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As opposed to the people of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo, where tens of thousands were killed by conventional bombing? How about the millions who died AFTER the end of he war during the winter of 1945-46 due to starvation caused by the war?

    War is hell.

  85. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they did most of their flying east of the coast, within an hour or so of Soviet territory, but they launched from and returned to the continental United States. It also sounds like they met fuel tankers over land as well.

  86. Re:Ironical justice by Uberbah · · Score: 0

    We would also have had a communist Japan and South Korea, to the delight of the inhabitants there, and with more fun in the Cold War.

    As opposed to client states and fascist dictatorships supported by the U.S., with military bases right on the USSR's doorstep. And then the U.S., with no sense of shame, flipped shit over stationing missiles in Cuba.

  87. Bomb squad volunteer? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

    Who would volunteer to inspect this "dud"? And where would be a safe place to crack it open to check inside? On the other hand, one "oops," and you wouldn't exist long enough to know it.

    1. Re:Bomb squad volunteer? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      One oops with a conventional bomb is hardly more forgiving.

  88. Dr. Strangelove Lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hay!

    It's Friday!

    Time to get away from the multiple LEDs and churning linux/unix clusters to relive the "Good O'l Days."

    Yep-er. I've got the popcorn pop'n and I pushing a dvd, "Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love The Bomb" into my xbox 360 Halo III edition.

    Here we GO: Go'na bomb'm all. YEEHAA!

    Ah! The 'Fog Of War!' Cap'n Kong was rid'n the M39 down on LaPutta ... Or so he thought! It was Greensboro SC! YEEHAA!

    Kubrik had it right! The 'North' known as 'Yankee Town' Washington DC needed to keep the 'South' in line as in toe-the-line-or-die.

    So, after Kennedy was ex-facto, the Pentagon Brass launches a 'premptive' on the 'South' to avenge the attack on Ft. Sumpter.

    Only natural that the Yankee bastards in DC would do such a dastardly thang.

    After all, Washington DC is below the Mason-Dixon Line, meaning it IS Southern Territory!

    So, just how does Barak Obama, like being situated in the 'Capital Of Southern States' America.

    Curious minds shout, "Tell us dat O'."

    O', O', O' ;)

  89. Why are we pushing this guy's book? by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 2

    So this was the main feature in a recently published book. It's making the rounds because it is part of the press blurb. Indirectly Slashdot is being used to push the guy's book. Well done viral marketing dude.

  90. Broken Arrow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Broken Arrow, Dull Sword, Faded Giant, Empty Quiver, Bent Spear... All terms used to describe incidents involving nuclear weapons. Oh its all safe... ok, so maybe not. There have been incidents and then there have been incidents. Sweat and the fear of doing something fatal, final and really stupid seems to be the only things keeping us from nuclear destruction for the bulk of the 70 years that these things have been around.

  91. OT - your sig by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    That's not what Murphy said. Murphy said "If that guy has any way of making a mistake, he will." Look it up on wikipedia.

    Maybe it isn't so OT after all. If that 4th switch had failed...

    1. Re:OT - your sig by unitron · · Score: 1

      That's not what Murphy said. Murphy said "If that guy has any way of making a mistake, he will." Look it up on wikipedia.

      Maybe it isn't so OT after all. If that 4th switch had failed...

      But when Murphy's Law was put down in print, Murphy's Law was in effect.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  92. Ibiblio knew 4 December 2000 by z-kungfu · · Score: 1
  93. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's comforting. I'm glad no one could hack into B-52s back then. Yeah, think about that.

  94. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, Japan was destined to be irradiated anyways. Fukishima
    Also, ancient moving picture prophesies foretold the coming of a great, irradiated lizard. Godzilla

    Another Deep Thought: Prophesies are just another form of declassified documents.

  95. Re:Ironical justice (.Score:10, Funny ) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all deserve to be shot, for no reason.

  96. This has been known about since it happened by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

    This was reported on and known about right after it happened.

  97. If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's say the bomb did explode over NC. Millions died.

    A total disaster for the Kennedy administration (it was only his 3rd day as POTUS).

    What would the Kennedy administration do ?

    Would they admit that the explosion was an accident, or would they place all the blames on the then USSR (sneak attack by them commies)?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speculation: The Beast(Corporations) were threatened by the prospect of Kennedy creating a new currency that was tied to reserve currency.

      The Beast needs to be stopped.

      The Lamb

    2. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It probably would've been good for his presidential popularity/authority. With it being his third day in office nobody could've blamed him for making the military incompetent, and huge national tragedies (including accidental ones) usually cause Americans to rally around their leaders and vote more powers to their president.

      And certainly Kennedy wasn't going to blame the USSR, possibly start a nuclear war, be made a fool of by other countries not seeing evidence for USSR involvement (for example NORAD would not have seen a soviet plane), probably be arrested by a military coup who would rather admit blame than die, etc.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    3. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With that in mind, I wonder what top secret close calls Russia suffered during those days... If their nuclear program was anything like their space program I'm sure they had a few.

    4. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Kennedy had quite a good relationship with the USSR later on, so I doubt early on he would have tried to blame them. There were discussions over a joint moon mission in fact, but then Kennedy was assassinated and it was dropped. It's a shame because it would have been much cheaper, probably much longer lasting and would have helped build trust between the two countries like the 70s joint missions did.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Informative

      A fault with the warning system rather than bombs per se, but it makes you think.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say the bomb did explode over NC. Millions died.

      Probably not milions, this wasn't targeted strike at a city/populated area, but...

      What would the Kennedy administration do ?

      Would they admit that the explosion was an accident, or would they place all the blames on the then USSR (sneak attack by them commies)?

      Nobody knows, two extreme scenarios:

      1) Deliberately or by mistake Russians would be blamed and counterattack would be launched. Very few of us would be living now, probably in caves, the environment completely destroyed with radioactive shit all-around the place

      2) Mistake would be admitted, Kennedy and Khrushchev would sat down realizing what dangerous toys they are playing with
      and start (partial) decommission of the nukes, the influence of Mao in China would be moderated, the bastard Brezhnev would never come to power, improved east/west relations would avoid treating middle-east as a playground for influence and there would be no build-up of animosity in Arabian countries towards west/USA, there would be no 9/11 and surveillance shit we are living now - democracy, peace and love would spread around the wold .... I know, I know, Ill just shut up now.

    7. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      That's kind of a tough question. If it were another administration, say Nixon or Reagan -- Hell yeah they'd blame the Commies.

      But a lot of people still think Kennedy planned the Bay of Pigs invasion. Not considering how NEW to his term he was when it happened and the fact that he gave it ZERO support. So basically, the copped to it so Americans wouldn't think that the CIA and parts of our military could go rogue and try and start wars, just like a lot of people cannot conceive that false flags is how we ALWAYS get into wars with the exception of the War for Independence, the Civil War, and WW II.

      I find it fairly hard to believe, however, that there would be a government after accidentally nuking a few million people and telling everyone "Oops, our bad!" The motivation to lie would be huge.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    8. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that people STILL think NORAD cannot find a plane since that's what it was designed to do.

      They let that bit of nonsense go after 9/11 and people swallowed it. Really? They design a multi billion dollar system to detect an invasion by nukes and planes and people believe that nukes and planes just flutter by without alarms going off.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    9. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you misread. GP is saying NORAD wouldn't have seen a soviet plane because there wasn't one -- which would be solid evidence the President was lying about the USSR being responsible.

      OTOH your nick is appropriate.

    10. Re: If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would had exactly what we have now, but only in the 1960s and 70s. The alphabet names would be different but the missions would be the same. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    11. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "I find it hard to believe that people STILL think NORAD cannot find a plane since that's what it was designed to do."

      Well, hopefully it still can't find non-existent ones. I suppose only the NSA, CIA, and maybe the MPAA and RIAA know for sure though.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Well it rather looks like it was designed to look for external threats. ICBM trails from Russia look very different from internal passenger jet trails. Needle in a haystack problem.

    13. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

      Let's say the bomb did explode over NC. Millions died.

      Using some rough and ready assumptions about the distribution of people in North Carolina (an area I'm unlikely to ever need to know much about ; swampy and Southern, wasn't it?), I get around 1.3 million dead, just under 14% of the population.

      A substantial number. It's around the number of American civilians killed by guns since 1960. 20-odd years of traffic deaths. Less than a year of cancer deaths. Substantial ; but hardly devastating.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    14. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Kenndy was responsible for Bay of Pigs as it was executed. Eisenhower's administration was responsible for the initial planning and conceiving of the invasion. Kennedy took all the planning and threw it out the window. He elected to put the invasion on an isolated beach with poor access out of it (vastly different from the Eisenhower plan) and decided to withhold any air support for the operation (different from the Eisenhower plan) for fear of having the US associated with it.

      So yeah, Kennedy didn't plan it but he took the steps that turned it from having reasonable odds of success into the disaster it became. He should have issued a go/no go command rather than have the plan hacked to pieces over political reasons.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    15. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      So your comparing the sudden loss of 14% of the population of a single state against the nation-wide statistics for various deaths? What the fuck?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    16. Re:If the bomb did explode, would USA blame USSR? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      What if someone assumed it was the USSR before those involved even had a chance to admit to it. Missles could have been launched! WWIII might have actually started!

  98. Re:Ironical justice by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    More civilians were killed in Tokyo from Allied bombing. Why do you hate the people living in Tokyo?

  99. No, it didn't blow up the shuttle by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Actually, you should go watch/listen to the shuttle design class at MIT. It's over at iTunes U, and is incredibly interesting.

    The o-ring was outside of its thermal envelope, but the managers didn't think it would be a problem. That had nothing to do with safeties. Are you confusing safety (mechanisms to prevent an unwanted event) with safety (the lack of injury)?

    In the other shuttle disaster, the real problem was they never thought the foam could hit hard enough to do damage. Foam had come off lots and lots of times and bounced off the shuttle with no issues, so everyone reasonably assumed it wasn't an issue - until it was.

    Neither incident had any issues with safeties; they had issues with risk management.

  100. geez..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I peed my pants just a little bit

  101. Re:Makes we wonder about Japan and the nukes deplo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I think that the first one was in Port Chicago, CA:

    http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=102;t=000073;p=1

  102. No New Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a book of nuclear accidents from the late-80's that mentions exactly what is claimed to have been "new information."

  103. Re:Makes we wonder about Japan and the nukes deplo by Chrontius · · Score: 1

    I suggest you look at the photos/videos of nuclear tests that the governments of the US and USSR have helpfully provided.

    Unless they could fake all that in the fifties, including all the glass-lined craters you can tour now, considerably more than two weapons successfully detonated, even if only those two were fired in anger.

  104. Re:Ironical justice by Chrontius · · Score: 1

    Actually, the bomb was aimed to put as many enemy war factories, including munitions and aircraft plants, as well as a logistically critical bridge, in the predicted blast zone. Or it was aimed so as to cause as many casualties as possible and hamstringing the enemy's munition plants was just gravy. Either way, targeting munitions plants is allowed under Just War Theory.

    Bombing enemy forces probably would have been just as effective at getting the message across, if sinking a carrier battle group without a trace allowed damage assessment. Like it or not, they needed to make a crater since most of Japan's forces were naval.

  105. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably because you don't know what the word means, dipshit.

  106. Aint one still buried in the mud out there. by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    Never has been retrieved and might degrade enough to go boom.

  107. Re: Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the Japanese war leadership would have layed down and surrendered if the Allies had just asked nicely?

  108. Ever Read "One Second After" by oil · · Score: 1

    I don't know, I might prefer a nuclear blast over the EMP scenario. This novel has the strange overtones, such as the forward, but it's an interesting and scary prospect.

  109. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only Americans that count, don't ya know? *Burp

  110. Re:Ironical justice by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    who were trying to do so while keeping their Emperor as a face-saving gesture.

    No, a faction of their leadership was considering an armistice as long as the government was left in place largely intact. Other factions were intent on fighting on until the death of the last soldier.

    Do you really think that these leaders who certainly faced executions for war crimes were willing to turn themselves over to the Allies within the next couple of days, but hesitated only because the cared about whether the emperor was saving face?

    No matter what, any negotiations to settle this would have dragged on for weeks, all while the Soviet Union staged a bloody invasion from the north, and the Americans continued fire bombing cities to keep up the pressure. Far more would have died than from the atom bombs.

  111. Re:Ironical justice by careysub · · Score: 1

    I see some are chiming in here wondering why there is focus on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and not other cities fire bombed by the Allies.

    Fair enough. The novelty of the weapon does not change the morality of the act.

    However, a more apposite counterpoint to the fatalities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the 200,000 Chinese civilians dying each month at the hands of the Japanese government via its army in China, more than who died in the two atomic bombings combined. And then there were the contemporaneous actions of the Imperial Japanese Army in Vietnam, where it was in the process of organizing a tropical repeat of Stalin's Great Famine. In the summer of 1945 the IJA was busy confiscating all of the food from the Vietnamese in the areas it controlled. This was in effect sentencing some 7 million Vietnamese to a likely death by starvation during the winter-spring of 1945-1946. (The civilians of Japan were also doomed to a great famine during the winter-spring of 1945-1946, though not so through, and that due the choices of their own government.)

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  112. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We would also have had a communist Japan and South Korea, to the delight of the inhabitants there, and with more fun in the Cold War.

    As opposed to client states and fascist dictatorships supported by the U.S., with military bases right on the USSR's doorstep.

    You keep what you kill.

    And then the U.S., with no sense of shame, flipped shit over stationing missiles in Cuba.

    Did I miss where Cuba launched an unprovoked air raid on a CCCP naval base, and after fighting back and forth over the Caribbean for a few years, the Russkies bombed the Cuban's morale to fucking hell and won a surrender granting them the right to set it up as their own puppet state? Then they're not so much alike, are they...

    OTOH, if they wanted to puppetify Japan, they should have beat us there. But they were too busy trying to get a big slice of Germany to bother with Japan till the very end -- and you wanna put that on us?

  113. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If carrying A-Bombs across the eastern coast is a routine flight I would love to know what the USAF considers an exceptional flight.

    Carrying A-Bombs over other countries and dropping them?

  114. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > What about the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, what did they do to deserve getting killed?

    What did they do to deserve being singled out by clueless bleeding heart morons and elevated above all of the other civilian casualties of the war including those that died in Dresden and Tokyo and many other places?

    Same reason Fukushima and Chernobyl get elevated over all the people killed by coal power: Because NUKES! RADIATION! SCARY MAGIC DEATH!

  115. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If carrying A-Bombs across the eastern coast is a routine flight I would love to know what the USAF considers an exceptional flight.

    This was 1961, at the height of nuclear proliferation. The US government was selling uranium-235, in blister packs, out the back door of every nuclear power plant. Radioactive material was the iPhone of its day. Nobody knew enough to be afraid of it, yet. We were a small step away from having millions of plutonium-powered cars driving around.

    It's only today that we're hyper-sensitive about the risks of accidents... Back then, we were pretty sure we'd be on the receiving end of 1,000 Soviet ICBMs any old day, so a stray US nuke wasn't such a big deal.

    Of course, if one nuke HAD accidentally gone off over over US soil, you have to wonder if the military could own-up to their failure killing tens of thousands of dead Americans, or if it would be called a Russian attack and cause a full-scale retaliation.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  116. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and then the US came in afterwards, gave everyone pats on the back, and took the researchers, scientists, and medical materials off for a fun trip to the states, no questions asked.

  117. 4 star La-Z-Boy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Let's say in WW2 the Japanese managed to shoot down the plane carrying Little Boy. It the bomb detonated over some other city instead of Hiroshima

    Let's say that the bomber had a problem taking off and crashed. What then?

    Bear in mind the incident with the B52 happened over [nominally] friendly territory.

    It's rather arrogant to assume that just because you don't understand the reason for the arming switch there isn't a reason.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:4 star La-Z-Boy by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Also, these bombs are packed with conventional explosives as part of their multi-stage triggering mechanism. If you didn't want them falling into the wrong hands, there's a less messy way of insuring that than triggering the atomic detonation over random places.

  118. Microsoft users beware!!!! by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

    Your system has only three safety switches! Be careful when using it...

  119. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    operation chrome dome

  120. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't news, it has been known about by people in the area for decades.

  121. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by fnj · · Score: 1

    Er, the bases they had to TAKE OFF from were in the continental US. So maybe we'd be reading a report that a B-52 transiting from base to Atlantic ocean almost blew up NC.

    If the capability to pretty much destroy civilization is deployed, you can't completely eliminate the possibility that a tiny bit of it might accidentally actuate. Even if no weapons ever left the armory, a meteor could strike the armory and one out of the thousands of weapons in the armory might detonate.

  122. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if there were no nukes in 1945, I guess sarin gas would have done the trick? A+?

  123. Re:Ironical justice by fnj · · Score: 1

    He is smoking the pipe of gross ignorance. Oblivious to history.

  124. Re:Ironical justice by fnj · · Score: 1

    My friend, the task you set upon me is not a difficult one at all. I sue for peace. With close to 100% probability I could gain an almost immediate cease-fire. I could then obtain a peace treaty where both the Japanese and the US get to keep their respective sovereignty, government and armed forces intact, with territorial lines in place de facto. The existent naval blockade that would have strangled them unaided before too long would be ended. OK, I might have to give them Okinawa back. By August 5 1945 the Japanese were looking for a way to stop a fight they could not possibly win. EVER.

    Hey, you didn't specify that I had to be able to claim complete victory.

  125. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause maybe that would've spooked the other folk with nukes?

  126. Re:Ironical justice by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    I am using it correctly, it's just you who have a strangely ingrained understanding of it. Dipshit.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
  127. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we nuked

    we

    Which plane were you on?

  128. Just imagine what the past 30 years will be like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine the 30 years of documents from now back when they get declassified.
    Those should be certainly an interesting read indeed. The amount of deception and sneakery going on. Hell, it might never even happen!

    Also damn you Snowden, you released them early! Jesus put spoiler tags on that at least, I don't want to know the story yet, I will wait.

  129. Atom Bomb ? by rossdee · · Score: 2

    an atom bomb over North Carolina that would have been 260 times more powerful than the device that devastated Hiroshima.'

    With that sort of yield it was a Hydrogen Bomb, not just an atom bomb

  130. Old News by Egyptoid · · Score: 0

    this is extremely old news. What is the purpose of having this on slashdot (again) ?

    --
    == I question your beliefs, makes me a Troll. You insult my beliefs, you are progressive and mainstream. Okay. Got
  131. Re:Ironical justice by thrich81 · · Score: 1

    If you kept the Japanese sovereignty, government and military intact in 1945 then what would have changed there? Would you have ended up with a misgoverned, starving populace like Germany after WWI, so just setting the stage for Great Pacific War II by about 1965, or a glorious Socialist revolution by about 1955? One problem with the end of WWI is that the allies did not occupy Germany afterwards -- for that reason the German people could be told by their leaders later that they had not lost WWI -- that traitors in the German forces had given up. I know it sounds patronizing, but occupying post-war Japan was best, especially for the Japanese populace. The post-war Japanese democracy has turned out quite well for everybody. As far as putting a quick end to the war -- the Soviets were already invading Japan from the north -- it would have been bad news if they had gotten very far and it had ended up with a partitioned Japan like Germany (and later on Korea and Vietnam -- those didn't work out well). So Japan in 1945 is probably one of the very few examples where 'nation building' after defeat in a war worked well. It wouldn't have happened without post-war occupation.

  132. Re:Ironical justice by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    That assertion would have more credibility if you could cite even one inaccuracy in what was written. Bluster doesn't hide ignorance very well.

  133. Duh by govett · · Score: 1

    Atomic bombs are not hydrogen bombs.

  134. This is not new news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am from that area and I knew about the two nukes that were dropped.. my dad told me the story as a kid. I also know that the one that behaved properly was the one they RECOVERED. The second nuke's chute did not deploy and it proceeded to auger in... deep into the ground. They found a hole in a corn field and they dug, and they dug and they dug... they never found the damn thing. To this day the government owns a little plot of land in the middle of a farmers field outside of Goldsboro, NC. There is a small monument at a nearby highway intersection... this was just declassified... I think not. By the way... there is another unrecovered nuke somewhere in the marshes of South Carolina... it probably went al least 70 feet into the marsh there. I am a geologist and was fascinated by these tales while in school.

  135. Re:Ironical justice by tigersha · · Score: 1

    He/she is just standard left wing parrot who has never read history in his/her pathetic left wing little life.

    As far as bloodthirsty is concerned, there is Ghenghis Khan, Tamerlane, Stalin and Hitler. In that order.

    The left tends to forget that the Soviet Union was a really nasty piece of work.

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  136. Failsafe report by BobJacobsen · · Score: 1

    For an interesting declassified report on using the B52/bomb failsafes, see: http://www.ufosnw.com/documents/projectdominic1962/projectdominicreport.pdf

  137. Another USAF nuke near miss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And about a year later the Strategic Air Command was scrambled with nukes on board after the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) in Thule Greenland (I was there) picked up radar reflections from the Moon. The 3 computers agreed it was a missile attack from the USSR. SAC was recalled after the "missiles" failed to enter the upper radar fan. Any local Inuit knew that the Moon passed due north about 7 times a month.

  138. Re:Ironical justice by fnj · · Score: 1

    That's completely outside the scope of the question posed, but yes, all those are additional points to consider. Was the demilitarization of Japanese culture worth the over 100,000 Japanese lives lost after August 5? That's another good one to consider.

  139. Re:Ironical justice by fnj · · Score: 1

    ebno-10db already dismantled our anonymous hero so thoroughly that the latter is now at -1 and you probably didn't bother to read it. All I was doing was applauding ebno-10db (obviously).

  140. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shows the Air Force's lack of foresight, doesn't it, when they placed their runways on land instead of over the ocean.

  141. the only way out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best Instruction Before Leaving Earth (BIBLE)

    don't complain unless you have another way of resurrecting. read.

  142. Re:Ironical justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and add in the Mughal (sp?)l invasion of India, perhaps 80 million at a time of much smaller population

  143. Re:A little drastic but... no sonic booms! by dcpking · · Score: 1

    Maximum speed of a B-52 is about 600 miles per hour - maybe 650 in a dive - well below the speed of sound. Sorry, Cusco, but the booms you heard were definitely not from B-52s. You might have been hearing a Convair Hustler B-53 bomber, whish was supersonic-capable

  144. Quantum blah-blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If my understanding of quantum physics is correct, didn't they technically detonate? Just not in *this* universe?

  145. Our 2000 report on the NC H Bomb at ibiblio by pjones · · Score: 1

    We've had, as some of you who Googled for North Carolina Bomb, our report about the Bomb online since 2000. The new report does have new findings -- our FOIA was never answered -- but our report has a lot of information that I haven't seen in the articles so far including maps and interviews. See http://ibiblio.org/bomb

    --
    Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
  146. Re:A little drastic but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1000 Years? Oh my; you certainly are feeling generous with your prediction today. Actually, I would give the human race more than 150 tops at the rate were destroying our planet

  147. Re:A little drastic but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I meant to say wouldn't give.

  148. That was too close for comfort. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't help but wonder if Devine Intervention kept that damn thing from exploding. Not twice, not 4 times, but 261 times more power that the Hiroshima bomb...and we all know how much damage that did. I can't even begin to wrap my imagination around how much carnage that would have wrot.

  149. Re:A little drastic but.. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    There will certainly be very serious consequences long before that. Many people will probably die of starvation or in resource wars along the way, but it would take a very arduous and protracted hardship to eliminate every last one of us, that's why I gave it 1000 years. If agriculture ever becomes very difficult or impossible then those who are still around will know on that day that they are in very serious trouble. I'm still hopeful that that day is far enough into the future that none of us will be around to see it.

  150. Re:Makes we wonder about Japan and the nukes deplo by multiplexo · · Score: 1

    I suggest you look at the photos/videos of nuclear tests that the governments of the US and USSR have helpfully provided. Unless they could fake all that in the fifties, including all the glass-lined craters you can tour now, considerably more than two weapons successfully detonated, even if only those two were fired in anger.

    Well George Pal was pretty awesome, plus the government was spending a lot of money on SFX back in the 1950s because they knew they were going to need the technology to fake moon landings in the 1960s.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  151. last safety switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI

  152. Old News. by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    This was publicized decades ago. Although simple, the bombs were apparently not armed. Possibly by a single, simple switch. There's one in the mud just off the coast that they haven't been able to find too. There are always those in any profession that live with what if and Might have beens, or Gloom and Doom. I was 21 in 61. Took and passed the pilots test. Sinus problems kept me from flying as they didn't know about salt water spray and decongestants were pretty much unknown..

  153. Cuban missle chrisis was closer to disaster by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    During the crisis we were a lot closer (within feet) to a much bigger balloon going up than a couple dropped unarmed bombs when the plane broke up.

  154. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by Talderas · · Score: 1

    The incident happened when coming in for a landing.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  155. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for quality assurance.
    One switch failed to operate properly so the device did not detonate.
    What a complete failure for the U.S. Air Force during the cold war.

  156. Um, B-52s are subsonic... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    "Hearing the sonic boom of the B-52s'" Those are subsonic jets. No sonic boom. But loud though.

    --
    This is my sig.
  157. Re:Why were nukes making routine flights inside US by tjstork · · Score: 1

    They knew about the dangers of radioactive contamination, and radiation in general. They just didn't care. That's the real story.

    --
    This is my sig.
  158. 3rd day Briefing. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    That must have been a wonderful 3rd day briefing...

    "Seriously guys? Day 3? WTF?"