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."

39 of 586 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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]
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

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

    the triple fail-safe worked.

    1. 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?

    2. 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.
    3. 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?

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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?
    14. Re:old, really old, news by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

      I forget the physics term,

      Mach stem.

      You're welcome. ;)

      --
      -- Alastair
    15. 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.

    16. 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
  3. 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 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.

    2. Re:Yikes! by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd like to know more...

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  4. Re:I wonder who they would have blamed by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    South Carolina.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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!

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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".'
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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 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
    2. 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."
  14. 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