Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nuke transportation story has explosive implications

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:07 PM
Original message
Nuke transportation story has explosive implications
Source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Last month, six W80-1 nuclear-armed AGM-129 advanced cruise missiles were flown from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana and sat on the tarmac for 10 hours undetected.

Press reports initially cited the Air Force mistake of flying nuclear weapons over the United States in violation of Air Force standing orders and international treaties, while completely missing the more important major issues, such as how six nuclear cruise missiles got loose to begin with.

All security forces assigned are authorized to use deadly force to protect the weapons from any threat. Nor does anyone quickly move a 1-ton cruise missile -- or forget about six of them, as reported by some news outlets, especially cruise missiles loaded with high explosives.

The United States also does not transport nuclear weapons meant for elimination attached to their launch vehicles under the wings of a combat aircraft. The procedure is to separate the warhead from the missile, encase the warhead and transport it by military cargo aircraft to a repository -- not an operational bomber base that just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/259201.html



Robert Stormer of Chicago is a retired lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve, serving with the Navy's Supervisor of Salvage, and was a specialist in weapons retrieval. He is a marine engineer and marine salvage specialist.

It's really all about the chain of command.

Who issued the command to load and stage these weapons?

And why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. This whole damn 'incident' just doesn't pass the smell test... eom K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. I keep saying: Only two scenarios make any sense AT ALL...
1.) The whole story was cooked up to scare the Iranians. (Saber rattling).

2.) The Secret Government just got caught with their hands in the Nuclear Cookie-Jar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I am guessing that #2 is the correct answer. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emillereid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I choose door number 2!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. absolutely number 2
I imagine cheney is furious this leaked out and is in the process of permanently silencing the leaker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
populistdriven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Is door number 2 the red pill? If so the nightmare is real.
Edited on Mon Oct-08-07 03:03 PM by bushmeat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
43. Its obviously door #1
If a real nuclear screw-up occured, NOBODY would be screaming about it to the press, all the more so if it were some super secret job. Its just too damn easy to make up a cover story why such a thing should be kept secret that anybody could believe. Who's going to scream to the press that our nuclear weapons are all out of control and wandering all over the place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #43
59. A whistleblower, perhaps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. I was thinking of that scenario, but I don't think so...
I mean, suppose you do have a shadow government with so much control it can move nukes around on a whim. If I discovered that, I'm not sure my first impulse would be to call Geraldo...At least in a time when the media seem just like a bunch of dancing puppets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #43
75. Wasn't there a mysterious death of a serviceman at the base concerned?
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 11:28 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
Just as DUers had feared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
47. What's scary....
Edited on Tue Oct-09-07 12:44 AM by TwoSparkles
I believe #2.

I don't believe that #1 is valid--even though it is easier to digest that we were
saber rattling. I don't believe in #1, because I believe that Bush and the neocons
are moving full speed ahead with their plans of economic and military domination
in the Middle East--which is outlined in their PNAC plan, right on their Web site.
They don't give a rat's arse whether or not Iran is scared. They wouldn't waste
a second trying to deter Iran or scare them into complying. Iran's noncompliance
is their ticket to more war. If Iran came out and said that their nuclear program
is now tabled, and they'll never touch the subject again--BushCo would have no
impetus for war. Therefore, saber rattling is moot.

As for #2, if they're staging these multiple nukes for bombing in Iran---they must
know that something BIG is on the horizon. Something big enough to justify
nuking a country. Right now, they could not sell going nuclear to the American
people. If Iran doesn't stop enriching Uranium, they might be able to sell
a ground war or some limited "Shock and Awe" to the dullard 30 percent of this
country. They'd have tenuous support for these limited activities! So, to
justify multiple nuclear weapons...we've got a big offensive situation coming
our way and they damn well know it.

That's the big question. That's the one I want answered.

So, what event will happen that will justify our country using multiple nuclear
weapons on another country??????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NBachers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Iranian shore defenses
OK, here's a scenario that's on the brink of tomorrow's headlines:

Bush launches "surgical strikes with 'limited' collateral damage" on so-called Iranian military targets. He uses the "protect our troops" mantra, but extends the strikes to Iranian nuclear research facilities. The fact that these facilities are scattered underground in populated areas means "tough shit Ahab."

American press dutifully reports minimal civilian casualties. The truth is, civilian casualties are widespread and numerous.

Iran shuts off its supply of oil to the world. Iran attacks American warships in the Persian Gulf with Silkworm Missiles and Russian SSN-22 Sunburn missiles. Iran also destroys warships and supertankers in the Straits of Hormuz, which is only 50 km wide at its narrowest point. This effectively shuts down the Straits of Hormuz; no oil can get out; our remaining military fleet is trapped. Bush now has his excuse to go whole hawg on them dirty moslems.

With a significant percentage of the worlds' oil supply shut off, and America reeling in shock from the loss of the fleet Bush had positioned in the Persian Gulf, we decide it's time to up the ante. The PNAC'ers are giddy with glee. Why do you think those warships were positioned like sitting ducks out there? There's no choice but to let loose the nukes. We didn't wanna do it, we didn't wanna do it . . . but we have no choice now. Amurka Demands Blood! The Senate and House of Representatives have a very public media prayer meeting on the steps of the Capitol and sing "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

In Pakistan, already destabilized with Musharraf barely hanging on, a widespread rebellion occurs; Musharraf is deposed, and the hardline fundamentalists now in power donate their existing nukes to Iran.

It can all happen by next Friday . . . or Tuesday . . . or whenever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #48
66. And possibly what might unfold...
What is scary about the scenario you describe is that it is possible.

What you have left out is the possibility that Russia would retaliate and nuke us before Iran did anything. Simply to be rid of us. The world at this point probably would not miss us. Instead of protecting the world against aggressors, we have become the aggressors.

All for oil. Millions of lives for millions of barrels. The legacy of the Bush dynasty. Still empowered by our Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #47
69. How about a false flag nuke attack on our pacific northwest?


There is a military exercise scheduled for the pacific northwest to test military response to a radiological attack and to judge ability to enforce martial law. And guess who will be leading this ......none other than Darth Dick. This was posted in LBN just a couple of days ago. I'm wondering if this was the intended destination of one of the warheads?

I need not speculate on the white house reaction should a tactical nuke explode on American soil. It would be the excuse they wanted to nuke Iran, which they've been planning since before 9/11. It would also give Cheney the excuse to declare martial law, creating the ultimate unitary executive which he's been trying to do since he assigned himself as vice/acting president.

If you want to read a good book to make you think, read "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf. She studied democracies that closed down to authoritarian dictatorships. They all went thru the same ten steps to close down their societies and control the people. Italy, Germany, Chile, etc went thru the same ten steps. And folks, we're real close at number seven. She made a point of saying that the rate of shut down of the society accelerates as each step is accomplished. Truly scary how they've gotten away with it.

She also emphasized that it is not just the the executive responsible for the criminal activity. She also blamed the previous congress for backing everything Bush wanted, and blemed the current congress for backing down from everything Bush wanted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluescribbler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
53. I have 1 problem with door #2
Reports stated that the missiles sat on the tarmac at Barksdale for 10 hours before anyone realized they were there. If the Cheney/Bush maladministration was planning a nuke strike on Iran, and this was part of the plan, wouldn't someone at Barksdale have been informed that the nukes were coming and been ordered to take custody of them? Someone in the chain of command would surely have been aware of the plans and taken steps to secure the warheads upon arrival if this were part of a secret plan authorized at the highest levels.

I'm just asking. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pooka Fey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Look at the # of mistakes
that had to be made in order for this to be "accidental"....

I know about the number of sign-offs that have to take place and the chain of custody requirements .... this would have to be failure of procedures on a massive scale to be a mistake.

And now....

The Air Force is being asked to investigate themselves....yeah...that'll work :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. My wife and I are both Navy vets
We know the chain of command and how it works. Anyone who was an enlisted in the military is very, very aware of the chain of command and the consequences of fucking around with it.

As the article notes, the chain of command completely and totally failed if this story is to believed.

I believe that we have a hero whistle-blower to thank for derailing whatever the hell our "leaders" were up to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #7
51. Entire chain of command failed on 9/11 if all the news reports are
true. Once again, there's more here than meets the eye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
62. The logic behind chain of command, or hierarchy,
as well as triple-redundant systems (thinking of nuclear security) also creates a single major weak point, as well as multiple smaller weak points.

Those weak points are at the top of each local pyramid, which make up the single greater pyramid. When those at the top cannot be trusted, the chain of command can easily be broken throughout smaller, local pyramids (or chains) of command.

Hiring Bush/Cheney/Co to be the top point of the greater chain of command destabilizes the rest of the chained hierarchies dropping from it.

I believe more and more that a single person heading the Executive Branch was a major oversight of the constitutional framers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. The entire story needs to come out.
All things considered, I'm betting they were headed to the Middle East on Cheney's direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
307 MMS Donating Member (180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Nukes
Bingo! From a former weapons mechanic on B-52s for four years('70-'74), this was no goddamn accident! I used to load this shit as a #3 man on the load crew. I was once inadvertantly left in the "no lone zone" after doing the cockpit ringout and safety wiring the enabling switches. With M-16s pointing at me, not a fun experience. NO ACCIDENT...trust me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
37. That sounds harsh, unpleasant, and unfortunate,
and confirms my suspicions. I'm glad you lived to tell about it.

Who could possibly blame this on troop/unit error? What a load. Somebody made the military move those suckers, and we're not finding out who that was. Somebody get Pelosi on the phone; I need a word with her.

Thanks for the info.

moto
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #21
54. Right on target MMS
I was in SAC during the same period of time and your experience rings true...

I can't believe there was a breach of security, a failure of the chain of command or such a large series of just plain F**kUPs on such a massive scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
68. The funny thing is....
In your post, you state "I was once inadvertantly left in the "no lone zone" after doing the cockpit ringout and safety wiring the enabling switches". Doesn't that demonstrate that negligence has happened before (although certainly not on the same scale). Given that, is it that big of a stretch to imagine that other safeguards were disregarded?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. All of 'em. Every single safeguard was ignored?
In that case wouldn't that still boil down to being INTENTIONAL???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. Not necessarily....
How do you know that the disregard of the initial safeguards didn't trigger the breakdown of procedures/safeguards further down the line? You'd have to understand the precedence and interdependencies, as well as the design of the safeguards to untangle it. Which is my point. Before people just start baselessly speculating what all this means and, in some cases, seeing a nefarious hand in all of this, maybe it would be better to assemble the critical information and analyze it holistically as well as piece by piece. We have had plenty of procedural breakdowns at our national labs (e.g., Los Alamos National Lab - LANL) in very sensitive safeguards also. My point is that it's hard to TOTALLY design human fallibility out of anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #71
72. Yes, it certainly is hard to 'totally design human fallibility' of of anything.
I imagine it's a little harder to design complete and total breakdown completely through the chain of command into anything without intent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. Breakdowns are not typically "designed"
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 11:16 AM by SDuderstadt
that's why they are called breakdowns....


If you have any evidence at all that the breakdowns were "designed", please provide it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Uh Uh. You first. You're the one claiming to know it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Umm, it's YOUR claim but, okay....read what Walter Pincus had to say about it
Missteps in the Bunker

By Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 23, 2007; A01



Just after 9 a.m. on Aug. 29, a group of U.S. airmen entered a sod-covered bunker on North Dakota's Minot Air Force Base with orders to collect a set of unarmed cruise missiles bound for a weapons graveyard. They quickly pulled out a dozen cylinders, all of which appeared identical from a cursory glance, and hauled them along Bomber Boulevard to a waiting B-52 bomber.

The airmen attached the gray missiles to the plane's wings, six on each side. After eyeballing the missiles on the right side, a flight officer signed a manifest that listed a dozen unarmed AGM-129 missiles. The officer did not notice that the six on the left contained nuclear warheads, each with the destructive power of up to 10 Hiroshima bombs.

That detail would escape notice for an astounding 36 hours, during which the missiles were flown across the country to a Louisiana air base that had no idea nuclear warheads were coming. It was the first known flight by a nuclear-armed bomber over U.S. airspace, without special high-level authorization, in nearly 40 years.

The episode, serious enough to trigger a rare "Bent Spear" nuclear incident report that raced through the chain of command to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and President Bush, provoked new questions inside and outside the Pentagon about the adequacy of U.S. nuclear weapons safeguards while the military's attention and resources are devoted to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Three weeks after word of the incident leaked to the public, new details obtained by The Washington Post point to security failures at multiple levels in North Dakota and Louisiana, according to interviews with current and former U.S. officials briefed on the initial results of an Air Force investigation of the incident.

The warheads were attached to the plane in Minot without special guard for more than 15 hours, and they remained on the plane in Louisiana for nearly nine hours more before being discovered. In total, the warheads slipped from the Air Force's nuclear safety net for more than a day without anyone's knowledge.

"I have been in the nuclear business since 1966 and am not aware of any incident more disturbing," retired Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger, who served as U.S. Strategic Command chief from 1996 to 1998, said in an interview.

A simple error in a missile storage room led to missteps at every turn, as ground crews failed to notice the warheads, and as security teams and flight crew members failed to provide adequate oversight and check the cargo thoroughly. An elaborate nuclear safeguard system, nurtured during the Cold War and infused with rigorous accounting and command procedures, was utterly debased, the investigation's early results show.

The incident came on the heels of multiple warnings -- some of which went to the highest levels of the Bush administration, including the National Security Council -- of security problems at Air Force installations where nuclear weapons are kept. The risks are not that warheads might be accidentally detonated, but that sloppy procedures could leave room for theft or damage to a warhead, disseminating its toxic nuclear materials.

A former National Security Council staff member with detailed knowledge described the event as something that people in the White House "have been assured never could happen." What occurred on Aug. 29-30, the former official said, was "a breakdown at a number of levels involving flight crew, munitions, storage and tracking procedures -- faults that never were to line up on a single day."

Missteps in the Bunker

The air base where the incident took place is one of the most remote and, for much of the year, coldest military posts in the continental United States. Veterans of Minot typically describe their assignments by counting the winters passed in the flat, treeless region where January temperatures sometimes reach 30 below zero. In airman-speak, a three-year assignment becomes "three winters" at Minot.

The daily routine for many of Minot's crews is a cycle of scheduled maintenance for the base's 35 aging B-52H Stratofortress bombers -- mammoth, eight-engine workhorses, the newest of which left the assembly line more than 45 years ago. Workers also tend to 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles kept at the ready in silos scattered across neighboring cornfields, as well as hundreds of smaller nuclear bombs, warheads and vehicles stored in sod-covered bunkers called igloos.

"We had a continuous workload in maintaining" warheads, said Scott Vest, a former Air Force captain who spent time in Minot's bunkers in the 1990s. "We had a stockpile of more than 400 . . . and some of them were always coming due" for service.

Among the many weapons and airframes, the AGM-129 cruise missile was well known at the base as a nuclear warhead delivery system carried by B-52s. With its unique shape and design, it is easily distinguished from the older AGM-86, which can be fitted with either a nuclear or a conventional warhead.

Last fall, after 17 years in the U.S. arsenal, the Air Force's more than 400 AGM-129s were ordered into retirement by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Minot was told to begin shipping out the unarmed missiles in small groups to Barksdale Air Force Base near Shreveport, La., for storage. By Aug. 29, its crews had already sent more than 200 missiles to Barksdale and knew the drill by heart.

The Air Force's account of what happened that day and the next was provided by multiple sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the government's investigation is continuing and classified.

At 9:12 a.m. local time on Aug. 29, according to the account, ground crews in two trucks entered a gated compound at Minot known as the Weapons Storage Area and drove to an igloo where the cruise missiles were stored. The 21-foot missiles were already mounted on pylons, six apiece in clusters of three, for quick mounting to the wings of a B-52.

The AGM-129 is designed to carry silver W-80-1 nuclear warheads, which have a variable yield of between 5 and 150 kilotons. (A kiloton is equal to the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT.) The warheads were meant to have been removed from the missiles before shipment. In their place, crews were supposed to insert metal dummies of the same size and weight, but a different color, so the missiles could still be properly attached under the bomber's wings.

A munitions custodian officer is supposed to keep track of the nuclear warheads. In the case of cruise missiles, a stamp-size window on the missile's frame allows workers to peer inside to check whether the warheads within are silver. In many cases, a red ribbon or marker attached to the missile serves as an additional warning. Finally, before the missiles are moved, two-man teams are supposed to look at check sheets, bar codes and serial numbers denoting whether the missiles are armed.

Why the warheads were not noticed in this case is not publicly known. But once the missiles were certified as unarmed, a requirement for unique security precautions when nuclear warheads are moved -- such as the presence of specially armed security police, the approval of a senior base commander and a special tracking system -- evaporated.

The trucks hauled the missile pylons from the bunker into the bustle of normal air base traffic, onto Bomber Boulevard and M Street, before turning onto a tarmac apron where the missiles were loaded onto the B-52. The loading took eight hours because of unusual trouble attaching the pylon on the right side of the plane -- the one with the dummy warheads.

By 5:12 p.m., the B-52 was fully loaded. The plane then sat on the tarmac overnight without special guards, protected for 15 hours by only the base's exterior chain-link fence and roving security patrols.

Air Force rules required members of the jet's flight crew to examine all of the missiles and warheads before the plane took off. But in this instance, just one person examined only the six unarmed missiles and inexplicably skipped the armed missiles on the left, according to officials familiar with the probe.

"If they're not expecting a live warhead it may be a very casual thing -- there's no need to set up the security system and play the whole nuclear game," said Vest, the former Minot airman. "As for the air crew, they're bus drivers at this point, as far as they know."

The plane, which had flown to Minot for the mission and was not certified to carry nuclear weapons, departed the next morning for Louisiana. When the bomber landed at Barksdale at 11:23 a.m., the air crew signed out and left for lunch, according to the probe.

It would be another nine hours -- until 8:30 p.m. -- before a Barksdale ground crew turned up at the parked aircraft to begin removing the missiles. At 8:45, 15 minutes into the task, a separate missile transport crew arrived in trucks. One of these airmen noticed something unusual about the missiles. Within an hour, a skeptical supervisor had examined them and ordered them secured.

By then it was 10 p.m., more than 36 hours after the warheads left their secure bunker in Minot.

Once the errant warheads were discovered, Air Force officers in Louisiana were alarmed enough to immediately notify the National Military Command Center, a highly secure area of the Pentagon that serves as the nerve center for U.S. nuclear war planning. Such "Bent Spear" events are ranked second in seriousness only to "Broken Arrow" incidents, which involve the loss, destruction or accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon.

The Air Force decided at first to keep the mishap under wraps, in part because of policies that prohibit the confirmation of any details about the storage or movement of nuclear weapons. No public acknowledgment was made until service members leaked the story to the Military Times, which published a brief account Sept. 5.

Officials familiar with the Bent Spear report say Air Force officials apparently did not anticipate that the episode would cause public concern. One passage in the report contains these four words:

"No press interest anticipated."

'What the Hell Happened Here?'

The news, when it did leak, provoked a reaction within the defense and national security communities that bordered on disbelief: How could so many safeguards, drilled into generations of nuclear weapons officers and crews, break down at once?

Military officers, nuclear weapons analysts and lawmakers have expressed concern that it was not just a fluke, but a symptom of deeper problems in the handling of nuclear weapons now that Cold War anxieties have abated.

"It is more significant than people first realized, and the more you look at it, the stranger it is," said Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress think tank and the author of a history of nuclear weapons. "These weapons -- the equivalent of 60 Hiroshimas -- were out of authorized command and control for more than a day."

The Air Force has sought to offer assurances that its security system is working. Within days, the service relieved one Minot officer of his command and disciplined several airmen, while assigning a major general to head an investigation that has already been extended for extra weeks. At the same time, Defense Department officials have announced that a Pentagon-appointed scientific advisory board will study the mishap as part of a larger review of procedures for handling nuclear weapons.

"Clearly this incident was unacceptable on many levels," said an Air Force spokesman, Lt. Col. Edward Thomas. "Our response has been swift and focused -- and it has really just begun. We will spend many months at the air staff and at our commands and bases ensuring that the root causes are addressed."

While Air Force officials see the Minot event as serious, they also note that it was harmless, since the six nuclear warheads never left the military's control. Even if the bomber had crashed, or if someone had stolen the warheads, fail-safe devices would have prevented a nuclear detonation.

But independent experts warn that whenever nuclear weapons are not properly safeguarded, their fissile materials are at risk of theft and diversion. Moreover, if the plane had crashed and the warheads' casings cracked, these highly toxic materials could have been widely dispersed.

"When what were multiple layers of tight nuclear weapon control internal procedures break down, some bad guy may eventually come along and take advantage of them," said a former senior administration official who had responsibility for nuclear security.

Some Air Force veterans say the base's officers made an egregious mistake in allowing nuclear-warhead-equipped missiles and unarmed missiles to be stored in the same bunker, a practice that a spokesman last week confirmed is routine. Charles Curtis, a former deputy energy secretary in the Clinton administration, said, "We always relied on segregation of nuclear weapons from conventional ones."

Former nuclear weapons officials have noted that the weapons transfer at the heart of the incident coincides with deep cuts in deployed nuclear forces that will bring the total number of warheads to as few as 1,700 by the year 2012 -- a reduction of more than 50 percent from 2001 levels. But the downsizing has created new accounting and logistical challenges, since U.S. policy is to keep thousands more warheads in storage, some as a strategic reserve and others awaiting dismantling.

A secret 1998 history of the Air Combat Command warned of "diminished attention for even 'the minimum standards' of nuclear weapons' maintenance, support and security" once such arms became less vital, according to a declassified copy obtained by Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists' nuclear information project.

The Air Force's inspector general in 2003 found that half of the "nuclear surety" inspections conducted that year resulted in failing grades -- the worst performance since inspections of weapons-handling began. Minot's 5th Bomb Wing was among the units that failed, and the Louisiana-based 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale garnered an unsatisfactory rating in 2005.

Both units passed subsequent nuclear inspections, and Minot was given high marks in a 2006 inspection. The 2003 report on the 5th Bomb Wing attributed its poor performance to the demands of supporting combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wartime stresses had "resulted in a lack of time to focus and practice nuclear operations," the report stated.

Last year, the Air Force eliminated a separate nuclear-operations directorate known informally as the N Staff, which closely tracked the maintenance and security of nuclear weapons in the United States and other NATO countries. Currently, nuclear and space operations are combined in a single directorate. Air Force officials say the change was part of a service-wide reorganization and did not reflect diminished importance of nuclear operations.

"Where nuclear weapons have receded into the background is at the senior policy level, where there are other things people have to worry about," said Linton F. Brooks, who resigned in January as director of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Brooks, who oversaw billions of dollars in U.S. spending to help Russia secure its nuclear stockpile, said the mishandling of U.S. warheads indicates that "something went seriously wrong."

A similar refrain has been voiced hundreds of times in blogs and chat rooms popular with former and current military members. On a Web site run by the Military Times, a former B-52 crew chief who did not give his name wrote: "What the hell happened here?"

A former Air Force senior master sergeant wrote separately that "mistakes were made at the lowest level of supervision and this snowballed into the one of the biggest mistakes in USAF history. I am still scratching my head wondering how this could happened."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. And what did Walter have to say about the lack of WMD in Iraq?

The story stinks to high heaven and you can only come down to two different scenarios:
1. The military has been throughly broken under the leadership, that is mismanagement abuse, and use of as cannon fodder for corporations to make obscene war profits, of Shrub!
2. It was a plot to accidentally use a weapon or to steal a weapon by the shadow government run by Cheney!


Either way are we better off now than we were before the theft of the presidency in 2000?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #78
79. Either/or fallacy
Also known as a "false dilemma". There are a whole range of possible scenarios besides the two you try to confine it to. Although I can't disagree with the philosophy expressed in your first choice, that doesn't really explain this situation.

The second choice is particularly silly, especially in light of the absence of any credible evidence of it (BTW, I despise the Bush administration, especially Dick Cheney). It doesn't even make logical sense. For example, if they were really trying to "steal a nuclear weapon", wouldn't it make sense to make sure someone at Barksdale was in on it? If someone is so smart as to be able to steal a nuclear weapon, don't you believe they would think this through? Even more importantly, wouldn't there be a lot easier ways to accomplish this? Why pick weapons so far away when there are others far closer? Do you have any evidence of your claim or is this wild speculation? Personally, I vote for wild speculation.

I can't disagree about the 2000 election. Gore was robbed, plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-22-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. If you are trying to impeach Pincus's credibility by suggesting...
he covered for the Bush administration on WMD, I can't find any evidence of it. In fact, everything I find by him on the subject was quite critical of the Bush administration.

Prewar Findings Worried Analysts

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 22, 2005; A26



On Jan. 24, 2003, four days before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address presenting the case for war against Iraq, the National Security Council staff put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs.

The person receiving the request, Robert Walpole, then the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, would later tell investigators that "the NSC believed the nuclear case was weak," according to a 500-page report released last year by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

It has been clear since the September report of the Iraq Survey Group -- a CIA-sponsored weapons search in Iraq -- that the United States would not find the weapons of mass destruction cited by Bush as the rationale for going to war against Iraq. But as the Walpole episode suggests, it appears that even before the war many senior intelligence officials in the government had doubts about the case being trumpeted in public by the president and his senior advisers.

The question of prewar intelligence has been thrust back into the public eye with the disclosure of a secret British memo showing that, eight months before the March 2003 start of the war, a senior British intelligence official reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that U.S. intelligence was being shaped to support a policy of invading Iraq.

Moreover, a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president's commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs.

These included claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa for its nuclear program, had mobile labs for producing biological weapons, ran an active chemical weapons program and possessed unmanned aircraft that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. All these claims were made by Bush or then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in public addresses even though, the reports made clear, they had yet to be verified by U.S. intelligence agencies.

For instance, Bush said in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address that Hussein was working to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa, a conclusion the president attributed to British intelligence and made a key part of his assertion that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program.

More than a year later, the White House retracted the statement after its veracity was questioned. But the Senate report makes it clear that even in January 2003, just before the president's speech, analysts at the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center were still investigating the reliability of the uranium information.

Similarly, the president's intelligence commission, chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), disclosed that senior intelligence officials had serious questions about "Curveball," the code name for an Iraqi informant who provided the key information on Hussein's alleged mobile biological facilities.

The CIA clandestine service's European division chief had met in 2002 with a German intelligence officer whose service was handling Curveball. The German said his service "was not sure whether Curveball was actually telling the truth," according to the commission report. When it appeared that Curveball's material would be in Bush's State of the Union speech, the CIA Berlin station chief was asked to get the Germans to allow him to question Curveball directly.

On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give "serious consideration" before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.

The next day, Bush told the world: "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors." He attributed that information to "three Iraqi defectors."

A week later, Powell said in an address to the United Nations that the information on mobile labs came from four defectors, and he described one as "an eyewitness . . . who supervised one of these facilities" and was at the site when an accident killed 12 technicians.

Within a year, doubts emerged about the truthfulness of all four, and the "eyewitness" turned out to be Curveball, the informant the CIA station chief had red-flagged as unreliable. Curveball was subsequently determined to be a fabricator who had been fired from the Iraqi facility years before the alleged accident, according to the commission and Senate reports.

As Bush speeches were being drafted in the prewar period, serious questions were also being raised within the intelligence community about purported threats from biologically armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech, Bush mentioned a potential threat to the U.S. mainland being explored by Iraq through unmanned aircraft "that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons." The basis for that analysis was a single report that an Iraqi general in late 2000 or early 2001 indicated interest in buying autopilots and gyroscopes for Hussein's UAV program. The manufacturer automatically included topographic mapping software of the United States in the package.

When the list was submitted in early 2002, the manufacturer's distributor determined that the U.S. mapping software would not be included in the autopilot package, and told the procurement agent in March 2002. By then, however, U.S. intelligence, which closely followed Iraqi procurement of such material, had already concluded as early as the summer of 2001 that this was the "first indication that the UAVs might be used to target the U.S."

When a foreign intelligence service questioned the procurement agent, he originally said he had never intended to purchase the U.S. mapping software, but he refused to submit to a thorough examination, according to the president's commission. "By fall 2002, the CIA was still uncertain whether the procurement agent was lying," the commission said. Nonetheless, a National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 said the attempted procurement "strongly suggested" Iraq was interested in targeting UAVs on the United States. Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the "smoking gun" in a special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

By January 2003, however, it became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the president's commission, the CIA "increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . . may have been inadvertent."

In an intelligence estimate on threats to the U.S. homeland published in January 2003, Air Force, Defense Intelligence Agency and Army analysts agreed that the proposed purchase was "not necessarily indicative of an intent to target the U.S. homeland."

By late January 2003, the number of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf area was approaching 150,000, and the invasion of Iraq was all but guaranteed. Neither Bush nor Powell reflected in their speeches the many doubts that had surfaced at that time about Iraq's weapons programs.

Instead, Bush said, "With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region." He added: "Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company


I think you're blowing smoke. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. It's a good bet.
Cheney has been behind every other horrible act of this awful administration, why not this one? God, I wish we could get rid of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
31. Another vote for Cheney
He's running the Death Star, after all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuppyBismark Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. I Pick - Incompetence & a Stretched Military
We have a Defense Department that that is understaffed and working long hours. I suspect that incompetence is the major contributor to losing track of these war heads. They should never have been stored with non-nuclear weapons, inspection procedures were not followed, and many other things happened. It is similar to the lack of planning in Iraq, but this time it did not hurt anyone. Perhaps in this case, the people who screwed up actually got fired or demoted because political appointees were not involved.

:nuke: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. If we have Pentagon incompetence on this level, then we better shut them down -- !!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frog92969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. Incompetence is not a viable defense here
I'll call bullshit. Nothing this administration does is an accident or from incompetence. Their ambitious and audacious plans may at times require damage control, but THIS WAS NO ACCIDENT!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #24
50. They are incompetent alright... they get away with it because this country as a whole is in denial..
Edited on Tue Oct-09-07 04:35 AM by liberation
... still regarding the evil f*ckers lurking in the Whitehorse.


They couldn't even plant the fake WMDs in Iraq, that is how incompetent they are. But it doesn't matter because what is supposed to be the opposition is bought and paid for. The media is under their thumb. And more importantly, the average American is still in denial. No matter how much bullshit these people pull off, Americans have been conditioned to take the office of the president (under GOP control at least) as being some sort of untouchable office.

Since they control the message, these assholes get to be as sloppy as they want. In fact, I bet they get off on being caught red handed and knowing that no one is going to make a damn thing about it. Bush has been doing that all his life: be a complete dick about it, and knowing that he can get away with it because he is royalty. There is not a god damned thing people are going to do about it, and in fact is his divine given right to do so.

Even though the moron can't even speak English correctly or express a coherent thought in real time... Most people still address him as if he knew what he was talking about or he even cared. The guy is a petulant incompetent moron, and no one confronts him in the political arena under that context. The problem is the fact that the GOP has managed to make Bush his office, and not the other way around. A president is not the office or concept of the presidency... respect is earned not granted. This moron has been treated as royalty when all he has achieved in life is winning an election, that is it... And he should have been expected to prove himself before giving him a free pass. Yet he has failed at every step of the way, and it is the supreme manipulation of the GOP political engineering which has managed to make the person the office and as such immune from criticism. After all, attacking the office of the presidency would be akin as attacking the core of our democratic foundation. However, the president is not the presidency, and as a human element he is as susceptible to criticism and scrutiny as any other citizen -- in fact I would argue that the should be subjected to more scrutiny than any other citizen since he is the apex of power and our employee.


We... are... f*cked....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #50
73. "A Lord decides to play a joke
on a sleeping drunk named Christopher Sly. Dressed as a lord and slipped into a fine bed, Sly is told when he awakes that he is a great lord who has lost his memory, and his ale-house rambles were but a dream."

(In the introdiction of Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taming_of_the_Shrew).

Shrub reminds me of Christopher Sly, an idiot put in a position of power who, once there, can't be removed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
33. A military stretched so thin that it breaks the chain of command?
I don't think so...

Bush & Co. have shown that they are very competent at getting what they want.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
38. PERFECT explanation! "things happened"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
44. To quote Rebecca Solnit,
"No left-leaning president could have destroyed the military as Bush has done."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. If they had remained "undetected" for much longer
Iran would have suddenly developed a nuclear capability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. Why don't we just IMPEACH Bush based on incompetence -- - ????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:03 PM
Original message
And Congress along with him...
Edited on Mon Oct-08-07 03:11 PM by Baby Snooks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. And Congress along with him...
Congress seems intent on continuing to rubber-stamp whatever he wants. Including apparently the use of nuclear weapons. They're as evil as he is at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #11
46. 'cause Nancy sez it's off the table.
I guess we have to impeach Nancy, Steny, and Rahm first. Get the enablers out of the way, and then go after the criminals!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #46
52. You Got MY Vote!
In order for the Democratic Party to clean house, we have to start with our house-cleaning crew and fire the incompetents, making sure that the rest have sufficient training in their roles as public servants and representatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
65. Do they mention "incompetence" in the constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debbierlus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
13. Has Olbermann done any coverage of this....

I am going to throw him an e-mail asking he do a special investigation into this....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. I believe KO has talked about it
But I don't think he went into much depth on the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
18. D I C K C H E N E Y . The only answer
that makes sense. He is trying to start a war, and a nuke accident on Iran's border is the perfect way to do it. Blow one off on the border, and use it as a pretext. So what if we lose a couple of hundred soldiers in the process? casualties of a greater crusa . . . .er war.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Think you have the key to it there ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. my thoughts exactly
then colon powell can get on the tv again and give a rousing speech about how Iran senselessly set it off. Meanwhile, joesixpack is sitting in his home saying, "turn it all into a glass parking lot, kill em all". never realizing what our shadow government is capable of. jesusonaskateboard, read "Overthrow" and you'll see how many false flag operations have been performed in the name of democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheOtherMaven Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
22. Six out of Twelve?
The biggest problem I have with the "B-52 conspiracy theory" is this: the plane was built to carry twelve missiles, and twelve is what it was carrying. No one has been saying much about the six missiles on the other side. Were they warheadless, as they were supposed to be? Were they "conventional" missiles? If the plane was intended to be staged out to the Middle East, per the conspiracy theory, why live-load only one side?

Are we ever going to get any real, solid facts?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
307 MMS Donating Member (180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. The other 6
Concrete dummies for balance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Who signed the paperwork? Somebody had to sign some papers and
someone needs to be talking to him/her/them. That article doesn't ask for the identity of any of the people involved. Those missiles didn't draw up the paperwork to move themselves anywhere. There are names. There are names clear down to the schmucks who loaded them on those b-52s. And they know the names of the people who told them to do it. And those guys know the names of the people who told them to...(no doubt you know what I mean. This is not a big mystery.)

And this should be one huge incidence on every news program and every internet site in the world. These sneaky liars are moving nukes. Does no one but me feel nauseous when they think about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. There is NO conventional version of the ACM-129, only nuclear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #22
55. The conspiracy theory is bull.
The six on the other side were de-loaded ACMs, having already been stripped of their warheads for the purpose of decomissioning. Barksdale is where the de-loaded ACMs are taken for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoiBoy Donating Member (842 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
25. So... where are these nukes now?
Still in Barksdale or back in Minot?

Personally, I'd feel much better with these WMDs back in Minot, under lock and key once again...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spag68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
45. Nukes
I've read all the posts, and yours is the only one that asks the best question. I was on a ship in 60to 62 that had asrocs with nuke capability's and even though we carried no nukes warheads, each and every one of these little missiles were triple checked every time we went into Norfolk, and had to be offloaded before we docked. I just can't imagine 6 nukes loaded on a b-52 by mistake. Muck to crazy for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emmadoggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
60. That's the question I keep wondering too.
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
27. k&r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
29. Apparently Bushco wanted to destroy the rest of Louisiana
And weren't satisfied with the Katrina damage alone. But seriously folks, someone had to give the commands to move those bombs/warheads and it came from on high. The enlisted men will be the ususal collateral damage in this just as in Abu Ghraib while the policymaker/decisionmaker 's go on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Time to go to Officer Country
I agree with what you said about the "collateral" damage. It'll be the E-3 who was following the orders given by the O-3 that'll pay the consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. or another poor sap like Gen. Karpinski,
the only INNOCENT person in the whole Abu Graib mess. and she gets the shit.
something is seriously wrong with our military. to the point of being dangerous to not just Iran, Syria, or others, but to us as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy Canuck Donating Member (234 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. My impression is that there
is a split in the military. Clear delineation between sane and insane. Very dangerous, coup possibilities. Hopefully the benevolent guys get control because they will have to take on the other half of the military and probably the SS, errr, I mean Blackwater, as well.

This is all so surreal, it is as though it is a horrible dream. I hope I wake up soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lips Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #41
57. Don't count on it
There's so much wrong with the way the military is and has been run for the last 20 years and adding the fact that the military now has carte blanche to distribute nukes around the country at will, without being held accountable is very disturbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
34. K & R! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
36. the Cheney faction of BushCo is bound and determined to use nukes . . .
sometime before they leave office . . . they have this megalomaniacal belief that demonstrating that "we're the biggest and the baddest, and we're not afraid to blow you away" will somehow convince the rest of the world to bow to our omniscience . . .

they are dangerous, dangerous fools . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy Canuck Donating Member (234 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
40. What I don't get is that
it was leaked to a military paper. Why did the paper run it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
constitution_matters Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Because they're true patriots...
... and they don't think this passes the smell test, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lldu Donating Member (272 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #40
61. Paper
The papers are not Military. They are run by a newspaper company, not the military.
They just happen to be sold on base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 03:36 AM
Response to Original message
49. recommend and investigate. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
natrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
56. it's simple-they were going to nuke iranian nuclear sites and the fallout could be blamed
on the target and not the bomb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
58. Maybe they're planning a Reichstad fire
Louisiana's a hop-skip-and-jump from some really kewl targets - Cape Canaveral/Kennedy, New York and other Eastern seabord cities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #58
67. 9/11
Some believe 9/11 was their Reichstag. Congress certainly has supported them ever since. Out of fear perhaps. Which is what they planned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
63. Bullshit excuse: Error in the storage room
Edited on Tue Oct-09-07 03:12 PM by Ezlivin
A simple error in a missile storage room led to missteps at every turn, as ground crews failed to notice the warheads, and as security teams and flight crew members failed to provide adequate oversight and check the cargo thoroughly. An elaborate nuclear safeguard system, nurtured during the Cold War and infused with rigorous accounting and command procedures, was utterly debased, the investigation's early results show.
...

At 9:12 a.m. local time on Aug. 29, according to the account, ground crews in two trucks entered a gated compound at Minot known as the Weapons Storage Area and drove to an igloo where the cruise missiles were stored. The 21-foot missiles were already mounted on pylons, six apiece in clusters of three, for quick mounting to the wings of a B-52.

The AGM-129 is designed to carry silver W-80-1 nuclear warheads, which have a variable yield of between 5 and 150 kilotons. (A kiloton is equal to the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT.) The warheads were meant to have been removed from the missiles before shipment. In their place, crews were supposed to insert metal dummies of the same size and weight, but a different color, so the missiles could still be properly attached under the bomber's wings.

A munitions custodian officer is supposed to keep track of the nuclear warheads. In the case of cruise missiles, a stamp-size window on the missile's frame allows workers to peer inside to check whether the warheads within are silver. In many cases, a red ribbon or marker attached to the missile serves as an additional warning. Finally, before the missiles are moved, two-man teams are supposed to look at check sheets, bar codes and serial numbers denoting whether the missiles are armed.

Air Force rules required members of the jet's flight crew to examine all of the missiles and warheads before the plane took off. But in this instance, just one person examined only the six unarmed missiles and inexplicably skipped the armed missiles on the left, according to officials familiar with the probe.Washington Post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC