Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hopefully this should defuse rumors the incident was intentional

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
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 01:13 AM
Original message
Hopefully this should defuse rumors the incident was intentional
Air Force To Fire Officers For Nuke Gaffe

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) Four Air Force officers are being relieved of duty after losing track of six nuclear-armed cruise missiles, which were flown on a B-52 bomber across the United States without anyone knowing it, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

In addition, more than 60 Air Force personnel have had their nuclear security clearances lifted, adds Martin.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen are to be briefed Friday on the Air Force probe into the incident.

Gates said Thursday that officials want to reduce the chances of another such incident "to the lowest level humanly possible." But it "would be silly" to promise it won't happen again, he said at a press conference with Mullen.

Asked if they could assure the American public the nation's nuclear stockpile is secure, Mullen said he wanted to see the report first.

"I look forward to understanding ... what happened here ... to really make a judgment about where we are and what we have to do," he said. "But certainly being at a point where we can assure everybody that we have control of these weapons ... is where we absolutely have to be."

Two Defense Department officials said earlier Thursday that the Air Force investigation found long-established procedures for handling the munitions were not followed and one official said it recommends that five or more officers be relieved of their duties.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record. They also said senior Air Force officials were still reviewing parts of the report, though it was unclear whether any changes were planned.

The Air Force said last month that one munitions squadron commander was fired shortly after the Aug. 30 flight in question and that ground crews and others involved had been temporarily decertified for handling weapons.

It was supposed to have been a routine transfer of cruise missiles carrying dummy warheads from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., adds Martin. But six of them had nuclear warheads, 60 times the explosive power of the bomb that leveled Hiroshima.

The officials declined to say what procedures were not followed. But the mishandling in August would have required not one mistake, but a series of lapses by a number of people in order for armed weapons to be inadvertently taken out of a storage bunker, mounted on the B-52, misidentified on a flight manifest and flown across the country for three hours without anyone noticing.

The plane also sat on a runway for hours with the missiles after arriving in Louisiana before the breach was known, meaning a total of 36 hours passed before the missiles were properly secured, officials have said.

The Air Combat Command ordered a command-wide stand-down - instituted base by base and completed Sept. 14 - to set aside time for personnel to review procedures, officials said.

The incident was so serious that it required President Bush and Gates to be quickly informed.

The Air Force said there was never any danger to the public because the weapons are designed with multiple safety features that ensure the warheads do not detonate accidentally.

But officials also have asserted over the years that such a mistake could not happen because there were numerous procedures in place to ensure the safe handling of nuclear weapons.

An Air Force spokesman, Lt. Col. Edward Thomas, declined to confirm Thursday morning what punishments were planned or to give any details of the probe's findings, saying Gates had not gotten the full report and those to be disciplined were not to be notified until later Thursday.

Three other defense officials said the Air Force planned to announce its investigation results and the punishments at a Pentagon press conference Friday. But two of them said that could be delayed if, for instance, Gates wants further information after he is briefed or more senior officials in the Air Force, who were still discussing the report, disagree with the decision.

The anticipated disciplinary actions would be the most severe ever brought in the Air Force in connection with the handling of nuclear weapons, The Washington Post said in Thursday editions, quoting an unidentified official who said that was aimed at sending a message about accountability.

The weapons involved were the Advanced Cruise Missile, a "stealth" weapon developed in the 1980s with the ability to evade detection by Soviet radars. The Air Force said in March that it had decided to retire the Advanced Cruise Missile fleet soon, and they said after the breach that the missiles were being flown to Barksdale for decommissioning but were supposed to be unarmed ones.

Three weeks into the Air Force investigation, Gates also asked for an outside inquiry to determine whether the incident indicates a larger security problem on the transfer of weapons. Official said his request for the inquiry, which is still under way, did not reflect any dissatisfaction with how the Air Force was conducting its investigation.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday that President Bush "appreciates the fact that Secretary Gates (had moved quickly) to find out what went wrong, make sure it doesn't happen again, and hold people to account if anyone did something wrong."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Of course it wasn't intentional!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Funny how the WH let Karl Rove keep his security clearance
right up to the day he left.

IMHO his actions were even more hazardous to the security of the USA, seems like Turdblossom must still have the negatives of Bush and Geoff Gannon stashed someplace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. It is damn near impossible for it to be
Edited on Fri Oct-19-07 04:42 AM by JTFrog
an accident unless someone changed the protocols. I don't see anything in your post that diffuses any indication that this was intentional. The whitehouse and Dana Perino said so. Oh, well silly me, it must be true.

I'm not one for tinhat theories, but you can't accidentally load nukes onto a bomber or misplace them or forget about them. The protocols make it impossible. No one is allowed to handle them individually or move them without the properly recorded authority signing off on each little step. So either someone changed the protocols intentionally or someone LIHOP.

My stubborn finger is magnetically drawn to Cheney again and again in this story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Did you read the first part of the article?
Forgive me, but do you have ANY evidence at all for your claim, or just supposition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I don't have security clearance
to access the evidence at hand. Guess you got me.

I've read much more than just the article you've posted on this, but just take a look smack dab in the middle of what you posted above:

The officials declined to say what procedures were not followed. But the mishandling in August would have required not one mistake, but a series of lapses by a number of people in order for armed weapons to be inadvertently taken out of a storage bunker, mounted on the B-52, misidentified on a flight manifest and flown across the country for three hours without anyone noticing.


DODD Security Policy for Protecting Nuclear Weapons

C. Two-Person Policy

1. No lone individual shall have access to a nuclear weapon. During
any operation that may require access to nuclear weapons, there shall be
present a minimum of two authorized persons, each capable of detecting
incorrect or unauthorized procedures with respect to the task to be
performed and familiar with applicable safety and security requirements.
Two authorized personnel shall be physically positioned where they can
detect incorrect or unauthorized procedures with respect to the task or
operation being performed.

2. When application of the two-person policy is required, it shall be
enforced by the persons who constitute the team during the entire period
they are accomplishing the task or operation assigned and until they leave
the area within which the two-person policy is required.

3. Security procedures and equipment, intrusion detection systems,
and security force personnel shall ensure positive identification and
control of all persons entering Limited and Exclusion Areas. Entry
control procedures shall ensure no lone individual is permitted in an
Exclusion Area or to have access to a nuclear weapon.

4. The only exceptions to the two-person policy shall be those
specifically prescribed in approved nuclear weapon systems safety rules
established in accordance with DoD Directive 3150.2 (reference (i)).


Easier to believe it was an accident than to find out what lies down the road of asking who, how and why. I'm more prone to believe that protocols were changed (not many with that kind of authority, narrows the field on who) than scores of military personnel just ignored them or had a "lapse". I just don't really get the why part.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Again, if you read the article closely....
You'll see a number of military personnel are being discliplined, having their security clearances taken away, or being outright fired. Do you honestly think that we won't hear from those who were "framed" if this turns out to be anything other than negligence? Do you think our armed forces are not capable of negligence?

I despise the Bush administration but, absent evidence to the contrary, doesn't it make more sense to take it at face value? Just because something COULD happen, doesn't mean it DID happen. No one is saying that asking questions or more investigation/monitoring is not warranted. I have a hard time believing that if, as you suspect, there is more there, that relevant congressional oversight committees are not digging into it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Nevermind. Not going to continue this debate.
Edited on Sat Oct-20-07 06:09 AM by JTFrog
Just suffice it to say that no, I can't take the Bush administration at face value at any time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Of course you won't...
Edited on Sat Oct-20-07 10:01 AM by SDuderstadt
This reminds me of 1996, when the Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration, Ron Brown, was killed (along with roughly 40 Commerce Department employees and American businesspeople) in a crash of an AF CT-43 (military equivalent of a Boeing 737) at Dubrovnik, Croatia. Of course, the RWers went apeshit, convinced that Brown had been knocked off by the Clinton administration (because he was about to "expose" Clinton or be exposed himself...take your pick). When I tried to direct said RWers to the AF and NTSB reports/investigations of the crash, I got the predictable "you can't trust either, because they are part of the Clinton administration" (nevermind the fact that many RWers simultaneously claimed that the military - of which the AF is presumably a part - HATED Clinton). Mind you, this would be the same AF and NTSB that they apparently did not find suspect during the prior Reagan and Bush administrations. Even more absurdly, do they think people are asked when they join the AF, "Do you want to be part of the regular AF, or would you rather join the supersecret part where pilots must be willing to fly their planes into the side of a mountain should the President request it?")? See how silly this is becoming?

The core problem with conspiracy theories (and conspiracy theorists in general) is they never subject their own beliefs to the same standards of evidence that they demand of the "official story". In their world, every anomaly or yet-to-be-answered question MUST point in the direction of their conclusion, whether it actually does or not. So, here are some questions for you:

Is your claim that the incident with the missiles was part of some potential false flag operation that would result in the missiles being used in some sort of attack on Iran?

Would this be the same AF and, presumably, many of the same officers, who served the Clinton administration ably and supposedly above reproach, who then got corrupted by the Bush Administration?

What would be the strategic value of moving missiles from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB if they were actually intended for Iran? Isn't Barksdale quite some distance from Iran?

Do you claim there are not similar nuclear missles/weapons already much closer to Iran? Wouldn't those be easier to use than missiles still some 7300 miles away?

If they were actually headed to Iran, don't you think the crew at Barksdale would have been in on it? It doesn't make much sense not to cover that base, does it?

How about the AF personnel who are being disciplined, demoted or outright cashiered out of the AF? Isn't it reasonable for some of them to rollover on the perpetrators rather than take the fall?

If there is anything more than negligence and/or disregard for procedures in play, isn't it reasonable to assume that the appropriate watchdog and oversight committees of the Democratically-controlled Congress will be hot on the trail? What are they saying about this? Oh, wait....are they in on it too? What does the Bush administration have on these people?

My point is that conspiracy theories look ridiculous enough when launched from the RW. Shouldn't we try to avoid looking just as foolish from our side?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crim son Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. The mere fact thqt there will be disciplinary action means nothing.
And we have heard from the "framed" before, and they have been disregarded. I don't know what happened but I do know for a fact that we have been lied to any number of times, and that the shrub administration has made itself impermeable to any criticism or accusation.

It sounds like you still have faith in our government. How fortunate for you, my friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. No, actually....
I have faith in facts and reason. That happens to be why we have watchdog and oversight mechanisms. I happen to despise GWB and can recount numerous times when he has lied to us. But, in this particular case, no one can seem to point to anything other than supposition and poorly reasoned claims that ignore actual facts (similar to claims that Bill Clinton had numerous people murdered while he was president, that Clinton attacked Branch Davidian compound in Waco or that he planned to declare martial law at the end of his second term so that he could continue in office).

If you have definitive proof of anything other than the "official story", then please provide it. "Conspiracy theorists" (I'm not claiming that you're one) have a duty to subject themselves to the same standards of proof that they demand of the "official story". If it's merely more supposition and baseless speculation, isn't that better left to RWers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crim son Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I guess we differ as to what we view as "facts".
Edited on Sat Oct-20-07 11:18 AM by crim son
I know I can't be certain of the facts. You are trusting what you read is fact. I am not so trusting any more and I have good reason.

on edit: I'm trying to type with kids running around - I apologize for brevity &/or incoherence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. The OP has, evidently, never spent any time around nukes, dummy or armed.
I, as have a few others here, have been around them (Ship-based, however).

The guidelines and procedures are air-tight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. And, if they are disregarded?
It's kinda futile to claim they are 'air-tight"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. I just cannot imagine such a total breakdown in the chain of possession.
But then again, there is so much shit wrong in the DoD and Military right now that I suppose just about anything is possible.

I used to pull TAD on Navy warships (baby-sitting nukes) and I will guarantee you that any one of those supposed "slip-ups" would have been countered with lethal force.

This whole fiasco is beginning to resemble a video game.

I don't believe one fucking word of this crap except that those ACMs went from one point to another. And I don't know one person with any hard, hands-on experience with air- or surfaced-based nukes who does, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Okay, then.....
What's the alternate hypothesis?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Okay.....what's the alternate hypothesis?
Where are the "facts" for such an alternate hypothesis? That's my point....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crim son Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I understand your point.
Mine is more general: that what are posited as "facts" with respect to our government should not be trusted. Beyond that, I have no opinion as to what happened. What struck me as odd was you using an article as "proof" of anything. There were plenty of written articles claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We have heard from the idiot in chief and various minions that, among other things, the insurgency is on the wane, there is no civil war in Iraq, Iraqis are living better now than they were under Saddam, and that Bagdhad is like an open-air market where... I can't recall but it was bullshit.

I wish I could believe what I read. I don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I didn't say it was "proof"
It's merely evidence. Also, one of the things operative in this whole mess is that the Bush administration has lied so much that they AREN'T trustworthy. But that doesn't mean that one abandons looking at the evidence rationally and developing reasonable conclusions. Still missing in this debate is anything that explains the "conspiracy theory" version in a believable fashion. It is far more full of holes than the "official story".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crim son Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You wrote, "Hopefully this will defuse rumors..."
I suppose I took it to mean you considered it proof. My bad. As for the story's believability, my personal experience during the shrub administration has been outright shock, over and over again, at the lies and screwups. I've become immune to astonishment and now just anticipate the worst. And you are correct: this is not entirely rational. Nor is it entirely irrational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. The operative word was....
"rumors"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. Anthing you read in the MSM is just a rumor as well, nowadays.
The articles dispelled nothing.

Although I did expel gas while reading it. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Anthing you read in the MSM is just a rumor as well, nowadays?
Care to overgeneralize? Better yet, do you have a source of facts about the incident? You don't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Shove off, freeper troll. No one's taking direction from an 84-post jagoff.
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 12:20 PM by Jim Sagle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Freeper troll??
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 01:04 PM by SDuderstadt
Ummm, Jim....

Upon what basis did you jump to the conclusion I am a "freeper troll"? FYI, I have never voted for anything other than a Democrat, other than perhaps a handful of lower offices that were either non-partisan or in which we Democrats fielded an especially poor candidate and the other choice was, at least, nominally better. I have voted Democratic in every election since I could first vote in 1972 and worked in the RFK, EMK (presidential bid in 1980) and McGovern campaigns, so I doubt I am a "freeper troll".

Did you form that conclusion based upon the number of posts I have made? In that case, how is anyone supposed to join in the action without being labeled a "freeper troll" when they've just started posting? How many posts need I make before I am not considered a "freeper troll"?

I also find it interesting that you resort to name-calling so quickly (jagoff?). That's something I WOULD expect from a freeper troll. By the way, I actually had a conversation once with Jim Robinson, in which I told him I would debate him at anytime and a place of his choosing. True to freeper cowardice and low intellectual functioning, he told me that they have "learned that debating with the Left is pointless". Interesting projection.

Which gets me to my next point. Isn't it a stretch to claim that ANYTHING you read in the MSM is a "rumor"? Nothing you read there has any factual basis? Funny, that's what I keep hearing from actual freepers. Please define MSM (does that include The Nation and other liberal publications?). In fact, I am quite fond of reading commentary by Paul Krugman in whatever publication I can find him. Do I need to beware of the fact that he is promoting "rumor"? Better yet, could you send me a list of anything I should avoid because it is only rumor? Oh, and while you're at it, could you send me evidence of your claim, you know, something that isn't a rumor?

P.S. I'd add more, but I'm on my way to my Drinking Liberally brunch ahead of our normal every other Wednesday night meeting.


P.P.S. My friends and colleagues are going to really get a hoot out of me being accused of being a freeper troll, as I am sure that some of the more moderate and/or conservative of them earnestly believe I am just to the right of communism sometimes. I'll match my liberal credentials against yours anyday.

P.P.P.S. Don't you feel silly now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. We conspire to debunk the use of the "Conspiracy Theory" label as a trumpcard
to ridicule, shame and ultimately silence anyone who suspects covert activities involving two or more people.

"Conspiracy theorists" is a put-down coined by the CIA in its highly successful campaign to keep the sheeple from investigating fearlessly and turn on each other instead, beating the best and brightest minds among themselves up with that tired, old "Conspiracy Theory!" club.

It's all speculation, either way. We don't know what happened except for what we've been told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. "It's all speculation, either way"...
Edited on Sat Oct-20-07 10:50 PM by SDuderstadt
which is why most conspiracy theories never really go anywhere. If you want to read a good book on the topic, read the second book of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" by Vincent Bugliosi (it's actually two books in one, the first one dealing with the assassination itself and the second debunking the more prevalent of the various conspiracy theories and corresponding theorists).

After reading his book (and even before that), I have become even more aware of the really goofy nature of most, if not all, conspiracy theories. My point is that, in general, they do not hold themselves to the same standards of proof they demand of the "official story". For the record (in no particular order), I don't believe that:

1) Jews (or insert the Illuminati, New World Order, the Bilderberg Group or the Masons) dominate the world.

2) The US didn't land on the moon and that the moon landing was filmed on a soundstage.

3) That JFK was assassinated by anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald.

4) That Bill Clinton had 50+ people killed while he was governor of Arkansas or President of the US

5) That the Bush administration (which I, by the way, despise) made 9/11 happen on purpose. or that

6) The missile incident was anything other than what the AF states it was and I certainly don't believe it was any way connected to any false flag operation tied to an attack on Iran. By the way, I'm not saying that I don't think Bush isn't stupid enough to attack Iran, I'm just saying no one seems to be able to present any credible facts about why flying missiles from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB would be the easiest and best way to do this.

As with all of the above, once someone can present credible proof of any of the above (i.e., not debunked within two minutes by Snopes), then we have a starting point to believe them. Absent that, it's an exercise in non-critical thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. You reiterated your personal hopes and beliefs.
No problem. Go ahead, try to persuade others to adopt your theories. It'll be an uphill battle, though, because inquiring minds will always want to know the actual realities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. My "personal hopes"??
Edited on Sat Oct-20-07 11:51 PM by SDuderstadt
I'll make it easier. If you have any proof of any of the theories, please present it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Daveparts Donating Member (854 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-19-07 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. But it "would be silly" to promise it won't happen again,
There is no such thing as silly with nuclear weapons any one that can't promise it won't happen again should resign. The source was CBS and that's what I see here BS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-20-07 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
29. Read what Walter Pincus had to say about this incident
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
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-21-07 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
30. "But it 'would be silly' to promise it won't happen again, he said at a press conference
Edited on Sun Oct-21-07 11:49 AM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
with Mullen." quoth Gates!

I know it implies the ultimate possibility of a planetary nuclear holocaust, not by actually triggering a nuclear warhead, or even by a failure to secure them against foreign terrorists, but by a failure to secure them against their own custodians(!), but is not a professed inability to guarantee their safe-guarding against the very people charged with their custody, one of the funniest, most surreal pleas ever made by a Defence Secretary?



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 Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:18 AM
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