Comments on: Lessons From the Accidental Nuke Flyby

By: Lisa P

Lisa P — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:14:52 +0000

Problematic, aren

By: Lisa P

Lisa P — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:12:45 +0000

Problematic, aren

By: MMA

MMA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:00:44 +0000

In the wake of 9/11, the United States would have been better off to leave Sadaam Hussein in power because HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. ZIP. NADA. SQUAT.
http://www.myfinanceadvisory.com/financial.html

By: doctorp

doctorp — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:44:21 +0000

This story has confused me for awhile. I used to work nuke security at Minot and know how hard it is for a nuke to be accidentally loaded. Without giving away classified information I can tell you nuclear and conventional weapons are stored in two seperate locations. Taking a weapon out of a vault is not as easy as opening a door. You have multiple alarms and locks to go through just to leave the building. Leaving the storage area takes alot more work and coordination with security personnel. The only reason they bring nukes out of the area is for exercises. What probably happened is the planes were loaded for an exercise and one of the pylons were left on a plane. These execises take a long time. Working day and night, people want to get home by the time it is over. This includes the crews from Barksdale that bring their planes up for the exercise. What most likely happened is the planes started leaving before full inventory was taken and once the AF realized the screw up they tried to cover it up.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:55:24 +0000

The U.S.Air “Farce” has a long and distinguished record of less than optimal handling of nuclear weapons.(Palomares,Savannah River,some poor S.C. farmer,Kirtland AFB,etc)So,what else is new?

By: Hill_Rat

Hill_Rat — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:40:22 +0000

This story is extraordinarily inaccurate. We’re not talking about mixed stocks. We’re talking about some really bad paperwork oversights and piss poor procedure. Major defects, yes. but this wasnt some Iraqi munitions bunker filled to the brim with a mix-match dose of everything under the sun. And Jeff is right; these were nothing more than nuclear paperweights. Again, not good but not skirting apocalypse either. Risk was minimal but the bigger problem is the cultural approach to nuclear weapons oversight and transport.

By: Macaca

Macaca — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:59:53 +0000

These unfused missiles may not have been such a great risk, but they hint at something larger (like for example the degradation of procedure). I dont really enjoy the risk that next time they notice a warhead is missing is because of that really bright flash on the horizon.

By: Pan

Pan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:59:21 +0000

Anyone who spent any time in SAC during the Cold War knows the AF is not the AF we knew. The demise of SAC was one of the key stupid decisions in the post-cold war gutting of the nuclear forces. Frankly, if the AF isn’t serious about the mission, take it away from them.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:53:22 +0000

1. Maintaining the safety and security of America’s most powerful weapons and technology should absolutely be considered the most important mission of the US government.
2. When in doubt, refer to Number 1. Period/Full Stop/Message Ends.
3. But, that said, this is really nothing more than a wake-up call for the leadership to start using both hands to find their own butts, pull their collective heads out, and to lace up their boots before something REALLY disastrous befalls Joe Sixpack et al.
Clearly, something is obviously amiss, so let’s get it fixed, pronto. We’ve had more than a half century to get this right, and despite decades of human errors and glitches, there hasn’t been an actual “catastrophic incident” yet.
But I think we’ve already burned enough witches over this particular (non-)fiasco.

By: Jeff Dulin

Jeff Dulin — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:13:54 +0000

As I understood the story, these were UN-FUZED weapons. No Detonator devicdes were incerted in the Fuze Well of these weapons. As such, they were large, very heavy nuclear clubs. If they were missiles, they might even have been “safety pinned” to prevent them from being dropped or alunched. Without the detonators, the worst that could happen, was the nuclear elimant could break open and spill the nuclear core onto the ground. That would present a nasty clean up problem but nothing more in the event of an aircraft accident. That should have been the end of this story, but NOooo, lets drag it out.
While mistakes were obviously made, now this is nothing more than the Lefts newest opportunity to defame our wonderful military and their years of safe mission accomplishmet. Enough already.
The AF has already roled a few heads, no doubt! Training and safety check enhanced and a study done as this story indicates.
I notice that no one seems very interested in looking at where our good friends in the former Workers Paradise of the USSR have placed or misplaced some of thier nuke’s. Im a hell of a lot more interested in what is and has gone on there with those weapons, than reliving this incident in which I’m sure more than a couple of careers were adversly effected.
The Ruskies have recently fielded a new ICMB on a portable launcher and put it up FOR SALE to anyone willing to pay the price. That, after fools here in America have been sending the Commies money to shore up their economy for the past number of years. What a bunch of suckers they must recognize us as being.
Lets see some info about weapons like those rather than beating up on our own guys!