quote:

Originally posted by JimSorber:
I don't know if the crash of that B-52 would have set the nukes off, but who wants to find out?

To answer your question, Jim, had the plane crashed, there would have not been a nuclear yield. There is a laundry list of an arming sequence that has to happen "exactly so" before the weapon is full up armed. That's for safety's sake. Given that the missiles themselves were en route to be decommissioned, they were probably not even hooked up to an arming system, merely mounted on the pylons.

That's not to say it would be safe in a crash, however. With all the HE contained on each missile, in the event of a crash (as there's usually a fire to go with it), there is a risk of a high order detonation, which could rupture the warhead and contaminate the area, but it would not be enough to inadvertently cause a nuclear yield. Nor would the heat of burning HE be enough to set off a full nuclear detonation. So it's not so much safe, as it is much less dangerous. Either way, I would hate to be the one getting called out on that mess.....

With that being said, I really cannot believe that there was such a breakdown of accountability with that kind of cargo. Although it would have been nice if they had just kept on flying for a few more hours, with an inadvertent drop-off, just to scare the pants out of some megalomaniac who really needs the poop smoked outta him. Too bad we can't get everything we wished for.....

PS, everything I put up here is unclassified, I checked....

Just my two cents,
Helen

Was anyone onboard wearing a NASA diaper? That, IMHO, would be proof of intent.....

sw614,

We spent a lot of years in SAC too, and my first thought was that it would never have happened when SAC controlled the nukes. Everyone made fun of the extra regs that SAC had, but they knew what they were doing and took it very seriously. Also, the Wing/CC would have lost his job too. It was on his watch, its his responsibility.

Kate

Love the video of the C5 pulling out of parking AP gave us.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Gene.....

Hmmm...

As an Old SAC (Thats Strategic Air Command) troop gone Loadmaster prior to retirement after 26yrs, seems that folks have forgotten what went on for years in that forgotten bit they now call the "cold war" and the USSR (Soviet Union of the apparently forgotten past that is re-generating the very same counter flights just this past week)

Ya'll might want to check into a "story" where a KC-135 and B-52 crew lost their lives in a mid-air over Spain or some other "stories" such as a B-36 having a dropped object over in AZ. Having said that I wonder how they moved the things about for regular maint in those days before "peace" broke out.... Come On Folks, this is "small stuff" compared to what went on in the cold war days. This is a procedural fowl-up (that is unless you believe the things were grown in a garden at the air base and never left the perimeter.....)

Load Out

Fleagle

The thing about it is somebody messed up way back at the munitions point. If the warheads had been taken out the missile they would have been counterweighted. From the outside a live nuke and a counterweighted missile look the same . And something else, when I was in, the pilots flew every mission like they were carry live. You fight the way you were trained. We trained to carry live ordnance. The problem here is with the folks who leaked the information. You don't need ordnance to make a plane deadly (hint 9/11) I would like to know why this leak is not being plugged. Literally plugged if I had my way!!

Didn't the B-52's and FB 111's do that for years on a regular basis anyways.

The commander was fired? Gee, I thought that was what chief master sergeants were for, that is, to have someone to blame when things go tango uniform.

I am comforted by the fact that it was not a Chinese bomber with Nukes.

quote:

Originally posted by AKinNC: ...Do you think this will affect my evaluation report?

"Not at all, son. In fact, I'm recommending for a vacancy on the NSC. You can violate foreign policy all you like, AND you don't wear a uniform! Just remember to grovel before Mr. Hadley. Cheeri-o!"

This is Bull$hit...Full Service dress on Friday(cc) for Minot's F UP


2AMXS

Forgive my ignorance, but is the usual way to transport nukes for maintenance? Since transporting them by air is such a shock?

Its just the beginning for heads to round. Back in the 60's they had B-52's flying all the time with nukes on them. The thing here how did the nukes get from an control nuke storage area to an lesser secure area with out additional security.

Some of you like making a mountain out of an ant hill. Do you realize how many steps it takes to actually arm the things? What about when it was routine to haul them around during the cold war? Also, I think they were much safer there than they will be on their return by truck to ND. I know I would rather them be in the air than in a truck. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they shipped them by air all of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaDragon1988:
Forgive my ignorance, but is the usual way to transport nukes for maintenance? Since transporting them by air is such a shock?

And even if air transport is standard, is it standard to mount them on the wings as happened today or is it standard to put them in the belly of the plane?

I have a funny feeling that somehow Jack Bauer is involved in this.

From what I've read, Barksdale AFB is currently used as a staging ground for Middle East operations.

With all the drum pounding surrounding Iran, what are the odds that this ordinance was being brought to the staging ground for a B-2 strike on Iran in the coming days/weeks?

If we start nuking countries, I'm going completely off the reservation.

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan_Pollard:
And even if air transport is standard, is it standard to mount them on the wings as happened today or is it standard to put them in the belly of the plane?

On the wings when the warhead is mated to a missile. When the warhead is being shipped alone, it has its own shipping container, designed for maximum safety and containment for that particular warhead, and then it's shipped like any other piece of fragile freight. I'd much prefer air travel to ground, as the likelihood of ambush is lessened.

But what's at issue is how could the people responsible for loading the missiles on the plane either grab the wrong ones, or not check to make sure that the warhead has been replaced with a counterweight instead? That's where I think folks need to be concerned.

Just my two cents,
Helen