 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 19, 2007 at 21:25:38
Nukes Over America: All A Stupid Mistake. Sure it Was by Dave Lindorff Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
The Air Force’s Friday report on the August 29-30 nuclear weapons incident which saw six armed cruise missiles flown across the continental US in launch position on a B-52H bomber leaves all the big questions unanswered, attempting to shuck the whole thing off as an “unacceptable mistake.” To be sure, Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Maj. Gen. Richard Newton, said that after a six-week investigation, five officers, including Col. Bruce Emig, commander of the Fifth Bomb Group at Minot AFB in North Dakota, where the flight originated, have been relieved of duty, and 65 other Air Force personnel were also removed from their duties, and both Barksdale and Minot were decertified for their strategic nuclear responsibilities. But that’s still pretty small beer for an incident so serious it’s never happened before in half a century of nuclear weapons handling. There are, at this point, no court martials being contemplated, and nobody’s been discharged from the military. Put simply, six 150-kiloton warheads were improperly attached to six Advanced Cruise Missiles, all loaded onto a wing launch pod, and then mounted on the wing of a B-52 H Stratofortress at Minot, along with six similar missiles with dummy warheads, which were loaded onto a launch pod on the plane’s other wing, an all 12 were improperly and illegally flown across the country to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.
The Air Force, following its “investigation,” is saying the same thing it said before the investigation: it was all a big “mistake”—the result of “widespread disregard for the rules” regarding handling of nuclear weapons.
A few guys at Minot “inexplicably” screwed up and loaded the nukes and then there were a chain of mistakes because no one else treated the nuclear-tipped missiles as if they were armed with nuclear weapons.
The trouble with this theory, or story line if you will, is that while nobody at Minot, supposedly, noticed what was happening—even though ground crew workers spent eight hours laboring to get the pod with the six nuke-tipped missiles mounted on the plane’s wing. This despite the warheads are clearly visible and identifiable by the silver coating they exhibit when viewed through a little window in each nosecone cover, and because there are red coverings on the nuke nosecones—once the plane got to Barksdale, the ground crew there, which had no reason on earth to suspect it was looking at nuclear warheads, spotted them immediately upon going to the plane.
They had no reason to expect nukes because for 40 years it has been illegal for the military to carry nuclear weapons on bombers over US territory, and indeed since 1991, it has been illegal to even load nuclear weapons on a plane, period, even for training purposes on the ground. (The weapons went unnoticed for 10 hours in Barksdale, but that's because no groundcrew visited the plane for that long, but when they did go to it, they reportedly spotted the nukes right off the bat.)
How can it be that Air Force ground crew people at Barksdale could spot the nukes in a flash while nobody at Minot—not the workers who mounted the warheads on the missiles in the heavily guarded bunker, not the guards who are supposed to guard those weapons with their lives and prevent any unauthorized removal from the bunkers, not the ground crew that loaded them onto the plan, and not the pilot and crew of the bomber, who are supposed to check every missile before they take off—noticed they were nuclear warheads?
The Air Force, at a press conference announcing the results of its investigation, didn’t answer this question. It appears they reporters at the session didn’t ask it either.
Certainly the AP reporter didn’t ask it, because if she had, she would surely have included the Air Force’s answer, or it’s non-answer, in her story.
Nobody, apparently, asked the Air Force either about six mysterious violent deaths of Air Force personnel from Minot and Barksdale, and from a mysterious Air Force Special Commando Group, all of which occurred in the days and weeks immediately before, during and after the incident. Two of those deaths—of the Special Commando Group officer and of a Minot weapons guard—were reportedly “suicides.”
In an article in the current issue of American Conservative magazine, currently on newsstands, I report that incredibly, no federal investigators from the Pentagon or the federal government even bothered to contact the police investigators or medical examiners who investigated those six deaths—an remarkable failure of due diligence, given the seriousness of this incident.
One retired Navy officer who contacted me during my investigation, who worked in electronic warfare, told me it would be simply impossible for those weapons to have been moved out of the storage bunker. He claims to know for a certainty that all nuclear weapons in the US arsenal are equipped with high-tech tags (“like they have at WalMart and Kmart only better”) that would instantly trigger alarms when the weapons are moved, unless they were deliberately disarmed.
So what we have is pretty clearly a cover-up here.
A cover-up of what though?
1 | 2
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 36 comments |
|
Wayne Madsen's Take on Air Force Report
October 19, 2007 -- Air Force report on "Bent Spear" will scapegoat junior personnel and prolong cover-up WMR has previously reported on the August 30, 2007, incident in which five or six nuclear weapons were supposedly misplaced on advanced cruise missiles attached to the pylons of a B-52 that flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, was actually the result of an Air Force revolt against deploying the weapons to the Middle East for use in a surprise attack on Iran. A number of knowledgeable sources have told WMR that six nuclear-armed cruise missiles left Minot but only five were accounted for at Barksdale. Today, the Air Force is expected to announce the punishment of five Air Force officers said to have been responsible for the August 30 incident. In addition, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is expected to be briefed on the results of the Air Force's six-week investigation of the incident...... ......The Bush administration is attempting to convince the media and the general population that the nuclear incident was similar to a stockroom mistake at a Wal-Mart. The story is being spun that the nuclear-armed missiles were mistakenly removed from a storage bunker in Minot, erroneously mounted on the wings of a B-52 bomber, mistakenly identified on the B-52's flight manifest, and flown across the United States for three hours and sat on a runway at Barksdale for several hours without anyone taking notice. As former Navy weapons expert Robert Stormer wrote in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram earlier this month, "This is about how six nuclear advanced cruise missiles got out of their bunkers and onto a combat aircraft without notice of the wing commander, squadron commander, munitions maintenance squadron (MMS), the B-52H's crew chief and command pilot and onto another Air Force base tarmac without notice of that air base's chain of command -- for 10 hours." WMR's sources, veterans of the Air Force and CIA, have agreed with the assessment that the August 30 incident was no mistake. The most serious part of the Air Force cover-up is that the incident has apparently been downgraded to a "Bent Spear" incident -- a mistake involving the handling of nuclear weapons -- from an "Empty Quiver" -- an incident involving the seizure of a nuclear weapon, in this case the sixth nuclear weapon flown from North Dakota to Louisiana...... by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 11:01:01 PM  (0+)
|
|
Conveniently...
...the report comes out on Take out the Trash day -- Friday -- so it can be forgotten by Monday. by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 19, 2007 at 11:44:55 PM (0+)
|
|
the hacker conspiracy theory of it all
There is an interesting conspiracy theory that holds it was the work of Chinese hackers sending a message to the US. This comes from one William Thomas, a self-described "award-winning journalist" who appears to be a plain and simple conspiracy theorist to me (I Googled him for a while). Nonetheless, I find his supposition very intriguing. It's found here: by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 4:57:37 AM (0+)
|
|
The 'mysterious deaths' appear to be a myth too
Even Rense.com isn't giving this part of the tale any credence. Here is one debunking of this dark claim. Air Force Personnel Involved With Nuke Mishap In Minot Being Murdered? Dave, as much as I respect your work, I think you should avoid detracting from its value by including debunked theories without providing any details as to their continued relevance. by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 5:18:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I don't have a theory
I am merely reporting a fact, which I have researched myself, which is that no federal official, whether from DOD or Air Force or FBI, has even bothered to contact the police investigators and the medical examiners who were on each of the five cases of untimely deaths involving base personnel at Barksdale and Minot in the weeks immediately preceding and following the incident, or the purported suicide on the day of the flight of a captain in the Air Force Special Commando Group. I'm suggesting only that given the seriousness of the incident and the unusual cluster of deaths, which include two suicides, one of a Minot munitions security guard, one would have thought the investigators would have at least questioned those authorities who looked into the deaths. Two of those investigators--of the two suicide cases--didn't even know about the B-52 incident, or of the other deaths in the same period, and said that it "would have been important" to have known those things when they were conducting their investigations. that's not a theory. It's an obsevation . All those deaths may be coincidences. But they should be thoroughly investigated, no? Furthermore, nobody has addressed my question about why the barksdale ground crew, which had no earthly reason to suspect that the Minot flight would have live nukes mounted on the missiles, was able to spot the warheads right away, while nobody in the chain of handling of those weapons at Minot is supposed to have noticed a thing. Ridiculous. That's not a theory either. It's an observation, and until somebody explains it in a credible way I stand by it. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:40:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well that's more to consider...
Well, this reply has more details than I have read on any other page regarding the suspicious deaths. You should write an article on this specifically I think. People certainly were very interested in this allegation when it came out - interested enough that several "debinkings" appeared. But you seem to have assembled a more detailed picture. My criticism is certainly not in your entertaining these possibilities, but that you put it in the above story without any support (such as given in your comment reply). This won't stand up to the "debunkings" which came up high on the Google searches I did. Any chance you will write something on these deaths specifically? by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 21, 2007 at 2:20:41 PM (0+)
|
|
The Middle East Theater
I'm sorry for reacting to a small phrase contained in a sobering article - but - 'the Middle East Theater??' by Susan Guest (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 91 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 7:31:44 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Theater a Military Term
"Theater" is a standard military term used for decades to refer to an area of operation or battle, such as the North African theater in World War II, or the Korean theater, and on and on. by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 1:05:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well, that's what they call it at Barksdale
Just like in WWII they had the European Theater and the Pacific Theater. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:41:35 PM (0+)
|
|
One Possible Explanation
You have done an excellent job at proving that this was no accident. When they make reports do they title one, "Ours", and one, "For the Media"? One time I wish that they would mix them up when they hand them out. Anyway, here is one possible explanation, theory, speculation given what's going on: The U.S. is preparing to strike Iran to gain two thirds of the world's oil. Vladimir Putin said today, "The pointless U.S. war in Iraq was to steal the Iraqi oil. We are developing new nuclear missiles." These nukes zigzag. The U.S. plan here may have had 3 or more purposes: 1) To scare Iran into suspending the enrichment of uranium. 2) To get the American people desensitized to the thought that the United States is about to engage in pre emptive nuclear war. 3) The producers of "24" were using Minot and Barksdale to shoot an episode on location and wanted it to appear realistic. by Karen Fish (55 articles, 14 quicklinks, 41 diaries, 106 comments) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 9:32:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Bush/Cheney to Putin and Khamenei: Accidents Happen
Lately I've been speculating about why anyone would try to fly six more nukes to the Middle East when the U.S. and Israel already have a lot of weapons within range of Iran. Maybe this incident was meant to be a not-very-subtle illustration of how easily "things happen." Decades back, a U.S. missile shot down an Iranian passenger plane "by accident." Iran got the message and did what they had to do, though nobody could prove it wasn't an accident. But that's another story. Now nukes are getting attached to the wings of a B-52 "by accident," and perhaps people like Putin and Ayatollah Khamenei are supposed to get the message that a nuke could fall off the wing of a B-52, too, "by accident." by Rosa Schmidt Azadi (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:05:01 AM (0+)
|
|
One minor point, havent thoroughly read all yet, but...
A military officer being "relieved of his duties" is equivalent to a discharge. Such officers are temporarily assigned the duties of a low to mid level enlisted person and given a small amount of time to arrange a civilian job before being forced out, usually less than six months. For anyone in such a circumstance, it is over. And that is for those who have been accused of being derelict of things much less than care/storage/handling of nuclear weapons, the worst disgrace of the US Air Force in its history. A lieutenant colonel or Colonel has usually spent over 20 years in the military. One who is a wing commander has a hope of becoming a general one day. Having it all abruptly end like this is a pretty huge blow and not to be minimized. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:02:33 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It's a blow but hardly adequate punishment
You let six nukes go that badly astray, and if it's through incompetence, you should be at least court-martialed. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 10:43:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: See my response further below re: Court Martials
Thanks by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 21, 2007 at 5:35:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Something really fishy
In CNN yesterday the report stated 6 warheads a month ago it was 5. Cnn clearly stated the mistakes were made at the loading point Minot. Then goes on to state that more airmen were being canned at Barksdale, this is I believe in retaliation for going public or some other sin we arent being told about. I talked with Mike at military times the reporter that broke the story and he said the whistleblowers are fine, If it was really Mr. Hoffman I spoke to. What we have here is an unacounted for (the sixth of the five reported) nuklar weapon and a conspiracy or the biggest mistake since Dewey defeats Truman. People dying to cover bushco shenanigans is nothing new,(the clinton bush crime cartel has stacked bodies like cordwood) For some interesting insight on the kind of violence that gets covered up go to tomflocco.com and go down to the bottom of the site till you see a picture of Rep. Delay and read the story of the Rayburn Building shootout. Another good site for straight poop is madcowmorningnews.com Hopsinger will give insight into many more shenanigans. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:06:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Re: "Something really fishy"
Re: For some interesting insight on the kind of violence that gets covered up go to tomflocco.com by Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:58:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Re: Re: "Something really fishy"
http://tomflocco.com/fs/CiaFrenchIntell.htm This article comes from by
Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 1:51:12 PM
|
|
Reply: Re: Re: "Something really fishy"
This article comes from by
Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 1:54:17 PM
|
|
Reply: Re: "Something really fishy"
This article comes from by Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 1:56:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Lindorff's fishy sources
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/004 Googling two sentences from Lindorff's "proof" ("The Secret Pentagon Report"" recent report that the Pentagon has a document, dated June 1, 2007, classified Top Secret, which declares there to be a developing "insurgency") these are the hits I get. Sent the below to Dave Lindorff. by Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:42:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Continued "Lindorff's fishy sources"
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/7/27/112020/784/72#c72 Lindorff admits his source is a rabid Neo-Nazi white supremacist conspiracy theorist, Hal Turner. by Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:48:07 AM (0+)
|
|
Re: Re: Lindorff's fishy sources"
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/7/27/112020/784/100#c100 by Jay Lovestone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:53:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I've flagged you
If you object to Lindorff's source in another article, it is not relevant to this one. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 3:03:11 PM (0+)
|
|
This was no Mistake
These 6 nuclear tipped cruise missiles and all of the other nuclear weapons on this planet have our names on them; all of our names except for those who have reservations in the Mushrooms. The "Mushrooms" are the temporary emergency shelters for our nuclear war fighitng elite to hide in during the well planned nuclear holocaust, that has been scheduled for us. The truly High level powers-that we call "ET,"-thankfully, still have their computers monitoring our nuclear war fighting elite. What we have just lived through is another in a long line of attempts to get a full blown nuclear holocaust underway. We are the Living Dead. In fact, we are now the 4th generation of the Living Dead. Our nuclear war fighitng elite decided to exterminate the body of humanity with nuclear weapons way back in 1946. It is quite possible that this may be the generation that will awaken to the truth. One of the main reasons why our nuclear war fighting elite can not select a new strategy-one of Peace rather than war-is that they feel that they have gone to far, and there is no turning back now. They must either finish us off, and soon, or face the truth and bare the consequences of their decisions. “People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.” John Kenneth Galbraith Our nuclear war fighitng elite have placed their bets on their ability to kill us all before we figure it all out. by Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 519 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 3:04:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Nuklar attack is the least of our worries, check this
I hope it is not against the guidelines to post this link but this is the most important news in a while. When the congressman says "Oh Jesus" is what worries me. http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=19926896 If body disposal must be abandoned assets will go to underground "berthing" or "birthing" centers where a new bill of rights will be written. It seems they have the date and type of attack to depopulate the US, and now they have the funding. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 at 6:16:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Errors by Lindorff--request corrections
The unit at Minot is the 5th Bomb Wing, not group. Colonel Emig was the Wing Commander--Group Commanders worked for him until he was relieved of his command. W80-1 is the correct designation. Court martials are still possible for Airmen involved--none of the involved may be discharged, dismissed, or retired until the court martial authority clears them or their charges are ajudicated under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A criminal investigation is now underway and the safety investigation has been briefed to Secretary Gates. This is not over. I expect some court martials to take place for dereliction of duty and failure to follow a lawful order. Department of Defense safety policy effective since 1968, not a statute, prohibits flights of US nuclear weapons on bombers in peacetime. Mr. Lindorff needs to cite United States Code (he won't find it because no such law exists) or withdraw his illegality allegations. My opinion is that this was a series of huge mistakes and the criminal negligence will be tried in court before a federal judge. I do not believe this event was a coverup of some nefarious scheme to move nuclear weapons for an attack or threat of an attack as others suggest. by Form (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Sunday, Oct 21, 2007 at 1:44:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I stand corrected. Thanks
Wing not group, and military regulation, not law. But this is a "regulation" that was determined at the highest levels of the US government--not just some regulation drawn up by the Air Force. It was a regulation that nukes not be flown on bombers over US territory that was established after several bombs were inadvertently dropped and in some cases lost in what are called "broken arrow" incidents. The further "regulation" not to allow even the loading of nukes onto bombers on the tarmac for training purposes, which came down in 1991 and remains in effect, was the result of the collapse of the USSR and a decision to reduce the sense of threat posed by these weapons. Nobody has yet explained why Barksdale staff could spot these things and Miinot guys went right ahead and loaded them. Until that issue is addressed and explained, the "simple mistake" theory is highly suspect. Ditto the question of how alarm systems could have been shut off to allow the free movement and loading of these weapons by "mistake". Somebody had to actively disarm the alarm systems. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 21, 2007 at 7:14:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: 42 USC 2274
You have referred to nuclear weapon alarm systems or high tech tags. If such devices exist, they could be considered a nuclear weapon design detail. Nuclear weapon design details are "Restricted Data" under the Atomic Energy Act. It is illegal to violate the Atomic Energy Act and illegal to improperly disseminate restricted data. See 42 USC 2274, among others, for details. Unless you want to subject yourself or your sources to the sanctions of the Atomic Energy Act, I would urge you not to solicit further information on this topic except through official Dept of Energy channels. It would seem logical for such tags to exist but I do not know if indeed they do and will not speculate on their existence. by Form (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 at 2:27:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What Form of inquiry is this?
I wish you'd identify yourself, Mr. Form. You seem an awfully eloquent person to have just signed up here at OpEdNews in time to leave three carefully targeted comments, all on the same matter of these 5 or 6 loose nukes. One could be forgiven for suspecting that you are perhaps working for DOD damage control. by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 21, 2007 at 2:35:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Please dont wish Form had identified himself/herself
Form strikes me as an active duty USAF JAG, or another officer who has pretty accurate understanding of military law regarding handling of nuclear weapons. For any active duty military to speak to the press (and OpEdNews would more than qualify) without authorization might subject "form" to disciplinary procedures. I'm just pleased that form chose to comment here. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 21, 2007 at 5:32:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not an employee of DoD or USG or USG contractor
I am an unemployed disabled veteran. I seek the truth and I do not believe the United States government or any citizen has a monopoly on the truth. I have some background in military matters and what Madsen and Lindorff have posted does not comport with my understandings of how the military works. In the interest of accuracy, I have provided a critique of their writing, not of their motivations. All of my postings are my own and not at anyone's behest. I hope you will refrain in the future from questioning my motivations. I am not part of some cabal seeking to discredit government skeptics. Our government needs skeptics as a motivating force for improvement. However, skeptics need to do their research. i commend Mr. Lindorff for his open mindedness regarding my request for corrections. by Form (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Sunday, Oct 21, 2007 at 10:04:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well, I'll accept that
I'm not interested in shutting down debate. I am satisfied with your response and even more swayed by the other one in your defense. Honestly, I was just set off by the fact you only registered on this site so recently, obviously because of this story. But that is not hard to accept now that I consider it. You gotta register sometime. I hope you like the crowd around here. Since people are interested in analyzing this in terms of "how the military usually works" I wonder if any of you read the "Chinese hacker" link I posted above. You may dismiss that concept offhand for whatever reasons, but I found the description of events on that page interesting especially for the speculative description of the actual events of that day may have gone down. The author (who I really give almost zero credit upon researching his Webprint) described a series of authorizations that would have to be passed for the onloading of the nukes to proceed. Each person, he reasoned, would have to receive convincing authorization by expected means, say a printout containing certain codewords or something. But - the point I liked - he reasoned that no one would dare question these orders in discussion with the others involved. They would be soldiers and follow the preset protocol, even if they knew they were loading armed, triggered, or unarmed nukes. This makes sense to me. I can't see the nukes getting loaded unless the command to do so was given from highest authority, or unless the system delivering authorizations was convincingly hacked somehow. But surely, American nukes are stored in such a way so that the president and perhaps a select few other people could in fact make this happen just by giving the right order. In that case, the nukes would be loaded as directed and no single person would ever actually raises eyebrow or objection. So David's argument about the tiny observation window on each bomb is valid in one sense. If this was all a simple loading error, we must wonder why no one stopped the process at some point. Surely, there must be at least a couple authorization checks between the step where some privates walk into the armory to fetch some missiles and the actual fastening of those missiles onto a plane. Is it that the checks in place for a nuke are actually forgotten about for a "regular" cruise missile. That would be a foolhardy system and the fallout of this affair should be large enough to make it an election issue! The other branch of this reasoning would say that if the soldiers did grab the correct missiles they were told to fetch from the bunker, then the fact nobody stopped the process is totally unsurprising. Their orders would be in order too, would they not? And they would do as good soldiers do. This makes the "rebellion" theory stronger in my judgement. The hacker theory suggests that the Chinese stopped the process at the point they desired, having no interest of course in actually causing a nucular explosion, just in giving the US a message that there is a new fastest gun in town. by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:21:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Chinese Hacker Theory is a Fallacy
I looked through the post on the Chinese Hacker. I found it to be far less accurate than Lindorff or Madsen. My objections to Madsen's and Lindorff's pieces are already posted. The electronics in the B-52 and the AGM-129 are many generations before your iPod, automobile navigation system, or cell phone. The Chinese chips are of much more recent vintage than the offensive avionic electronics in the B-52H or AGM-129. I also doubt any of the orders to effect this load were conducted over the publically accessible portion of the internet. I place no credence in this theory. In my opinion, the root cause of this debacle is the failure of the munitions custodians at Minot to separate the AGM-129s slated for ferry to Barksdale (no warhead) from war reserve (warhead loaded) AGM-129s. No special security was scheduled because there was no intent to move war reserve AGM-129s. Mr. Madsen and Mr. Lindorff may not agree with my assertion, but I believe it more plausible than some out-of-normal channels attack or threat of attack against Iran. Please read on to see why I disagree with the "neo-cons really meant to attack or influence Iran through this B-52 flight." The Air Force announced the retirement of the AGM-129 earlier this year. See Maj Gen Roger Burg's March 28, 2007 testimony SASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee at: http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services/statemnt/2007/March/Burg%2003-28-07.pdf. From this testimony, the Air Force intended to "remove from service, demilitarize and destroy all ACMs and the excess ALCM missile bodies." This created a large work load for munitions maintenace personnel and the completion of this ACM retirement and ALCM force reduction would take several months, perhaps much longer. Further, we do not know when the Air Force actually began the retirement of the AGM-129s and the reductions in the AGM-86 ALCMs between late March 2007 and late August 2007. Therefore, one can infer there was a mix of war reserve cruise missiles and flyable cruise missile air frames at Minot from some time prior to this BENT SPEAR. I presume Minot munitions custodians were removing warheads from war reserve AGM-129s and preparing the unarmed cruise missiles for ferry to Barksdale. Why not use cargo aircraft (C-17 or C-5) rather than ferry with B-52s? Several reasons occur to me: - Support for OIF (Iraq) and OEF (Afghanistan) forces has higher priority on cargo aircraft capacity particularly for moving recently produced mine resistant vehicles (MRAP) to Iraq - B-52 munitions personnel can practice load procedures (clearly practice was needed! :-( - B-52 air crews can practice flying with cruise missiles mounted externally. The aerodynmics and response to pilot flight controls differs for planes with external loads and those without external loads. The warheads belong to the Department of Energy and are not to be moved to another location without approval. From the Air Force briefing, the munitions custodians identified the wrong AGM-129s for load on the B-52 in late August. The Minot munitions loaders did not verify the unique identifiers (serial numbers, barcodes, ID tags, or other markings) to distinguish between war reserve loaded AGM-129s and those destined for "demilitarization and destruction" under the plan briefed by Maj Gen Burg to the SASC in March 2007. The Air Force briefed that Minot loaders did call in some data to Minot munitions custodians before the B-52 left Minot for Barksdale but the Minot munitions custodians did not properly cross check this data with the Minot munitions account data base. :-( As part of the corrective action, every nuclear warhead in Air Force custody was physically checked and the munitions account data base was reverified. This ruined any Labor Day weekend off-duty time at every Air Force Base with nuclear responsibilities. The loaded aircraft was parked overnight at a secure parking location near the Minot runway. Additional security for a nuclear armed aircraft was not present at the aircraft wingtip but numerous armed highly armed security forces Airmen were posted a short distance away as part of the guard force for the Minot flight line and weapons storage. The aircraft was by no means unsecured. The Air Force guards all B-52s, even those that have been destroyed at the Davis-Monthan AFB "boneyard." Another opportunity to prevent this appalling situation was the following morning when the B-52 air crew (from Barksdale AFB) did not properly pre-flight the aircraft. An experienced instructor-qualified officer looked only at the pylon of 6 unarmed AGM-129s under the right wing and did not conduct a preflight of the war reserve AGM-129s on the left wing pylon. :-( The B-52 air crew flew to Barksdale, landed safely, and taxied to a secure parking location. However, if the mission was to ferry war reserve AGM-129s (I do not believe it was), then the aircraft would have been met immediately with additional security required for nuclear warheads. As far as Barksdale munitions custodians and maintenance schedulers were concerned, this was an unarmed aircraft with some unarmed AGM-129s. The Barksdale munitions loaders noticed the problem later when they began the download of the left pylon. The Minot personnel and the Barksdale aircrew (while on the flight line at Minot) had multiple opportunities to discover the AGM-129s were loaded war reserve and not unloaded air frames destined for "demilitarization and destruction." That they did not do so is a stain on the honor of every Airman. I do not believe the chain of events was a result of an aborted attack on Iran. I even think the USA VP would prefer Iran stand down from its nuclear enrichment ambitions through mutual agreement rather than the application of military force. by Form (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 at 1:01:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Pulitzer?
Yours is probably the most sensible collection of thoughts on this issue on the whole Internet. Maybe you should cut and paste your comments into a proper article and submit it. OpEdNews articles are included in Google News results, so such an article would be found by many people doing searches on this topic. You seem to be doing the media's job for them. Thanks! There are doubtlessly a lot of people in this world acheing for a clearer picture of events on that day. I have no urge to prove any conspiracy theory correct, and I don't accept the Chinese hacker theory either. But I still find it shocking that grabbing missiles from the wrong pile could lead to this sort of snafu. I think non-nuclear missiles should be subject to the same series of checks as nuclear missiles in order to avoid this kind of error. I'm shocked that this didn't seem to be the case. by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 at 2:23:44 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I hope there are no Courts Martial proceedings
I am not a fan of Court Martialing military personnel for anything other than severe and intentially committed criminal acts. I'm not sure if everyone understands what a court martial conviction means. It is considered a federal conviction. You will never escape its effects for as long as you live. In general, I consider the military disciplinary system draconian. When I enlisted and had to study it as part of basic training, I realized very quickly that this was not where one screws up. I'll give you all a case in point. I had a friend who liked to go to the base exchange and read the magazines. The particular exchange had a corredor right outside where he liked to take the magazines and look them over before returning them to the shelf. One day, he did something that annoyed the lady behind the counter. She arranged to have Security Police standing by when he did it, and had him arrested for "shoplifting". In the civilian world, you would have a good shot at exonorating yourself. There were dozens of us who knew his standard behavior and knew he was not stealing the magazine. In the military world, when you are handed the option of non-judicial punishment (also called an Article 15) vs summary courts martial (trial), you take the non-judicial punishment, but that means giving up any attempt to exonorate yourself. He received a month in jail, forfeiture of a months pay and reduction in rank (ie permanent loss of a percentage of pay). Some other examples. At the typical ages where one enlists, other kids are in college drinking up a storm regardless of the fact that they are underage. In the military, underage drinking is considered a serious offense and I saw many a person receive the same punishment as my above friend did for "shoplifting". By the way, military confinement/jail/prison bears no resemblance to the civilian version. It is more or less like an even harsher version of basic training. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 21, 2007 at 5:52:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Another decent op-ed on this subject today on OpEdNews
Just in case someone following this thread hadn't noticed, there was another article published here that quite nicely expresses how confusing it is for those concerned about this issue to make any headway. He fairly points out that no one has even bothered to deny Wayne Madson's points. Just win the argument with silence seems to be the plan on the inside. And the journalists apparently are just dumbstruck by it all. Somebody tell me where in Hell the media is these days? Their lack of objectivity in deciding what is and isn't worth reporting seems to be getting worse at an exponential rate. This loose nukes story is just one case in point. I've been following the Burma uprising story very closely, and it is lshocking me to fits how often the media is repeating the junta's 13 dead count in literally EVERY story. Meanwhile, they seem to have no interest in tracking down a defected major general who was in charge of Rangoon at the time of the initial protests to get confirm or disconfirm his initial claim that thousands were murdered. And there are lots of reasons to fear he spoke the truth, such as widely attested reports of Rangoon crematoriums working late into the night. Check my last article and the comments there for details. Sorry to go off-topic, but looks to me like the media is becoming a mafia, and this nuke story is part of the proof of that. Was that Body Snatcher movie really so fictional? Life is starting to scare me. There are supposed to be a billion Internet users, right? Why do I often feel I'm in the company of mere hundreds? by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 21, 2007 at 3:00:37 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
