B-52 ferries nukes across the US

[Glass Pearl Player]

Link

B-52 in US 'nuclear error' flight
The nuclear-armed missiles were loaded onto
a B-52 aircraft before a cross-US flight [AP]
An US military aeroplane mistakenly carried five nuclear warheads attached to cruise missiles across the country, a newspaper has reported.

The B-52 bomber carried the missiles between air bases in North Dakota and Louisiana as part of a programme to take 400 missiles out of service, the Military Times quoted three officers as saying.

The officers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the nuclear warheads should have been removed before the missiles were mounted under the aircraft's wings for the August 30 flight.

The error was not discovered until the bomber completed its 3 1/2 hour flight, the officers said.

A military official told AFP news agency that the incident was reported to General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "and higher."

The official said the notification goes as high as George Bush, the US president.

"There are procedures in place and they kicked in and worked," the official said.

Weapons accounting

Lieutenant-Colonel Ed Thomas, a US air force spokesman, told the Military Times that the weapons were under control at all times.

Thomas said US air force policy does not permit officials to say whether nuclear warheads were involved, but said all nuclear weapons at Minot, the base where the cruise missiles were loaded, were accounted for.

"Air force standards are very exacting when it comes to munitions handling," Thomas said.

"The weapons were always in our custody and there was never a danger to the American public."

Thomas said an inquiry was launched after the incident and the crews involved in loading the missiles have been decertified from handling munitions pending the investigation's outcome.

Advanced cruise missiles can be mounted with nuclear warheads that yield between 5 to 150 kilotons of TNT.

The atomic bomb that was dropped in Hiroshima in August 1945 had a yield of approximately 15 kilotons.

Same Story at Reuters
Actually, I wanted to get plenty of sound sleep tonight...

[Admiral Valdemar]

They could have accidentally nuked New Orleans. But then, who would tell?

[Ender]

Fucking airdels.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm not sure why having a bombed up B-52 cruise over the country once is something to be concerned about. We used to have multiple B-52s loaded with even larger and more numerous gravity bombs circulating in airspace continually during the cold war, and the crew of a B-52 is unquestionably cleared and trained to handle nuclear weapons.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I doubt that. I saw this documentary once - long ago, forgot the name - about a Cold War BUFF pilot who actually rode his bombs in the attire of a cowboy. If that's what your professionals were doing when Soviet Russia was a threat, I'd be a bit more concerned with routine and unscheduled flights carrying nukes around CONUS.

[darthbob88]

I doubt that. I saw this documentary once - long ago, forgot the name - about a Cold War BUFF pilot who actually rode his bombs in the attire of a cowboy. If that's what your professionals were doing when Soviet Russia was a threat, I'd be a bit more concerned with routine and unscheduled flights carrying nukes around CONUS.

I hope this isn't what you're thinking of.

[Glass Pearl Player]

I hope [Dr. Strangelove] isn't what you're thinking of.

We cannot allow a mineshaft gap!

This, however, shows that screwups may and will happen during the handling of nuclear weapons. Yes, I know they can at most fizzle, but having uranium or plutonium thinly spread over a few acres is a "should not happen" event in my book.

[FedRebel]

B-52 in US 'nuclear error' flight
The nuclear-armed missiles were loaded onto
a B-52 aircraft before a cross-US flight [AP]
An US military aeroplane mistakenly carried five nuclear warheads attached to cruise missiles across the country, a newspaper has reported.

Is SAC back in business?

I see no problem with a bomber carrying nukes, but if it was indeed a mistake....

...we've got problems

The B-52 bomber carried the missiles between air bases in North Dakota and Louisiana as part of a programme to take 400 missiles out of service, the Military Times quoted three officers as saying.

What a waste for a bomber....

It was designed to deliver "instant sunshine" to commies, but it's now used as a cargo plane to send nukes for decomissioning

The officers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the nuclear warheads should have been removed before the missiles were mounted under the aircraft's wings for the August 30 flight.

The error was not discovered until the bomber completed its 3 1/2 hour flight, the officers said.

Why didn't anyone double check the missiles before take-off?

This is starting to sound like the plot of a Bond film...only this time SPECTRE overslept

"There are procedures in place and they kicked in and worked," the official said.

...the momentum of General LeMay spinning in his grave jump started said procedures

The "proper" procedure should be to always check if you're carrying the right ordinance before take-off/launch

"Air force standards are very exacting when it comes to munitions handling," Thomas said.

I'm sure, but this incident raises concerns

What if that bomber wasn't being used as a cargo plane? What if it was enroute to Iraq? And What if instead of a decommissioning the ordinance was thought to be conventional with the intention of bombing insurgent positions?

[phongn]

B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Sep 5, 2007 14:39:12 EDT

A B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, resulting in an Air Force-wide investigation, according to three officers who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the incident.

The B-52 was loaded with Advanced Cruise Missiles, part of a Defense Department effort to decommission 400 of the ACMs. But the nuclear warheads should have been removed at Minot before being transported to Barksdale, the officers said. The missiles were mounted onto the pylons of the bomber’s wings.
DISCUSS

How did this happen?

Advanced Cruise Missiles carry a W80-1 warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons and are specifically designed for delivery by B-52 strategic bombers.

Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Ed Thomas said the transfer was safely conducted and the weapons were in Air Force custody and control at all times.

However, the mistake was not discovered until the B-52 landed at Barskdale, which left the warheads unaccounted for during the approximately 3 1/2 hour flight between the two bases, the officers said.

An investigation headed by Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg, director of Air and Space Operations at Air Combat Command Headquarters, was launched immediately to find the cause of the mistake and figure out how it could have been prevented, Thomas said.

Air Force officials wouldn’t officially specify whether nuclear weapons were involved, in accordance with long-standing Defense Department policy regarding nuclear munitions, Thomas said. However, the three officers close to the situation did confirm the warheads were nuclear.

Officials at Minot immediately conducted an inventory of its nuclear weapons after the oversight was discovered, and Thomas said he could confirm that all remaining nuclear weapons at Minot are accounted for.

“Air Force standards are very exacting when it comes to munitions handling,” he said. “The weapons were always in our custody and there was never a danger to the American public.”

At no time was there a risk for a nuclear detonation, even if the B-52 crashed on its way to Barksdale, said Steve Fetter, a former Defense Department official who worked on nuclear weapons policy in 1993-94. A crash could ignite the high explosives associated with the warhead, and possibly cause a leak of the plutonium, but the warheads’ elaborate safeguards would prevent a nuclear detonation from occurring, he said.

“The main risk would have been the way the Air Force responded to any problems with the flight because they would have handled it much differently if they would have known nuclear warheads were onboard,” he said.

The risk of the warheads falling into the hands of rogue nations or terrorists was minimal since the weapons never left the United States, according to Fetter and Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an independent research and policy think tank in Washington, D.C.

The crews involved with the mistaken load at the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot have been temporarily decertified from performing their duties involving munitions pending corrective actions or additional training, Thomas said.

Air Combat Command will have a command-wide mission stand down Sept. 14 to review their procedures in response to this oversight, he said.

“The Air Force takes its mission to safeguard weapons seriously,” he said. “No effort will be spared to ensure that the matter is thoroughly and completely investigated.”

[General Zod]

I'm not sure why having a bombed up B-52 cruise over the country once is something to be concerned about. We used to have multiple B-52s loaded with even larger and more numerous gravity bombs circulating in airspace continually during the cold war, and the crew of a B-52 is unquestionably cleared and trained to handle nuclear weapons.

I think it's more due to the fact that nobody wants to hear the words "nukes", "mistakes", and "errors" used in the same sentence.

[Beowulf]

"Air force standards are very exacting when it comes to munitions handling," Thomas said.

I'm sure, but this incident raises concerns

What if that bomber wasn't being used as a cargo plane? What if it was enroute to Iraq? And What if instead of a decommissioning the ordinance was thought to be conventional with the intention of bombing insurgent positions?

All ACMs are nuclear only. There is no conventional warhead option.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The only concern is that there was a mistake that involved nuclear weapons to be put on a plane when they weren't supposed to be.

As far as safety issues, and dangers to the public? Not really.

[SirNitram]

You know, it's probably just paranoia, but with the deranged sociopaths running this country and tearing down everything all the way back to the Magna Carta, I got a brief wonder if there will be a similar 'mistake' getting those ACMs within firing range of Iran soon.

[Flagg]

You know, it's probably just paranoia, but with the deranged sociopaths running this country and tearing down everything all the way back to the Magna Carta, I got a brief wonder if there will be a similar 'mistake' getting those ACMs within firing range of Iran soon.

Don't US aircraft carriers have nuclear ordinance?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I hope [Dr. Strangelove] isn't what you're thinking of.

We cannot allow a mineshaft gap!

This, however, shows that screwups may and will happen during the handling of nuclear weapons. Yes, I know they can at most fizzle, but having uranium or plutonium thinly spread over a few acres is a "should not happen" event in my book.

According to most world military's this practice falls under "An acceptable risk"

[Beowulf]

The government will neither confirm nor deny, but it's an open secret that all nuclear weapons have been removed from carriers. The three components of nuclear deterrence are USAF bombers, USAF ICBMs, and USN SSBNs.

[Master of Cards]

You know, it's probably just paranoia, but with the deranged sociopaths running this country and tearing down everything all the way back to the Magna Carta, I got a brief wonder if there will be a similar 'mistake' getting those ACMs within firing range of Iran soon.

Don't US aircraft carriers have nuclear ordinance?

I don't think so but Diego Gracia might.

[Adrian Laguna]

"Air force standards are very exacting when it comes to munitions handling," Thomas said.

I'm sure, but this incident raises concerns

What if that bomber wasn't being used as a cargo plane? What if it was enroute to Iraq? And What if instead of a decommissioning the ordinance was thought to be conventional with the intention of bombing insurgent positions?

All ACMs are nuclear only. There is no conventional warhead option.

Aww, I was laughing my ass off at the possibility of what FedRebel said* and here you go ruin my fun.

*The pilot stares at the mushroom cloud rising in the horizon. He calmly turns to his co-pilot and says, "I don't think that was supposed to happen."

It is good news that there was no possibility of the atomic warhead being mistaken for a conventional warhead. Though there should still be concern over an atomic warhead being confused for no warhead.

[Flagg]

The government will neither confirm nor deny, but it's an open secret that all nuclear weapons have been removed from carriers. The three components of nuclear deterrence are USAF bombers, USAF ICBMs, and USN SSBNs.

Huh. That doesn't make any fucking sense to me, but whatever.

[Beowulf]

The government will neither confirm nor deny, but it's an open secret that all nuclear weapons have been removed from carriers. The three components of nuclear deterrence are USAF bombers, USAF ICBMs, and USN SSBNs.

Huh. That doesn't make any fucking sense to me, but whatever.

To put it simply, there is no nuclear ordinance on US CVs. All nuclear devices in the inventory are either on ICBMs, SLBMs, or are designed to fit onto USAF bombers.

[Sea Skimmer]

To put it simply, there is no nuclear ordinance on US CVs. All nuclear devices in the inventory are either on ICBMs, SLBMs, or are designed to fit onto USAF bombers.

Make no mistake, we still have plenty of tactical nuclear bombs that could be delivered by carrier aircraft, they just don’t keep any stored on the ships anymore.

[Flagg]

The government will neither confirm nor deny, but it's an open secret that all nuclear weapons have been removed from carriers. The three components of nuclear deterrence are USAF bombers, USAF ICBMs, and USN SSBNs.

Huh. That doesn't make any fucking sense to me, but whatever.

To put it simply, there is no nuclear ordinance on US CVs. All nuclear devices in the inventory are either on ICBMs, SLBMs, or are designed to fit onto USAF bombers.

No, I understand what you said. It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me that we don't have some nuclear ordinance on carriers.

[phongn]

No, I understand what you said. It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me that we don't have some nuclear ordinance on carriers.

Probably because with the end of the Cold War there wasn't really a need and there are a lot of other issues related to having nukes on a ship?

[Flagg]

No, I understand what you said. It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me that we don't have some nuclear ordinance on carriers.

Probably because with the end of the Cold War there wasn't really a need and there are a lot of other issues related to having nukes on a ship?

Like what? The risk of radiation exposure? On a nuclear vessel?

[phongn]

Like what? The risk of radiation exposure? On a nuclear vessel?

Once you have nuclear weapons on a ship, they must be carefully secured and then you must now carefully handle all weapons so you don't accidentally load a nuke on an airplane and send 'er off to bomb some poor target.