Nuclear Flight

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Mobster989, Sep 9, 2007.

  1. Mobster989

    Mobster989 New Member

    252
    0
    0
    I'm not sure if any of you already know about this but here is a news story that might make you a little uneasy.

    Commander disciplined for nuclear mistake

     

  2. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,585
    7
    38
    You have to understand that flying them is perfectly safe. We flew planes with nukes on them 24/7 during the 50's. The real problem here is that they were not authorized to fly with nukes. Big NO NO. Somebody's career is toast. :oops:
     
  3. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    The left-wing nutjobs :copyright: are already speculating that they were on their way to the middle-east to stage for bombing Iran or something and some alert ground-crew spotted it. I guess the airbase they were going to is a major staging area for the operations in Iraq and since nukes aren't moved very often... there you go. I don't believe THAT but it's still an odd situation.
     
  4. merlock

    merlock Active Member

    2,515
    0
    36
    Shows how stupid the The left-wing nutjobs :copyright: really are. If they were going to go to Iraq, they would've flown them straight there. I guess they have never heard of in-flight refueling.

    Regardless, this was an extreme frack-up.
     
  5. AV8R

    AV8R Banned

    6,624
    2
    0
    If we're talking ICBMs here, they can just launch them from their silos; no need to dig them up and haul them around.
     
  6. Mobster989

    Mobster989 New Member

    252
    0
    0
    The part that I'm concerned about is how six nuclear weapons ended up on the wrong plane. There are numerous procedures in place that require various high ranking people (enlisted and officer) to sign for these weapons. How did they "mistakenly" go from their storage hangar, to the loading area, to the plane, and eventually to Barksdale AFB?

    I'm not too concerned with whether the nukes are going to be used on Iran or whatnot. I'm more concerned with how six nuclear weapons can go unaccounted for for 3.5 hours. We're not talking about a soldier going AWOL or a fighter jet not showing up on the radar when it is supposed to, we're talking about six city-erasing nuclear warheads missing from their bunker. And I'm wondering why the media didn't even put much into this story (I check BBC and CNN almost every day and I didn't find it until a friend told me about it, three days after it happened.) yet that stupid Madeline girl is all over the front pages.
     
  7. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    IIRC, most of our nukes are only 300-500 kt, so they'd hardly be city-erasing. I'm not saying they wouldn't still cause a whole mess of problems, but fearmongering should be limited.
     
  8. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    +1

    I know that when I was on ship, we were advised that whenever there was the possibility that nukes were being moved, you were nose-to-the-bulkhead, or "sleeping" in your rack. If it even looked like you were interested in them, that young motivated LCpl would entertain the thought of a takedown. The fact that some nukes were mistakenly loaded onto a plane sounds fishy, the amount of paperwork and redundant measures to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen is insane. Everyone in my platoon had to have Secret clearances just to be in the shop, and to get the equipment that was classified, required getting the armed guard (me :) ) to escort you to the vault, watch you retrieve the equipment, two signatures in a log book, and then "watch" you work on the equipment. Any visitors to the shop were also escorted by the armed guard, regardless of who they were.

    This was only for some minor items of classification, and a few weapons systems that were considered classified.

    If these nukes were stored with non-nuke weapons, (yeah right) someone screwed up big time, and will be spending some time at Leavenworth, making small rocks out of big ones.
     
  9. Mobster989

    Mobster989 New Member

    252
    0
    0
    "City-erasing" was more of a humorous term, not to spread fear. :p But shouldn't you still be a little worried that six nuclear warheads were not where they were supposed to be? If it is serious enough to fire the commander of the munitions squadron and have the SoD updated daily on the progress of the investigation then it is serious enough to worry me.
     
  10. AV8R

    AV8R Banned

    6,624
    2
    0
    According to this Army Times news article, the missiles being transported were Advanced Cruise Missiles (Link 1,Link 2, Link 3) with W80 Warheads. They aren't capable of erasing entire cities, but considering blast, heat, shock wave, and fallout, they can kill an entire city of small to medium size. There are nuclear warheads atop some of our ICBMs that are measured in Megatons.
     
  11. gsusnake

    gsusnake Token Liberal Hippie

    13,680
    67
    48
    The nuclear mistake that worries me is the one buried in the mud off Tybee.
     
  12. AV8R

    AV8R Banned

    6,624
    2
    0
    That was more of an accident than mistake. That one will be hard to sneak into a mall or office building... But, these are perfect for the job. I hope they really aren't missing. :shock:
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,144
    1,464
    113
    No nuke on that one.