Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

The Missing Nuke Story (6 posts)

  1. JohnA
    Member

    I shortened this story down for brevity purposes, and edited slightly for clarity purposes. It was written by someone named Chuck Simpson whom I have not had the time to research - so i am unsure how reliable he is.

    But - given the enormity of his conclusions - I thought it appropriate to throw this out there. I suppose the confusion regarding the NUMBER of nukes in play could simply be the product of poor journalism - and the evidence for his conclusion that a nuke has been stolen is far from being conclusive. BUT - i think he makes some very good points about the impossibility of such a mistake taking place.

    excerpts:

    The story of the B-52 flight was first reported by Army Times, owned by Gannett, on Wednesday September 5. Gannett relied on information provided by "anonymous officers". The story was picked up by Yahoo Wednesday morning, published by USA Today and The Washington Pos, and then quickly spread.

    In response, the Pentagon quickly spread an official explanation.

    The Air Force admitted to an inadvertent error: The intent was to transport ACMs without weapons. According to military officers, the nuclear warheads should have been removed before the missiles were mounted on the pylons under the wings of the bomber.

    Excerpt:

    A sophisticated computerized tracking system is used for nuclear weapons. Multiple sign-offs are required to remove the weapons from their storage bunkers.

    The AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile was designed to carry nuclear weapons. No non-nuclear warhead is available for this missile. So the only possible error could have been loading nuclear warheads on the missiles instead of practice dummies.

    The practice warheads have standard blue and yellow signs declaring "Inert, non-nuclear". The nuclear warheads have at least three distinctive red warning signs. This error is therefore highly improbable, absent tampering with signage.

    Nuclear weapons are transported from the storage bunker to the aircraft in a caravan that routinely includes vehicles with machine guns front and rear and guards with M-16s. All steps in the process are done under the watchful eyes of armed military police.

    Rules require that at least two people jointly control every step of the process. If one person loses sight of the other, both are forced to the ground face-down and temporarily "placed under arrest" by observant security forces. All progress stops until inspections are made to assure the weapons weren't tampered with.

    All nuclear weapons are connected to sophisticated alarm systems to prevent removal or tampering. They could only be removed from the storage bunker by turning the alarm off. And the squad commander clearly would not have authority to turn off the alarm.

    The Impossible Mistake

    Bluntly, the mistake of loading nuclear weapons on a combat aircraft in combat-ready position is simply not possible to make. Safeguards are far too stringent and far too many people would be involved. Particularly given that the mounting was in violation of policy that's been in place without exception for almost 40 years.

    Under SOPs, combat planes with combat-ready nuclear weapons can only be flown on the authority of the Commander in Chief, the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the National Military Command Authority.

    Excerpt:

    Someone in an irregular chain of Air Force command authorized loading and transport of nuclear weapons.

    And that would never have been done without a reason. Given the magnitude of regulatory violations involved, the reason must be extremely important.

    At Barksdale, (where the missiles were delivered) the missiles were considered to be unarmed items headed for modernization or the scrap heap, and of no particular importance. They were left unguarded for almost ten hours.

    According to one report, almost ten hours were required for airmen at Minot AFB (where they originated) to convince superiors that the nuclear weapons had disappeared. According to information provided to Congress, this time lapsed before airmen at Barksdale "noticed" the weapons were present.

    Early news reports spoke of five nuclear warheads loaded onto the bomber. Apparently, this information was provided from Barksdale.

    That number was later updated to six weapons missing from Minot, apparently based on anonymous tips provided to Military Times by people at Minot.

    Conclusion

    Six nuclear weapons disappeared from Minot AFB in North Dakota.

    Five nuclear weapons were discovered at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.

    Which leads to my chilling conclusion:

    Someone, operating under a special chain of command within the United States Air Force, just stole a nuclear weapon.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. yfhahn
    Administrator

    John, do you have the original link for this article? I have been following the mainstream news coverage of this story and some of the commentary, but I have not run across the claim that the weapons were left anattended (or for how long). I am curious what the exact sources of this information might be.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    we will all have to do some leg work to verify these facts (which is why, in part, i posted it)

    Here is the Army Times story:

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nucle...

    This article states that they were discovered immediately after the 3 1/2 hour flight - and quotes 6 missiles.

    Here is the Washington Post story:

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/0...

    This states: "No one noticed that six nuclear warheads were missing for more than 12 hours."

    i assume this includes the 3 1/2 hour flight time.

    Here is the article in USA Today that addresses the number discrepency:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-09-05-b...

    "It was originally reported that five nuclear warheads were transported, but officers who tipped Military Times to the incident who have asked to remain anonymous since they are not authorized to discuss the incident, have since updated that number to six."

    Here is an interesting anomoly:

    http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&ie=...

    If you look at the FoxNews healine listed in the Google search you see:

    Report: Air Force Mistakenly Flies 5 Nuclear Warheads Over US FOX News - Sep 5, 2007

    But if you click on the story you get:

    "Air Force Mistakenly Flies 6 Nuclear Warheads Over U.S."

    hmmmm.....

    Same thing with this Google search headline:

    Air Force official rapped after nuclear flyover MSNBC - Sep 5, 2007 Five nuclear weapons were mistakenly loaded aboard a B-52 and flown cross-country from North Dakota to Louisiana last week. ...

    Yet when you click on the story you get this:

    "Air Force official fired after 6 nukes fly over U.S."

    Where did the original number 5 come from?

    who is more likely to have leaked this story? the officers responsible for making the "mistake" in Minot? or the officers who discovered the mistake in Barklay 12 hours later? its seems more intuitive that the leak came from Barklay - and the correction to "six" came from Minot. but this is reaching.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. Hmm..

    Actually, if you read this section from Army Times:

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

    It doesn't specifically say that they were discovered immediately after. It just states that they were left unaccounted for during the flight. There's a presumption lead on by the writing there, but hmm.

    Is anyone able to verify the procedural claims made by the first posted article on this? It certainly sounds like the plausible procedure for the military, so it could be accurate.

    Well let us hope this isn't the case, obviously.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. JohnA
    Member

    whether the procedural claims posted in the original story are accurate - or not - i agree with the premise that it is impossible for this sort of mistake to happen.

    i have to believe that america's nuclear arsenal is protected by multiple layers of redundant security protocols. the army times makes it sound like they accidently loaded supermarket groceries into the wrong minivan.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. Great analogy. This is ominous sign number 3423981, more or less.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.