Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Barksdale bombs - disturbing, but leave the hysteria (11 posts)

  1. NicholasLevis
    Member

    I think this guy makes a very convincing case that the Barksdale incident was a fuck-up - not unlike the hundreds of such fuck-ups and near misses since 1945. The security procedures around nukes, which supposedly are inviolable and "prove" Barksdale was intentional, are largely a myth, a fable designed to reassure us and obscure the reality: every day brings a high risk of nuclear holocaust, whether by choice or by accident, and this has been so since the 1950s. If the ruling bastards want to have a nuclear war, or even stage a nuclear false-flag, they won't need to prepare it with a Barksdale-style incident.

    As he says,

    http://counterpunch.org/vest09132007.html

    September 13, 2007 The Barksdale Nukes B-52s and Bush’s War Plans

    By SCOTT VEST

    former Air Force Captain at Minot AFB

    There has been a great deal of speculation in recent days about the Air Force incident on August 30 in which six cruise missiles were transported from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana with nuclear warheads still attached. There are those who believe that the shipment, revealed to the Military Times by two unnamed Air Force officers, represents part of some nefarious plot by the Bush Administration to stage weapons for a nuclear attack on Iran.

    Another article goes so far as to extend the scope of the plot to postulate stock market manipulation by rich administration insiders who are predicting huge near term stock market upheavals in the expected wake of such an attack and are poised to cash in.

    In several articles, the authors state that there is no way that the shipment could have been an accident.
    

    However, as much as I can relate to the mind set that the Bush Administration is up to no good, I have to say that it almost certainly had to be an accident, or if not an accident it was not a prelude to nuclear war with Iran or anyone else. The fact is that if a nuclear strike was planned out of Barksdale AFB using the B-52H aircraft stationed there, it could be accomplished without needing to ferry live weapons from North Dakota against long-standing policy on a combat aircraft.

    I'm a former Air Force Captain and I was a munitions specialist in the very unit that erroneously shipped the weapons out of Minot AFB from '87 to '90. I am no Republican mouthpiece trying to cover for the administration. I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative (basically the opposite philosophy of the administration), and I think Bush and especially Cheney are war criminals along with being the normal variety of criminals on a grand scale. I believed in our mission during the Cold War to make the cost of a Soviet nuclear strike too high to consider. After I left the service in 1992, I saw the military increasingly used for actions that had less and less to do with the defense of our nation When we invaded Kosovo in 1999, I resigned my commission in the reserves. Now that I see the horrible misuse of military power that this administration has perpetrated I am so glad that I can no longer get called up to serve in a war of aggression, yet so angry that so many people of honor are being misused.

    The key to the matter here is that Barksdale AFB and Minot AFB are both hosts to strategic bomb wings flying B-52H aircraft. The B-52H is designed as a primarily nuclear bomber yet still capable of delivering conventional explosives as has been seen in our imperial adventures in recent years. The two former Strategic Air Command bases both support the same mission when it comes to their nuclear capabilities. Although I can neither confirm nor deny the definite presence of nuclear weapons at any given location (I do value what freedom I still retain under this government), doesn't it stand to reason that if Minot has nukes, as they allegedly do to be able to fly them to Louisiana, then Barksdale is likely to have an inventory of its own?

    The fact that warheads were flown between Air Force locations is not unusual. Only the fact that they were flown on a B-52 is. Warheads are routinely transported by air as it's much more secure than traveling over the roads or rail. They are typically flown on transport aircraft inside of drums that are designed to survive a crash. Obviously, the security and secrecy of these missions is higher than what occurred on the B-52 flight in question and this is what caused the unnamed officers to speak out. Breaches of safety, security, or reliability on nuclear weapons is a big deal to anyone who works with them, and this was a major screw-up.

    The six advanced cruise missiles (ACMs) were being sent to Barksdale to get decommissioned (destroyed). The fact is that the 5th Munitions Squadron at Minot AFB (my old unit) in North Dakota should have scheduled the six warheads to get 'demated' from the missiles prior to loading them on the jet. They failed to do this, and it was inexcusable. The squadron commander (generally a Lt Col) was fired. There are three levels of nuclear incident reporting that you may have heard of. The most severe is a 'Broken Arrow' where a weapon is lost, stolen, or detonated. The next level is 'Bent Spear' and covers serious breaches of nuclear surety (safety, security, reliability). The last is 'Dull Sword' which covers minor issues or infractions. This incident most likely would have fallen into the 'Bent Spear' category. These are very rare. For 10 hours, Minot didn't know where six of their warheads were. This is shocking to the Air Force, and they've been on it like white on rice.

    It's not terribly obvious when looking at a cruise missile whether it carries a warhead or not because these missiles are like small unmanned aircraft and the warhead is enclosed within. However, there are supposed to be red indicators on live missiles that apparently went unnoticed by the transportation and load crews. They have been decertified. There are several steps in the normal processes where this infraction should have been caught, but it wasn't. This indicates poor training and attention to detail, and this was never tolerated when I worked with these weapons, and has not been tolerated now. There may be some contributing factors pertaining to personnel turnover, short handedness, or fatigue related to the ongoing war effort, but I have no such knowledge. Regardless of any of that the incident was still absolutely inexcusable.

    Do I think that the administration is drawing up serious plans to attack Iran? I do. Do I think that neocon whack jobs and particularly Dick Cheney are considering the use of nuclear weapons? I do. But the facts are scarier than the conspiracy theories swirling around this B-52 incident. If a decision is made to launch nuclear strikes from US bases using B-52s, it can be done without any telltale unusual movements of assets. A single B-52H can put over 6 megatons of nuclear power on target anywhere on the planet within 30 hours from the time the order is received.

    Scott Vest can be reached at vestsa@comcast.net

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    a very convincing case that the Barksdale incident was a fuck-up

    Easily, but then I tend to wonder why this incident made the news at all, which is my main thought about what this is about. How hard would it have been to keep out? I don't know, but I can guess not hard. As a symbolic message it would work well. No big conspiracy theory around that. Just a message.

    The leadership on the other side of the world is shuffling. Is there a reason? We don't know. Maybe it's all unrelated. We have to find some kind of balance between the obvious fear mongering they are foisting on us, and the reality of global incidents like leaders of Japan suddenly resigning and the world economy going haywire.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    i have no doubt that the 3 aircraft carrier groups currently in the immediate vacinity of Iran are fully cable of launching a nuclear strike - should it be ordered. it never occurred to me that this incident revealed the transportation of nukes for purposes of an Iranian strike.

    but i do differ with the opinions reflected in this editorial on the issue of the 'feasibility' of this 'mistake'. although i possess no expertize on the protocols associated with the transportation of nuclear devices - it seems improbable to me that such an inventory mistake could take place.

    this may be wishful thinking on my part. i suppose i just do not wish to believe that america's nuclear arsenal is so carelessly monitored - and that the tell-tale "red markings" this author (and others) have referenced, could so easily be missed.

    speculation regarding why such an event would intentionally be staged could range from sabre-rattling to apocalypic scenerios where nukes could have in fact been stolen in the shuffle. (there has in fact been conflicting reports regarding the number of nukes involved) We have no hard evidence of either.

    i agree speculation is worthless. but vigilance is not. and - considering the current political environment, mixed with our own suspicions that elements of the US government may have been complicit in the 911 attacks, and the added horror of the reality that elements of this administration INTENTIONALLY misled this nation into war in Iraq (killing hundreds of thousands in the process) - these facts would suggest that it is not so incredible that people would look at this "accident" and (like 911) be asking penetrating questions regarding the feasibility and possibilities inherent in such a mistake.

    incompetance is something this admininistration has fallen-back upon all too often as a way of obscuring what amounts to criminal actions. our air defenses failed. or security aparatus failed. our intelligence agencies failed - on a massive level. just SO many failures - yet so LITTLE accountability.

    so please forgive me for casting a jaunticed eye towards all claims of catastrophic incompetence - such as this event.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. Does there need to be clearance to disclose information about a nuclear transfer mistake? Is this a whistleblower item? I may have missed that in the articles.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. NicholasLevis
    Member

    I totally believe that these people fuck up constantly. I know this won't win me votes on my presidential run, but ahem, we are talking about a large group of people who actually volunteer to be in the imperial military, a great many of whom honestly believe it's a noble sacrifice for their country. (I don't know that the rest of the population is smarter, but people are dumb everywhere. Or sometimes just overworked.)

    The incompetence and callousness has been on for decades, it is that of "our" nuclear forces, and hardly particular to Bush.

    Remember all, only in the weird little world of official conspiracy theorists are incompetence and criminal intent mutually exclusive. In my observation, general incompetence serves as an ideal seedbed for crime - and crime definitely gives a pass to incompetence. They're symbiotes.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. NicholasLevis
    Member

    A COUNTERPOINT

    The point perhaps is not that fuck-ups are impossible but where this supposed fuck-up happened - Barksdale, the staging point for ME operations.

    Quoted in blog of Larry Johnson, member of the TV security issues punditocracy: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/24/simple-err...

    Obviously there are two possibilities: 1. this was an error and the events that occurred were a tragic mistake of far reaching proportions; and 2. the nuclear weapons were moved on purpose.

    The United States has had nuclear weapons for over sixty years. Through out this time the tracking, storage and movement of these weapons has been performed without any type of security problem. The chain of custody procedures has been refined to the nith degree to insure that there will never be a mistake. The access to, movement of, and custody of these weapons is so tightly controlled, each serial numbered weapon has to be signed for when possession of it changes (from one person to another), then only after receiving a lawful order to do so. In order to load a nuclear weapon onto an aircraft the Weapon’s Depot Commander must receive a lawful order from above. The order is sent down (in writing) to one of the bomb shelter custodians and the weapon is signed out to a Loader. The Loader, loads the weapon onto an aircraft and will keep the weapon/aircraft under surveillance with the aircraft under armed guard by the Security Police in an isolated protected area until the Aircraft Commander performs his pre-flight inspection on the aircraft and signs a receipt for each of the weapons by serial number. Once delivered at their destination the Aircraft Commander would receive a receipt for the weapons by serial number from the receiving facility.

    With all of the necessary orders and paperwork required just to move a nuclear weapon from one room in a storage facility to another, it can be stated with some sort of certainty that this was not a casual mistake as the Department of Defense has eluted to.

    Then if the movement wasn’t a mistake, it obviously was done with some sort of purpose in mind.

    The destination of the aircraft was Barksdale AFB, LA from which a number of the strikes on the Middle East have initiated. Speculation would lead us to believe the weapons were being stockpiled at this facility for a possible strike somewhere in the world. Additional speculation would also lead us to believe the strike was to occur in the very near future. Why else the need to forego the normal overland transportation procedures for nuclear weapons and risk flying them to their destination in violation of a treaty with the Russians. Also how is it the press was aware of this movement? After all who would be suspicious of a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base and a B-52 landing at a B-52 base. This event goes on many times each day for practice missions and training. Some one had to have leaked the information to the press that the U.S. was moving nuclear weapons by air in a treaty violation.

    This leads us to two possible scenarios. 1. Whoever leaked the information would have been someone in a position of authority knowing what was going on and concerned the U.S. was actually attempting to use nuclear weapons somewhere in the world and wanting to stop it by exposing it. This someone would have had to have a security clearance of some kind and violated the trust under which it was issued thus being exposed to severe penalties and jail time for potential treason etc. Facing such severe penalties someone would have to be totally committed to his/her own conscience/moral beliefs. This preemptive exposure would put the U.S. on a difficult footing and loss of the surprise factor, thus potentially curtailing the mission. 2. The other possibility would be the information on the flight was leaked on purpose in an attempt to influence a foreign government, group or situation to move in a particular direction. That the U.S. was “Saber rattling” and the stakes were high enough to risk antagonizing the Russians to accomplish it. (With the possibility the Russians were supporting the action and willing to overlook the violation as exemplified by their lack of response in the entire situation.)

    (more) http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/24/simple-err...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. JohnA
    Member

    i lean towards sabre rattling.

    wouldn't it be safe to assume that the 3 US carrier groups in the immediate vacinity of Iran are already nuclear ready?

    also - i tend to believe that the 'leak' itself is as improbable as the actual nuclear 'mistake'. one would assume that if the US was actually moving nukes into position for a nuclear strike - this would be one of the most serious operations the US military has ever been called upon to enact. it would be treated with absolute airtight security and protocols - at every level. the idea that several soldiers would decide to go public with an alternate story seems remote.

    they claim it was an accident and the nukes sat for 12 hours undiscovered? no. something does not mesh with this story if their intentions were to wake people up to a possible strike.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. JohnA
    Member

    spelled: vicinity

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Saber rattling?

    This is such an oblique way of sending the message, though - are the Iranians getting it? I think the 3 carrier groups in the Gulf, the Mighty Wurlitzer currently playing on Iran, the admin's constant announcements that all options are on the table, the stuff about Iran arming the Iraqis, the four days of hate headlines on the New York tabloids, the neocon punditocracy's open calls for nuclear war now now now... it's all loud enough! And, let's not forget, the years of Rumsfeld describing the joys of developing a new generation of mininukes that we really need to test somewhere, can they bunker bust?

    All this is identifiable as saber rattling or, worse, saber deploying in preparation for use.

    Barksdale incident is too quiet and subject to interpretation. The lack of an immediately salient message in it argues against a psyop.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. JohnA
    Member

    i disagree. the very fact that people are becoming hysterical about it proves it is indeed a potentially powerful psyop.

    further - some of the people who are forwarding these 'conspiracy theories' are suspect - and possibly complicit - in turning it into hysteria. this could very well be sabre rattling intended for a domestic audience.

    but - i would agree that it is small in comparison to what we see and hear everyday.

    i continue to marvel over the news blackout regarding the (supposed) Israeli attack on Syria last week - and the reasons Israel gave. it is one of the most serious accusations i've heard so far. The claims of Iran arming insurgents PALES in comparison to what is being claimed regarding Syria. one source went as far as to imply that Syria was preparing to put a nuke on the tip of a missile.

    and this is not news?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  11. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Right - now that you mention it's one of the most bizarre coverages yet. Normally such a thing would be touted fairly heavily as an invigorating strike by our good friend against the evil Arab Syrian Stalinist killer sub-animals.

    Also, Syria you'd expect to bring it before the Security Council and get some loud condemnations of Israel (before the inevitable USUK* veto).

    Also, the NK angle - it's like manna to FOXNEWS, why aren't they all over it?

    So what was that all about?

    Anyone?

    (*pronounce yousuck)

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.