It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear Weapon almost accidentally explodes in TX !!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
If this is true then what are the repercussions on this ?? To think that this is possible in these plants is frightening to say the least....

Read here



Thoughts anyone ?? is the true ??










[edit on 18-12-2006 by Alpha Grey]




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Here you have an example of sensationalism at it's best. The information in this article maybe true and accurate, but it is written to try to frighten the reader. There may have been the possibility of a conventional explosion with nuclear materials, the so called "dirty bomb", but there was no chance of a nuclear detonation. There have been cases before where the conventional explosives have detonated without a nuclear explosion. The most famous of these was in Palmares, Spain in the 1960's. It is my opinion that the author of this article was trying to mislead his readers.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Well said JIMC5499!

For the record, a nuclear weapon will not detonate unless it has been armed.

Even then it could be dropped from a very tall building and, provided it had not been set to detonate on impact, then all it would have done, is to make a very big hole in the pavement [sidewalk].

It may have produced a little radiological hazard, but these things are designed to be soldier and airman proof, so no worry there


Just another fine example of sensationalism in your press. If I were you, I'd take the reporter to task and ask him about his [her] sources.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
These types of weapons are very difficult to set off. Heavy pressure will not do it. Other sequences must take place at the same time.

This is a panic article.

It is obvious by the article that proceedures were not followed. More likely resulting in damage to the equipment or materials.

These are one of a kind equipment and materials...you dont just go down to Lowes or Home Deopt...Northern Hydraulics or Granger and get replacements.

When you do work like this you must follow the steps strictly and often following certain steps... sign or make a signature that you have followed the steps to the "T". Inspectors often sign right next to you. Engineers too.

Somebody deviated here.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The W56 warhead has had some problems with disassembly; these technical issues have been noted. There have been accidents at the Pantex plant in Amarillo, and there have been fatalities. It's even possible in a worse case scenario to have the chemical explosive of a weapon explode and scatter the physics package (the radioactive elements of a nuclear device) resulting in a "dirty bomb." What cannot happen is for there to be any kind of nuclear detonation. The arming devices are linked to the delivery vehicle (plane, missile, etc) and must be programmed with an electronic "key." This key mechanically arms the device. It's a one shot deal, and would be extremely difficult to synthesize.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
That and for any kind of nuclear arming there has to be two people there to arm it. No one person (save for the president) can arm a nuclear weapon by themselves. It has to be authorized by a two card crack key system. These codes are changed monthly I think, which would make it uber hard to detonate a nuclear weapon accidently.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Don't get so freaked out. Just be thankful they are dismantling the damned things.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ford Farmer
Don't get so freaked out. Just be thankful they are dismantling the damned things.


Actually they are recycling the "damned things". Nukes have a shelf life based on the half-life of their atomic components. This is one of the reasons that I discount the "missing Soviet backpack nukes" posts.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Well said JIMC5499.

Which is why I am dead set against the UK wasteing £27B on a missile system when the missiles themselves have not reached their shelf life.

I think these things are all relative. Our militaries are being told by defence contractors that these things are well past their display until date, and that the radioactive source is coming up to it's use by date, so you'd better buy a new one otherwise you'll invalidate the user warranty!

Fat chance!
These particular items are built to withstand their counterparts, safely and snuggly in their bombproof shelters, way deep below ground, out of harms way.

As to the President of the United States actually, physically arming a bomb or missile - you've got to be joking. Right?

I mean, can you imagine Dubya with the keys in his hand? Scarey!



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
I mean, can you imagine Dubya with the keys in his hand? Scarey!


I can think of several people who would be worse.

Even the President can't released the nukes by himself. No one person has the "keys". It takes a consensus of several people to launch a nuclear strike. Even then it has to be a canned strike. No matter what Hollywood says you can't change a missile's target and then launch it. The targeting has to be pre-selected. Nuclear armed aircraft are a little more flexible but not much. The movie "Crimson Tide" had it almost correct. In it the release had already been granted by the NCA and it was down to the last step. That movie showed how it is supposed to work. It takes more than one man to launch a strike. If anywhere along the way there isn't a consensus the strike isn't launched.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
No matter what Hollywood says you can't change a missile's target and then launch it. The targeting has to be pre-selected.


Are you sure about this??

Launching ..yes I agree..many people needed to be on board for this.

Target selection..Im not so sure about based on the systems I have seen both on Boomers and SSNs with Tomahawks.

Retargeting is just a matter of electronic data..similar to this computer.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by fritz
I mean, can you imagine Dubya with the keys in his hand? Scarey!


I can think of several people who would be worse.



I almost forgot...I too can think of several people who would be worse..much worse.

Orangetom



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Are you sure about this??

Launching ..yes I agree..many people needed to be on board for this.

Target selection..Im not so sure about based on the systems I have seen both on Boomers and SSNs with Tomahawks.

Retargeting is just a matter of electronic data..similar to this computer.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Yes I'm sure. The nuclear capable Tomahawks have been removed from service and the Boomers don't have a system capable of writing guidance instructions for their missiles. There is however a library of possible targets maintained on board and any of these can be loaded as needed. I can't go into it any further than that. I really don't care to take a long tour of a Federal Prison any time soon.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Yes I understand about the nuclear tipped Tomahawks ..Also they no longer have the lead shieliding around the torpedo tubes as was on older submarines..for obvious reasons. I installed some of this shielding on older boats. Cleaning up thier act so to speak.

Yes ..that is what I meant in reguards to targeting ...thanks.

Understand about being a guest at those five star accomodations.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Re the targeting question.

I believe they can be. I thought that cruise missile targeting data was held on a micro-processor on a small motherboard that was simply clipped in place.

Once in situ, the missile was spun up [warmed up] an electrical test was carried out and once passed, they were good to shoot.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I do not know about any other countries Nukes, but ours are set up in a way so as to make any accidental chain reaction impossible. All the detonators must fire simultaneously or all you get is a conventional explosion with dirty debris. To fire all those detonators simultaneously requires a computer chip to agree and verify that its supposed to do that. you cannot just hook the circuit up to a car batter and go boom. The triggering mechanism is so sophisticated now that you virtually need a PHD to figure it out as regards working on it. the piece of crap writer either did not know this or did not care.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Re the targeting question.

I believe they can be. I thought that cruise missile targeting data was held on a micro-processor on a small motherboard that was simply clipped in place.

Once in situ, the missile was spun up [warmed up] an electrical test was carried out and once passed, they were good to shoot.


Unless the target is from a preprogramed library the operational people do not have the ability to generate a targeting program. The program has to be written and then it can be transmitted to the launcher. This system is only in use by the Navy. The Air Force cannot change the target once the missile is loaded on to the carrying aircraft.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Yes I'm sure. The nuclear capable Tomahawks have been removed from service and the Boomers don't have a system capable of writing guidance instructions for their missiles.


Oops - It seems the Navy don't trust you with their latest publicly available info. because SSBNs have been able to independantly re-target their missiles since 2003.
======================
www.thebulletin.org...

In October 2003, the navy began deploying the new SLBM Retargeting System (SRS) after more than a decade in development. The SRS is designed to "provide the increased flexibility and capability required by the Nuclear Posture Review for [the U.S.] offensive strike platform," according to navy budget documents. The new system enables SSBNs to quickly, accurately, and reliably retarget missiles; to allow better processing of more targets; to reduce overall Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) processing time; and to support adaptive planning.
======================

Does this mean that I'm going to jail?

[edit on 22-12-2006 by Retseh]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
As my thread has been closed, despite being opened much longer than two weeks after this [don't worry, I'm used to it] I'll ask here.

Where is the proof that this is nothing more than sensationalist journalism?

I see the armchair "experts" sharing their erstwhile opinion; however, I see not one shred of proof.



The U.S. Energy Department fined the plant's operators $110,000 last month.


Why if nothing happened, was such a sizable fine handed out?

[edit on 25/1/07 by Implosion]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Even if the article had any truth to it regarding why the explosion may've happened, I expect the fine is based on the degree of the incident, those involved, etc.
For 'almost activating a nuclear weapon', you would not receive a fine.
You've receive jail time.
If that.

en.wikipedia.org...
nuclearweaponarchive.org...
www.fas.org...
www.lcnp.org...

Please do not criticize a large majority of posters who call this an impossibility, without providing evidence yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join