Report: Air Force lost track of nuclear missiles, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 35 times

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 01:08 PM by Leyla

Originally posted by TruthWithin
LOL - gottago. Accidents do happen! I mean after all, whats a couple hundred kiloton nukes between friends?

Heck, the US has so many of them, I can't imagine how you would keep track of them all! You can't fly out of an airport these days without the possibility that there might "accidentally" be a nuke strapped to your plane.

Hmm now where did I put those nukes? Oh gee whoops there on the B-52.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 01:12 PM by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Harlequin

they can only be carried on the wing pylons - as the internal rotary launchers (built for the AGM-86B) have all but been removed from all aircraft now.

but the physics package could be removed and reused elsewhere if needed - domestic bomb for a `terrorist` anyone

Those rotary launchers were wild to see in motion. My point was more it would not be by mistake to load them, and I sure they never use B-52s to just transport them.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 01:23 PM by C0le

A military official told CNN there was no nuclear risk to public safety because the weapons were not armed. Officials believe that if the plane had crashed or the missiles somehow had fallen off the wings, the warheads would have remained inert and there would have been no nuclear detonation, though conventional explosive material in the warhead could have detonated.

So

Nuclear detonation, No
Dirty bomb, Yes.

Nice, I mean all this time they spent fear mongering about dirty bombs and terrorists, and here we come close, and its no big deal really..

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 01:41 PM by JIMC5499

Originally posted by KINGOFPAIN
i dont understand how this is possible..? we have convicts on gps cop cars on lowjacks.... and implants you can get for your pet so you'll always know where they are. So how can we missplace nukes?

The original article was misleading. The weapons were never "lost", they were transported incorrectly. By the way nukes have a shelf life.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 01:42 PM by Viszet Oki

What really gets me, is that this story even made it to the mainstream media. With everything else being covered up, why this? It apparently happened Aug, 30... why do we just now hear about it?

This almost smells like one of those covert messages...

It is just too random. It is too out of place. So who is telling who what?

B-52. 6 nukes. Nukes were on the wings... Cruise missiles...

These are just the elements of the story. Someone help me out.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by Viszet Oki]

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 01:57 PM by neformore

reply to post by Viszet Oki

Its an interesting Question.

What happened, of significance, on Aug 30th? I'm too lazy to look it up right now (am eating!!!) - but I'm sure someone will.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:00 PM by UM_Gazz

From the original article linked in the opening post, this one line really sticks:

CNN says the crew didn't know the weapons were on the bomber.

I'd like to know how this was possible, if the flight crew didn't know the nukes were there, fine, but surely someone had to know they were there, why would they keep it secret from the crew?

This whole thing is so bizarre it would be instantly easy to believe the whole thing was fiction.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:20 PM by IAttackPeople

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
From the original article linked in the opening post, this one line really sticks:

CNN says the crew didn't know the weapons were on the bomber.

I'd like to know how this was possible, if the flight crew didn't know the nukes were there, fine, but surely someone had to know they were there, why would they keep it secret from the crew?

How would the crew know the nukes were on-board? The missiles were supposed to be there. It was the missiles that were being flown to LA for decommissioning. The warheads *were not* supposed to be still on the missiles, however.

Somebody screwed-up big-time and heads are gonna roll, if they haven't already.

I'm also interested as to why the Air Force is using a B-52 to ferry the missiles instead of a standard transport aircraft.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:25 PM by TruthWithin

I kind of agree with the sentiment on this post that this is a little way for the US to say "Hey Iran, we have so many nukes we don't even know when we put them on our planes!".

I think it is intentional, this story. What a game of coded messages between the US and Iran. It's like high schoolers passing notes.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:25 PM by wings_of_an_eagle

Just to be clear... I don't know if anyone has said this yet.

B-52's don't mount bombs to their wings. The fuel tanks are in the wings. A B-52 has all cargo mounted inside the body.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by wings_of_an_eagle]

Now I went to reading other comments. Someone (don't remember name) asked about transporting vehicle. A B-52 (bomber-52) is not a cargo plane such as C-130 (Cargo-130) That is why a B-52 will not be flying vehicle and people places.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by wings_of_an_eagle]

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:27 PM by darkbluesky

reply to post by Xtrozero

I'm in agreement. This was an "intentional" screw up. Either for the benefit of "MymoodIminaJihad" or in response to Vlad Putin's recent Bear sorties.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:35 PM by darkbluesky

Originally posted by wings_of_an_eagle
Just to be clear... I don't know if anyone has said this yet.

B-52's don't mount bombs to their wings. The fuel tanks are in the wings. A B-52 has all cargo mounted inside the body.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by wings_of_an_eagle]

I'm sorry, that's not correct.

Up to 12 of these AGM-129A ACM missiles can be carried externally on the underwing ALCM pylons of the B-52H. The missile is, however, too large to fit inside the bomb bay of the B-52H. Details about the deployment of the AGM-129A among the B-52H fleet seem to be classified. It is known that the B-52Hs of the 410th BW at K I Sawyer AFB were modified to receive the ACM in the late 1980s, but it is not certain that these missiles were ever actually fitted. The 7th BW at Carswell was also earmarked to receive the ACM, but this unit was deactivated in 1992. The 410th was scheduled to be deactivated in 1994. This missile reported is also carried by the Rockwell B-1B Lancer and the Northrop B-2 Spirit

Later modifications made it possible for the B-52H to be able to carry eight more AGM-86B missiles internally in a Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (CSRL), which was not fitted to the B-52G. CSRL-equipped B-52Hs can therefore carry up to 20 AGM-86B cruise missiles (8 on the CSRL, plus six each on the underwing pylons. The CSRL program began in 1988 and the first CSRL-equipped B-52Hs appeared later that year. The rotary launcher is fitted inside the bomb bay and is attached to yokes. New electrical and hydraulic lines were fitted inside the bomb bay to operate and control the launcher. The launcher and its associated systems weigh approximately 5000 pounds. Instead of a battery of AGM-86Bs, the CSRL can carry as many as four B28 70-350 kT nuclear bombs or as many as eight B61 (10-500 kiloton yield) or B83 (1-2 megaton yield) nuclear bombs. However, the CSRL cannot carry the AGM-129A ACM, which is too big to fit inside the bomb bay. Some 82 of the B-52Hs were provided with CSRL capability. The CSRL is not compatible with either the B-1 or the B-2 bombers.

home.att.net...

Please note weapons on the shoulder pylons....

i128.photobucket.com...

[edit on 9/5/2007 by darkbluesky]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:42 PM by observe50

Okay I'll do it your twisting my arm, here's the conspirary:

The missles were loaded onto the B52 bombers wings (no doubt for a terrorist attack that was supposed to come soon) the plane left Minot Airbase then at some point the pilots realized what was under there wings. They knew they weren't to fly over land because of treaties so they changed course and took it over the Atlantic Ocean. The missiles being on the wings where they weren't supposed to be because of the fuel being stored there caught fire and hence one hugh fireball over Jersey.

Okay, I know stop already. I would like to know why if this happened on Aug 30th why it has taken so long to get to the news. hmmmmm 30th is close to the 1st and they do lie now don't they.

Sorry for getting carried away

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:50 PM by deltaboy

Didn't lose track of the nuclear missiles. Just forgot to leave the warheads home and take the missiles with them.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:54 PM by Wolfpack 51

Could this be part of the propaganda mentioned on the ATS story about Cheny ordering the media to give propaganda to a Iran war?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 03:02 PM by thatblissguy

reply to post by Sky watcher

Most probably because we have something even better.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 03:24 PM by Mr. Blue

weather this was intentional, some secrete mission, or a pure accident.It is grosely unacceptable.I always thought the Russians did a horrible job of keeping track of there weapons and now we hear were not to careful ourselves. I believe that no one was in danger due to them not being armed.That dosen't excuse this incident. nuclear weapons have an effect on the entire world even if there dropped a world away.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 03:40 PM by Rockpuck

Originally posted by Xtrozero
You don't mistakenly load nukes on the wing of a B-52. Any movement of nukes is at the highest level and equal to the movement of the President.

It was not by mistake.. they where SUPPOSED to be on the plane, that was not the issue.

The issue was when the nukes where actually placed on the missile (cruise missile) .. and THEN loaded onto the plane..

The nukes where supposed to be decommissioned however someone lost in translation apparently decided to put them on the missiles and load them onto the plane as if arming the plane.....

All the people where terminated or revealed of their post..

and yes, such movements need approval of the President, in this case some fool armed them on a plane, and the President was briefed about the issue.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 04:00 PM by Bunch

I think I read somewhere a few years ago that the transport of the nuclear weapons arsenal inside the US is in the hands of the DOE after SAC was disbanded, I don't know may be I'm wrong, anyways I feel for the weapons crew, they are really are in now for a bad ride.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 04:13 PM by mirageofdeceit

As for just "accidentally" strapping 5 or 6 of them onto a B-52, not loading them in the bomb bays even, well that one strains credulity. StratCom is not that stupid; this must have been intentional, for whatever reason, the most obvious being to put on a show for Iran and then ensuring that this gets out and gets lots of news play. Headline: Loose Nukes on B-52s! Well, that will catch anyone's eye.

I think this was a muscle-flexing exercise. The point being "we have nukes and can deliver 'em as well". The news articles about mis-placed nukes is to fool anyone who isn't looking at the global picture. Only last weekend Iran was jesting at "full-scale nuclear production".

@neforme: The other thing that happened Aug. 30th was a major overhaul of the structure of restricted airspace over DC.

Something going on? Reading between the lines: acting on specific intel on something? Why wait 6 years to do something that should have been implemented even before 9/11? Why now?

Preparations for invasion of Iran? I think it was last week that Israel said that if we weren't prepared to go into Iran, they would, and last week they also listed 1,200 targets in Iran to take out over 3 days of very intensive bombing, targeting Irans military capability specifically. That pre-dates Aug. 30th. Hmmmm......... somethings cooking.........

Pentagon Plan for 3 Day Blitz in Iran

[edit on 5-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^