Originally posted by Skeptical0ne

Funny you'd say that because I have family that killed and died for yours.
And we took the night missions and anything else you couldn't handle.

Keep going I like this insult fight.

Then I feel only sympathy for them as well. And for you for being so proud of their actions.

Originally posted by Skeptical0ne
And frankly you missed one point, the war on terror is our war. Thank you for the British contribution. We'll put it as a credit on your account.

Keep the stiff upper lip an show your world renowned manners.
It is tacky otherwise.

The war on terror is a sham, as any human being with the ability to think independently should know by now. That you would claim it as your own speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Skeptical0ne

Keep going I like this insult fight.

What part of back on topic isn't clear?

This is not an insult fight and will not turn into one....

From this point forward, any discussion that focuses on other members and not the topic of this thread will result in posting bans. No exceptions.

Originally posted by azchuck
Everything I have been able to find reports the plane carried a full complement of 12 missiles. And, with eight engines, the B-52 can easily handle unbalanced loads.

Did you mispeak here.. meaning a plane CAN carry 12.

Or did I miss something? I thought the issue was 6 flew - 5 landed?
Damn now I have to go back into the thread(s) again.

Azchuck did not offer a hypothesis. He stated a wild, unfounded presumption as a fact and made about fifty people crap their pants.

That is the problem I have with this entire thread. It's not fact gathering. It's fear mongering, and it doesn't do any of us any good.

The only thing we've learned is that the missiles weren't loaded by mistake, they were loaded intentionally, because a mistake could not have been made.

THAT is the point at which we should attempting to pick up this story, not with "The government is going to blow up an American city to start a war with Iran."

And for the record, making fun of my username and inferring that I am somebody's second account will do nothing to further your arguments. We've been warned about the personal attacks and if I can heed the warning, so can you.

Scrapple, I believe (but could be wrong) that the plane carried either 5 or 6 nuclear warheads in addition to the dummies it was supposed to be carrying.

Originally posted by mattifikation
The only thing we've learned is that the missiles weren't loaded by mistake, they were loaded intentionally, because a mistake could not have been made.

THAT is the point at which we should attempting to pick up this story, not with "The government is going to blow up an American city to start a war with Iran."

Agreed.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Scrapple, I believe (but could be wrong) that the plane carried either 5 or 6 nuclear warheads in addition to the dummies it was supposed to be carrying.

Agreed

This is from the Opening Post crossed with some quik web checks

“At Barksdale (landing spot), 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 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. This information has also been forgotten.”


Did the plane have a full compliment of 12 cruise missiles – If SO then 6 where empty shell/ non ordinance – as I believe I read that this variant of missile only does Nuke delivery.

….. so the “modernization or scrap heap” comment means what? That they assumed they were empty but were headed to someplace to be fueled-up with nuclear material or alternatively scrapped as empties? Weak!!!

Hypothetical pilot to copilot conversation that day/night;

“Wing payload visual cross check, Barney what-cha got…rodger-that 6 duds right side”
“Wing payload check left side….six dudes left side.”

Or

This was a real event
6 missiles flew
5 ended up in LA
3 tomahawks per strut is functional possibility.

If this was how it went down then an uneven number at take-off makes ‘the grand mistake’ even more preposterous, considering the alleged OCD of nuke load/aircrews.

Hypothetical pilot to copilot conversation that day/night;

“Wing payload visual cross check, Barney what-cha got…rodger-that 3 nukes right side”
“Wing payload check left side….Two …..WTF!”

My un-enlisted guess still says an ‘even’ number of bombs flew, if it happened at all.

And another moot question I am sure is above top secret. Is there a separate rating for nuke and non nuke B52 flight crews? Or is it that once certified for the plane type they can deliver payloads of any type, shape, size?

If they have to be certified specially for nuke delivery, then was a nuke certified flight crew called up for that flight? That would take the bite out of a mistake……

Anyhow IMO If this scenario happened at all then the command to load 6 or the ODD BALL 5 came from ON HIGH. Impeach!!

Originally posted by azchuckWarheads inside either five or six of the 12 missiles were nuclear. The other missiles were either empty or contained practice or "dummy" warheads. I found no information as to which, and I don't think it's important.

Azchuck - thanks for your work,

I have to say however that the issue of dummy/empty verses hot nuke is EXRTEMELY relevant.

Just from a safety standpoint the theoretical (full12) combination of hot/nuke + cold/empty weapons loading would require an ADDED amount of care , preparation and awareness that would make the ‘Mistake’ part of this story a complete and utter JOKE.

Pilot to bombardier – “pick me a winner?”

I don’t think it goes like that!! With a combo load the flight crew would have to know which were hot and in what slot they where loaded. PERIOD.

So if there was a full compliment (hot and duds) the idea that the nukes where unknown to be aboard is a farce. Maybe – somebody with enough juice could trick everyone within the safety loop from weapons bunker personnel to pilot into thinking they were flying a cold milk run but I really kind of doubt it

If this was a real event - somebody put the order in to either trick all these dedicated folks or ordered them to break OP.


NOTE TO NSA/DIA/Representative armed service intelligence people, you can eat my shorts with this story. I respect the job our military does as much as the next person – but get your s*@% straight - this stuff is as embarrassing as it is dangerous.


mad:

[edit on 14-9-2007 by scrapple]

azchuck

PERHAPS...

Many who have posted here, claiming personal knowledge and/or experience of such matters, are in agreement that the "accident" that took place last month, simply could not have happened; at least not without high-level authorization and full awareness of the specially trained crew.


May I Posit A Hypothosis?


There was no Specially Trained and Authorized crew at Minot to load the nukes because what they were loading weren't supposed to be nukes!

There did not have to be any "High Command"order to authorize the release from secure storage nuclear armed missles because the missles that were supposed to be released and loaded weren't supposed to be nuclear!

How could this be? How could nuclear weapons get "mixed in" with conventional weapons?


GIGO "Garbage In, Garbage Out!"

And a bit of digital sleight-of-hand.


The procedures and protocols for removing a nuclear weapon from safe storage and loading it on a delivery platform make it virtually impossible to subvert. The security under which nuclear weapons are stored make them completely inaccessible without proper authorization and oppressive security.

But suppose you could "steal" a warhead before it got "locked-down", before anyone was even aware of the fact that is was a nuclear warhead?


Suppose you had access to and/or could change the record of the serial number identifying a particular device as a nuclear warhead?

You could then, conceivably "steal" a nuclear weapon that never (or so the records would show) existed!

I think con artists call such a gambit "The Old Switcheroo". You guys gotta watch fewer war films and more "caper" flicks!





Seems I recently heard about the Chinese hacking into the Pentagon computers...Hmmmmmm.

To that: Wouldn't the nuclear warhead be on lockdown as soon as construction began on it?

To azchuck: I would love to post my own hypothesis of what happened, but first I will point out that it is nothing more than speculation at this point.

Recently Russia has been engaging in a major show of force. Flying bombers close to NATO airspace, building and testing bombs specifically designed and named to emphasize their superior yields to America's equivalent bombs, and threatening to start and then blame America for a new arms race.

China has done much of the similar, shooting down satellites and pointing more missiles at Taiwan.

My hypothesis then is that the missile transport was just more of the same, except on our side this time. Because we wanted it to be a reminder of our power and not an international relations crisis, we said it was an "accident."

The warheads would not have been loaded without strict orders from very high up, true. At the same time, we would not know it happened if the government did not want us to know it happened.

At first glance that might seem self defeating, to put on a show of force and then tell the world it was a failure on your own part. However it is not unheard of. I seem to recall several years ago a highly maneuverable, advanced Chinese fighter jet slamming into a slow, bulky spy plane that was probably travelling in a straight line. It was clearly an attempt on the part of China to tell us "back off our airspace," and yet officially they claimed it was our fault and our spy plane crashed into their fighter.

Remember also that a show of force is usually more intimidating than just telling people you have that force. Otherwise Russia wouldn't have to fly bombers around and China wouldn't have to shoot down satellites, the could just talk about it.

As to the five vs. six controversy, I maintain my belief that it was an error made either by the press, or the "whistleblowers." This is based more on probability than on fact, as there have been far fewer lost US nuclear weapons than there have been mistakes in the news media.

I'd be more than happy to help you gather evidence, but I have no clue where to start. Perhaps you could share some of your sources?

Also I seem to have missed something here. You are guessing that a nation which is quite capable of building a nuclear weapon, as proven by the fact that it has built and still has thousands of them, needs to steal one from itself. I'm not sure I understand that.

If you are looking for evidence against your theory, here is what we know:

1. A nuclear blast could be easily traced to the country of origin. The U.S. government, if it were the sole investigator, could simply lie to us. However I doubt a single nation on earth would allow that, I imagine even our closest allies would want an international investigation.

2. Iran cannot possibly build a nuclear weapon at this time. Even by the neocon's analysis, they are still at least a decade off. Having stated themselves that Iran has no weapons yet, it would be a tough sell to say they used one on us.

As to your two questions for me, I cannot possibly give a definate answer. I can only offer my ideas.