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.

 

Barksdale Missile Number Six: The Stolen Nuclear Weapon

page: 9
259
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 


Well obviously I dont have the Technical Order infront of me, but I specifically asked that question to the guys I was talking to today, and they told me thats the way they do it....take it for what its worth.




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PokeyJoe
 


i myself was nuke security for several years up till 03. i think we obviously agree that protocols were missed at various points.. but for that to happen all the way from storage to the receiving base is inexcusable though... as it should have been noticed by at least a dozen technicians. my only question is did people simply not follow procedures or were the printed orders screwed up? or some other thing. as a person who has been in that job this event slightly disturbed me. however i don't think black ops stole one as many people fear. a foreign govt would have to do that.. black ops can generate their own orders and an have one sent to them.. 2 years ago Russian rebels stole 9 intact ballistic nukes [cold war era ]and several dismantled from from one of their own bases. drove them right out the front gate on trucks. these were over 4 stories tall for pete sake. and they got away with it. that was in the news paper one day before it was hushed. in this case with the mystery 5/6 i hope there simply being open and honest about it. otherwise i don't know why they would tell anyone? they usually don't. :]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
As far as all the fighters be told to "stand down" I work at one of the main fighter bases in the world, and I havent heard on thing about that at all....even if that is the case, that doesnt mean that there still wont be pilots on alert ready to go in a reasonable amount of time.


And again, this was reported by MSNBC. Actually, I should have said Langley, not Andrews. But, the point remains. It's a fighter base; what is the logic in standing down Langley for an incident that happened at Minot and Barksdale?!

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Langley AFB is more than just a fighter base. It hosts the Headquarters of Air Combat Command (ACC) that is responsible for both Minot AFB and Barksdale AFB. It is the last stop on the chain of command before getting to the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DIRTMASTER
 


I agree 100% with you. Obviously many people dropped the ball on many levels. The guys who worked the job said they cant imagine how it happened like they say it happened. I guess the only people who know are the guys who were actually out there on the flight line that day at Minot, and something tells me that they wont be talking to the media anytime soon.

I really doubt that it is a gov't plot to steal one though...youre right about that. They could just take one and not tell us about all of this.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 


Right, but I am failing to realize what that has to do with anything. That article says that the fighter wings are going to "stand down" on Friday....that doesn't have anything to do with the ACC HQ, other than they probably are giving the order.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Interesting topic and read. However there is too much inuendo and speculation to make ths assumptions believable. For example, where is a reference stating that the weapons were unguarded for 10 hours ?
Also why got to all the effort to steal a weapon which will obviously be missed. The US has thousands of plutonum cores from decomssioned weapons. If as you suggest this is some government operation they could make a weapon out of one of these pits and be far less obvious about it.

As for a smoking gun I very much doubt it. As a previous member said, they can trace the plutonium in the weapon back to the reactor it was created in, even to the month and the year. It would be very hard to hide the fa(c)t that it was an american weapon.


And the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna would be ideally situated to produce evidence as to the origin of the fissiles in a "mystery" nuclear explosion. IAEA doesn't report to the US Government and does examine stockpiles of plutonium from all over the world.

There is one "advantage" to stealing a military nuclear weapon rather than swiping a pit from someone's stockpile (I submit that security around the Russian stockpile was porous for long enough to make it the most likely source for a pit) and building an weapon outside the military supply chain - as someone else noted, all of our military nukes are computer-tracked, probably with RFID that would allow their movement from place to place to be automatically monitored at all times. The terrorists (or whoever diverted the nuke in question) wouldn't have to prove they have a weapon - WE would know about it if they simply provided corroborating details, say photos showing serial numbers of the stolen device.

I say that this is an advantage because it absolves the would-be nuclear blackmailer from having to "prove" ownership of a clandestinely-produced nuclear device by building several and detonating one (the opening sequence in so many spy novels and movies).

The former owners of a stolen nuclear weapon are ideally placed to confirm or deny the truth of a nuclear blackmailer's claims to have taken a nuclear weapon (unless this happened in Russia in the chaos immediately following the fall of European Communism, in which case it's entirely possible that, like Aleksandr Lebed's missing suitcase nukes, there may be controversy within the organization missing the nuke as to whether any of them are actually missing.

I personally do not believe that any of the Minot-Barksdale weapons are missing. If nothing else, a security lid would have been clamped onto the story immediately in order to facilitate the investigation and search for the missing item if an item had, indeed, turned up missing. We've already heard more than we would have if we were facing a Broken Arrow.

Barksdale AFB is a huge facility (I visited it once in the early 1990s to see the Eighth Air Force Museum). In the case of the missiles, they would have been behind at least two levels of security, one of which is a detachment of Air Police ordered to shoot to kill any unauthorized personnel going past a line of red paint (called with some justification the "deadline.")

Six (or five) missiles standing unattended behind the "deadline" where B-52s are kept at Barksdale is not the same thing as leaving them out on a highway rest area at I-20 outside Shreveport. The statement that the warheads and missiles were in Air Force custody at all times would have been a true one.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
This is extremely scary.

The first thing that came to mind, is the goverment "lost" this nuc, on purpose, and will use it just like another 9-11 to gain my support for the war.

Man I think I'm really getting paranoid. Stuff like this would never have been my first line of thinking. But after the 9-11 cover-up, anything is possible in my mind, and the bigger, the uglier, the more devastating/scary....the better in the long run to promote a War.

I bet you they will have the culprits tried and convicted, before the smoke clears, and I guarantee you these "culprits will be from a nation we wish to bomb back to the Stone-age.

It's scary when it's getting to the point that I fear my own government killing U.S. civilians, than I am any foreign nation.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I would not complain if we nuked Iran or told Israel we would support them if they did, but if I believed in conspiracy theories, this story wouldn't be the one.

If we wanted to send a not so subtle message to Iran, the missiles would have flown to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean where B-52's flew lots of missions against Afghanistan or to the Mariana Islands where the missions against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were launched from.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I'm sorry, I just can't believe this. It sounds too much like a hollywood blockbuster. I think for the time being our nation is just fine.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartelLangley AFB is more than just a fighter base. It hosts the Headquarters of Air Combat Command (ACC) that is responsible for both Minot AFB and Barksdale AFB. It is the last stop on the chain of command before getting to the Pentagon.


Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of that. However, to my mind it doesn't escape the question; why is Langley going to stand down its fighters? To quote MSNBC:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

"The Air Force says the service's Air Combat Command has ordered all jet fighters and bombers to remain grounded so airmen can review safety procedures and protocol."

IF it is the case that airmen are going to review safety procedures and protocol, why ground the fighters? How long will the grounding be for? Bear in mind that so far it has taken 2 weeks to decide to "review procedures & protocols" - how long will the actual review take?? And is the USAF going to divert fighters from other bases to cover Langley's area of responsibility? After the events of 9/11 don't the mainstream media think this is a valid question to ask - and one which they think their readers will demand answers to?

All hypothetical questions, I know. But, the alternative is turning on the TV - and I'd rather eat my own earwax than do that!



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 




Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
As far as all the fighters be told to "stand down" I work at one of the main fighter bases in the world, and I havent heard on thing about that at all....even if that is the case, that doesnt mean that there still wont be pilots on alert ready to go in a reasonable amount of time.


And again, this was reported by MSNBC. Actually, I should have said Langley, not Andrews. But, the point remains. It's a fighter base; what is the logic in standing down Langley for an incident that happened at Minot and Barksdale?!

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Langley AFB is more than just a fighter base. It hosts the Headquarters of Air Combat Command (ACC) that is responsible for both Minot AFB and Barksdale AFB. It is the last stop on the chain of command before getting to the Pentagon.






I have a seemingly obvious question on this grounding of the planes for a day. as a former submariner i can tell you that for anyone to announce where a boat was going. to anyone at all even your wife is a no-no. defeats the point to the silent service. an obvious security violation. now in the air force world shouldn't that be the same, in principal at least.. to tell the world media when where going to "park the fleet for a day"..let alone well in advance? are they trying to provoke an attack or what? security violation? the original quote i read was from a general does that make a difference legally even though its still dumb..?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 


Right, but I am failing to realize what that has to do with anything. That article says that the fighter wings are going to "stand down" on Friday....that doesn't have anything to do with the ACC HQ, other than they probably are giving the order.


Most newspapers do not have a military editor and mix things up all the time. The 45th Space Wing routinely stands down for training the 3rd Friday of every month. Standing down is not all that uncommon, especially if the commander believes there has been a failure in training. The local newspaper (Florida Today, founded by the same guy that founded USA Today) routinely prints errors related to not only military matters, but any subject that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER I have a seemingly obvious question on this grounding of the planes for a day. as a former submariner i can tell you that for anyone to announce where a boat was going. to anyone at all even your wife is a no-no. defeats the point to the silent service. an obvious security violation. now in the air force world shouldn't that be the same, in principal at least.. to tell the world media when where going to "park the fleet for a day"..let alone well in advance? are they trying to provoke an attack or what? security violation? the original quote i read was from a general does that make a difference legally even though its still dumb..?


That's exactly the fear I have.

How about this for a "what if"?

The USAF carried out the whole "accidental loading of nuclear missiles" stunt just so that it has a "valid excuse" to stand down certain AFBs at a certain time for a certain reason, known in advance to certain people? Again, speculation; but it would add up with what many of us suspect about 9/11-type events and an attack on Iran...



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer


IF it is the case that airmen are going to review safety procedures and protocol, why ground the fighters?


Because it takes many many airmen, along with the fighter pilots, in order to fly the jets daily



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
reply to post by CharlesMartel
 


Right, but I am failing to realize what that has to do with anything. That article says that the fighter wings are going to "stand down" on Friday....that doesn't have anything to do with the ACC HQ, other than they probably are giving the order.


Most newspapers do not have a military editor and mix things up all the time. The 45th Space Wing routinely stands down for training the 3rd Friday of every month. Standing down is not all that uncommon, especially if the commander believes there has been a failure in training. The local newspaper (Florida Today, founded by the same guy that founded USA Today) routinely prints errors related to not only military matter
s, but any subject that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.


Off topic, but I am headed to AFTAC in November! Patrick is an awesome base...



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
From the Archive of NRDC's Nuclear Data Program



The aging B-52H is referred to by the Air Force as the "workhorse of nuclear weapons employment." The B-52H first entered service in 1961 and is scheduled to remain in operation until 2044. Of a current total of 93 aircraft, 56 are considered PMI aircraft assigned nuclear weapons missions. Only the B-52 carries the AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) and the AGM-129A Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM).

ALCMs are equipped with the W80-1 warhead. Although only an estimated 400 ALCMs are deployed, hundreds of others are held in reserve. According to the Air Force there are a total of 1,142 ALCMs in the inventory. This is a reduction of 251 from the 1,393 reported for March 1997, and reflects an ongoing conversion of nuclear ALCMs to conventional cruise missiles (CALCMs, AGM-86C). In addition to these active missiles, an additional 200 ALCMs are kept in long-term storage. Full reconstitution of stored missiles will take approximately six months. A life-extension program is underway to extend the service of ALCMs to at least 2030.
The ACM -- also equipped with the W80-1 warhead -- has a longer range and greater accuracy than the ALCM. The ACM was designed with stealth features to permit use against heavily defended targets. Originally 1,461 ACMs were planned, but the Pentagon announced in January 1992 that production would stop at 640 missiles. A program is underway to extend the service life of the ACM until 2030.
www.nrdc.org...


www.liveleak.com...

````````````````````````
Mod edit - added 'ex' tags and original link




[edit on 11/9/07 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PokeyJoeBecause it takes many many airmen, along with the fighter pilots, in order to fly the jets daily


Sorry Joe, I'm not understanding you. In the RAF every plane has its own ground crew and its own flight crew; I'm sure the same is true for the USAF. Planes don't share crews; you could ground one squadron and not affect the operation of another. Langley has three fighter squadrons, and (as far as I know) no bombers. Why ground all the fighter squadrons to "review procedures" arising from an incident involving bombers?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

Originally posted by PokeyJoeBecause it takes many many airmen, along with the fighter pilots, in order to fly the jets daily


Sorry Joe, I'm not understanding you. In the RAF every plane has its own ground crew and its own flight crew; I'm sure the same is true for the USAF. Planes don't share crews; you could ground one squadron and not affect the operation of another. Langley has three fighter squadrons, and (as far as I know) no bombers. Why ground all the fighter squadrons to "review procedures" arising from an incident involving bombers?


Ohhh, i misunderstood what you said. I thought that you meant why ground the planes if just the airmen needed to go over the procedures. It is the same in the USAF as the RAF in regards to each plane having the same crew.

I believe its a MAJCOM wide stand down, meaning that every plane in ACC (Air Combat Command) will not be flying any of it scheduled traning missions. ACC includes bombers and fighers.

Plus it takes ATC people, AGE people, planning and logistics people....many many more people in ACC than just the pilots and the ground crew of the plane.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by PokeyJoe]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PokeyJoeI believe its a MAJCOM wide stand down, meaning that every plane in ACC (Air Combat Command) will not be flying any of it scheduled traning missions. ACC includes bombers and fighers.


Ok, fair enough; but again, why ground fighters because of an incident involving bombers? I know what you're going to say, and I agree; because SOME of the procedures may well overlap. Fine, agreed.

However, IF that's the case, then surely ALL of the USAF should be stood down? After all, the procedures which ONE base (or command) follows are usually common to the whole service. So, if the procedures used by Minot, Barksdale and possibly Langley are at fault, the chances are that the procedures used by the rest of the USAF are also at fault - and therefore in equally urgent need of review.

Granted, this is not going to happen. And granted, I may be barking at the moon. But again, in light of the BS sold to the world about the USAF's reaction on 9/11, I worry about the stand-down of fighters in such a crucial part of the USA - and at a time when the US "government" seems to be doing all it can to find a pretext for military action against Iran.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

Originally posted by PokeyJoeI believe its a MAJCOM wide stand down, meaning that every plane in ACC (Air Combat Command) will not be flying any of it scheduled traning missions. ACC includes bombers and fighers.


Ok, fair enough; but again, why ground fighters because of an incident involving bombers? I know what you're going to say, and I agree; because SOME of the procedures may well overlap. Fine, agreed.

However, IF that's the case, then surely ALL of the USAF should be stood down? After all, the procedures which ONE base (or command) follows are usually common to the whole service. So, if the procedures used by Minot, Barksdale and possibly Langley are at fault, the chances are that the procedures used by the rest of the USAF are also at fault - and therefore in equally urgent need of review.

Granted, this is not going to happen. And granted, I may be barking at the moon. But again, in light of the BS sold to the world about the USAF's reaction on 9/11, I worry about the stand-down of fighters in such a crucial part of the USA - and at a time when the US "government" seems to be doing all it can to find a pretext for military action against Iran.


Thats all well and good, but as far as the Air Force goes, the ACC guys are the ones who handle all the weapons and all the combat things to do with the birds. Therefore it wouldnt make any sense to make someone in AFMC (Air Force Material Command) or any of the other MAJCOM's stop what that are doing in order to review things that have nothing to do with them.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by PokeyJoe]



new topics

top topics



 
259
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join