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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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?

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]

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.

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]