B-52 Nukes Were Headed for Iran: Airforce Refused, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times


reply posted on 30-9-2007 @ 11:27 PM by Project_Silo
reply to post by greeneyedleo



That is your opinion.I don't think we will ever know for sure what happend unless they come out and tell us.Wich also won't happen...

Also the possibility of this whole thing being used to intimidate Russia was brought up on the 6 Nukes going to iran thread.We actually had a pretty good conversation so my view kinda swayed over to it being used to intimidate Russia instead.Also giving Iran a good wake up call.

There are some interesting points pointing both ways,currently I'm leaning towards it was a warning pretty much to the above countries.One of the deciding factors for me was the fact that this news got out in the first place.Obviously they wanted to let someone know we are kicken nukes around.

Although that could be turned around and one could say the someone withen the Airforce leaked the info out to stop a war.I tend to believe the other theory over this.

None the less us wanting the world to know we are moving nukes around isn't that comforting.

Edit to add: Welcome to ATS,hope you have a comfy chair because you will be here a while.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Project_Silo]



reply posted on 1-10-2007 @ 06:16 AM by St Udio
Originally posted by hightowerx
reply to
post by St Udio



It's a safe link.


OK, thanks...


and here's an article that puts a little more meat on the 'mistake' or 'leaked' incident....what have you

it was the 'Military Times' {not 'The Army Times'}
that first broke the story, and it was a U.S. Airforce spokesman that gave us the account, later picked up by other newswires.
Now, that, sure does not sound like refuseniks at the Minot AFB, whistleblowing on illegally transporting nukes...



see: www.opednews.com...

~original source; GlobalResearch.ca~

other factoids presented; CONPLAN 8022...NSPD 35...B61 bombs....W-80-1 nuclear warheads....
graphic map of USA storage facilities in 5 allied nations of some 400+ nuclear packages, etc etc


reply posted on 1-10-2007 @ 11:32 AM by greeneyedleo
Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
My husband's job was a weapons loader (now he is in the Space end of the Air Force).

I can tell you that some of you are speaking in the right direction...some are not

He has loaded non-nukes and nukes in his AF career. So he knows every single proceedure for that to happen like he knows his SSN.



Welcome!

I hope I am not "stepping over the line" here, but given your "access to a reilable source" it would be helpful it you could offer his/your take on the following:


Per the recent Washington Post article, both armed and unarmed nuclearcruise missles were stored in the same bunker. apparently this pratice is a serious breach of nuclear weapons handling protocol, was "authorized" by the base commander, and has resulted in punative action.

Does this scenario sound even remotely plausible?


If not. How about this.


Unbeknownst to anyone one the Minot base, the seriel numbers identifying at least some of the nuclear-armed missles were switched with those of unarmed missles schedulled for "de-commissioning".

Perhaps a number of these previously de-commissioned missles have gone missing?





hey! thanks!

You know, im not sure. But I will run it past my husband and see if he is willing to answer. Since he knows the procedure of gaining and loading weapons (been doing it for years), he has some really strong theories on what happened. But since he is active duty, is a little relunctant to sit and type all that out. Im sure you can understand why

But I know he will let me say this....and im sure if any other loaders post here they will vouch....it is impossible....IMPOSSIBLE to "accidently" load a nuke. 100000% impossible due to the proceedures and checklists, etc etc in place. Not only proceedure and checklists....but the nukes are different then the non-dukes. Every single person who handles it all the way from the guy gaurding them to the loader, loading them on the jet....to the PILOT...knows the difference.

With that said.........the PP was right...I dont know the fact (I tried to edit, but too late LOL)....all I can say for fact is it was not accident.

But I will see what he says about that!

[edit on 1-10-2007 by greeneyedleo]

[edit on 1-10-2007 by greeneyedleo]


reply posted on 17-12-2007 @ 03:21 PM by bone13
reply to post by Sky watcher



In CASE you where asleep the Kursk was sunk by a Mk-5. CIA paid a Billion to MR. P. in Russia. It's on record.


reply posted on 17-12-2007 @ 04:27 PM by kozmo
Couple of quick things... You all should be paying attention to what neforemore is saying - there is definitely something to the categorization of this event. Not certain what just yet but there is most definitely something to it.

Secondly, I had a very long conversation with a buddy of mine - retired airforce - who spent the first half of his career as a loader on the B-52 and later as a Technical Weapons Specialist on the B-52 and he says "NO WAY in HELL those nukes were loaded by accident!"

He explained that nuke warheads have a radio enabled tagging device on them that allows them to be tracked EVERYWHERE. You cannot even move one without setting off alarms. The facilities where they are stored have multiple guards who are rotated on random shifts so that they cannot be comprised and so that one guard is always watching over another.

Loaders cannot simply enter the depot where the warheads are stored. A set of protocols has to be followed to even allow someone to enter the depot, let alone access the weapons or alarms will be ringing everywhere.

He discussed how actual nuclear warheads are market VERY differently from dummies or other live munitions to ensure that they are not only visible but obvious to tarmac personnel and pilots.

It is the pilot's responsibility to not only check the aircraft prior to takeoff but to inspect his ordinance load and signing off on that load prior to even taxing the runway. In other words, ain't no way these pilots flew anywhere without knowing full well what they were transporting.

So, there is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more to this that what we think we know. AND... I'm willing to bet that the whole "IRan" scenario is total smoke-screen to the truth.

For my money - I'm betting that one of these (possibly more) were likely to go off either in the US or Europe and be blamed on Al Queda. I dunno - but there's so much more to this.


reply posted on 27-1-2008 @ 12:36 AM by dismanrc
reply to post by drakeman



Everybody always jumps on the Air Force backs.

Why? Because the AF is not publicity hounds like the rest of the military. They don’t like having the news know everything about what they do and how they do it. Why is this? Because it gets people killed. The USSR spent millions of dollars and millions of man hour poring over US newspapers and magazines. In fact most US technical magazines where considered classified in the USSR. Just having some US magazines was considered grounds for imprisonment. Other countries do the same.

The other branches used this as a form of recruiting, but the AF never had to do this. They always had more people trying to get in then they needed. This lack of publicity hounding has caused some negative feedback over the years. People outside the AF have not had the look inside like in most the other branches. When was the last time you saw a movie or TV show about the AF? I’ll tell you, never. The only two movies that the AF has ever allowed to film active bases or gear in the past 25+ years is the movie Red Flag and Air Force One. The only TV show ever to get active AF support was Stargate SG1. Any other “AF” show or movie you have seen was actors or the Israeli Air Force (they have provided lots of footage to include the Iron Eagle films.)

The fact is that it would be much more difficult to pull something off in the AF then in other branches. The AF integrates it personnel much more and at a lower rank then any other branch. The enlisted in the AF have much more input and control over day to day operations then in other branches. Why is this? A couple of reasons. One is that the AF has a lot less personnel then the other branches. Another is that there are no “space” filler jobs like the other branches. What do I mean by space filler? I’m talking about the grunts and the seamen. The Army and the Navy depend on these non-technical jobs as their backbone. The infantry and deck crew of the Army and Navy make up a large part of their manpower. Now don’t get me wrong, these positions are not the dumb grunts of the past. They do require much more technical training then at anytime in the past. What they don’t require is a large view of the overall picture. The AF does not have this “grunt” force and its people are much more integrated into the planning and operations. The more technical the job the more need for detailed information in order to do that job. I have spent time in both branches and have seen this first hand.
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



F-22 Pilots Told Not to Talk
  Posted 18 days ago with 23 member flags
Eglin Air Force Base hangar Foam Party!
  Posted 10 days ago with 4 member flags
Space weapons / Anonymous / Afghan War plan
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags
Reports of Rumbling in the Sky: Pulsejet Technology?
  Posted 13 days ago with 3 member flags