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.

 

B-52 Nukes Were Headed for Iran: Airforce Refused

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
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.

He has his own theories on this based on first hand knowledge of the job....but wont talk about it on a forum




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Oh, I also wanted to say....

Russia has been toying with our air space. Fact. Not only our air space but other "friendly" countries. All of a sudden they have tons of money are able to launch their jets. Interesting, huh? They must have won the latest PowerBall lottery.

They are clearly testing our reaction time and show of force.

It is possible that the little B52 nuke incident was to let some people know out there "hey, stop screwing around, we are armed - heavily".

The jet was NOT heading for Iran...I dont care how anyone wants to spin this....that spun story is false.


Just an FYI



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
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]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   

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?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Silo
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.



Unless you wanted the right people to that the nukes being "moved around" weren't necessarily being moved around at your direction.

"President Putin, we understand your concern regarding the discovery of US sourced nuclear materials being found in the possession of Chechnyan rebels. We assure you that there is no official authorization for these occurrences. We are taking aggressive,internal action to correct the "problem".



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   

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



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Silly, there is no "W-80-1 nuclear warhead" mentioned on the entire internet, only in these articles. Someone is obviously a Sorcha Faal protege.


nuclearweaponarchive.org...

Actually the W-80-1 is a real warhead, and on the AGM-129.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   
there's really nothing in iran we couldn't destroy just as easily with conventional weapons.
As crazy as Bush is, I can't see even him letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle here.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
If this report is true...EXCELLENT!!! It is about time the military said no to this dangerous and belligerent administration. I don't know who they are serving, but its not the American people. To even contemplate using nuclear weapons, against a nation that has not attacked us (the hostage crisis was 30 years ago... get over it) and against nuclear power facilities would not just be insane, it would be an act of unprovoked aggression and a criminal act and, thanks to the inevitable release of radiation, a crime against humanity that would damn us in the rest of the world's eyes for a very long time to come.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity

As far as this situation goes, why would Bush try to transport nuclear weapons to the Middle East in such an obvious fashion? If he wanted to sneak them into the country, it would not be that hard, and he could always send over a couple of secret government officials with instructions to build a bomb over there (unless that would take too long).

Something just doesn't add up. I hope this incident is not a diversion for what is really happening.



Has hit the nail on the head.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
One problemo with this story is that if we wanted to do this quietly we would have used a B2 for a stealthier "get there and back again" journey. But if they were traveling to Barksdale, which is a major jump-off point to the Middle East. We used it during Shock & Awe and the First Gulf War. Plus, nukes can't just be put onto planes like ammunition. You would have to go through so many paper signings and stuff. Also, the fact that the pilots who flew the B52 were killed weeks after the flight.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
What a crock of # ...



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join