Regarding yesterday's LOOSE NUKES story!!! Important update!

[Rick Myers]

I decided to dig a little deeper into the story about nuclear weapons 'accidentally' loaded onto a B-52 and have found some disturbing information buried in an unclassified USAF budget document. Below you will find some of the significant text and a link to the entire ultra-dull report from the Pentagon. But here are some bullet points to consider (tin foil optional):

-- We were TOLD these weapons were being moved to be decomissioned. THAT IS NOT TRUE! This current USAF doc says the missiles are being 'refitted' to extend their service life until fiscal year 2030! These are state of the art weapons. The service plan even includes upgrading the W-80 warheads to keep them IN SERVICE.

-- If you read the first sentence below, you will see how the USAF decribes these weapons as "designed to evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike heavily defended, hardened targets at any location within any enemy's territory." Humm... What sort of operation would require such ordanance?

-- We have only 38 of these weapons, so 5 of them is a large chunk of the inventory to move at once.

-- It is MY OPINION that some 'patriot' leaked the info about these weapons movements. A warning?

-- It is also my opinion these weapons were being moved for some other reason, to Barksdale, and then possibly on to Diego Garcia, for obvious reasons.

IT IS TIME TO BE VERY AFRAID! The UK intercepted 8 Russian bombers yesterday, which has not happened in about 15 years. Syria fired on 4 or 5 Israeli aircraft that violated that violated Syrian airspace and dropped fuel tanks in the desert... Dr. Strangelove is alive and well...



Description/Justification
Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book
FY 2008/2009 Budget Estimates

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070212-006.pdf

(snip}

AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) is a low-observable air-launched strategic missile with significant improvements over the Air Launched Cruise Missile B version (ALCM-B) in range, accuracy and
survivability. Armed with a W-80 warhead, it is designed to evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike heavily defended, hardened targets at any location within any enemy's territory. The ACM is
designed for B-52H external carriage and there are currently 394 ACM in the inventory. The ACM fleet design service life expires between the years 2003 and 2008. A Service Life Extension Plan (SLEP) was
developed to meet an AF Long Range Plan requirement to extend ACM Service Life to FY30.
Range Commanders Council (RCC) test range safety requirements (RCC-319) and Department of Energy's (DOE) redesign of the Joint Test Assembly (JTA) is driving modification of existing Joint Test
Instrumentation Kit (JTIK) test doors. Newly modified JTIK test doors will incorporate Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking capability and components removed from the redesigned JTA package.
Without modified JTIK doors, the ACM cannot maintain its DOE nuclear certification, support the W-80 warhead Life Extension Program (LEP) or conduct flight testing used to collect weapon system
reliability data.
The requirement exists to provide modified Test Instrumentation Kits (TIKs) to support Functional Ground Test (FGT). FGT will provide a critical capability to the Air Force and provide a means of testing the
ACM without the loss of an asset. These tests will provide important reliability data for Service Life Extension analysis. Kit modification and unique spare components will be procured to support tests in the
FGT facility.
Missile Breakdown: Active 38, Reserve 0, ANG 0, Total 38

(snip)


UPDATE: Some reports today claim it was 6 missiles, but yesterday's report claimed 5. FYI

[musette_sf]

1. K&R n/t

[NMDemDist2]

2. excellent research, K&N n/t

[liberal N proud]

3. K&R

[seemslikeadream]

4. Thanks, I think

:scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :nuke:

[acmavm]

5. Hmmm. Sending them over to use on Iran, maybe????

[EnricoFermi]

122. Well, it could be said that they are there just in case

In case Iran hits Israel or a US base in the area.

Still, that isn't exactly comforting, because who knows what the justification is for sending them on their way. We don't exactly have the most sane bunch in charge here. He can't even say nuclear for God's sake.

In other news, my war stocks are doing quite well again.

[Rick Myers]

6. Considering what we NOW know about these weapons...

It is obvious they are considered 'the tip of the spear' in any assault on hardened targets.

Also, you will notice that a specific 'door' is mentioned. This door INDICATES a nuclear weapon is installed! This was NO accident.

[Supersedeas]

114. and the GoP/Media Establishment is a-buzz about Thompson and Obama/O

[Zywiec]

7. The UK intercepted 8 Russian bombers yesterday

...which has not happened in about 15 years.

Where did you get this information? I believe the Russians have been flying these missions consistently since May. I'm curious where you read yesterday was the first occurrence in 15 years.

[Rick Myers]

12. I stand corrected...

These incidents HAVE been happening during this summer, but this type of activity has not been performed by the Russians since 1992. BTW: Per the BBC, Norwegian F-16s were also involved. While these flights might be called: recon, they are more likely practice missions for anti-ship warfare in the North Sea. Recon planes do not fly in formation.

[Gloria]

82. NATO Jets are also "escorting" Russian bombers as per this story...

First story is about the UK-Russian encounter, second is from the Russian News and Information Agency ...both stories are in tomorrow's World Media Watch at Buzzflash

3//The Independent, UK—RUSSIAN WARPLANES INTERCEPTED BY RAF JETS
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2937031.ece

RAF Tornado jets were scrambled today to intercept eight Russian military aircraft which were approaching British airspace. It was the latest in a series of incidents this summer in which British fighters have been used to warn off long-range Russian reconnaissance aircraft. The four Tornado F3 fighters were launched from RAF Leeming in North Yorkshire and RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire in the early hours of this morning, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said. They intercepted and turned back eight Russian Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" aircraft, which were "approaching but not in British airspace", he said. Vladimir Putin's Russia has returned to the Cold War tactic of sending military planes towards Nato airspace on several occasions in recent months. The tactic reflects heightened tension between Russia and the West over issues including US President George Bush's decision to position missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland and Britain's demand for the extradition of the suspected killer of Alexander Litvinenko. Last month, two of the RAF's new Typhoon Eurofighter jets were used to intercept and turn back a single "Bear" over the north Atlantic, and in July two Russian aircraft were warned off by RAF jets as they headed towards UK airspace. In May, two Tornado F3s were scrambled from RAF Leuchars in Scotland to intercept a Tu-95 observing the Royal Navy exercise Neptune Warrior. Norway scrambled four of its F-16 jet fighters to shadow the eight Russian planes in the Arctic in this morning's incident, Norwegian armed forces spokesman Lt Col John Inge Oegland told the BBC.

RELATED:

RUSSIA SAYS NATO JETS ESCORT ITS BOMBERS ON LONG-RANGE PATROLS
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070906/77043331.html

MOSCOW, September 6 (RIA Novosti) - NATO jets escort almost all Russian strategic bombers engaged in long-range patrols, Alexander Drobyshevsky, an aide to the commander of Russia's Air Force told RIA Novosti Thursday.

He said the flights were resumed late on September 5 in accordance with a previously-approved plan. The Tu-95MC Bear bombers fly over the Pacific, the Atlantic, and Arctic oceans, and are refueled in mid-air.

Drobyshevsky said six Tu-95MC aircraft had landed and eight were still flying. "All the Russian strategic bombers' flights are performed in accordance with international rules. The aircraft fly over neutral waters, and do not get close to air borders of foreign states," he said, adding that the aircraft had each flown for up to 17 hours.

President Vladimir Putin announced the resumption of patrol flights August 17, and said that although the country halted long-distance strategic patrol flights to remote regions in 1992, other nations continued the practice, creating certain problems for Russian national security.

more

[Baby Snooks]

119. Dr Strangelove

Obviously the only reason why we haven't already attacked Iran is that Dr. Strangelove cannot decide if he can win the nuclear war with Russia which may follow an attack on Iran which has an alliance with Russia - the resumption of these Russian flights may signal that indeed nuclear war will follow an attack on Iran.

Question is whether Dr. Strangelove really cares if he manages to destroy the world in a nuclear holocaust. Personally I don't think he does. In his evil little mind, he is back in Midland sticking firecrackers in the mouths of frogs and tossing them into the air and watching them explode.

Maybe a few cities being nuked might wake up Madame Speaker?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. You may want to note that early reports said five

weapons and later reports said six weapons

Nukes, it is not like we are arguing over ball ammunition here

And yes, my hat is firmly in place

The adage with this crew is...

Expect the worst (either a false flag or use in Iran) and hope for the best, (a snaffu of epic proportions)

[leftchick]

11. I noticed that too

the reports last night all of the sudden said six. WTF? I hope everything leaks out before it is too late.

[Poll_Blind]

9. K&R! n/t

PB

[melody]

10. Probably some headline-based sabre rattling from our side

Ahmadinejad and Bush just LOVE communicating through the newspapers.

[superkia]

45. I like your idea better than the other options. Could be?

[melody]

80. It's the only theory that fits all the circumstances, imo n/t

[CGowen]

13. I would really like to know what is not on the "UNCLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS" n/t

[rosesaylavee]

14. Kick and Rec

for wider viewing.

Good catch. Maybe with increased scrutiny this project will not go forward.

[blogslut]

15. I agree, this story is messed up

But I would like to know more about this "refitting" business. Just outside my hometown is a plant named Pantex. Up until the Clinton administration, Pantex was the only nuclear weapons assembly plant in the US. Now it is the main (maybe only?) nuclear weapons DISASSEMBLY plant.

A nuclear weapon is made in parts. One plant makes the fuel. One plants makes the housing. Another plant makes the triggers. It was Pantex's job to take all those parts and put them together. Now it is their job to take them apart as well as refit them - at least the warheads, anyway.

So, is the Barkdale facility part of the chain of creation/assembly/disassembly? Does anyone know?

[Rick Myers]

16. USAF 2nd Munitions Squardron is located there

Very large presence, dedicated to B-52 weaponry. But they would NOT be doing work on the warheads themselves, such as upgrading the W-80.

[TheWraith]

18. No, Barksdale has nothing to do with it.

The bombs were supposed to be off-loaded at the previous stop, in Minot, which has nuclear weapons handling facilities.

[Rick Myers]

20. Exactly WHERE did you see that info?

Link?

[Rick Myers]

23. The Military Times story has NO reference to your claim.

In fact, it says the weapons WERE LOADED AT MINOT. The unit commander has been temporarily relieved of command. B-52s don't just fly around like airliners.

[TheWraith]

17. Your research is deeply flawed.

For starters, I'd like to see proof that the missiles weren't being decommissioned, because that's what we're doing with the ACMs.

Second, we don't have 38 ACMs. We have 400-500. So 6 is NOT a significant number.

Third, you make assertions about what the missiles were moved for that are completely unsubstantiated. You're just guessing. You could have just as much evidence that we were staging for a nuclear strike on Jamaica.

Also, it's hardly unusual for Israeli airplanes to violate other people's airspace, and I'd like to see proof of this Russian bomber intercept.

[Rick Myers]

19. We DO have 400-500 ACMs, BUT...

We only have 38 AGM-129 weapons, the rest are AGM-86C and D models! You are WRONG! Also, the BBC will be happy to show you photos of Russian Bears in formation photographed from RAF Tornados yesterday.

A cursory check of the USAF budget docs CONFIRMS we have 38 AGM-129s and all will be in service until fy 2030.

You should read something before you try to tear it apart. The FACTS were provided...

Trust me, nuclear weapons are handled with a 2-man rule and no-alone zone! Mistakes like that DO NOT HAPPEN.

It is your opinion of FACTS that is deeply flawed...

Also, I did not make any assertion about why or where, I simply disproved some of the official story.

[Richard Steele]

21. Thanks for finding this, Rick! I appreciate you sharing these FACTS with us. recommended.

[Joe Fields]

22. I won't pretend to know what you know about all of this, but as a

layman, the news yesterday sent a chill through me. Why? For the very reason you just stated. MISTAKES LIKE THAT JUST DO NOT HAPPEN. Are U.S. citizens to believe that nuclear warheads just happen to be laying around with regular ordnance, and that these got picked up by mistake, and then were loaded by mistake, then taken to Barksdale by mistake?

I don't know what's going on, but something damned sure is, and it stinks to high heaven.

[ptvet]

24. Good info Rick

Read many posts on DU and KOS, Military times etc. yesterday. I've stayed out of the fray, but as a former Security Policeman working in SAC, this is not a story to ignore. I worked the flight line, alert pads, WSA, this does not happen accidentally. No way around this one, there are way too many people and security measures in place to make this type of "mistake".
If said weapons actually did "fly", it was indeed ordered, and those orders were followed.
So yes, someone involved leaked it...or, hell I don't know what to think anymore these day's...

[Rick Myers]

33. I had a former SAC pilot for a base commander back in the 70's

He'd flown 'downtown' in Linebacker I and II!!! What a character! We were a fighter alert complex, but stored 6 old B-61 freefall nukes. He actually tried to get and M113 shipped in because the Athabaskan Indians would get drunk and shoot at the base!!! One put 3 rounds thru the fuselage on an F-4E on alert!!!

[lonestarnot]

72. Damn...

LOL

[Windy]

63. EXACTLY!! I was an electrician on B-52s

I wired alarm systems into the bomb bays where the nuc missles were uploaded.

You don't just fly a B-52 uploaded with nucs without an order to do so. Uploaded b-52 are on the alert pad only and without getting into details, this cannot happen by accident!

I think that someone intentionally leaked the info about the flight so that someone would dig!

[ptvet]

79. Yeah...

I wasn't going to go in to too much detail either...and well, you guy's know us S.P.'s weren't exactly high up on the "need to know" food chain...but come on. There is only one reason those weapons were loaded. One reason they left the pad, taxied down the alert runway, and "flew". And it's not a good reason.
This was no accidental decommissioning flight. Why not Minot indeed...

[Rick Myers]

42. Please note the USAF doc DOES say there are 394 in inventory

The number of 38 is the number to be upgraded this fiscal year. Sorry. In my haste I misread the document, however, that does not affect the general arguement that something is very odd with the story.

[frylock]

46. well played!

:applause:

[Kelly Rupert]

69. I like all the mindless "Good job!" replies you got to this,

especially since you finally admitted that the United States does indeed possess more than 38 AGM-129s.

[kristopher]

124. Number of missiles and mistakes

Rick, the document itself states "The ACM is designed for B-52H external carriage and there are currently 394 ACM in the inventory." I believe the 38 number refers to the ones in the testing program, but I could be wrong.
As to the idea that a mistake can't happen; I'm sorry but as a former C3 controller I know that is simply false. It might require a series of improbable errors to pass unnoticed, but trust me, mistakes like this are very possible. Neither the two man concept nor no-lone zones are proof against human error. In fact, this type of error was probably caused by miscommunication and false assumptions on the part of a number of highly professional and highly conscientious people.

That said, I don't doubt that tactical nuclear weapons are (not being, but ARE) positioned to strike Iran and a number of other targets. I doubt however, that such movement would require a coverup of the nature being speculated about here for it is routine business actually. What makes this incident remarkable isn't the movement of the nukes, it is the movement by mistake.

Given Bush's past behavior it is no wonder we tend to look for the worst case in something like this, though.

[obiwan]

62. WE do have 400 to 500 ACM's but only 38 are of the TYPE described in the story.

Please read carefully.

[Kelly Rupert]

100. Yes, only 38 are slated for refitting.

Is it surprising that the six missiles which were supposed to have their warheads removed for service are involved in this? No, it is actually the core of this failure. Were these any other missiles in the service, this would not have happened.

Please read carefully.

[lonestarnot]

70. With Ricky Rick here. No solo ops wit de nukes. NEVER. No mistake.

[Kelly Rupert]

25. Some anti-tinfoil.

-- We were TOLD these weapons were being moved to be decomissioned. THAT IS NOT TRUE! This current USAF doc says the missiles are being 'refitted' to extend their service life until fiscal year 2030! These are state of the art weapons. The service plan even includes upgrading the W-80 warheads to keep them IN SERVICE.

These are not "state-of-the-art" weapons. They're obsolete; your own document claims the service life expires in 2008. Your document claims that a service life extension plan has been developed. First, this isn't even proof that they are actually being refitted, it is an declaration of intent to test the feasibility of refitting them.

Secondly, regardless of whether they were to be decommed or refitted, it's largely the same thing. These warheads were supposed to be taken out of active duty for servicing, whether temporary in case of a refit or permanently in case of a decommission. They were not. That is the problem here.

I'm going to bold this next part because it's important. According to the document, these as of now do not even have GPS tracking capability, which is considered to be utterly essential for the accurate delivery of nuclear warheads. Why the hell would we attack Iran with OUR MOST OBSOLETE NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT?

-- If you read the first sentence below, you will see how the USAF decribes these weapons as "designed to evade air and ground-based defenses in order to strike heavily defended, hardened targets at any location within any enemy's territory." Humm... What sort of operation would require such ordanance?

Any air-to-ground attack. These are cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are designed to do that. What, do you think we keep a reservoir of slow, inaccurate weapons with a giant bullseye painted on them, which emit a "HERE I AM!" radio signal?

-- We have only 38 of these weapons, so 5 of them is a large chunk of the inventory to move at once.

38 of this particular warhead. We have dozens of different types of warheads. We have hundreds of warheads designed to be fitted to cruise missiles.

This argument is a bit like walking up to a car wreck and saying, "There's only three dark-blue 1987 Buick Century station wagons in the county! What are the odds that ONE-THIRD of them would be involved in this wreck? CONSPIRACY!"

-- It is MY OPINION that some 'patriot' leaked the info about these weapons movements. A warning?

-- It is also my opinion these weapons were being moved for some other reason, to Barksdale, and then possibly on to Diego Garcia, for obvious reasons.

It is MY OPINION that this is just ridiculous tinfoilling. You could, with exactly as much justification, claim that an Iranian spy had arranged for this, so it could be delivered (without the USAF knowing) to al-Quds agents who would then fly it to France and nuke Paris in retaliation for the harsh reaction the 2005 riots incurred.

[seemslikeadream]

26. Why the hell would we attack Iran with OUR MOST OBSOLETE NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT?

To use them up so we could make more?

[Kelly Rupert]

27. Sometimes I don't know what's tongue-in-cheek. n/t

[Raksha]

44. Don't rule it out! I know it sounds insane,

but a friend of mine, a Gulf War I Air Force vet, told me that's EXACTLY what they did!

Why the hell would we attack Iran with OUR MOST OBSOLETE NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT? To use them up so we could make more?

Of course he was talking about conventional weapons, but I can't rule out the fact that the psychopaths now in control might not do the same thing with nukes.

[Phrogman]

83. Hell, I help load the bombs on the B-52's in Diego Garcia during Desert Storm, they were all...

leftover from Vietnam!

And the guys I worked with told me during Vietnam, all the bombs they loaded were from WW2!

[followthemoney]

116. Maybe that's how thesen weapons were to be decommissioned.

Drop them on poorly defended nations.

Remember that the U.S. is presently engaged in a nuclear war in Iraq.

The effect of depleted uranium is IDENTICAL to the effect of a dirty nuclear weapon.

Is there any doubt that that same amount of DU spread over a U.S. city by a dirty bomb would be called a nuclear attack and justification for nuclear retaliation?

[Kermitt Gribble]

52. Maybe....

These "obsolete" weapons aren't meant for Iran. Maybe these are what Bushco are planning to use for their next attack on US. What better? Their "terrorists" surely wouldn't have a bright, shiny new nuke.

[Kelly Rupert]

94. Nuclear weapons are somewhat traceable

after use. It would look ridiculously suspicious if a bomb mined from North American uranium were to go off in the United States. If we were going to pay the terrorists to nuke us, it would be better to either find and give them one of the missing Soviet nukes, or (more likely) just buy them some uranium, give them a few million dollars, and let them do it themselves.

[davekriss]

135. Well lessee'

...the Anthrax used to kill U.S. citizens was traceable to the U.S. Identical to the Ames strain cultured at Ft. Detrick. No one was held accountable for that. Why would the BFEE care if some obtuse scientific journal traced the uranium to U.S. mines?

[Dangerously Amused]

58. WHY the hell would we attack Iran with OUR MOST OBSOLETE NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT?

Well geez Louise, that's an easy one!

It's simple. We use up the cheap nukes on Iran, because that's all it will take to annihilate them.

That way we save the top-shelf nukes for when we really need them, i.e., to defend against the apocalyptic nuclear counter-assault by Russia, China and other countries trying to stop us from unilaterally taking over the Middle East. Also known as World War III.

[Kelly Rupert]

93. Quite simply, no.

The United States has 7,000 nuclear warheads. One-tenth that number is sufficient to lay waste to both China and Russia.

[Diclotican]

113. Kelly Rupert

You have to rember One thing.. Russia have a lot of nuces. AND the mean to levering it.. Not just by missiles. But also by air. (TU95).. So dont be over-cocky when it come to nukes.. It can come back and hunt US if they desided to bomb Iran... And Russia are not the only country that have nucks.. 8 country have it now..

Diclotican

Sorry about my bad engelish, not my native language..

[UnyieldingHierophant]

117. actually, it's approx. 10,000..not counting tactical*

[Rick Myers]

31. I had a detailed rebuttal prepped when IE died on me! Grr!

Here are some points:

The GPS unit mounts to the access door and takes about 10 minutes to install. The GPS device you speak of it to TRACK THE WARHEAD, not guide the missile. All AGM-129 were upgraded to GPS Recieve status years ago by Raytheon. Sorry, these weapons DO have GPS.

You say 'any air to ground attack.' Weapons designed for use against HARDENED targets are NOT used for ANY air strike!

We do NOT have hundreds of types of warheads that can be fitted to cruise missiles. They ALL use some variant of the W-80 physics package. We, in fact, have only a limited number of TYPES of warheads.

And you will notice I admit 'my opinion' when necessary. There rest is just cold hard facts.

Additionally, this is the ONLY cruise missile in our inventory modified with structural and software changes and an alternate nuclear warhead for accomplishing a classified cruise missile mission. (per the manufacturer)

I stand by every word of my OP.

[Kelly Rupert]

41. Counterpoints.

1. And were not yet installed, according to the document. I was unaware that the military made a habit of using weapons it was designating unfit for service.

2. Simply untrue. Destroying hardened targets is the exact mission profile of any cruise missile, and I cannot find an air-to-surface or surface-to-surface missile that is NOT advertised as being suitable against "hardened" or "heavily defended targets."

3. I never claimed we had hundreds of types of warheads that can be fitted to cruise missiles. I said we had hundreds of warheads. Big difference. And between the entire W-80 family (numbering over 1,000 altogether), we do.

I have no doubt Raytheon is very proud of that missile. We have over 400 of them, and 400 W-80-family warheads capable of being mounted to them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80, via globalsecurity)

[Rick Myers]

43. Were just splitting hairs. I've corrected some of the OP, however,

the whole story still reeks to high heaven. You have to agree the military never ANNOUNCES these kinds of situations. It was clearly 'leaked' by someone, in fact, that's basically what the Military Times says occurred...

That USAF budget doc only covers fy 2008, and info at Raytheon indicates at least some have been equipped with upgrades. Regardless, ALL AGM-129s are GPS equipped for navagation and targeting. The added GPS is to track the warheads using the latest USAF inventory system.

hardened (DOD, NATO) A site, normally constructed under rock or concrete cover, designed to provide protection against the effects of conventional weapons. It may also be equipped to provide protection against the side effects of a nuclear attack and against a chemical or a biological attack.

Not the same as heavily-defended.

[Kelly Rupert]

71. The whole story does indeed reek.

However, it reeks of incompetence, not conspiracy.

I suppose it is something of a compliment to our armed forces that so many on DU refuse to believe that their colossal, image-destroying fuckups are anything but evidence of supremely evil, clockwork-precision machinations.

[obiwan]

64. They are being moved to update their guidance systems.

Please look at the whole thing.

[Kelly Rupert]

98. Yes. In fact, I referenced that in each of the first few paragraphs I wrote.

The warheads were supposed to be removed from the missiles for servicing. Please read my posts before commenting on them.

[seemslikeadream]

28. What is the name of the top guy that was fired?

Thanks

[Rick Myers]

29. He's the 5th Munitions Squadron commander

Not named in the article, and I couldn't find him listed on the Minot AB website.

[seemslikeadream]

30. Damn I sure would like to know who that was

[Rick Myers]

35. Only thing I can find is...

5th Maintenance Group (Colonel Gary Lane, current Commander),the 5th Munitions Squadron reports to him but has a seperate commander.

[BrotherBuzz]

32. So six missiles are being upgraded with electronics...

and the six W-80 warhead is being changed out to the sexy Double Super Secret untested (wink wink, nod nod) nuclear bunker buster, just it time for the fall fashion show.

[sce56]

76. As I recall bunker busters are a new idea a cruise missile is not hardened enough for this attack!

Remember they were trying to come up with something to hit the caves of Afghanistan! Don't get me wrong starting Armageddon seems to be the goal of these nuts in charge but cruise missile are not designed to penetrate deep underground! They need a heavy missile that will develop high speed being dropped from high above. That does not mean they would not use them in the reportedly planned three day blitz
U.S. Outfitting B-2's with Monster Bunker Buster Bombs - Iran May Be Target

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster
Penetration with a hardened penetrator
Further thinking on the subject envisions a penetrator, dropped from service height of a bomber aircraft, using kinetic energy to penetrate the shielding, and subsequently deliver a nuclear explosive to the buried target.

The problems with such a penetrator is the tremendous heat applied to the penetrator unit when striking the shielding (surface) at hundreds of meters per second. This has partially been solved by using metals such as tungsten (with a much higher melting point than steel), and altering the shape of the projectile (such as an ogive).

Altering the shape of the projectile, to incorporate an ogive shape has yielded substantial results. Rocket sled testing at Eglin Air Force Base has demonstrated penetrations of 100 to 150 feet in concrete when traveling at 4,000 ft/s. The reason for this is liquefaction of the concrete in the target, which tends to flow over the projectile. Variation in the speed of the penetrator can either cause it to be vaporized on impact (in the case of traveling too fast), or to not penetrate far enough (in the case of traveling too slow). An approximation for the penetration depth is obtained with an impact depth formula derived by Sir Isaac Newton.

Combination penetrator-explosive munitions

Another school of thought on nuclear bunker busters is using a light penetrator to travel 15 to 30 meters through shielding, and detonate a nuclear charge there. Such an explosion would generate powerful shock waves, which would be transmitted very effectively through the solid material comprising the shielding


NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, July 27, 2007


The U.S. is retrofitting its B-2 Stealth bombers with massive bunker-buster bombs - a move that could be a prelude to an attack on Iran and its nuclear facilities.

Iran has refused to comply with international demands that it stop its nuclear weapons programs.

Experts have noted that a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program could be difficult due to the large number of installations - some of which are buried deep underground in hardened bunkers.

In a recent NewsMax Magazine, Kenneth R. Timmerman's report "The Coming War with Iran: 6 Days of Hell" predicted the U.S. would outfit B-2's as a prelude to an attack on Iran.

Apparently the U.S. has big plans for Iran.

Northrop Grumman announced last week in a little noticed release that the company had begun integrating on the B-2's a new 30,000-pound-class "penetrator bomb" or bunker buster.

"The U.S. Air Force's B-2 Stealth bomber would be able to attack and destroy an expanded set of hardened, deeply buried military targets" using the monster bunker buster, the company said in its release. The company is doing the work under a seven-month, $2.5 million contract awarded June 1 by the Air Force's Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Northrop Grumman is the Air Force's prime contractor on the B-2, the flagship of the nation's long-range strike arsenal.

The new Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which is being developed by the Boeing Co., is a GPS-guided weapon containing more than 5,300 pounds of conventional explosives inside a 20.5-foot-long enclosure of hardened steel. It is designed to penetrate dirt, rock and reinforced concrete to reach enemy bunker or tunnel installations.

The B-2 is capable of carrying two MOPs, one in each weapons bay.

"This integration contract is part of Northrop Grumman's on-going effort to ensure that the B-2 remains capable of delivering a decisive blow to an increasingly sophisticated enemy," said Dave Mazur, vice president of long-range strike for the company's Integrated Systems sector.

[BrotherBuzz]

87. Rummy pushed for the Double Super Secret (wink wink, nod nod) nuclear bunker buster in 2003

Bush stopped the funding in 2005. So with that in mind, and the way the Bush* administration works, the eggheads at Los Alamos and the boys at Skunkworks have succeeded. Call me a cynic.

[Kelly Rupert]

102. When was it tested?

A nuclear test is not something that would escape the world's notice. Or are you proposing that we intend to drop a totally-untested weapon on Iran?

(BTW, Congress cut off funding, not Bush. Bush is not able to control funding. That would be Congress's job.)

[rucognizant]

126. Gee wizz........

And I'm a bad person because I won't stop smoking so I'll live 10 years longer!

[BrotherBuzz]

136. The Advanced Simulation and Computing Program (ASC) has been working for fifteen years

Congress allocate the money, Bush cuts it loose.

[sce56]

137. I was saying that the ALCM's are not for bunker busting!

Not that I doubt they would use them in an attack! Hey if they use nukes then it will really be bring em on! We use nukes so be afraid of us big time!


Bunker-Busters Readied; Iran Attack Near?

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002308.html
As you've probably heard by now, Sy Hersh has a new scoop: that planning for an attack on Iran is further along than you think, and that nukes might be involved.

B61-11.jpg

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz... reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year... The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

Based on a 1950's design, the B61-11 bunker-buster has been around in its current form since 1997. That Divine Strake test -- the one that's gonna produce the "mushroom cloud over Las Vegas" on June 2? Probably a B61 simulation, the Arms Control Wonk says.

The Pentagon and the Energy Department have been pushing for an update for several years, now -- something that can penetrate deeper, and rely on a lower nuclear yield. That program, the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator," is officially cancelled. But there's widespread speculation that money for this project is just hidden elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Lockheed is looking into the "Kinetic Energy Cavity Penetrator Weapon" -- a bunker-buster that surrounds the bomb with a gas bubble, so it can plow into the ground ten times further than similar weapons. Testing continues for the Army's "Deep Digger," the bunker-buster that uses cannon to tunnel through solid rock, drilling a channel for the bomb. It's the current record-holder for non-nuclear penetrators, going down twice as deep as the nearest competitor. But still, that's only 30 feet. The Natanz bunker is down another 45. Which is why we're getting ready to see that massive explosion outside of Vegas.

UPDATE 04/09/06 10:56 AM: "The Air Force is proposing to build a new 'prompt global strike'" missile, Inside Defense notes. "Land-based boosters traditionally used for nuclear weapons would be reconfigured and fitted with conventional warheads, according to Air Force Space Command."

UPDATE 04/10/06 9:02 AM: "The White House, sensitive to President Bush's image as a war hawk, is trying to play down the possibility of a military strike," the AP notes.

Meanwhile, the Wonk says that "we are not going to nuke Iran."

How deep down the Natanz facility is less important than what's covering it, the Wonk notes. In Natanz' case, we're talking about a lot of rock and soil. Which means that 5,000-pound conventional bunker-busters, like the GBU-28, ought to do the job of knocking out Natanz rather nicely.

[Megahurtz]

34. Things Are Looking Really Bad Right Now.

:scared::nuke::scared:

Notice how nothing on the MainStream News is addressing all of this? The Russian Bombers,
Israel invading Syrian Airspace AND dropping Munitions :wtf: along with the U.S. Nuclear Warheads being transported on the B-52's to a Military Airbase which is an open door to the Middle East.

All I'm hearing is that Osama Bin Laden is planning the release of another tape :eyes: LOL.

Nothing like keeping the bulk of the American Public really stupid.:sarcasm:

[Rick Myers]

36. The Jerusalem Times claims they dropped their external fuel tanks!

Which is just as bad, sort of a big FU to Syria.

[Megahurtz]

48. It Took Them A Little Time

to come up with that lame excuse. They probably thought that they would never be detected.

[sofa king]

59. That's not a regular tactic?

It seems logical to me that the first thing you should do when you get lit up by enemy radar is drop the tanks, drop the hammer, and get the hell away from there.

I can think of two great reasons to drop tanks. The first reason is for better acceleration and top speed, which should be increased by dumping the extra weight and aerodynamic drag of the tanks. The second reason is that by doing so you've instantly multiplied the number of targets the radar has to track, which might buy you a few extra seconds to get out of range.

A third reason might be to evaluate the enemy response to a possible bombing attack. The big FU seems to be a side benefit, or insult, depending on which side you're observing.

[obiwan]

65. Kinda like the Cold War of the 50's and 60's , ey?

Do you still have a Fallout Shelter buried in your backyard?

Can you say, "duck and cover"? I knew you could.

W is like the mad general (George C. Scott, I believe) in "Doctor Strangelove." Without brains.

[Aviation Pro]

66. That was Hayden Sterling.....

....

[roxnev]

37. Scary as hell

If you believe we lost the war in Iraq, then the shiite Iranians take over they would control the biggest oil reserve in the world. So by destroying the Shiite population then Iraq would fall in control Sunni or Saudi Arabia, witch would still be in the hands of big oil.

[klyon]

89. yes it is scary

I think this is it. WWIII

[neuvocat]

38. Some more info for anyone interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM#Survivors

[Rick Myers]

39. The AF data sheet claims there are 400+ in stock

Again, I stand corrected. The Pentagon document must be referring to the ones being upgraded THIS fiscal year. Sorry...

But the AF datasheet DOES verify that the weapons will be in inventory until 2030.

[Rick Myers]

40. UPDATE to Original Post (correction)

The USAF datasheet on the AGM-129 claims there ARE more than 400 of this type missile in inventory. The number of 38 came from the USAF budget doc, but it is assumed they are the ones to be upgraded in fy 2008.

The budget doc does say there are 394 in inventory.

However, Raytheon, the manufacturer makes an interesting statement about the AGM-129 "modified with structural and software changes and an alternate nuclear warhead for accomplishing a classified cruise missile mission." This weapon is designed to be used AGAINST HARDENED TARGETS. It also employs 'stealth' technology.

[minnesota_liberal]

90. Interesting find, but not the smoking gun - er, cruise missile

If the Air Force is using the same Fiscal Year as the rest of the U.S. government, we are currently in FY07, which ends 9/30/2007.

This document is dated February 2007 and is for the FY08/FY09 period (10/1/07 - 9/30/09).

The SLE (service life extension) for the ACM-129 applies only to the 38 "active" units. The majority of costs associated with this effort were incurred prior to FY06 (before 9/30/05). Lesser amounts are listed for FY06 and FY07. No costs are listed for periods after 9/30/2007.

The 356 ACM-129 units listed as being in inventory but not classified as "active" are not involved in this SLE and might very well be in the process of being decommissioned, as was widely reported.

Not knowing what other versions of cruise missles exist or how they compare to the ACM-129, it's difficult to draw conclusions about the validity of the claim that most of these are being put out to pasture.

I think the timing of this incident is very interesting but don't see the document cited in your OP as significant except as evidence of the numbers of ACM-129 units and the two distinct types (upgraded and not).

If I'm going to buy into any conspiracy theory, it's not that the units in the news story were being upgraded but rather that they were being staged for possible use in Iran without further upgrade.

[proud patriot]

47. brrrr , it just got cold in here

:scared:

[lonestarnot]

67. Sorry another dupe. Damn this lappypot.

[debbierlus]

49. Thank you for your research & keeping the media alive

We are truly the media now.

Thanks for your post.

[L. Coyote]

50. Mistakes happen, esp. in organizations. The USA killed a cow with a nuclear bomb once.

That's right. A "fat boy" accidentally fell from a plane over N Mex and did not explode on impact.

Instead, it hit a cow and killed it. The cow is the only known victim of a nuclear bomb in the US.

Intelligent cows everywhere are saying, "Get rid of the nukes." :rofl:

[Rick Myers]

51. Back then, the fissile core was removed for transit.

Here's a site that should make everyone feel like bringing back 'duck and cover!!'

http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm

[L. Coyote]

121. AEC: "Inadvertent Explosion: ... accidents might occur..." Thanks for this link!

Inadvertent Explosion:
"Nuclear weapons are designed with great care to explode only when deliberately armed and fired. Nevertheless, there is always a possibility that, as a result of accidental circumstances, an explosion will take place inadvertently. Although all conceivable precautions are taken to prevent them, such accidents might occur in areas where weapons are assembled and stored, during the course of loading and transportation on the ground, or when actually in the delivery vehicle, e.g., an airplane or a missile."

-Atomic Energy Commission/Department of Defense, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 1962.

[cui bono]

54. And there's some lizards saying "Get rid of airplane bathrooms!"

;)

[Voltaire99]

53. No mystery where they were being taken...

To a Ted Nugent concert, obviously.

[Rick Myers]

55. I'd approve the use of a 5kt nuke as a stage effect!!!

Ted Nugent really rubs ME the wrong way! Yeah, I remember sitting in a barracks with WAY TOO MUCH stereo equipment blasting the sh*t out of "Stranglehold," but he's a seriously crazy MF!!!

[GeorgeGist]

56. false flag attack ...

on Iraq perhaps? just :tinfoilhat: thinking of September and the Assholes changing clusterphucks because their roots connect them.

[Kelly Rupert]

108. False flag attacks usually require attacks. n/t

[StClone]

57. How they can get away with it: Nuke on Nuke?

There is I assume a rationale that an attack on nukes with nukes is a defensible position. That is the only logic I can see. Which is so Bush NeoCon Shithouse Ratpublicon crazy it should have every Nation in the world screaming enough is enough.

[Rick Myers]

60. Keep in mind these weapons (the W-80) can be adjusted

The 'yield' can be as low as 5kt, as high as 150kt. (equal weight in TNT)

Take one of these lil' baby out of the missile. It's 12" around, 32" long and weighs 290 pounds.


You could put this thing ANYWHERE!

I'm not trying to imply a conspiracy, just get to all the facts.

Everyone with any experience in the USAF or Navy knows the basics of how nukes are handled. If the two-man no-alone zone has been compromised, the world is in deep kimchee!!! This sounding like something out of Dr. Strangelove!

[RaleighNCDUer]

96. This way, no matter what we hit we can point at the radiation released

and say "See? I TOLD you they were working on nukes!"

And the 28% would lap it up.

[Kelly Rupert]

110. Only if the Iranians had managed to acquire all their uranium from North America n/t

[StClone]

125. That was part of my thinking

They can use nukes and render millions of square miles tainted and claim "well we were attacking nuclear sites what did you expect...and oh, our nukes made one great Schlock and Yawn II didn't they...it was so cool."

[Bosso 63]

61. Anyway you look at this, its not good.

leak,lost,or saber rattling, its all bad.
kick.

[lonestarnot]

68. I have been in a state of alarm since I first heard the bullshit.

Something going down. No amount of bullshit they offer will make me think differently. I am convinced there is a plan still ongoing operation.

[Rick Myers]

73. thread continues here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1751295

[Imagevision]

74. You really got to ask yourself, why do you think they allowed this story to be leaked??

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. That depends. Who was first to get the story?

Sometimes real shit does get through the media filtration system.

[Kelly Rupert]

105. I don't think it's a matter of "allowed."

All that a leak requires is one officer who's just seen something that he believes would be in the public interest to know.

[burrowowl]

75. GOOD RESEARCH!

Thanks!

[Jesse Hemingway]

77. Good work; here is some follow up

The following links might shed some additional light on this matter also the chain of command.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/454005p.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/rtf/454005x.rtf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/dodd-4540_5.htm

http://www.orionint.com/svcs/nw-support.cfm

http://www.logisticsworld.com/logistics/govmil.htm

http://search.yahoo.com/search?y=Search&fr=yfp-t-471&p=military+requirements+for+moving+nuclear+weapons

Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE
NUMBER 4540.5
February 4, 1998
Certified Current as of December 8, 2003
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
ATSD(NCB)
SUBJECT: Logistic Transportation of Nuclear Weapons
References: (a) DoD Directive 4540.5, "Movement of Nuclear Weapons by Noncombat Delivery Vehicles," June 14, 1978 (hereby canceled)
(b) Title 10, United States Code
(c) DoD 5025.1-M, "DoD Directives System Procedures," August 1994
(d) DoD Directive 3150.2, "DoD Nuclear Weapon System Safety Program," December 23, 1996
(e) through (h), see enclosure 1

1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE
This Directive:
1.1. Reissues reference (a) to update policy and responsibilities for the logistic transport of nuclear weapons under reference (b).
1.2. Authorizes the publication of the "DoD Nuclear Weapon Transportation Manual," consistent with reference (c), to provide guidance for the logistic transport of nuclear weapons.
1.3. Integrates DoD policy and responsibilities for the logistic transport of nuclear weapons with the safety requirements in reference (d), the security requirements in references (e) through (g), and the use control requirements in reference (h).

2. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE
This Directive:
2.1. Applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, and the Defense Agencies (hereafter referred to collectively as "the DoD Components").
2.2. Does not apply to the transport of nuclear weapon limited-life components.

3. DEFINITIONS
Terms used in this Directive are defined in enclosure 2.

4. POLICY
It is DoD policy that:
4.1. Nuclear weapons require special consideration because of their political and military importance and the potential consequences of an accident, incident, or unauthorized act.
4.2. The DoD Components shall take precautions to ensure that a nuclear weapon movement has minimal impact on public health, safety, and the environment.
4.3. DoD nuclear weapon system safety policy, DoD nuclear weapon system safety standards, and DoD nuclear weapon security policy and criteria shall apply to nuclear weapon transport operations.
4.4. Nuclear weapon movements shall be kept to the minimum consistent with military requirements.
4.5. Nuclear weapon transportation operations shall be conducted through the transportation modes and movement routes that balance safety, security, and military requirements.
4.6. The movement by air of nuclear weapons that contain high explosives other than insensitive high explosives (IHE) should be approved by the Secretary of the Military Department or a Commander of a Combatant Command, or their delegated commanders.
4.7. Procedures, equipment, and facilities involved in the transport of nuclear weapons shall be certified for such transport.
4.8. Personnel and organizations involved in the transport of nuclear weapons shall be trained and certified for the activities they perform.
4.9. U.S. custody of nuclear weapons shall be maintained at all times during logistic movements. That requirement shall not be waived.
4.10. A commander may deviate from logistic transport policy when the loss of a weapon's custody is imminent or when the weapon may be exposed to an abnormal environment.
4.11. In areas outside the continental United States, command-disable procedures shall be used if loss of the weapon is imminent.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES
5.1. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, under the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, shall:
5.1.1. Be responsible for policy and technical matters associated with the transportation of nuclear weapons.
5.1.2. Serve as the DoD principal point of contact for nuclear weapon transportation matters with the DoD Components, the Department of Energy (DoE), the Department of State, the Joint Nuclear Weapons Council, and other Government Agencies.
5.1.3. Ensure that the Director, Defense Special Weapons Agency, shall:
5.1.3.1. Provide technical support, advice, and assistance to the DoD Components on the transport of nuclear weapons, when requested.
5.1.3.2. Serve as the logistic transport coordinator between the DoD Components for inter-command movements and between the Department of Defense and the DoE.
5.1.3.3. Conduct safety and security assessments on nuclear weapon transportation, when requested.
5.2. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall:
5.2.1. Coordinate directly with the DoD Components on nuclear weapon transportation matters.
5.2.2. Ensure that nuclear weapons technical inspections examine nuclear weapon transport operations.
5.2.3. Establish procedures for the maintenance of accountability during nuclear weapon transport operations.
5.2.4. Prescribe the reporting procedures to be used when nuclear weapons are transported.
5.3. The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall:
5.3.1. Implement DoD nuclear weapon transportation policies.
5.3.2. Develop procedures for the transport of nuclear weapons.
5.3.3. Evaluate, authorize, and approve the transport modes and movement routes that balance safety, security, and military requirements for nuclear weapons in their custody.
5.3.4. Conduct assessments of nuclear weapon transport operations, as necessary.
5.3.5. Approve all movements conducted by air of nuclear weapons in their custody that contain high explosives other than IHE. Approval authority may be delegated to commanders of major Service commands.
5.3.6. Ensure that procedures, equipment, facilities, and organizations involved in the transport of nuclear weapons are certified for that purpose.
5.3.7. Ensure that personnel involved in the transport of nuclear weapons are applicably trained.
5.4. The Secretary of the Air Force shall maintain a Prime Nuclear Airlift Force capability to conduct the logistic transport of nuclear weapons.
5.5. The Commanders of the Combatant Commands shall:
5.5.1. Implement DoD nuclear weapon transportation policies.
5.5.2. Develop procedures, as required for their area of operations, for the transport of nuclear weapons.
5.5.3. Evaluate, authorize, and approve the transport modes and movement routes that balance safety, security, and military requirements for nuclear weapons in their custody.
5.5.4. Conduct assessments of nuclear weapon transport operations, as necessary.
5.5.5. Approve all movements conducted by air of nuclear weapons in their custody that contain high explosives other than IHE. Approval authority may be delegated to Service component commanders.
5.5.6. Ensure that procedures, equipment, facilities, and organizations involved in the transport of nuclear weapons are certified for such transport.
5.5.7. Ensure that personnel involved in the transport of nuclear weapons are applicably trained.

6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Directive is effective immediately.

Enclosures - 2
E1. References, continued
E2. Definitions

[BrightKnight]

78. The USAF knows how to handle nukes without error.

The USAF has been handling nuclear weapons systems for a very long time. The processes were not invented yesterday.

It smells like saber rattling and or domestic political fallout games.

[Jesse Hemingway]

81. No one is suppose to know their doing it

Can not confrim or deny
Can not confrim or deny
Can not confrim or deny
Can not confrim or deny
Can not confrim or deny
Can not confrim or deny

[Kelly Rupert]

95. This would be the absolute least effective saber rattling in history.

"Look out, Iran! We've got nuclear weapons, and we're too incompetent to keep track of them!"

[BrightKnight]

138. saber rattling could be cover for domestic political fallout games.

Flying a nuke over the Country has a familiar color coded smell to it. I could see a couple of Faux hole generals cooking up something like that. I hope that I am wrong but weird things happen in election season. Regardless of the intent it fell flat.

I can't buy the story at face value and I hope that some oversight committee gets to the bottom of it.

[democrat2thecore]

84. You summed it up right here....

-- It is MY OPINION that some 'patriot' leaked the info about these weapons movements. A warning?

-- It is also my opinion these weapons were being moved for some other reason, to Barksdale, and then possibly on to Diego Garcia, for obvious reasons.

IT IS TIME TO BE VERY AFRAID! The UK intercepted 8 Russian bombers yesterday, which has not happened in about 15 years. Syria fired on 4 or 5 Israeli aircraft that violated that violated Syrian airspace and dropped fuel tanks in the desert... Dr. Strangelove is alive and well...

I am afraid you are right.

[bjobotts]

85. It's not the missiles...it's the nuclear war heads..You don't mention

It was the war heads atop the missiles that were the mistake...the blunder supposedly was that the missiles had the wrong war heads attached to them...they were nuclear warheads rather than non nuclear warheads. Yoyu don't mention if the war heads that you are talking about are the nuclear warheads that are now being fitted or the non nuclear warheads that will attach to the missiles. Am I missing something here because that is what the original article posted was the blunder...the nuclear warheads...not the missiles themselves.
Are you saying that the missiles were to be decommissioned and now they are not and are being refitted with warheads? If so is it the nuclear warheads that were mistakingly shipped with the missiles that are now being attached in spite of the fact they said it was an accident that these warheads were shipped with these missiles?

Either way...with Bush and Cheney at the helm we have a right to be suspicious and paranoid. With these two conspiracy is more the rule of thumb rather than a wild theory.

[Usrename]

86. There won't be a peep about this from our party leadership.

The democratic party will not speak out about this.

They want this operation to continue.

The Lieberman-lovers rule the party.

[Delphinus]

88. Gulp!

Kick to the top - interesting dots being connected.

[Vidar]

91. Thanks for the update.

[Holly_Hobby]

92. Remember when China was accused of hacking

Pentagon computers? They denied it, of course, but maybe they hacked the computers that manage war heads as a warning about attacking Iran?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3554890

[Kelly Rupert]

103. Please expand this theory.

What did this "hacking" accomplish? What do we chalk up to incompetence, what to US conspiracy, and what to Chinese influence?

[UnyieldingHierophant]

118. They "hacked" the unclass network, superficially at best...that capability doesn't

reside there

[porphyrian]

97. This leak was not accidental, so we were meant to see it. Why?

Because they are still squaring off and sabre rattling. Will there be a nuclear war? If nobody does anything to stop them, maybe. But most people won't see mutually assured destruction as a victory.

[Kelly Rupert]

104. Because this is horribly embarrassing, and someone peripherally involved in it

rightly believed that such enormous failings should not go unpunished.

[porphyrian]

106. It's easy to believe the people in this administration are that incompetent...

...but I still hold that something of this magnitude would not have leaked if they seriously didn't want it to, and I suspect its coming to light an intentional act framed as an accidental leak.

[Kelly Rupert]

107. This has nothing to do with the administration.

This has to do with the Air Force, which is not a political body. All it takes for a fuckup of this magnitude is, realistically, a handful of officers who all got sloppy at the same time. They all managed to overlook the fact that, despite all the paperwork declaring that warheads were to be removed from six missiles, nobody ever got around to actually removing the warheads.

All it takes for a leak is one officer thinking, "This is an embarrassment to the service," and calling up a reporter.

There is no room for Bush in this story.

[porphyrian]

111. You don't think this administration has affected the military power structure?

You really believe there's no influence at all?

Again, something of this magnitude would not get out if they did not allow it.

[Kelly Rupert]

112. The influence this administration holds

is limited to the highest levels only.

How do you propose that they would "disallow" a lieutenant from leaking this? Do they have mind-control chips in every single officer? Hell, how do you propose that they would even KNOW about this before the leak?

Your evidence for conspiracy--"this wouldn't get out if they didn't allow it"--rests on conspiracy itself.

[porphyrian]

115. They know who they can trust with what.

If there is someone they can't trust, they can trust that they can't trust them. They wouldn't involve anyone in something air-tight that they didn't trust. Thus, this wasn't air-tight and they were, at the very least, unconcerned that it could leak. Given their propensity to control information, I would say it was intentionally disseminated, under the guise of a leak. You don't have to agree with me, but that's the bet I'm placing.

[NightWatcher]

101. Larry Johnson might have a clue

A Mistake Or A Preparation?


Some news was made recently when it was 'discovered' that a handful of nuclear weapons were 'accidentally' transferred from a base in Minot, ND to another airbase in Barksdale, LA. The first stories were told to slant this as a 'mistake', but I cannot believe that two days passed before another possible reason for this 'mistake'. As a result of this 'faux paus' the Air Force announced that they will ground all fighters and bombers on September 14th.- hmm

This is from former CIA operative and insider, Larry Johnson:

Staging Nukes for Iran?

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/05/staging-nukes-f... /

Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That's like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let's call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can't imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can't think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don't know, but it is a question worth asking.

_____________________________________________________

Dozens of reports have surfaced from various insiders who have predicted that this adminstration is planning on attacking Iran in the very near future. Fox has been going batshit crazy in their Iran war drumming, and this latest supposition from Johnson and others 'fits' into this meme in a sick and twisted kind of way.

Following this 'mistake' the Air Force has announced an almost unprecedented grounding of all fighters and bombers over the US on September 14th. I say 'almost' because most of us will remember that NORAD was stood down during the 'attacks' of 9/11.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes /

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Six nuclear warheads on cruise missiles were mistakenly carried on a flight from North Dakota to Louisiana last week, prompting a major investigation, military officials have confirmed.

Don Shepperd, a retired Air Force major general and military analyst for CNN said the United States had agreed in a Cold War-era treaty not to fly nuclear weapons. "It appears that what happened was this treaty agreement was violated,".

The Air Force announced that all flights of fighters and bombers in the United States will be halted on September 14 to allow for a review of procedures.

________________________________________________

Gee, I hope that nothing bad happens on September 14th. Isn't it just a tad queer how close September 14th is to the anniversary of September 11th? I'm sure that it's only a coincidence. Watch the skies Henny Penny.

[Kelly Rupert]

109. If I had a quarter for each "OMG There Will Be An Attack On This Date" post on DU,

I would be able to fund my *own* nuclear program.

[Dora]

120. K&R

:kick:

[MADem]

123. A modification to make them bunker-bustering, perhaps? As for the five vs. six, it was six.

The original source of the story corrected the number to the reporter who broke it.

[Bearware]

127. How many of the officers were Dominionist Christians

After what has been happening at the Air Force Academy, I wonder if they picked devout "rapture" officers to carry this out and an enlisted patriot quietly spread the news. If they are getting ready to use the nukes in IRAN why not transfer them using established classified procedures?:wtf: It sounds a lot more nefarious that they "disappeared" for a while. I wonder if somebody had some practice warheads with labeling and other changes made so they could look like and be swapped with the real thing. I think they got caught and it would be very interesting to follow the chain of officers involved. Uhhh, I wonder if anybody removed the warheads for a much closer look? :scared:

In a coincidence, super-fundy Lieutenant General William G. Boykin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Boykin) retired on August 1, 2007 and currently teaches at Hampden-Sydney College. I wonder if he has been in any classes or is "traveling" on the dark side right now.:tinfoilhat:

[Richard Steele]

130. Excellent points, Bearwear! And, hey...

...welcome to DU! :hi:

[Spazito]

128. Fallout Continues From Bomber Flight (new article)

I found this link via a post in the LBN thread and thought it would be a useful addition to the info in this one, thanks to Snazzy for the link!:

They thought it was a joke message - sent accidentally.

That was the reaction of some officers in the Pentagon when they received what's called a "bent spear" message last week.

snip

"Bent Spear" is the term reserved for significant nuclear weapons incidents and the message sent out last Thursday was real - alerting them of the fact that Minot Air Force Base munitions crews could not account for six nuclear warheads.

snip

Sources in Congress say the timeline shows the six nuclear warheads were not retrieved or even identified as being nuclear munitions for almost ten hours after their arrival at Barksdale.

more

http://www.kxmc.com/News/159695.asp

The article also gives the name of the Commander relieved of duty as Lt. Colonel Paul Wheeless.

[Bearware]

129. Have they checked the warheads to see if they are real?

10 Hours on the ground!!! Any chance they checked the missile warheads and serial numbers? Including with a Geiger Counter or other procedure to make sure it's really a nuke? Not that I'm paranoid or anything. :tinfoilhat:

[Spazito]

131. It says to me that, opposite to what some are trying to say, this incident

is SO out of the ordinary that, even after receiving the "bent spear" message, they could not believe it was real because the multiple protocols surrounding these warheads are so strict an incident like this COULD NOT happen yet it did.

I have no doubt the warheads are real, we would have heard otherwise very quickly were that not the case.

[Bearware]

132. I'm wondering if they switched the nukes for fakes in the 10 hours

I didn't state that very well. I meant they should check if the warheads that are on the missiles "NOW" are real. It's probably true they were real before the B52 took off. I'm just wondering if somebody did a switch with mislabled dummies in the 10 hours on the ground where nobody knew about them. In other words did they sneak off with the warheads and leave carefully constructed fakes behind.

Nukes laying around for hours unprotected with Armageddon loving Christians in the Air Force is not a good mix.

[jimshoes]

133. I've been having the same recurring thought

that just maybe this whole thing is or was a well orchestrated plan to steal a number of nuclear devices for some unimaginably horrible plot. Or they were odered to move. Now, who can give that order?

[Spazito]

134. Ahhh, now I get what you were saying.....

Interesting thought, given everything about this "mistake" is questionable the possibilities of what really happened and why are wide-reaching, imo.
It is interesting that, having received a message that should have made their hair stand on end nothing was done and no one followed up for hours after receiving the "bent spear" message. Will there be an investigation of that too? Will heads roll for this as well? What did happen in the intervening hours between the time the aircraft landed and the message was acted upon?

Edited to correct a poor sentence construction.