Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B52 Takes Nuclear Missiles By Mistake  
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2898 posts, RR: 3
Posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7497 times:

Fir use excerpt:

Quote:
A B-52 bomber flew across the US last week mistakenly loaded with up to six nuclear-armed missiles, unnamed air force officials are quoted as saying. The missiles were unaccounted for during a three-hour flight from a North Dakota air base to one in Louisiana.

Air Force spokesman Lt Col Ed Thomas told Army Times the weapons were "always in our custody". Army Times said the missiles were to be decommissioned but were mistakenly mounted on the bomber's wings. The W80-1 warhead has a yield of five to 150 kilotons, the paper said.

A military official told AFP news agency that President George W Bush had been informed of the mix-up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm


I scratch my head, therefore I am.
88 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7412 times:

Somehow I doubt that this story is very accurate. It is not possible to load the weapons aboard, and not have the aircrew find out about it.

If the BBC story was even close to correct, a Broken Arrow would have been started to locate the "unaccounted" weapons.


User currently offlineCorsair1107 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7360 times:

Wait, I'm confused. Was the B-52 supposed to fly empty yet ended up with missiles loaded onboard? Wouldn't the aircrew notice a mistake like that?


Flown on: DHC-6/8, F100, B1900C, 717, 727, 737, 757, 767, 777, 319, 320, C152/172, E135/145, DC-9, MD-83/88 CL600
User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7339 times:

Quoting Corsair1107 (Reply 2):
Was the B-52 supposed to fly empty yet ended up with missiles loaded onboard?

According to a statement in the FOX article below, the missiles were to be decommissioned, and the warheads were not removed, but should have been.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295797,00.html

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclear_B52_070904w/


User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3301 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7218 times:

...And how often (rare) is it that nukes are airborne over the country?

Somehow this seems to be less of a story than they make it out to be (save for the fact that they were loaded in error), but I do admit, I plead ignorance on the subject...



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7214 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 4):
...And how often (rare) is it that nukes are airborne over the country?

How rare, well, I remember hearing on CNN today that it was President Kennedy and Krushchev that signed a treaty after the incident over Spain regarding lost nukes (someone more knowledgeable than me could tell more) which stated that the US would not have airborne nukes anymore. So this would be the first time in at least 40 years.



War Eagle!
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3930 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 7201 times:

Quoting Da man (Reply 5):
How rare, well, I remember hearing on CNN today that it was President Kennedy and Krushchev that signed a treaty after the incident over Spain regarding lost nukes (someone more knowledgeable than me could tell more) which stated that the US would not have airborne nukes anymore. So this would be the first time in at least 40 years.

No, if anything that agreement was for both sides to not maintain a nuclear attack capability in an airborne readiness state - that was what the crash in Spain involved, a B-52 flying the Mediterranean Airborne Nuclear Alert Route collided with a KC-135.

These missions were gradually phased out after the Spain incident, although the USAF does still regularly fly nuclear weapons to this day - there was no agreement against having nuclear weapons in the air, just against having them in the air in routine airborne alert duty flights. This suited both sides as more and more capability was being moved to ICBMs anyway.

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 4):
Somehow this seems to be less of a story than they make it out to be (save for the fact that they were loaded in error), but I do admit, I plead ignorance on the subject...

The real story is is that there is a story at all - nuclear weapons managed to fall outside the normal, highly restricted channels somehow, even if it was only for a few hours and they never technically left the control of a USAF aircraft they were still unaccounted for and their location was only confirmed when the aircraft landed.


User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 7196 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 6):
No, if anything that agreement was for both sides to not maintain a nuclear attack capability in an airborne readiness state - that was what the crash in Spain involved, a B-52 flying the Mediterranean Airborne Nuclear Alert Route collided with a KC-135.

These missions were gradually phased out after the Spain incident, although the USAF does still regularly fly nuclear weapons to this day - there was no agreement against having nuclear weapons in the air, just against having them in the air in routine airborne alert duty flights. This suited both sides as more and more capability was being moved to ICBMs anyway.

Thanks, I just remember hearing a slight blurb this morning on the news before I ran out for class. I was just repeating what I remember hearing from CNN this morning. I guess it goes to show how the media can be wrong on almost anything.



War Eagle!
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 7195 times:

In 1968 I was sent to Thule, Greenland, as a young reporter to cover the B-52 crash with six nuclear bombs aboard. The plane with all the bombs went through the ice. They would not have exploded, because they were not armed. A cry was raised a few years later by the Danish authorities as far as radiation leaks were concerned. I have not followed the story lately. Either they were lifted out, or they still reside on the bottom of the sea. Anyway, my point is that there was no risk of a nuclear explosion.

User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3930 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7159 times:

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 8):
Either they were lifted out, or they still reside on the bottom of the sea.

One was recovered as debris during the post crash cleanup, one was recovered in 1979 and the other remains at the bottom of the bay.

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 8):
They would not have exploded, because they were not armed.

Technically they could have exploded - the Thule bombs were 'full cores', meaning the entire weapons package was in the casing at the time. The safety devices could have failed and the bomb could have detonated. When two bombs were lost in another B-52 accident in 1961, one of the bombs free fell and buried itself in the mud, while the other managed to suffer the failure of three of its four safety devices, resulting in an almost full arming of the weapon including deployment of the retarding chute - if the fourth safety device had also failed, that bomb would have detonated.


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1089 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7066 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Somehow I doubt that this story is very accurate. It is not possible to load the weapons aboard, and not have the aircrew find out about it.

If the BBC story was even close to correct, a Broken Arrow would have been started to locate the "unaccounted" weapons.

A Broken Arrow report would have been the incorrect thing. Refer to this for a refresher: http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/d523016p.pdf


User currently offlineFsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7063 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 4):
Somehow this seems to be less of a story than they make it out to be (save for the fact that they were loaded in error), but I do admit, I plead ignorance on the subject...

This is huge. So many checks and procedures had to fail or be ignored for this to even have a remote chance of happening. It is also an indicator that the staff at Minot were not taking nuclear surity seriously or did not have the proper training. The squadron commander has already been fired and I predict there will be multiple court-martials over this. Also how long did the B-52 sit on the Barksdale ramp with minimal security around it? I would have liked to have seen the expression on the face of the technician that opened up the missile casing and saw a real live nuke warhead


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7046 times:

Quoting Fsnuffer (Reply 11):
also an indicator that the staff at Minot were not taking nuclear surity seriously or did not have the proper training. The squadron commander has already been fired and I predict there will be multiple court-martials over this.

Oh yeah, Squadron commmander, wing commander, base commander, Lots of careers are going to be going boom.

Quoting Fsnuffer (Reply 11):
I would have liked to have seen the expression on the face of the technician that opened up the missile casing and saw a real live nuke warhead

Had to have been a great look.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7034 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 12):
Had to have been a great look.

Probably went along the lines of...

A OMFGWTFBBQSAUCE kind of moment...

and I'll hazard a guess that everyone from the base CO down that is a supervisor anyway connected with this is going to get voted off the island before this is over...


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6998 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 13):
Probably went along the lines of...

A OMFGWTFBBQSAUCE kind of moment...

I am picturing a couple of really big eyes and the hands quickly shifting to both providing coverage of the fig leaf area.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6934 times:

Unless th Missle's were armed they really wouldnt have been a threat unless of course one falls off ontop of your head J/k. Anyway The nukes are buit to withstand an accident while some aircraft in the 50's and 60's crashed none of the weapons leaked or went off. I would believe the fix version of decommissioned and the heads werent removed by mistake I am sure its not the first time or the last time it will happen.

User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6914 times:

Quote:
Army Times said the missiles were to be decommissioned but were mistakenly mounted on the bomber's wings. The W80-1 warhead has a yield of five to 150 kilotons, the paper said.

AGM-86 ALCM?

Quoting Fsnuffer (Reply 11):
I would have liked to have seen the expression on the face of the technician that opened up the missile casing and saw a real live nuke warhead

I presume one can distinguish a live missile from an inert one with having to open it?


User currently offlineFsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6841 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 15):
Unless th Missle's were armed they really wouldnt have been a threat unless of course one falls off ontop of your head J/k. Anyway The nukes are buit to withstand an accident while some aircraft in the 50's and 60's crashed none of the weapons leaked or went off. I would believe the fix version of decommissioned and the heads werent removed by mistake I am sure its not the first time or the last time it will happen.

They are designed not to detonate during an accident which is different than withstanding an accident. I know it is splitting hairs but when dealing with nukes, one split hair can kill thousands. There are multiple cases where the radioactive payload was scattered to the wind after the accident. What happens is the high explosives around the core cook off in a matter that does not initiate a controlled nuclear explosion but does scatter the plutonium.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've gotta agree that this is an inexcusable lapse in nuclear weapons security and everyone in that chain of events needs to be relieved, including the pilots who took off with the missiles and did not check them properly (assuming that the pilots are allowed to check the armaments warhead section while they're hanging on the pylons). It indicates a dangerous lack of respect for nuclear weapons security and that's the opposite of what is needed.

I'm not an over-reactor to incidents, but this is a loss of control on a nuclear weapon whether or not it was in USAF custody and not armed. The warheads were not supposed to be there, and they were and no one stopped the process.

Quoting Fsnuffer (Reply 11):
I would have liked to have seen the expression on the face of the technician that opened up the missile casing and saw a real live nuke warhead

I was thinking the same thing yesterday. I'll bet he shit a brick in an orderly, military fashion and someone called for the SPs and duty officer in that order.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6754 times:

There are going to be a lot of careers ended over this.

Apparently, this really did happen.

Why didn't the aircrew and crew chief catch this?


User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6746 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
There are going to be a lot of careers ended over this.

Apparently, this really did happen.

Why didn't the aircrew and crew chief catch this?

I think anyone who was remotely involved in this pretty much has seen their career go up in smoke, including the aircrew. I don't think anyone will get prison over this, but they won't get a slap on the hand either.

There had to be a huge mix up in paper work and communications. The real question stands, how could a trained crew not notice nuke tipped missiles while loading them on to the B-52? I seriously doubt anyone could over look this as I'm sure the warheads are covered with stickers or some sort of identification features that would make them stand out like a sore thumb.



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2314 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6540 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):

You know, Boom, this kind of thing never would have happened in SAC

As pointed out, the danger of an accidental nuclear detonation is minimal (but not impossible) there is the very real danger that an incident could have caused the release of radioactive material (which has happened on several occasions in the past). The larger issue here is that 6 nuclear weapons seem to have gotten "lost". That is a major breach of nuclear weapon security. I think some weather station north of the Arctic Circle will be getting a new Moral, Welfare and Recreation Officer.

[Edited 2007-09-07 06:08:11]

[Edited 2007-09-07 06:08:40]


KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6411 times:

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 21):
You know, Boom, this kind of thing never would have happened in SAC

 checkmark   checkmark 
I imagine the services squadron at Minot is busy with the in processing of a whole lot of Munitions folks who lost their line badge, TS clearance and PRP. A whole lot of checklists and T.O.'s had to be not followed. When the IG starts digging what else are they going to find? Minot also has a missile field they take care of. You guys are right, this would have never happened in SAC. I can't imagine the load crew not knowing what they were loading was hot, since these were slated for decommission why were they even armed inside the weapons storage area. This is a indictment of todays AF leadership, they worry about everything except the mission. To err is human but to forgive is not SAC policy. Sure wish I had a pic of the SAC patch that had some bloody privates in the gauntlet. I believe all the old SAC troops know what I am talking about



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineWannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 677 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6381 times:

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 20):
I'm sure the warheads are covered with stickers

LOL. Just like those yellow stickers all over a step ladder! "Warning: This is a live nuclear weapon. Do not operate without aurthorization, or while taking any medications which may inhibit your ability to run like a son-of-a-bitch if something goes wrong. If found, please return to your nearest USAF base."


User currently offlineFsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6357 times:

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Thread starter):
Sure wish I had a pic of the SAC patch that had some bloody privates in the gauntlet. I believe all the old SAC troops know what I am talking about

I do have that patch but hubly request the admins permission to post it  Smile


25 Fumanchewd : I agree. Especially considering that they are usually transported on our public highways. Knowing our roads and the people who drive on them, I would
26 Checksixx : I thought you were in the Air Force....if you are...think about this question a bit more. There would have been NO way to "catch" it. The only folks
27 DL021 : No...someone's going to prison for this one. Almost gotta happen. I would say that the pre-flight would involve the pilots noticing something about t
28 Checksixx : I'm using your text, but not slamming you..okay? I think everyone here has not read up on the incident fully. They were supposed to be transporting t
29 Fsnuffer : Not being a B-52 crewdog, I am just wondering if there would have been any "instrumentation" indicators visable to the navigators via their computers
30 Checksixx : I don't know. I'd wait till the investigation is complete. Also, they may not disclose the results of the investigation publicly.
31 Lt-AWACS : There is most definetly a way to catch this, if any of you have ever actually seen the weapons in question. Munitions screwed up, crew chief and PIC a
32 Post contains links RC135X : Nuclear weapons are routinely carried by air throughout the world. A McChord C-17 unit is one that fulfills this task. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
33 Wvsuperhornet : Your right you are splitting hairs. I would like to know what the difference is between the 2???? Look everyone needs to quite over-reacting if you t
34 Fsnuffer : Since you asked I will go into more detail. Those who are familiar with said hair split can go on to the next comment. If the weapon was armed and dr
35 DL021 : No worries...I want to learn how and why this happened, and I'm not up on the security they employ these days with nuclear weapons. But I'm shocked i
36 CF188A : :D Over-reacting? Inventory my friend is a VERY VERY VERY critical thing in the Armed Forces as is safety / per caution. I would not say it the Unite
37 Lt-AWACS : They do not needs to open them up to check there are other ways and failsafes built in to be checked. Not able to discuss what they are but the fact
38 Fsnuffer : The rules of engagement for alert fighters was MUCH different on Sept 11th than they were on Sept 12th. To that point, it was assumed that the hijack
39 UH60FtRucker : Chill. You can have same the discussion without flipping out and yelling. Go have a cold one. No... I am pretty sure Ian is 100% correct... someone i
40 Checksixx : Either way, it IS policy to release this type of information to the public when deemed necessary.
41 RIXrat : " target=_blank>http://www.nukestrat.com/dk/alert.htm Going back to Thule when I was there in 1968, the DOD briefers told us that the plane was not a
42 DL021 : I'd say that in this day and age it's called getting ahead of the power curve......the info will get released somehow...it's better to put it out fir
43 Wvsuperhornet : It has been Upgraded since sept 11th. And I wouldnt say there response there was bad either, its not really the pilots faults since they were scrambl
44 Checksixx : No, it had nothing to do with cruise missiles over the Atlantic. Wherever you hear that, it was bad info. Again, wherever you heard that, its incorre
45 Wvsuperhornet : Really??? So a documentry done by the history channel on the Offical report issued by the 9/11 commission was totally wrong when they said the the fig
46 Fsnuffer : The f-15s were scrambled to find AA and UA flights that disappeared from the radar scope because they turned off their transponders and ATC heard the
47 PADSpot : Now as a summary of the original story: If I got it right the B-52 was supposed to carry 6 denuked AGM-129 from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB for decommi
48 Post contains images Halls120 : Nah. he culprits will probably get stern lectures and maybe a nonpunitive letter. But real jail time? Remember folks, this is the Air Force we're tal
49 Fsnuffer : The reason why they were probably flown down instead of trucked might be for crew proficiency. The crews need to fly a certain amount of training hou
50 Checksixx : You've never been associated with the Air Force if your going to stand by that statement. The Air Force is known for eating its own. They'll send you
51 Halls120 : When it comes to the application of military justice, Air Force judges are wimps. At least they were when I was on active duty. As a former miltary j
52 Post contains links Fsnuffer : For those posting that those involved would face consequences check out the article below. This is posted ONLY for the humor value and no way do I eve
53 Lt-AWACS : I like how a retired Navy E-3 (not my old airplane, the rank...) is such an expert on Current Air Force procedures. Their death count looks a bit high
54 Wvsuperhornet : "What Ever"!!!!!
55 Dispatchguy : Why not Minot? Freezin's the reason! My guess is that General LeMay is rolling over in grave in embarassment. Doug Former Weapons Load (Conv only, no
56 Venus6971 : Just read in todays paper an AP story about SecDef selecting retired Gen Welch will be heading an independent inquiry to see what happened.
57 Post contains links Venus6971 : here is a link http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/ap_nukeinvestigation_070921/
58 Post contains links Fumanchewd : Interesting long article on MSN concerning the incident. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20926465/ Just after 9 a.m. on Aug. 29, a group of U.S. airmen en
59 VHNSJ : wouldnt the weight difference be noted between the left and right wings?, surely 6 armed missiles would weigh more than 6 dummys
60 Moose135 : One of the weapons guys could say for sure, but I think the dummy missiles would be the same weight as the armed ones to provide the proper feel for
61 PADSpot : A W-80 warhead weighs just 132kg/290lbs. Six of them makes about 800kg/1740lb. Probably too less to be sensed on such a huge bird.
62 L-188 : Too bad we couldn't have had a bit of advanced warning. We could have wrapped his body in copper wire, replaced his head with electricity and generat
63 Post contains links DanatFCM : Washington Post had an interesting article today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2201447.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
64 Post contains links Norlander : New Washington Post article claims tough punishment on it's way: Excerpt: "The Air Force has decided to relieve at least five of its officers of comma
65 RC135X : Thanks for this reference. For sheer entertainment value, I encourage everyone to follow the link at this site to the "Comments" section. The "tin ha
66 L-188 : Actually reading that article, I do find it interesting to note that somebody at Barksdale is likely to get sacked. Was the pilot from that base there
67 Moose135 : Apparently it sat on the ramp at Barksdale for an extended period with the missiles loaded. I guess someone there was supposed to check what was on b
68 Checksixx : I assure you that the author of that article is not only wrong about how it was protected, but also has no clue how we secure our flightlines. Trust
69 Norlander : Based on what? The fact that the officers at Barksdale were credited with a job well done, for following protocol? Funny how that doesn't match up wi
70 Post contains links RC135X : Purely for a tasteless jest, how about Blue Angels Not Welcome In SanFran (by ShyFlyer Jul 11 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
71 Checksixx : Based on I know how Air Force flightlines are secured. You should never assume partner. No one secures flightlines like the Air Force.
72 Wannabe : I know for a fact you walk inside a flightline perimeter without authorization and you will be on the ground with an M-16 to to the back of your head
73 Post contains links RC135X : The results are beginning to appear: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Nuclear-Mistake.html
74 Post contains links Venus6971 : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303622,00.html Like other SAC trained killers like myself this would have never happened in SAC. The above article
75 Post contains links and images Norlander : Honestly, I'll accuse you of assuming. You assume that everything was as it should be. I am saying that everything wasn't as it should be, and as pro
76 L-188 : Actually about 70 troops including those full birds are getting slammed over this, What it sounds like is that a system series of "shortcuts" where d
77 Post contains images Flighty : Al Qaeda figured out we have lax airport security. What if they figured out our lax NUCLEAR security? OH NO.....
78 Checksixx : Sure I understand...your stating that everything did not go as it was supposed to. Way to make an observation! Your what?...Two months late on that?
79 Post contains images CF188A : I really hate being right on A.NET. But noooo early on in this thread I was over reacting!!!! so it was said. because I stated that punishment should
80 UH60FtRucker : Hey Nostradamus, don't you know that gloating is considered poor form? So the way I read the article, out of the 70 people who were punished, only 4
81 Norlander : Right and wrong by my account. The way it's worded in the NYTimes piece is as follows: This means that out of the 70 people, 65 airmen were decertifi
82 Moose135 : Very few of those involved have been identified by name or rank, so I wonder if they are using the term "airmen" to relate to rank, or in the more ge
83 Checksixx : I'm absolutely aware of what your talking about. My argument is simply that they were never unsecure on either flightline. Period.
84 MD11Engineer : Here is a story, which was told to me by a former colleague, who used to be a lead mechanic at the German Luftwaffe base in Buechel, Eiffel: Prelimina
85 PADSpot : The procedures as you describe them have only changed in details today. The detail being: There aren't any nuclear alert formations anymore. But the
86 CF188A : you love being the center of attention is threads don't you? You just love dominating others even when the facts are right above this post... I do no
87 UH60FtRucker : I never said you were wrong. In fact I completely agree that those responsible should be heavily punished. All I said was that gloating, "I was right
88 CF188A : learn to interpret english better then , because it was not meant to be taken in that form. But to be absolutely honest, it is beyond appealing when
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B52 Takes Nuclear Missiles By Mistake
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
B52's Up Close And Personal posted Tue May 29 2007 05:10:33 by Jupiter2
Doorknob 52 ...By A P38 Pilot. posted Sun Mar 4 2007 00:13:58 by Ferrypilot
Early Moon Flight By Orion? posted Wed Jan 31 2007 03:05:19 by Connies4ever
"Recon" Flights By SU During Cold War posted Mon Jan 8 2007 15:25:05 by GOTbound
Air To Air Missiles posted Mon Dec 4 2006 11:40:57 by Ryan h
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
New Boeing CH-47F Helicopter Takes Flight posted Thu Oct 26 2006 09:53:54 by Columba
Tornado Display Filmed By HUD Camera posted Wed Oct 18 2006 20:12:33 by Columba
Space Policy Pushes Manned Flights, Nuclear Power posted Tue Oct 17 2006 21:51:27 by AerospaceFan
AFO In A Nuclear Attack posted Sun Oct 8 2006 15:08:44 by A320ajm

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format