Air Force official fired after 6 nukes fly over U.S.

[AirtrafficController]

B-52 bomber, accidentally armed with warheads, went over several states

WASHINGTON - A B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear warheads and flown for more than three hours across several states last week, prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the mishandling of the weapons “deeply disturbing” and said the committee would press the military for details. Rep. Edward J. Markey, a senior member of the Homeland Security committee, said it was “absolutely inexcusable.”

“Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible,” said Markey, D-Mass., co-chair of the House task force on nonproliferation.

The plane was carrying Advanced Cruise Missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a Defense Department policy not to confirm information on nuclear weapons.

The missiles, which are being decommissioned, were mounted onto pylons on the bomber’s wings and it is unclear why the warheads had not been removed beforehand. Earlier, the Associated Press erroneously reported the bomber was armed with only five warheads.

Investigation to take weeks
The Air Combat Command has ordered a command-wide stand down on Sept. 14 to review procedures, officials said. They said there was minimal risk to crews and the public because of safety features designed into the munitions.

In addition to the munitions squadron commander who was relieved of his duties, crews involved with the mistaken load — including ground crew workers — have been temporarily decertified for handling munitions, one official said.

The investigation is expected to take several weeks.

The incident was first reported by Military Times newspaper group.

“There is no more serious issue than the security and proper handling of nuclear weapons,” Skelton said in a statement Wednesday. “The American people, our friends, and our potential adversaries must be confident that the highest standards are in place when it comes to our nuclear arsenal.”

Skelton, D-Mo., said his committee will pursue answers on the classified matter “to ensure that the Air Force and the Department of Defense address this particular incident and strengthen controls more generally.”

[PhilDernerJr]

I still; don't understand why this was such a big deal. I do understand someone getting fired for mishandling nukes, but the magnitude of the article implies that there was a safety issue.

[T-Bird76]

I agree with Phil, further more even if one did "fall off" it would not detonate. Unless a launch codes was entered they would have just fallen to the ground.

[emshighway]

I agree. I don't get why this is such a big deal. There has to have been hundreds of sorties (thousands even) with nukes aboard.

[Gerard]

>B-52 bomber, accidentally armed with warheads, went over several states
prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander>

You can get "fired" in the military? :?

[PhilDernerJr]

I was wondering the same thing. Was he discharged to reassigned to another job?

[moose135]

Guys, let me tell you as a SAC-trained warrior, this is as serious as it gets. Nobody screws around with nukes!

No, one most likely wouldn't go off if it fell off the aircraft, but if the warhead was damaged, it could spread radioactive material. That is exactly what happened following a mid-air collision between a B-52 and KC-135 over Spain in 1966. The B-52 was carrying 4 nuclear weapons, and the conventional explosives on two of the warheads detonated, spreading plutonium and uranium. As part of the clean up, 1,400 tons of soil and vegetation was removed and brought to the US for disposal.

And regardless of the level of danger, security of nuclear weapons is sacred. This time it was 6 warheads that ended up flying around on a B-52. If there are no repercussions, what will happen the next time someone isn't paying attention? One thing you never do is mishandle nuclear weapons - never!


I agree. I don't get why this is such a big deal. There has to have been hundreds of sorties (thousands even) with nukes aboard.
Well, the standard line is "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons..."
From http://www.nukestrat.com/dk/alert.htm

During the late-1950s and 1960s, the United States maintained up to 12 nuclear-armed bombers airborne 24 hours a day. The justification was fear of a possible Soviet surprise-attack that would be capable of destroying a large portion of the U.S. strategic bomber force on the ground before it get airborne. To prevent such a partial disarming of the U.S. deterrent force, the Pentagon began building up an Airborne Alert Program from the mid-1950s.
In addition to the Spanish crash noted, another incident involved a B-52 which caught fire in flight near Thule, Greenland. The crew bailed out, and again, the conventional explosives on a weapon detonated, causing radioactive contamination. Following these incidents, nuclear-equipped airborne alert missions were no longer flown.


You can get "fired" in the military? :?

Yes - you lose your job, end up as the Moral, Recreation and Welfare officer at some God-forsaken weather station north of the Arctic Circle, and never sniff another promotion or choice assignment for as long as you remain on duty.

I have to say, it seems like the Air Force just isn't the same since they got rid of SAC.
http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/192133273-Th.jpg

[T-Bird76]

Guys, let me tell you as a SAC-trained warrior, this is as serious as it gets. Nobody screws around with nukes!

No, one most likely wouldn't go off if it fell off the aircraft, but if the warhead was damaged, it could spread radioactive material. That is exactly what happened following a mid-air collision between a B-52 and KC-135 over Spain in 1966. The B-52 was carrying 4 nuclear weapons, and the conventional explosives on two of the warheads detonated, spreading plutonium and uranium. As part of the clean up, 1,400 tons of soil and vegetation was removed and brought to the US for disposal.

And regardless of the level of danger, security of nuclear weapons is sacred. This time it was 6 warheads that ended up flying around on a B-52. If there are no repercussions, what will happen the next time someone isn't paying attention? One thing you never do is mishandle nuclear weapons - never!


I agree. I don't get why this is such a big deal. There has to have been hundreds of sorties (thousands even) with nukes aboard.
Well, the standard line is "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons..."
From http://www.nukestrat.com/dk/alert.htm

During the late-1950s and 1960s, the United States maintained up to 12 nuclear-armed bombers airborne 24 hours a day. The justification was fear of a possible Soviet surprise-attack that would be capable of destroying a large portion of the U.S. strategic bomber force on the ground before it get airborne. To prevent such a partial disarming of the U.S. deterrent force, the Pentagon began building up an Airborne Alert Program from the mid-1950s.
In addition to the Spanish crash noted, another incident involved a B-52 which caught fire in flight near Thule, Greenland. The crew bailed out, and again, the conventional explosives on a weapon detonated, causing radioactive contamination. Following these incidents, nuclear-equipped airborne alert missions were no longer flown.


You can get "fired" in the military? :?

Yes - you lose your job, end up as the Moral, Recreation and Welfare officer at some God-forsaken weather station north of the Arctic Circle, and never sniff another promotion or choice assignment for as long as you remain on duty.

I have to say, it seems like the Air Force just isn't the same since they got rid of SAC.
http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/192133273-Th.jpg


Hey John why did they sack SAC? Excuse the pun.

[Mateo]

The safety of the warheads themselves is a slight issue, although probably no worse than when NASA launches a satellite with a tiny nuclear generator aboard. The big issue here is that six nuclear weapons weren't where they were supposed to be. And that's a Major Problem.

[USAF Pilot 07]

Hey John why did they sack SAC? Excuse the pun.


With the end of the Soviet threat didn't SAC for the most part outlive it's usefulness? I believe the whole purpose behind SAC was to be able to launch and support long-range bombings to include nuclear bombings (once developed and brought online). When the nuclear threat was over, I guess it was seen as inefficient to have every fighter/bomber and support aircraft under the same command, supporting an "outdated" mission. I guess the man saw it as more efficient to have all your "attack" aircraft under one command, ACC, and the support aircraft under another, AMC....

Either that or someone just wanted a really nice OPR bullet... 8)

[moose135]

[quote="T-Bird76":92f20]
Hey John why did they sack SAC? Excuse the pun.


With the end of the Soviet threat didn't SAC for the most part outlive it's usefulness? I believe the whole purpose behind SAC was to be able to launch and support long-range bombings to include nuclear bombings (once developed and brought online). When the nuclear threat was over, I guess it was seen as inefficient to have every fighter/bomber and support aircraft under the same command, supporting an "outdated" mission. I guess the man saw it as more efficient to have all your "attack" aircraft under one command, ACC, and the support aircraft under another, AMC....

Either that or someone just wanted a really nice OPR bullet... 8)[/quote:92f20]

It happened a couple of years after I got out of the AF, but from what I read, and from talking to some old squadron mates (including my old aircraft commander, who was a Lt. Col. at the Pentagon as it was happening), the driving force behind the changes was with the end of the Cold War, the "Fighter Mafia" had the opportunity to get control away from the bomber guys. For many years, back to the days of Curtis LeMay, SAC and its commanders dominated the Air Force, given their lead role in the policy of nuclear deterrence.

[moose135]

70 Punished in Accidental B-52 Flight
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 19, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-N ... stake.html (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Nuclear-Mistake.html)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Air Force said Friday it has punished 70 airmen involved in the accidental, cross-country flight of a nuclear-armed B-52 bomber following an investigation that found widespread disregard for the rules on handling such munitions. ''There has been an erosion of adherence to weapons-handling standards at Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base,'' said Maj. Gen. Richard Newton, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations.
...
A main reason for the error was that crews had decided not to follow a complex schedule under which the status of the missiles is tracked while they are disarmed, loaded, moved and so on, one official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record. The airmen replaced the schedule with their own ''informal'' system, he said, though he didn't say why they did that nor how long they had been doing it their own way.
...
Newton said the flight in question resulted from an ''unprecedented string of procedural errors,'' beginning with a failure by airmen to conduct a required inspection of the missiles before they were loaded aboard the B-52 bomber at Minot. The crew flying the plane was unaware nuclear warheads were on its wing, though it wasn't explained what role they played in the mistake.

Highest ranked among those punished were four officers who were relieved this week of their commands, including the 5th Bomb Wing commander at Minot -- Col. Bruce Emig, who also has been the base commander since June.

In addition, the wing has been ''decertified from its wartime mission,'' Newton said.

Some 65 airmen have been decertified from handling nuclear weapons. The certification process looks at a person's psychological profile, any medications they are taking and other factors in determining a person's reliability to handle weapons.
...
[Air Force Secretary Michael W] Wynne prefaced his remarks about the B-52 incident by saying that, in publicly confirming that nuclear weapons were involved, he had authorized a one-time exception to U.S. policy, which states that the location of nuclear weapons will never be confirmed publicly. He said he made this exception because of the seriousness of the episode and its importance to the nation.

[Matt Molnar]

As you all know I'm very anti-conspiracy theory, but this story is so ludicrous that I can't help but question what really happened. Early speculation was that this was a veiled threat against Iran (the military made a point of mentioning that Minot is a critical re-supply point for operations in the Middle East), but then why the massive disciplinary action? The scary part: early reports from Barksdale stated there were five nukes on board, but later reports from Minot said there were six nukes missing. Where is the other one? :shock:

[moose135]

There were a couple of early stories that reported different numbers of missiles between Minot and Barksdale, but I think that was just caused by different, spotty information from different sources as the story was breaking.

I've read most of the stories on this in the last couple of days, and I can believe this is the straight scoop. It was caused by sloppy handling, people assuming someone else checked (the flight crew was supposed to check all the missiles, but only one member checked one side) and people becoming lax in following procedures. One report included some interesting (to me) information. Since the end of the Cold War, and the end of SAC, the nuclear bomber mission is no longer the "glamour" job it once was. Not that pulling EWO alert at Minot in the dead of winter was ever a "glamour" job, but the bomber guys ran the Air Force, and doing well in SAC was a ticket to advancement. Since the "Fighter Mafia" took over the AF, and rolled the bomber mission in with the fighter guys, the nuclear bomber mission became the "red-headed step-child" of Air Combat Command (apologies to anyone who is a red-head, or a step-child!) and no longer attracted the "best & brightest" of the AF. This has resulted in people without the right training, skills, and attitude ending up in some of these jobs.

As I've said before, this wouldn't have happened in SAC.

[Matt Molnar]

Okay, I'll take off my tinfoil hat. :)

[hiss srq]

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j157/jetjocksrq/1177258932PDj28W.jpg