The Rouge B-52, a foiled attack on Iran, and a missing Missile

[Makalakumu]

Having spent over 17 years in nuclear weapons handling, command and control of nuclear capable forces, holding the postion of wing weapons officer of a strategic bomb wing, and with over 2000 flight hours in the B52 during the height of the Cold War I can honestly say that I know something about this subject.

Simply put, there are just too many safeguards in place for this to have happened.

For what to have happened, Bill? For the weapons to be accidentally transported or for one of them not to be accounted for or both?

 

[Makalakumu]

But seriously, the government was not preparing to strike Iran, launch a false flag attack, have sex with the missiles, or engage in any other conspiracy theory. It just happened to be a case of military negligence, and the people who were responsible were not only publically revealed, but they were reprimanded for their negligence. Now where is that red B-52?

I won't pretend that I even have a clue as to what happened. I don't trust the reporting on this. I'd like to think it was just a mistake (gulp, as bad as that sounds since we are talking about the US' nuclear arsenal), but when ret. colonels in the Air Force start describing how this couldn't ever have happened...well lets just say that Occums Razor cuts both ways.

 

[Empty Hands]

Simply put, there are just too many safeguards in place for this to have happened.

Can the conspiracy nuts just get back to concentrating on Area 51?

So why did the military announce that this was what happened, and announced a major investigation?

Just bored? Tired of being gainfully employed? Do they feel that the Air Force has just too much respect these days?

 

[elder999]

Having spent over 17 years in nuclear weapons handling, command and control of nuclear capable forces, holding the postion of wing weapons officer of a strategic bomb wing, and with over 2000 flight hours in the B52 during the height of the Cold War I can honestly say that I know something about this subject.

Simply put, there are just too many safeguards in place for this to have happened.

Can the conspiracy nuts just get back to concentrating on Area 51?

Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

This is territory where Bill and I might not even want to go, so I'll preface my remarks by saying that they are purely speculative, and you can find speculation from equally or more greatly informed sources than I on the internet, if you know where to look.

The wepons are stored in an alarmed bunker-to be removed, the alarm had to be disabled. This requires the actions of two people-as almost all such actions involving nuclear weapons do.

The weapons themselves are probably equipped with electronic alarms. These alarms also had to be disabled by two people.\

To disable these alarms probably required the expressed authorization and confirmation of authorization from-you guessed it, two parallel authorities.


The weapons were each mounted onto cruise missiles, which probably required the expressed authorization and confirmation of authorization from-you guessed it, two parallel authorities

The missiles were mounted onto a B-52, which probably required the expressed authorization and confirmation of authorization from-you guessed it, two parallel authorities.

Of course, loading nuclear missiles on a bomber has supposedly been barred, even for practice or triaining purposes, since 1991.

Of course, the flight of nuclear equipped bombers over U.S. airspace has supposedly been banned for 40 years.

There are, of course, flaws in the safeguards-I've engaged in a few "coffee-table" discussions about how such flaws could be exploited,in order to improve security-understand, the security involved is probably no more complex than that at a higher end antique or jewelry store, or a bank with large amounts of cash or precious metals. This one started with the missiles being stored improperly,someone mistakenly picking them up for disposal, and , supposedly, no one noticing they were "special."

And that's about all I'm going to say about it.

 

[SageGhost83]

This is territory where Bill and I might not even want to go, so I'll preface my remarks by saying that they are purely speculative, and you can find speculation from equally or more greatly informed sources than I on the internet, if you know where to look.

The wepons are stored in an alarmed bunker-to be removed, the alarm had to be disabled. This requires the actions of two people-as almost all such actions involving nuclear weapons do.

The weapons themselves are probably equipped with electronic alarms. These alarms also had to be disabled by two people.\

To disable these alarms probably required the expressed authorization and confirmation of authorization from-you guessed it, two parallel authorities.


The weapons were each mounted onto cruise missiles, which probably required the expressed authorization and confirmation of authorization from-you guessed it, two parallel authorities

The missiles were mounted onto a B-52, which probably required the expressed authorization and confirmation of authorization from-you guessed it, two parallel authorities.

Of course, loading nuclear missiles on a bomber has supposedly been barred, even for practice or triaining purposes, since 1991.

Of course, the flight of nuclear equipped bombers over U.S. airspace has supposedly been banned for 40 years.

There are, of course, flaws in the safeguards-I've engaged in a few "coffee-table" discussions about how such flaws could be exploited,in order to improve security-understand, the security involved is probably no more complex than that at a higher end antique or jewelry store, or a bank with large amounts of cash or precious metals. This one started with the missiles being stored improperly,someone mistakenly picking them up for disposal, and , supposedly, no one noticing they were "special."

And that's about all I'm going to say about it.

Perhaps one person made a mistake at the beginning and it snowballed? Perhaps the others gave that person the benefit of the doubt and just unknowingly (or lazily/complacently) continued onward with the process not knowing that there had been a serious goof to begin with? I don't know, upnorth and elder, both of your presentations of the details does make one think, not to mention bdparsons' input. I would like to give the government the benefit of the doubt, myself. However, their track record within the last few years has been very sketchy when it comes to being truthful. So, I guess that I will just have to keep a more open mind about the incident. I doubt that something is amiss, however, I won't completely rule it out now.

 

[elder999]

Perhaps one person made a mistake at the beginning and it snowballed? .

Improbably :lol:

 

[Archangel M]