digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Oops - US mistakenly flies nuclear missiles over continental US

rawstory.com — A B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base, La. However, the mistake was not discovered until the B-52 landed at Barskdale, which left the warheads unaccounted for during the approximately 3 1/2 hour flight between the two bases, the officers said.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • sjl127, on 10/10/2007, -25/+259You "don't" mistakingly carry nuclear weapons. Who's the airforce trying to *****?
    • prolog, on 10/10/2007, -11/+28Well what exactly would their motive be, carrying nuclear missles around the country?
      • InfamousAtheist, on 10/10/2007, -11/+10Subverting dissent...?
        • YoctoYotta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think if they were interested in doing that, they wouldn't have told us they made a mistake.
        • ptrr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"We accidently left them attached to the wings of a 50 year old bomber, don't worry we love you though."
      • Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -4/+65Fight club.




        ***** insane, nuclear fight club.
        • ChuyMatt, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Flight club.
        • blackfox026, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club.
        • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ blackfox026
          the first rule of Insane Nuclear Fight Club is you don't talk about Insane Nuclear Fight Club, cause you'll get exploded to hell if you do. And also, so will probably everyone else in the city, so actually, tell whoever you want, it won't matter.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9That's what we want to know, dumbass.
        • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4You already have it, its just not one thats "good enough" for your tin foil moonbat libtard hysterics.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4WTF IS A MOONBAT LIBTARD MAN!!!! lol. where's the dictionary that spawned those words. ... they don't even sound legal. I'm just going to ignore your comment.
          • mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Great job ignoring his comment. 4 statements.
          • GiggleStick, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I'd send you a link, but it's not in all CAPS so I don't know if you could read it. Oh wait, you either use all caps or all lowercase, I see. Maybe there is hope for you after all.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Obviously they wanted to crash the plane into a large skyscraper...just like they did last time. DUH!
      • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9It is almost Sept. 11th...

        /removes tin-foil hat
        • ChileanGoD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And lets face it. Bush needs another one of those right now.
      • erissiva, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A false-flag (in this case, a mistaken-flag) attack would be very likely and has been alluded to by many previous-senior officials as happening sometime this fall.
      • BearinG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would say.. "moving" them maybe? without actually "moving" them on purpose
    • AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -8/+75Looks like a place where you might want to apply Hanlon's razor "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Looks like some genius forgot to remove the warheads before loading the missiles. Heads are definitely going to roll.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -19/+8I disagree. There are no idiots who are put in place to secure nuclear warheads. YOU, would be the idiot to assume that. This government has fallen THAT low. People like you still think Bush "made a mistake" by going into Iraq, so your say so on matters should be mute. Don't forget, during the cold war we racked up 7 trillion simply defending the nukes we'd built. Living in a fairy tale world were Beavis and Butthead are gaurding nuclear weapons only reduce your standing among peers. I'm blocking you because I'm sure your future "insight" will be utterly worthless.
        • Niten, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Frnnkdlxx, thank you for demonstrating that the only thing worse than being a delusional, annoying, rabid idiot is being oblivious to top it off. In addition, I recommend that you go see a doctor and have your blood pressure checked immediately.
        • fmoliveira, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6These things are dangerous, but this guy (the responsible for unloading the plane), is probably very used to nuclear warheads. This give a false sense of security, and this can make someone to be careless with extremely dangerous things. And anyway, I'm used to see stupidity in places were I previously didnt expect it.
        • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Thats weird how you can quickly presuem that by equating this to a mistake automatically means that "people like him still think Bush 'made a mistake'".

          You're just being stupid.
        • AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9"There are no idiots who are put in place to secure nuclear warheads."

          Talk about being naïve. Let's ignore for a moment the fact that even a fairly intelligent person can make a mistake. Your argument assumes that, of all the people in charge of assigning others to secure nuclear warheads, none of them are idiots or capable of having a lapse of judgment. You really do have too high an opinion of people in general. Being in a position of authority doesn't make someone less likely to be an idiot, or to make mistakes.


          "People like you still think Bush "made a mistake" by going into Iraq, so your say so on matters should be mute."

          "People like me"? You have no idea what my stance on that particular issue is, yet you feel that you somehow have enough info based on a single, unrelated comment that you can pigeonhole me and surmise that I have nothing useful to say? You sir, are an idiot of the highest order.


          "I'm blocking you because I'm sure your future "insight" will be utterly worthless."

          No skin off my back. Just more of the "I'm not listening to you!" response that you seem to like. But you seem too vested in wanting to lay the blame for everything on a few individuals to even be willing to entertain the possibility that not *everything* is a plot by the current administration. That smacks of conspiracy theory, which makes me question your faculty for rational thought.

          I have no plans to block you, however. I have a feeling that you may have something else entertaining to say at some point, and I wouldn't want to miss it.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2@AnteChronos. I didn't block you, not the least because I am "lazy", per se, but because I just installed high speed cable and by the time I could do it, I had already calmed down. So, in response to the main body of your argument being that one man who became comfortable with his position could make a mistake, even regarding highly dangerous nuclear material.

          To believe that, you would have to believe that the security management of such a device was handled by one man. That would be ignoring a chain that goes up to generals. You want me to ignore my irational conspiratorial musings and simply accept that orders that come from a general > down to another team who obviously know what's going on and what the payload was carrying > down to the militaries inspectors who are going to ask even more questions. I think by the time the thing was ready to take off, it would have been checked no less than three times and taking over 3 hours. That's more than enough time for a "D'OH" moment and a quick shut down of the entire manuever. *sighs*

          Let's just go back to sleep and ignore it all....Ignore it all...........
        • compdude32, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Apparently you lack comprehension skills as well, AnteChronos said nothing about someone becomeing too comfortable in their job.

          And as far as shutting down the entire manuever, where do you think they should have landed this plane? Only a handful of Military airstrips in this country can support the massive B-52, so would you rather land it at a commercial strip where there is not the same high security as the military strips, and where civilians are?
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6How does stupidity adequately explain nuclear weapons going missing for 3 1/2 hours? If stupidity is all it takes to loose nuclear weapons, it's a miracle we've keep track of them thus far.
        • cpuRemix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I doubt anyone is going to be fired over this. I mean look at Iraq.
        • Niten, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You really believe that just because a nuclear device is involved, the entire human chain of command suddenly becomes infallible? Somebody made a mistake. In the absence of any evidence (or even any conceivable motive) to the contrary, that somebody ***** up is absolutely the only rational thing that one can deduce from this.
    • cmpshotty, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7"The B-52 was loaded with Advanced Cruise Missiles, part of a Defense Department effort to decommission 400 of the ACMs. But the nuclear warheads should have been removed at Minot before being transported to Barksdale, the officers said. The missiles were mounted onto the pylons of the bomber’s wings."


      http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070904/NEWS01/70904040

      So you're right, you don't mistakenly carry them!
      • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9From the above: “Air Force standards are very exacting when it comes to munitions handling,” he said. “The weapons were always in our custody and there was never a danger to the American public.”

        Very exacting, except when you forget to remove the nuclear warheads. Never a danger, unless the aircraft has a mechanical failure which results in a ditch, and no one knows that there's now radioactive material spread across several miles of random landscape.
        • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Nope. The warheads are designed to stay intact in such an event. There might be a number of nuclear devices in the wild, as it were, but the radioactive material would be contained.
          • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Maybe. When a B52 carrying nuclear munitions crashed in Spain(?), radioactive material was spread about a considerable area. It all depends on the amount of energy and the circumstances of the impact.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2True. I remember watching the history channel and finding out that there were more than two nuclear warheads, potentially active were in secluded areas that could go off at any time and they'd never been recovered. Ticking time bombs, waiting to render a portion of the U.S. a wasteland. But they've evacuated a whole city on this presumption before.
      • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14There's virtually no chance of them leaking radioactive material. Hell, they lost one off the cost of Georgia in the 50's and still haven't found it. If it was leaking, it would actually be a lot easier to trace.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tybee_Bomb
        • physphd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's only one of dozens known. http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/thermonuclear-oops-list.html

          Scary, no?
          • Scarfy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1*sigh* We shouldn't even have to worry about this but noooo, apparently we need countless nuclear weapons.
          • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2True, however it's one of the more well known ones. It's also one of the funnier ones because they have a pretty good idea of where it is and it's theoretically retrievable, but actually going out and digging the damn thing up is just not something they want to actually do.
        • oogee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1from the wiki:
          "The B-47 bomber was on a simulated combat mission from Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. It was carrying a single 7,600 pound (3,500 kg) bomb."
          Simulated. *****, I would have assumed they'd start simulating the nuclear bombs attached to the bottom of the plane after this accident, but the article mentions 14 missing nukes!
          • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, apparently nobody in the military ever got the bright idea that you can actually simulate a 8000 pound bomb with a big can full of 8000 pounds of concrete.
      • CalmLlama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5They have lost warheads in the past on b52s where the warheads came apart and spread nuclear material around.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2lol. I don't make mistakes in my judgement.
    • snypa, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Someone insert the ascii image of hand wiping face.
    • jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38it's not like they will explode if you drop them. The bombs have to be triggered. Even if the plane crashed, the bombs wouldn't detonate.
      • lostradamus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29But then some country hick would have 6 nukes in his basement.
        • Hockey37, on 10/10/2007, -1/+38Which would be on eBay the next day.
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4It'd be impossible to keep them secret.

          The hills have eyes.
        • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10You leave me and my basement out of this. We've already got plenty.
        • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Coffee tables?
        • Archon810, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Airplane crap tanks?
      • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Even still, this is somewhat alarming as accidents go.

        The issue is a matter of control and security.
      • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The material would still be harmful if it were spread over a crash site. Depending on how and where the warheads broke up upon impact the contaminated from the material they contain could be significant.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, many such incidents have happened in the past where nuclear weapons have been lost by both of the Cold War era superpowers. I can't find that link, so I had to settle for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents
    • SpectralSounds, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Wouldnt the quotes have been better placed around, "mistakenly"?
    • Blackmane, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22Probably a practice for the invasion of Iran next week.
    • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4Dugg down. Lame story. Nuclear weapons constantly travel back and forth in the US. The bombs were mis-directed not lost. They were in custody the whole time. The person that leaked this should go to jail.
      • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So someone that allowed the US to know about a critical failure in procedure should be sent to jail? What about people who report on Arsenic in Advil? Should they go to jail? How about those reporters that covered the racially-spurred beatings in California? They should go to jail too, right? After all, they had no business getting into other's business.
        • ventralnet, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2If it is classified information... yes
      • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"leaked this", Why did you drink the ***** kool-aid? Us people of the United States have a right to know what happens regarding our military, they are not above us. We the people are their "owners".
    • sjl127, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Check this out - How convenient that there's a B2 squadron located in LA at this base.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Bomb_Wing
    • duggtodeath, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Seems to me like a practice run for the next false flag attack :(
      • otakushark, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yeah, the brilliant part was to let word of it spread all over the media like that. Really adds to the secrecy.
    • friedcalamari, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There is noting wrong with flying nukes. There is -- on the other hand, a huge problem flying ARMED nukes, like on said plane.
    • Midvicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You know, one time, I forgot to throw away a box of condoms my girlfriend found who was on birth control... yeah... I can probably explain that one with a modicum of an excuse that would never work. No responsibility save for me and my girl. But you know what? I can pretty much say as a responsible, tax paying citizen of America that I would pretty much never forget to remove Nuclear arsenals from a plane about to travel across country. Yeah, that's like, what the ***** man, are you a goddamn incompetent retard or are you just that terribly *****?
    • Scarfy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I wish digg had an option to filter out depressing news.
    • ws002, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Perhaps this article gives an explanation?
      http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/staging_nuke_for_iran
  • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -27/+26And people are supposed to feel safe because the Government is supposedly protecting them? Give me a break! The US Government is proving to be one of the biggest threats in history.
  • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+137Wasn't this a John Travolta movie?
    • kavery, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Nah, it was actually a movie with Christian Slater I think.
    • dixonij, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Well, you are both right... Broken Arrow starring John Travolta and Christian Slater.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I was thinking more along the lines of "Never Say Never Again"

      They were cruise missiles after all.
      • drimo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Never Say Never Again" was a remake of "Thunderball".
    • lostradamus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Hairspray?
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Wasn't this article found by Infowars first?
    • UlicBelouve, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Ironically, I just watched Broken Arrow on Blu-Ray this past Sunday.
      • SirRobertJoseph, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Not ironic whatsoever.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Terrible acting by the guy who wasn't travolta, right?
  • purpmint008, on 10/10/2007, -33/+1▐
    • tehawesome531, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I totally, 100 percent, agree.
  • jabob, on 10/10/2007, -11/+124Digg needs a "U.S. Gov't stupidity" section...
    • BreakTheB0x, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6AMEN!
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+47http://digg.com/2008_us_elections
    • Bhima, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21There's not a server made that could take that
    • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That would be redundant.
    • orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3We're gonna need a bigger datacenter...
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3THAT'S WHY THEY DID IT! You're a genius!

      *thinks to self* There is obviously no way in hell that the individuals who care for the U.S' nuclear armory would be incompetent. That's like sayin Rambo was a nerd in school or that Nikola Tesla was a slacker. Then rewind to Bush's New presidential directive outlining how in the event of any national emergency, he'd assume role as complete dictator. What would that national emergency be? We asked. People around the country have been having nuclear drills which were unprecedented since the fall of the Soviets.

      ANd here we are. Openly telling the public, "oops, we "accidentally" loaded nukes in our planes, we're so stooopeeeed, dooyyy", when we should know they're anything, but. So, this is the cutoff, where those who believe in conspiracy theory and those who don't begin to drift. But just keep this in your mind. If a nuke goes off in the U.S, are you really going to believe the future historical record of government ignorance? Or that there was indeed a conspiracy to undermine the security and therefore livelihood of this nation. I leave that decision to you.
      • AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"There is obviously no way in hell that the individuals who care for the U.S' nuclear armory would be incompetent."

        You have much too high an opinion of people. There's no way in hell that *some* of the people in charge of our nuclear weapons *aren't* incompetent.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I agree. But consider that a single person is not going to be caring for it. Then notice how far the chain of command goes for a nuclear weapon. Plus:

          "From the above: “Air Force standards are very exacting when it comes to munitions handling,” he said. “The weapons were always in our custody and there was never a danger to the American public.”

          Very exacting, except when you forget to remove the nuclear warheads. Never a danger, unless the aircraft has a mechanical failure which results in a ditch, and no one knows that there's now radioactive material spread across several miles of random landscape."
      • GaidinTS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Never underestimate the incompetence of people in North Dakota. I say this while living in ND myself, and I know first hand.
    • leexy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's already there. It's called "world news".
    • expatcatalyst, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Oh and Grand Canada never messes up?
      • Sornos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No, we don't. We only have reasoning impaired decisions. We never mess up. Everything we do is on purpose. But we can't guarantee we were thinking straight at the time.
        • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ha even the successes that are made in the US are done by accident. So that means we would pwn Canada even harder if we actually tried not to screw up..
    • c130commnav, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You obviously where not in the military, there are a lot of stupid people in the AF, even ones in charge of important things. Hell they let me work on multi-million dollar aircraft
  • gtluke, on 10/10/2007, -15/+48oh come on, they weren't armed.
    • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4You didn't watch the video then. They said specifically that they were armed.
      • gtluke, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The B-52 was loaded with Advanced Cruise Missiles
        the b-52 doesn't shoot missiles, how are they armed? they were mounted to missiles yes, but there was not way to shoot them off, and they weren't "armed" as in the nuclear material wasn't physically inserted into the core.
        and nukes dropped from a plane need to be armed by the crew of the bomber once it is in flight.
      • expatcatalyst, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Having worked on B-52's and having been a missile launch officer later, believe me, they weren't armed no matter what some video says. By the way, up until the early 70's, nuke loaded aircraft on airborne alert were the norm....
    • theivanwu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"A military official told CNN there was no nuclear risk to public safety because the weapons were not armed. Officials believe that if the plane had crashed or the missiles somehow had fallen off the wings, the warheads would have remained inert and there would have been no nuclear detonation, though conventional explosive material in the warhead could have detonated."

      Check again orderdigg.
    • Unlgued, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Oh come on, maaaan, ah had the saaayf-tee on.
    • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Would it be ok for a terrorist group to hold nukes if they were not armed? Nukes are powerful weapons, which is the reason many countries make sure they do not leak any information on how to build one.
      • expatcatalyst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Terrorist and the US Government, that's apples & oranges....
      • Salgat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Especially when we we're flying these things over our own country.
    • kidtwist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5No, but they contained nuclear material and in the event of a crash, would have caused a lot of problems, especially a crash in a populated area.
      • Salgat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Without a strong explosion to vaporize and expand the material across several miles, I highly doubt this.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Oh, come on baby. It only went half-way up your ass!"
  • mylicon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+81Looks like even the military can leave their coffee cup on top of the car...
    • sjl127, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10They're held to a higher standard since they possess such powerful weapons. They're not allowed to "leave a cup of coffee in a car" yet alone fly with 5 nuclear warheads and not know it until after the fact. Some need to lose their job over this.
      • c130commnav, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That someone will probably be some airmen who was just doing what he was told.
    • SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That is a terrifying (and true) analogy. Well played.
    • TheKarmaPolice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1except this cup of coffee could kill millions of people...
      • TVarmy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If a cup of hot coffee spills in the right place, it can cost a major corporation half a billion dollars. Both grave situations for the bottom line. :P
    • observed45, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The security that surrounds (or is SUPPOSED to surround) all nuclear weapons makes it decidedly improbable that these little gems could have been "forgotten" on ANY car roof. Don't forget that if these things "blow away" it's some HUMAN (maybe even one of us) that's getting "blown cool"!
  • Oculus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+71I would think nuclear warheads are flown over the U.S. all of the time. Do you think they are always transported on the ground? Sounds like a scare tactic playing on the fact that some people think if the plane crashed, the warheads would automatically detonate like an armed bomb.
    • trer, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1That's one of those things where I don't want to find out what *would* happen.
      • Antialias, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9They already know what *would* happen. Nuclear bombs have been dropped from numerous heights without a single one detonating if the bomb isn't armed. A nuke is a very complex machine and things have to go just right for it to detonate, falling out of a plane will do nothing to make it explode.
        • techresearcher, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0How do you know so much about nukes???
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3A falling bomb, unless armed, would only "explode" in the sense that it would go SPLAT like any hunk of metal.
        Ditto for if the airplane caught fire and exploded.

        No nuclear explosion. Radioactive material getting scattered? Perhaps.
        • techresearcher, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"Radioactive material getting scattered? Perhaps"....
          Thats almost as bad the thing detonating.
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's a heck of a lot better. A detonation would spread and atomize nuclear material, in addition to the expected explosion.
          • kosmoX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'll take radiation over a huge explosion AND radiation any day...
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I wouldn't think that the arms would explode. I would think that the nuclear material would be let loose on an unsuspecting public.
      • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3You think that because you have no idea how they are engineered. The warheads are designed to remain intact in such a situation.
      • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Those mothas are tough, it's unlikely anything will leak out.
        Even if it did, it's all mostly solid, it would just stay there, in a lump.
    • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23I think the problem is that they did not KNOW they were transporting them.
      • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Or where they were for that matter. Which means they could have went missing and no-one would have ever known. That's the whole point, not that it "could have" detonated.
    • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Actually, routine transport is often done using unmarked semis. They have escorts, never pull into weigh stations, and are never pulled over. They drivers and the escorts are well armed.
      • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5So then they can easily be spotted: look for the trucks that don't get pulled over for skipping the weigh stations.
        • fatesdefiance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are electronic systems like PrePass that allow any truck to bypass certain weigh stations. If you think you can "easily" spot specific tractor-trailer rigs, you have no conception of the quantity of motor carrier freight on our highways.
      • pweegar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yep and those convoyes are things you don't want to mess with. I was stationed at an weapons depot in the South Western US. It's one of the few times we allowed both sally port gates to be openned at the same time.

        Plus the trailers have sensors on them so they can be tracked any were they go. Lots of fun when those sensors malfunction and we had to set up security on the trailers until they got fixed.
    • Nuleren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4From http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html
      "Shepperd said the U.S. had agreed in a Cold War-era treaty not to fly nuclear weapons. 'It appears that what happened was this treaty agreement was violated,' he said."
      • TVarmy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh snap! This will ruin all our good will with the USSR!
    • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4My view on this is that they were flown is not the issue, but rather the fact that the Air Force had lost track of these warheads during the time while they were in flight. Yes, I'm sure many are flown, it's a bit more secure than transport by truck, especially when you think about the statistics of air accidents vs. traffic accidents. I have no apprehension over that aspect. No, the fact that the Air Force had lost them (even if it was only three hours) demonstrates that they're not as responsible with Weapons of Mass Destruction as they purport to be. That's the issue.
    • expatcatalyst, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Not to mention that I first saw this as a new feed to my igoogle from Al-jazeera......
  • muki, on 10/10/2007, -4/+127I hope to live the rest of my life without ever hearing the words 'mistake' and 'nuclear warhead' in the same context...
    • techresearcher, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Dugg for cre8tivitivity
    • observed45, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0oooh, even as an agnostic I must say "Your mouth to God's ear!" AMEN!!!!!
  • smithfly114, on 10/10/2007, -14/+28Even if they had been mistakenly dropped or had the plane crashed, no harm would have been done. The weapons require an extensive arming procedure before they are dangerous.
    • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8That somewhat misses the concern ..
      • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Right. I am more concerned by the fact that they DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE CARRYING NUCLEAR MATERIAL.
    • samadam, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18so the shattered plutonium shell thrown around the crash site wouldn't be a concern to you?
    • leaknoil, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13They contain high explosives, radioactive material, and rocket fuel. I'm not so sure no damage would be done in the event of a crash.
      • Disodium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1damage yes, nuclear detonation not at all. the high explosives can even detonate and no chain reaction will happen. Nuclear warheads are designed to survive pretty much anything and not detonate without being armed
    • DDoSAttack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6So you trust that nothing bad would happen even though THIS should have never happened right?
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I think the point is, the warheads could have went missing and no-one would have ever known, not that it "could have" detonated.
  • Bensign, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7"The missiles were mounted onto the pylons of the bomber’s wings." Wait, this happens how?
  • Vektuz, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20Thats okay, they do go missing sometimes, and I'm sure when missing warheads are found, the person finding them will return them to the government. They're BOUND to have an "if lost, please return to..." tag on them, after all, right?
    • Blackmane, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't no why but I thought so the Simpsons Movie then when Homer writes on his pig crap container with his address on it.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You just drop them in the nearest mail box
    • Baroja1898, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0roflmao
    • observed45, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0oh, wait, levity!
  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -19/+2Well, that COULD have been a huge disaster. Imagine if one of those bad boys accidentally fell out? I know that never happens, but wow...
    • doubleaught, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Nuclear weapons have to be armed, if one of them fell it would hit the ground... really hard. That's about it. No explosion.
      • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah, but what if it fell on someone! That would hurt!
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If they survived, it would make a superb anecdote, and the government would probably pay all medical expenses to keep them from a fuss.

          "Did I ever tell you about the time I survived being hit with a nuclear bomb?"
        • doubleaught, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0rofl to both responses ^^^^
      • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Didn't the vid say they were armed?
        • doubleaught, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0No reason to arm them unless we're launching. I think the comments about how the missiles were supposed to be disarmed/removed might have confused you, which in retrospect I could see. They just meant removing the nuclear warhead from the missile, not that the warheads themselves were armed.
    • CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, just think of how frequently stuff falls out of planes... I mean, they should seriously think of closing the doors on these planes and tying down those nukes with some rope or something
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5A practice strafing run at an Air force base in what used to be LA ended tragically in a NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST! ... In other news, Paris Hilton in jail again. More at Armageddon.
    • Vorrel, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Yea, because B-52's can strafe...
      dumbass.
  • navtejkohli, on 10/10/2007, -14/+11How tough is it to make these things go off? Would a hard landing do it? A crash landing? A complete plane wreck? Are they very volatile or does it take a lot to set one off?
    • smithfly114, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10stop talking, read more.
      • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Wow, get your head out of your ass. He's asking a question. He asked it genuinely, politely, and carefully. Would you rather he start making assumptions like many posters do around here?
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Answers: Very tough. No. No. No. It takes a lot and can't be done accidentally.
    • Vektuz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Its not possible to cause them to detonate except by activating them intentionally
    • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Consider the story behind the movie "Men of Honor".

      Brashear's leg was injured during recovery operations for a nuclear bomb that was lost off the coast of Palomares, Spain after two U.S. Air Force planes collided during refueling operations. The bomb was recovered intact from the bottom of the Mediterranean after being in a mid air collision and falling out of the sky.
    • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Consider the story behind the movie "Men of Honor".

      Brashear's leg was injured during recovery operations for a nuclear bomb that was lost off the coast of Palomares, Spain after two U.S. Air Force planes collided during refueling operations. The bomb was recovered intact from the bottom of the Mediterranean after being in a mid air collision and falling out of the sky.
    • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Consider the story behind the movie "Men of Honor".

      Brashear's leg was injured during recovery operations for a nuclear bomb that was lost off the coast of Palomares, Spain after two U.S. Air Force planes collided during refueling operations. The bomb was recovered intact from the bottom of the Mediterranean after being in a mid air collision and falling out of the sky.
  • mantomi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32It wont blow up unless you want it to.
  • leth4l, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3BROKEN ARROW!!! BROKEN ARROW!!!!!
  • ricer333, on 10/10/2007, -2/+151"We have a Broken Arrow"
    "A what?"
    "A Broken Arrow. It's when we lose a nuclear weapon."
    "I don't know what's scarier, the fact that we lost nukes or the fact that it happens often enough that we have a name for it"
    • gback2000, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3 Broken Arrow refers to an accidental event that involves nuclear weapons or nuclear components but which does not create the risk of nuclear war. These include:

      * Nuclear detonation.
      * Non-nuclear detonation or burning of a nuclear weapon.
      * Radioactive contamination.
      * Jettisoning of a nuclear weapon or nuclear component.[3]
      * Public hazard, actual or implied

      Empty Quiver refers to the seizure, theft, or loss of a nuclear weapon or nuclear component.
    • TwwIX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I still can't believe that John Woo directed this piece of crap.
      Face Off kicked ass though.
  • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -18/+4moveon-buried
    thinkprogress-buried
    rawstory-buried
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2i was waiting for someone to make this comment so i could ***** laugh.
      • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2 Yep. Blogspam should always get buried. Find a better place to get your 'news'.
        • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Explain to me how that is blogspam. Why are you using the internet if you only want 'news' from 'reputable' sources?
      • observed45, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0okay, so you admit to being a generally offensive, unimaginative, and just plain rude watse of protoplasm then?
    • Andrew626, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Is there a way just to auto bury them?
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2knee-jerk burying: Buried.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You forgot infowars and prisonplanet you empty headed biased rootworm.
  • kavery, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3I smell a future 24 plot.
  • choppasizzle, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2the cheneyiacs are at it again...be prepared
  • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5FALSE FLAG!!! BUSCHO! BUILDING 7! WTC! 9/11!!
  • vondur, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5What could possibly go wrong?
  • MadN, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Hmmm,
    Were they "mistakenly" flown over Iran on the way to Louisiana?
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17skip the blogspam
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html
    • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Why are you on the internet if you'd prefer CNN to, um, an internet news site? That's like, so 20th century.
    • fatesdefiance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because CNN at least pretends to be non-partisan--unlike Rawstory which only pretends to be a news site.
  • Lister169, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2So that's why they call it "fly-over country"...
  • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Why must we digg blogspam to the front page? Can't we just digg the article or video they plagerized?
    • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Um, they didn't plagiarize anything.

      By simply hosting a video that's freely available? Heh.
    • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Um, they didn't plagiarize anything.

      By simply hosting a video that's freely available? Heh.
  • doubleaught, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8Buried. This belongs in fark: news organizations "making" news when there's no real news around.
    Don't get me wrong, mistakes like this should be avoided and the military was right to demote and dismiss people involved. It's a huge mistake, but the warheads never left military control or this country, and presented no danger to anyone in north america.
    • kidtwist, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Unless the airplane crashed, that is.
      • DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Kidtwist - you *do* realize that until sometime in the 1970s we had planes flying with nuclear weapons on a regular basis, right?
        • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And you *do* realize that it was just as bad an idea back then as it is today, right? That ***** needs to be decommissioned, denatured, and destroyed. Hell, even the war profiteers should hate nukes. One jet with one missile. One explosion. One entire city destroyed. After that they either surrender or the ***** hits the fan and we all lose. Either way, they take a pay cut.
  • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10I think the big question I'd be asking is what the hell are the nukes doing sitting around with the conventional missiles where they could just accidentally be stuck on a plane? I want nuclear bombs locked away where Gomer Pyle can't pull that crap. PUT THE NUKES AWAY!

    Iran is saying they've got their 300 centrifuges or whatever and now we're moving nuclear missiles around? It sounds to me like the Bush administration is planning to fight global warming with nuclear winter.

    Please, let's start impeachment proceedings now if for no other reason than to keep the brats preoccupied so they can't reach the button! I like my planet.
    • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4You are a dumb-ass.
    • shadowarts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, honestly its a mistake, the military was good to disclose this and hopefully things like this won't happen again. I had just imagined that weapons of such a magnitude were much more closely controlled/monitored/etc. I don't see a nuclear winter happening over this, but it can't send a good message to Iran either...
  • zyklon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Oops.
  • NalosLayor, on 10/10/2007, -10/+12Someone care to explain how this even resembles news? "Unarmed bombs flown on plane one more stop than expected. Bombs returned safely."
    • robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5 It's not news. It's more junk for the Diggers to get their collective panties in a wad over. "See how dumb and evil the USA is?? Waaa waaaa waaaaaa...Impeach Bush...Waa waaa..." find another dead horse to beat.
    • synaesthesia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Think the point is that 5 nuclear warheads were unaccounted for during the duration of the flight. DoD has, of course, strict guidelines and measures to ensure total and constant accountability of all nuclear weapons, so the fact that a handful of them flew halfway across the country unintended shows a pretty significant failure in the system's design.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The reason they do not fly these over the country is to avoid accidents. This was a very dangerous situation that could have resulted in radiation contamination of "Anytown, USA" had the plane gone down. I'd call that ***** news.
      • DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1MindTrigger - you *do* realize that until sometime in the 1970s we were flying nuclear weapons around on a regular basis, right? This is not the first time nuclear weapons have been carried aboard an aircraft.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Some of you guys are ***** retarded carrying on like it's not a big deal, we were never in danger, it happens all the time. Like I said in an earlier post. The warheads went missing and it is possible no-one would have ever known. That's the whole point, not that it "could have" detonated.
  • boycottsony123, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Next Week: "Oops - US mistakenly fires nuclear missiles at the continental US".
    • orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4At first glance, that's what I thought the headline read! lol
    • hplasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Friendly Hellfire :)
  • shroominbal, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Why did you think that all the ***** going out of the white house earlier to the end of their terms with giant smiles on their faces are really running away? what if they know something you dont kow? what if they know that there will be no election in 2008?
    • orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3What if they're all AFTER US! OH NOES!
    • DreadPirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Buried for tinfoil hat nonsense
    • Auto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They definitely know something you don't, shroominbal. Say, proper spelling, capitalization and punctuation for one.
  • ryancalderoni, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6meanwhile other nukes are being stolen by our own and sold to the enemy, nice distraction though
    • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I call *****. Show how at any time a U.S. nuclear device has gone missing. Now, if you were talking about China, Russia, or North Korea, you might have a point.
  • Frei, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14A midair refueling accident in Spain in 1966 caused plutonium to leak and contaminate a town in Spain. http://www.brookings.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/palomares.htm

    And there are about 10 missing US nukes lost during the cold war. Russia has about 50 sitting at the bottom of the ocean.
  • shroominbal, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1And what if they walk away from the white house with giant smiles resigning pre their time because they know there is no elections coming? isn't that scary ? lol
  • JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7How the **** do you mistakenly load radiological ordinace onto an aircraft? I mean dont they keep the real bombs and the dumby bombs in a seperate shack?!
    • corfe83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Read the article - "The B-52 was loaded with Advanced Cruise Missiles, part of a Defense Department effort to decommission 400 of the ACMs. But the nuclear warheads should have been removed at Minot before being transported to Barksdale"

      The bombs weren't mistakenly loaded, but they should have been unloaded one stop earlier.
  • SlowOnTheUptake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8This wouldn't have happened if we had TSA screeners at all USAF bases.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes it would, you just couldn't take anything to drink or eat on the flights. But this would pass inspection.
  • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2I say, "Big ***** deal." It's not like these nukes were loaded into the back of bubba's pickup truck. Besides, that plane could have crashed into the side of a mountain and the nukes would have simply sat there. Nukes must be armed in a quite complex process before they are able to be fired. These were little more than rockets with radioactive stones in the front without the proper arming process.
    • nycmac247, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5hmmm - so its OK for this to happen?
      Couldn't it be argued that with this type of loose organization it would be easy to steal one?
  • TheWretched, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10The fact that it happened is a red-flag and that kind of negligence cannot be ignored. You don't just 'lose' a nuclear weapon, let alone six of them, and say it's no big deal. A weapon with that kind of destructive potential shouldn't be taken lightly.
  • dcbebop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Probably entirely off topic, but I'd like to share a story.

    A friend of mine tells me a story of a late night developing software for a govt contractor, naturally including cases of Coke. They get bored, write "Bomb" on the coke can with a sharpie, wad up a napkin and insert it as a fuse, and begin tossing it around the room. Around 4am it gets forgotten about ...

    Until the next day, when he shows up, the entire building is outside and bomb squad is there sending in their robot. After they discover what the whole fuss was about, they begin investigating who did it and he finally confesses to the ridiculous nature of the situation. However, being as its a govt contractor, someone's head had to roll and he was given a pay cut.

    Now the interesting part is that before he ended up confessing, they interviewed a few people. One of the people they interviewed had a less than stable outlook on life and apparently the conversation went:

    Interviewer: "Was it you who placed the 'bomb' in the building"
    Employee: "Did it go off"
    Interviewer: "No ..."
    Employee: "Then it wasn't mine"

    Thankfully these aren't the kind of people we have overlooking our military secrets and deadly weaponry ...

    ... oh wait, it is.
    • Andronicus1717, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Sounds like a good contractor; he makes things that work.
  • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4So?

    This happens all the time when they transfer the missiles.

    How/why is this any different? You think the missiles just walk to their destination?
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The point is that they didn't know the cruise missiles they were carrying still had the nuclear warhead in them.
    • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2personally, I'd prefer that we weren't moving nuclear missiles around at all. If we must have them, then let's keep them locked up in their silos. We've got lots of ways to blow ***** up without playing the nuke card. If they're slated for decommission, then pull the fissionable core and ship them separately. And just because nukes used to fill the skies in the good old days doesn't make it a good idea to bring that behavior back.
  • z987k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2seriously though, no big deal. They weren't armed, there was no way they could blow up. Yeah seems stupid but of all the stupid ***** our govt does... this is on the bottom of the list.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The ***** CNN article says the explosives in the missles could have detonated, even though they would not go nuclear. This would still spread radioactive material around.
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1CNN made a mistake, and didn't do enough research.
  • SpectralSounds, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Dugg down because the submitter of this story is an arrogant prick.
  • TheWeirdTurnPro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1CNN raised the number of nukes to six, supposed they didn’t think we would care if it was only five but six, that can really scare those sheep.
  • supermonroe, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Is this news because the AF flew nuclear missiles over the US, or because the flew nuclear missiles over the US by accident. In summary: Who gives a *****. I'm sure this is not the first time this has happened.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You didn't read TFA did you? They said, they've never heard of anything like this before. Oh, and because you, like the rest of the sheeple, think it's only news b/c it potentially "could have" detonated, are sorely mistaken. The real problem is that the warheads were missing, which means, it is possible they could have went missing and no-one would have ever known. I think that qualifies as ***** news.
  • matude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25Am I the only one who thought this is about an actual nuclear missile fling over US?
    • wilkcamaro98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No the first read of the title i thought the same exact thing.
    • bafjohnson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, I read "Oops - US mistakenly FIRES nuclear misses over continental US".

      The worrying thing is I skipped past the article the first time as if it wasn't really news...!
  • JDPoZ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Holy *****. I live less than 5 miles away from Barksdale AFB.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Holy *****. You're in danger of getting more radiation from your computer monitor and the bricks in your basement than from Barksdale AFB.
  • paradexes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh whoops!!! Aww shucks it happens. And y'know Mr Bush "Accidentally" hit the button that detonates them over San Francisco or some place "liberal" Whoops my bad just a mistake.
  • dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What happened to procedure? Warheads will activate any radiation alarm or geiger counter in the area due to the gamma radiation. Those warheads are HOT.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.