7
   

North Carolina nearly nuked.

 
 
Worzel Gummidge
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2013 03:18 pm
@oralloy,
Well, Bravo Oralloy.

At least you've engaged. The pr
0 Replies
 
Worzel Gummidge
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2013 03:22 pm
@oralloy,
Well, Bravo Oralloy.

At least you've engaged. The problem is that you're still farting around in.the shallow end. Care to look at "fuzing" and."
arming?"
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 04:28 pm
@Worzel Gummidge,
Worzel Gummidge wrote:
Well, Bravo Oralloy.
At least you've engaged. The problem is that you're still farting around in the shallow end.

I realize that it may come as a shock to you to find that the facts are contrary to your position, but try not to be so silly about it.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
Care to look at "fuzing" and "arming?"

You mean would I care to ignore the argument that Sandia actually presented (which is that the last safety was at grave risk of being disengaged if the disintegrating B-52 had sent an electrical current to the bomb), and instead focus on what happened inside the bomb with the last safety still engaged?

That's not really something that seems terribly relevant. It looks like a straw man that has been erected in order to distract people from what the Sandia report really said.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 05:40 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I note that Sandia felt that the B41 and B53 had the same vulnerability!
I remember that during the Clinton Administration there was a big push to incorporate ENDS into the B53. I guess now I know why.

Correction: What I was remembering was not adding ENDS to the B53. The B53 never had ENDS added to it (something that likely would have required re-engineering the entire bomb from scratch). Rather, I was remembering the B53 being replaced by the B61-11.

A representative of the Clinton Administration made a big deal over the fact that the B61-11 had ENDS and the B53 did not, as a way to justify creating the B61-11.
0 Replies
 
Worzel Gummidge
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 06:54 am
@oralloy,
Nah, I think you've got this horribly wrong and I find it a bit odd that you are prepared to accept, at face value, Parker F. Jones' facetious parody of a report in the face of expert opinion and evidence to the contrary.

Here are some thoughts from another site:

1) For either bomb to have been armed as a viable weapons would have been completely contrary to USAF SOP (and common sense) as aircraft never took of or landed with armed weapons. This aircraft was attempting to land. Established fact.

2) For either bomb to have been armed as a viable weapons would have been completely contrary to USAF SOP (and common sense) as aircraft never armed weapons over the US mainland. Established fact.

3) For either bomb to have been armed as a viable weapons would have been completely contrary to USAF SOP (and common sense) as aircraft never armed weapons until they were given go-codes and were en-route to their assigned target which only have happened in time of war. Established fact.

4) We also know that for the bombs to have been armed (assuming that the three conditions above had been fulfilled) then it would have required multiple, sequential, deliberate operations by more than one member if the crew to do so. Established fact.

5)We know, because the official documents specifically say so, that one weapon was going through the fuzing processes. It was not armed.. If it had been armed when it left the aircraft (which it wasn't, for the reasons above) AND the fuses had failed to detonate the weapon as instructed, the salvage fuse would have detonated the bomb on impact.

The weapon was therefore not armed.

Again: Safing, Arming, Fuzing, Firing. SAFF.

Fuzing does not arm the weapon. Fuzing provides the condition to allow Firing.

If anyone disagree with any of that, let me know as I'm keen to establish any facts and correct any misunderstandings. I'm no particular cheerleader for the USAF, DoD or nuclear weapons, but this was a non-story, shilled about by the likes of the BBC and its print arm at The Guardian which are both organisation which despise the USA and revel in every opportunity to sneer at their perceived image of reckless cowboys playing with dangerous toys.
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 07:04 am
@Worzel Gummidge,
Nice to see you Worzel. Please pass on my kind regards to Aunt Sally.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 08:46 am
@Lordyaswas,
After a slice of cake and a cup of tea are we?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 10:37 am
@Worzel Gummidge,
Quote:
2) For either bomb to have been armed as a viable weapons would have been completely contrary to USAF SOP (and common sense) as aircraft never armed weapons over the US mainland. Established fact.

3) For either bomb to have been armed as a viable weapons would have been completely contrary to USAF SOP (and common sense) as aircraft never armed weapons until they were given go-codes and were en-route to their assigned target which only have happened in time of war. Established fact.

4) We also know that for the bombs to have been armed (assuming that the three conditions above had been fulfilled) then it would have required multiple, sequential, deliberate operations by more than one member if the crew to do so. Established fact.


These are FACTS. Anybody that claims there can be an accidental nuclear explosion in the US doesn't know what they're talking about. Even if they work at Sandia.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 12:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I almost throw my netbook through the TV screen as right now the author of the Command and Control book is doing an interview on public TV and claiming we almost lost the state of Arkansas due to a fire/explosion in a missile silo!!!!!!

No external fire/explosion of any kind can set off a nuclear explosion of such a warhead period and the fact that this fool can claimed otherwise without challenge on public TV is annoying.

Why did not Public TV have someone interviewing him that knew enough on the subject not to allowed him to put out fantasies without being challenge?

Here is the accident that this fool and or conman claimed could have cause the lost of the state of Arkansas.

Quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

September 18, 1980 – At about 6:30 p.m., an airman conducting maintenance on a USAF Titan-II missile at Little Rock Air Force Base's Launch Complex 374-7 in Southside (Van Buren County), just north of Damascus, Arkansas, dropped a socket from a socket wrench, which fell about 80 feet (24 m) before hitting and piercing the skin on the rocket's first-stage fuel tank, causing it to leak. The area was evacuated. At about 3:00 a.m., on September 19, 1980, the hypergolic fuel exploded. The W53 warhead landed about 100 feet (30 m) from the launch complex's entry gate; its safety features operated correctly and prevented any loss of radioactive material. An Air Force airman was killed and the launch complex was destroyed.[59]
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 01:00 pm
@BillRM,
I look at the reviews on Amazon for this work of fantasy and only found one person,who claimed to be at the site of the Little Rock base when this event occur, who stated that there was no danger of a nuclear explosion.

Amazing how such misinformation can be put into the main stream of this society without being challenge.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 01:32 pm
@Worzel Gummidge,
Worzel Gummidge wrote:
Nah, I think you've got this horribly wrong and I find it a bit odd that you are prepared to accept, at face value, Parker F. Jones' facetious parody of a report in the face of expert opinion and evidence to the contrary.

So far, the only thing contrary to the report has been a single opinion that it was unlikely that a disintegrating bomber could accidentally send power to a bomb.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
Here are some thoughts from another site:
1) For either bomb to have been armed as a viable weapons would have been completely contrary to USAF SOP (and common sense) as aircraft never took of or landed with armed weapons. This aircraft was attempting to land. Established fact.

Since Sandia's fear was that this bomb came close to being armed unintentionally as the bomber broke apart, this point about intentional arming does not seem to have a lot of relevance.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
2) For either bomb to have been armed as a viable weapons would have been completely contrary to USAF SOP (and common sense) as aircraft never armed weapons over the US mainland. Established fact.

Since Sandia's fear was that this bomb came close to being armed unintentionally as the bomber broke apart, this point about intentional arming does not seem to have a lot of relevance.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
3) For either bomb to have been armed as a viable weapons would have been completely contrary to USAF SOP (and common sense) as aircraft never armed weapons until they were given go-codes and were en-route to their assigned target which only have happened in time of war. Established fact.

Since Sandia's fear was that this bomb came close to being armed unintentionally as the bomber broke apart, this point about intentional arming does not seem to have a lot of relevance.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
4) We also know that for the bombs to have been armed (assuming that the three conditions above had been fulfilled) then it would have required multiple, sequential, deliberate operations by more than one member if the crew to do so. Established fact.

No, the exact opposite of that has been established as fact, as we had an actual bomb sitting on the ground in North Carolina with all but one of those "multiple, sequential, deliberate operations" having been applied to the bomb without any human input.

And the one arming operation that hadn't been done to the bomb, Sandia felt could also have been done without any human input.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
5)We know, because the official documents specifically say so, that one weapon was going through the fuzing processes. It was not armed.. If it had been armed when it left the aircraft (which it wasn't, for the reasons above) AND the fuses had failed to detonate the weapon as instructed, the salvage fuse would have detonated the bomb on impact.
The weapon was therefore not armed.

The fact that the bomb was not armed does not contradict Sandia's report saying that it had nearly been armed by accident.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
If anyone disagree with any of that, let me know as I'm keen to establish any facts and correct any misunderstandings.

#4 was completely wrong.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
I'm no particular cheerleader for the USAF, DoD or nuclear weapons, but this was a non-story, shilled about by the likes of the BBC and its print arm at The Guardian which are both organisation which despise the USA and revel in every opportunity to sneer at their perceived image of reckless cowboys playing with dangerous toys.

The fact that every bomber weapon proof tested at Redwing or Hardtack was fundamentally unsafe is a pretty big story, IMO.

We really got lucky it seems.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 02:10 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Since Sandia's fear was that this bomb came close to being armed unintentionally as the bomber broke apart, this point about intentional arming does not seem to have a lot of relevance.


"Sandia?"
Quote:
"came close to being armed unintentionally"
is fiction, and whoever made that statement is just ignorant of facts. It's not possible to have an "unintentional" nuclear explosion. Tell me who at Sandia made such a claim, because he's full of bull ****, and your continued attempts to support that claim is also full of beans.

What "real" information do you have that can be regarded as credible about nuclear weapons? When did you work with nuclear weapons, and what is your background?

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 02:21 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
I almost throw my netbook through the TV screen as right now the author of the Command and Control book is doing an interview on public TV and claiming we almost lost the state of Arkansas due to a fire/explosion in a missile silo!!!!!!

No external fire/explosion of any kind can set off a nuclear explosion of such a warhead period and the fact that this fool can claimed otherwise without challenge on public TV is annoying.

Why did not Public TV have someone interviewing him that knew enough on the subject not to allowed him to put out fantasies without being challenge?

Here is the accident that this fool and or conman claimed could have cause the lost of the state of Arkansas.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

September 18, 1980 – At about 6:30 p.m., an airman conducting maintenance on a USAF Titan-II missile at Little Rock Air Force Base's Launch Complex 374-7 in Southside (Van Buren County), just north of Damascus, Arkansas, dropped a socket from a socket wrench, which fell about 80 feet (24 m) before hitting and piercing the skin on the rocket's first-stage fuel tank, causing it to leak. The area was evacuated. At about 3:00 a.m., on September 19, 1980, the hypergolic fuel exploded. The W53 warhead landed about 100 feet (30 m) from the launch complex's entry gate; its safety features operated correctly and prevented any loss of radioactive material. An Air Force airman was killed and the launch complex was destroyed.[59]


I agree that the Titan II explosion had no possibility of a nuclear yield.

But it does seem that we came very close to nuking Goldsboro and Abilene. It looks like the Airborne Alert was one long game of Russian Roulette.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 02:48 pm
@oralloy,
How many times must you be told that an "accidental" explosion is not possible? HOW MANY?

An Airman doesn't have the necessary code to arm it.
0 Replies
 
Worzel Gummidge
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Oct, 2013 01:25 am
@oralloy,
#4 was completely wrong.

Really. Got a link for that Oralloy or are you just relying on gainsaying? There is a big difference between SAFING, Arming, FUZING and Firing processes. This whole non-story relies entirely on inflation of those terms.

I'm happy to get into the detail but I suspect that's not your thing; judging by your ability to dismiss experopinion such as Michael. Margaret.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 23 Oct, 2013 02:15 am
@Worzel Gummidge,
Worzel Gummidge wrote:
oralloy wrote:
#4 was completely wrong.

Really.

Yes.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
Got a link for that Oralloy

Every single link that has been provided in this entire thread is in complete agreement that there was a bomb sitting in a field in North Carolina that had three out of four arming procedures carried out on it.

For instance, here again is a direct quote from the Chuck Hansen preview page you linked:

"During the breakup of the airframe, three of four arming safety devices on one bomb were actuated,"


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
This whole non-story relies entirely on inflation of those terms.

Hardly a non-story. It is pretty clear at this point that during the entire period of the airborne alert we were in greater danger from our own bombs than we were from the Soviets.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
I'm happy to get into the detail

Maybe you can start with the fact that there was a bomb sitting in a North Carolina field that had three out of four arming procedures applied to it.


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
but I suspect that's not your thing;

Do you see me having trouble grasping the detail that there was a bomb on the ground in North Carolina that had three out of four arming procedures completed on it?


Worzel Gummidge wrote:
judging by your ability to dismiss expert opinion such as Michael Margaret.

I hardly dismissed his opinion. When he said that he thought it unlikely that the MC-772 switch could have received current from a disintegrating bomber, my response was to express interest in what a panel of experts would say about that question.

That said, since I posted my response to his skepticism, I've come across a report somewhere that there were occasional occurrences of the MC-772 being activated by short circuits in a bomber's electrical system.

Clearly if there were actual instances of it having occurred, it was quite possible for it to happen.
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:32 am
@izzythepush,
There's been quite a lot of nuclear weapon accidents. Some a lot more recently than this. Still a loose nuke somewhere in Georgia buried in the mud.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2015 01:07 am
@HesDeltanCaptain,
HesDeltanCaptain wrote:
There's been quite a lot of nuclear weapon accidents. Some a lot more recently than this. Still a loose nuke somewhere in Georgia buried in the mud.

Only twice though did the bombs come so close to actually going off that we were essentially playing a game of Russian roulette.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/14/2019 at 09:24:04