This is getting creepier and creepier. Unfortunately the explanation that Barksdale is a staging base for Middle East operations makes a lot of sense.

I just hope there are still a few people in the military chain of command who have the integrity to blow the whistle before we commit the world's worst war crime. If we just had a free press we would be alright, but that day has come and gone.

Hoppy in Sacramento

According to the original story that I saw, the cruise missiles were on the bomber because they were being decommissioned as part of a program. The nukes were supposed to be detached first, but weren't.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-09-05-b-52_N.htm

I really don't see conspiracy in this one.

I think it's fairly obvious that someone has that integrity. This story was leaked to the Military Times, and then printed there.

I don't imagine that happens without someone's approval rather high up the chain of command.

I can't believe that the crew of that bomber failed to do their walk-around inspection of the plane before they took off. I can't believe the nuke cruise missiles did not have the usual nuclear markings on them. I find it very hard to believe the crew did not see the nuclear markings on the missiles.

Info on the AGM-129 ACM nuclear capable advanced cruise missiles carried on B-52H bombers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM

"Cheney cabal gambit"?
"simultaneous agitprop campaigns" ?

Conspiracy at every turn beliefs aside, what thesaurus are you using? Please try the English one.

The official story is that the missiles were decommissioned ACMs. Why they were mounted under the wings instead of being transported inside a cargo plane with the warheads removed is an interesting question. Pretty hard to believe it was all just an accident.

Sorry, sniflheim, your comment is over my head. What do you mean?

Neoboho

It's an example of the poisonous atmosphere, that we are looking for trouble in the explanation. But if the nukes were being decomissioned,, why didn't they have a big yellow flag draped over them or some other "Stop!" sign?

It really smells. The AF wouldn't even acknowledge whether nukes were mounted, normally. Flying in US airspace with weapons of any sort is not a usual occurence, and would have a string of permissions logged somewhere.

Of course, it could be a screwup; we're far from immune. If it is, we should be worried, though. It implies a shakeup is in order concerning nuclear warhead inventories.

Whether this is a simple misunderstanding, part of a propaganda maneuver or something much sinister and disastrous I think that at this point in time - especially given it's track record - nothing that occurs under the purview of this administration should go unquestioned or unchallenged.

This news scares me. Not because I'm conspiratorial but because this administration is just rash enough, just dumb enough and just dangerous enough to be heading in the most unthinkable of directions against all wisdom, reason or rationality. And if the disaster in Iraq is any indication to just how badly this administration can take a bad idea and make it far worse than you could ever imagine then this is indeed a cause for great alarm.

It's scary but even though I had not yet been born to experience it, recently this administration has filled me with a growing sort of dread that I imagine people felt during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I don't know if that's a fair comparison or not but the knot in my stomach isn't going to argue the point.

We all know Cheney is determined to do this.
We all know that Cheney has been a proponent of "limited" nuclear warfare.
What has anyone stopped Cheney from doing since he wrested control of the country?
Three cheers to you for trying to expose as much as possible before the inevitable occurs.
Get your disaster preparedness kits ready, all the same. We are "one bomb away" from needing them.

It's very fair mcboo. None of us felt to secure leaping under our desks or (alternatively) hugging the classroom walls with our face turned toward it.
I imagine those drills were being run in every school in the country that had not long before emerged from WWII. There was at least some notion that we ought to do something to try to protect our children, however inane the enactment of that thought was.

... and thanks so much Nancy Pelosi for taking impeachment of these mass murderers "off the table". Now we can have the opportunity to have nukes used again for the first time since 1945 for two reasons - George W. Bush is a moron and Dick Cheney is a maniac.Tom

I hate to admit it but my high school basketball buddy in October 1962 said after leaving practice one night, "Well, at least we won't have to do our homework." That was because we both assumed we were going to get fried that night.Tom

If I remember Evan Thomas's book on Robert Kennedy correctly, it was Gen. Curtis LeMay and the Joint Chiefs who were pushing for military action. JFK was a moderating force as was RFK, although at first Bobby was pushing for a "false flag" incident to use as an excuse to invade.Tom

The leak and/or the disinformation about nuclear-armed cruise missiles seems like a way of rattling the nuclear saber without doing much.

Not to worry about nukes. The Democrats are saving us from toys today. They can't stop the war or prevent a new war. They can protect our civil rights or guarantee children have health care. But they are out front on toys.

'We Are Going To Hit Iran...Bigtime'
". . . She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth. . . .Today, orders just come down from the mountaintop and there's no questioning. In fact, there is no discussing it. I have seen more than one senior commander disappear and then three weeks later we find out that he has been replaced. That's really weird. It's also really weird because everyone who has disappeared has questioned whether or not we should be staging a massive attack on Iran."
http://www.rense.com/general78/we.htm

You might want to do a simple google news search before declaring something to be "fantasy":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/wrussia419.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/16/wrussia116.xml

The specifics were a little off; the Russian bombers didn't actually violate British or American airspace, but they did come close enough to demonstrate that they could, and close enough that the British scrambled fighters to intercept them.

The Kennedys both started off ready to attack, according to recollections in Tim Weiner's book on the CIA. When they looked closer and learned how messy that would be, or inconclusive if not a ground invasion, they were willing to consider alternatives.

LeMay didn't care if it was messy; he was itching to start WW III and settle things for good. He likely has counterparts now, people that actually want stuff to blow up so the unbearable tension of simply managing things can be replaced with a mission, a war, a crusade.

The two B-52 wings are at Barksdale AFB in Louisians, and Minot AFB in North Dakota. As mentioned, the B-2's are at Whiteman. In the past, Guam and Diego Garcia have been used as forward bases for heavy bombers.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You do know that posting, which originally appeared on DailyKos until Markos pointed out the inconsistencies, is thought by most who have looked into it to be a fabrication? A first-class troll, but a troll nonetheless.

sPh

A MIT analysis of a conventional Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities only. The US has more potent conventional weapons than Israel, since heavy bombers can physically lift bombs, and deliver them from higher altitude (i.e., with more gravitational kinetic energy) than a fighter-bomber.

Given the capabilities of the B-2 (16 JDAM/JSOW or 48 JDAM Small Diameter Bombs, as well as 16 B-61 or B-83 nuclear weapons), I'm not sure why nuclear weapons would be needed.

How clear is the report that these were AGM-129 ACM (nuclear capable) rather than AGM-86C CALCMs? Wikipedia reports that the AGM-129s are being retired:

In March 2007, the USAF announced that it will retire its entire stockpile of AGM-129 missiles.[1]

In September 2007 five ACMs loaded on a B-52 were flown across the United States from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base, La in order to be decommissioned. However the live nuclear warheads which should have been removed before the flight were mistakenly left installed.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Well, the Russians are boasting that they violated Guam's airspace, which the US denies, while denying that they violated British and Georgian airspace.  As I wrote, the allegations are flying both ways.  But what is clear is that Putin is doing a lot of saber-rattling, and he hasn't been particularly secretive about it.  He clearly announced last year that he would rebuild the Russian military, and he is doing it. 

Neoboho

Is it mechanically best to carry missiles on their way to retirement under the wing? I can believe that might be the case. 

Do we know if they were mounted?

Do you know the future of the warhead design the AGM-129 carried?

Whatever it was, Bush is clearly in full provocation mode. They're just waiting for the Iranians to make that one "outrageous" move that gives them the casus belli they've been seeking. It's 9/11 all over again.

That's a rather silly troll.

Are you saying lead containing toys shouldn't be regulated? That American children should be brain damaged and have lowered IQ because it's just not an important enough issue?

Nukes are under the purview of the executive, BushCo. The President is the CIC and along with the Pentagon has authority to move nukes around and do stupid things with them. Unfortunately.

Blame the voters, blame the Constitution. Blame all the idiots post 9/11 with the flag bumper stickers and mindless nationalism. Blame all the low IQ voters raised on lead paint chips who voted these war mongering bums and corporate puppets into office.

Congress can't legislate preventatively against every stupid thing this admin may do in the future. If it were possible, he'd be impeached already. If we didn't want a moron for president, more people should have paid attention in 2000 and 2004 and thought about more than tax cuts and nationalism.

Most Dems are doing what they can to get us out of Iraq. Like Webb for example. But they don't have enough votes in Congress because of many elected assholes in government. Take Mr Maccaca for example. He'd probably still be in office today if not for that slip up.

I may be echoing an earlier poster, but I think one way to analyze this is to keep an eye on what happened to the commander who authorized the nuke-laden flight--and especially what charges are brought (if any.) That story should be percolating among the military families in North Dakota right now.

Another way to look at it involves the somewhat large (140 kt) missile warheads. If that's what is normally found on cruise missiles, then maybe the official explanation (i.e. a screwup during transfer to a decom site) is probably the right one. ON the other hand, a 140 kt warhead is a little big (IMHO) to be found on the business end of a cruise missile (the Hiroshima bomb was 13-20 kt, and the biggest aboveground nuke test in the US was only 75 kt.) In fact, as I recall, the yield for the hypothetical bunker-busters was in the 150-300 kt range. Pretty close.

Bottom line, we don't YET know what's going on. Maybe nothing. Maybe not.

According to the CNN followup the missiles were mounted normally, and the warheads would have been properly removed at Minot. Story mentions the W-80.

Many years ago I was a High Frequency Direction Finder operator on Adak, Alaska and our primary task was tracking Russian flights when they left their own airspace. They often would fly over the Aleutian Islands, over the west coast of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon and head back out to their base. What it was was nothing more than an elaborate game we, and they, used to test each others responses. I was also in Spain in the early 70's when the Russians were still in Egypt and the same games were played out over the Med. Their Migs would take wing and fly over the Med and as long as we knew they were up and we had a response in the air then there was no problem. I remember once when the Russians maintained all silence and overflew one of our carrier groups without a fighter escort from our side. Crap flew fast and loose from the fan over that one!

I tracked the first Mig Foxbat to leave Russian airspace and be flown into Egypt. That was an exciting evening and the teletypes, yes we used those then, hummed with all of the traffic!

What scares me more than anything else is that the morons in charge on both sides, we and the Russians, have little historical reference to what really happened on both sides during the Cold War! I will be 60 years old in a couple of months, I remember the duck and cover drills from my youth, but I have never been as frightened as I am now. The fright is for my children and my grandchildren given the world that these war criminals have made for us!

I think we should all take a deep breath here. I prefer messages that are sent through USA today, rather than those delivered directly by B2s or B52s. I don't think we're quite there yet.
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

SeeDee
No, kozmik, IMO, tlees2 said nothing about the 'lead-laden paint on toys. not needing regulation...

I read his post as a complaint about Pelosi's actions as Speaker of the House, and I fully understand his expressed exasperation with what has been accomplished by the Democrats that we sent to D.C. last fall.

She made a mistake by allowing Steny Hoyer's elevation to House Majority over Murth, and, even with the back-stabbing she received from the GOP over her Middle-East trip, she still seems more intent in playing ball with the architects of this nation's disasters around the globe than in representing the voters who asked for new LEADERSHIP in the last election.

SeeDee

Bush's 'hard work' to put a rosy hue on the 'surge results'...the continuing diligence in seeking a reason to strike Iran...you hit the nail on the head, hrebendorf. Its de ja vu, all over again....

Has anyone war gamed an attack on Iran? I can't see how Iran can be stopped from sinking the Navy & disabling nearby air bases in the first two hours of combat. We must hit thousands of targets. They have only a few dozen: Naval ships & nearby airbases. We are fighting at great range. They are fighting on home turf. The Iranian defense will be to pour their entire military into a mere handful of targets.

You think the US can knock out Iranian command & control? Wanna talk to the Israeli commanders who could not do that in over a month of fighting against Hezbollah last summer? Could not even knock Hezbollah TV off the air?

Let's see. Five warheads. That would be - what? - two targets, with a third for reserve, along with two more in case of equipment failure.

If the Pentagon knows a conventional attack has no chance of success, will they simply nuke the two main targets & then sit tight, hoping Iran is too stunned to return fire?

Or do they expect to lose the carrier groups & the air wings & want to have the nukes ready for a revenge follow-up? I'm talking of maybe 10,000 dead sailors here. That's not going to go over well with the Fox News crowd.

If the later, then who, exactly, leaked the report, and why? Is the Pentagon trying to psych the Iranians into not defending themselves?

And if they are? Then wouldn't the Iranians see the upcoming war as coming down to a single long-range aircraft with stand-off cruise missiles?

And whether the plane is by itself, or part of a larger conventional attack, the probable flight paths of nuke-laden planes flying from the US is limited. This means that if the Iranians must defend themselves from putative nuclear attack, they can concentrate their defenses in a specific direction. (I suspect due south, from the Indian Ocean.) Which doesn't make the American job any easier.

Simply ghastly.

AFAIK, the conventionals are the AGM-86D and the nuclear the stealthier AGM-129. They do look different.

Given the complexity of the arming procedure, I don't think anyone today could launch an armed one by accident. Typically, part or all of the Permissive Action Link arming codes are stored internally to the warhead in a way that would require factory disassembly to get to them. The crews don't have the codes until they receive an Emergency Action Message by radio or printer.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

There's a huge difference between Putin's pathetic attemps and US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Russian saber rattling aginst the USA on one hand with cold war era turbo-prob bombers flying out of an economically devastated, military-industrial complex decimated, and politically unstable nation.

US sabre rattling against potentially Iran or some other weak state, on the other hand, from an unstable administration with a penchant for ideological crusades and reckless use of force, and a huge and thriving military-industrial complex.

On Oct. 7 2002 GWB said (something like): "America must not ignore the threat (posed by the Vice President) gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril (that would come at the hands of the Vice President), we cannot wait for the next "mistake" (made by my administration) -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud, that came from one of our B-52s mistakenly loaded with live nukes.

Even if the transport of these weapons was a "mistake". It seems like a pretty catastrophic failure. You start to wonder how many more mistakes it would take to get to "we don't know how those nukes got on that plane flying into combat?"

It really is getting comical -- we invade a Iraq falsely believing they were pursuing nuke technology. Now we appear to be vaguely threatening Iran with a nuke attack. Its almost like everything the republicans take a public stand against -- they are actually doing. (Reeps have us in fear of nukes from other countries, so they are trying to nuke other countries. They fear, demean, despise homosexuals, but they solicit anonymous sex in public bathrooms. They criticise and demean "nation building," but start the country on the largest nation building exercise since WWII. They claim they are the party of "family values" but get busted in brothels, chasing pages, smoking meth with their masseuse. One of their major f0oundations is fiscal responsibility, yet the budget (even excluding the war) has ballooned under their watch.) Who would ever vote for a Reep again?

So some think I'm a troll and not helpful while Bush/Cheney kill hundreds of thousands, plan Lord knows what in Iran, and have set precedents for executive power that have turned us into a virtual monarchy. So Nancy Pelosi must be right to take impeachment of these monsters off the table. Get real. These guys are ruining America and Nancy fiddles while Iraq, maybe, Iran, and definitely the Constitution burn.Tom

Get real, impeachment isn't a realistic possibility. It's not as though a passionate speech, or several, will change the entrenched Congress votes against impeachment.

Pelosi hasn't "taken it off the table." She just hasn't put it on the table because it's a waste of time, and even counter productive.

Your emotionalism doesn't change the fact there are't enough votes to successfully impeach. When it was discussed behind closed doors a while back, the consensus was there just wasn't enough votes for it, or even close.

And nothing would rally Republicans and distract from other issues like defending him from impeachment, so it would be a really stupid move by Democrats. Unfortunately, we don't have a system of simple no-confidence.

That may change with public opinion. But time is running out, and trying to predict that in such a small window of opportunity, increasingly becoming irrelevant, is such a stupidly emotional obsession.

Well, Tom, after two years of watching and holding back, I can't no more. My judgment of what you do is repeat the same things over and over, no matter what the topic of the thread is. You seem to look for a place to put your favorite slogans about your 2 favorite topics: Bush stupid and Bush/Cheney impeachment. This one actually has a little more coloration to it than most of them!

If you look at standard definitions of troll rating, there's often something about participating in a conversation in good faith. That includes not interjecting into a discussion a slogan to promote an agenda. After repeating this tactic often enough, it sure comes close to spam. You don't even seem as if you want to discuss anything most times, or introduce something to do with the topic or sub-thread, you just seem to want to post your slogans.

Most people on this website probably agree with you on your two favorite topics. They just might not like having to see it repeated over and over like an advertisement whenever you can find a crack to squeeze it in. It's sort of insulting to the intelligence after a while. I think you have been very very lucky so far in getting people to endorse what you do here with high ratings, because if the spam content was different, you would have been gone long ago.

The bottom line is these pols are elected, and they have votes in the Congress. Blaming Pelosi for whatever hawk some middle-class conservative region elected, is idiotic.

As Speaker she has to be Democratic Centrist to effectively hold people together. Anybody who doesn't understand that needs a clue about basic civics and human psychology.

This is a democracy.

I'm so damn sick and tired of hearing whiners complain about pols without taking any responsibility for their own votes and those of their neighbors.

Why don't some of the whiners here go down to your typical dive bar and talk with the blue-collar, bar-flys there.

Mostly your Average-Joe cares about lowered taxes, perhaps a passing reference to unions, labor standards, a general sense of the economy, and such. They're generally pro-military and not terribly concerned about massive civilian casualties, or thinking about long term geo-political strategies. It's too abstract and far-away from their day to day. Also Republicans have done an excellent job of encouraging apathy, with Reagan saying government is the problem.

Nancy Pelosi didn't make the world the way it is. And whiny and theatrical "activists" are doing less than nothing to convince middle America to change.

Instead of faux-righteousness on an online fora, how about trying to actually change one conservative voter's mind, in the real world.

That's what real pols have to do: convince real people. Not just preach to the online choir.

Didn't the IMF treaty require these the be destroyed in a particular way?

If memory serves, they were being dismantled at Longhorn Ammunition Plant just over the border in Texas.

Does anyone know if that program is still active?

It does seem strange that they would be moving them with the warheads on them, though.

Sorry you don't like my style, but there is nothing more important to the future of our planet than stopping these two madmen and Pelosi is the one person who has the power to move impeachment and she's not doing it. 

While "my stupidly emotional obsession" (sorry that I'm not as bright and self-controlled as yuo are, in your opinion) is what you think is the real problem I know that if the Democrats in the House all voted for impeachment Cheney/Bush would be impeached. You have got to challenge these madmen for the sake of the future. Let those who would vote against - vote against and hold them accountable in 2008. Bush/Cheney have killed close to a million people, they have advocated torture, they may do who knows what to Iran, they have destroyed our Consitution and no one is standing up to them. Future Presidents have to know they risk impeachment if they try this kind of illegal behavior.

SeeDee

The sheer madness and failure of the Bush/Cheney regime can only be gauged by this almost surreal thread which has Americans talking and stewing about the actual possible use of nuclear weaponry.

Suppose such idiocy does happen...what will be the world reaction to a quarter-million (or more)vaporized and burned Iranis?

The mere suggestion of approval for such conduct by the Vice-President of the U.S. should bring his immediate arrest and indictment on charges of advocating waging war against innocent civilians.

As pointed out earlier, this entire scenario is CREEPY.

I don't know who first conjectured the mega-blitz-from-the-git-go scenario, but it caught on. That scenario is not so likely though, is it?

What I'm about to say has likely been said in various ways, but I still feel bad to say it. But we need to imagine what the Commander-in-Chief might be inclined to do or might be advised to do.

Hitting the camps or training facilities in Iran, if there are such, could be Round 1. There would even be much public support for that step. It could be undertaken with non-nuclear weapons.

The Iranian response to Round 1 would be immediately observed with the surveillance capabilities that are operational even now. Any military response against US Armed Forces or diplomatic stations, or against any allied or neutral nation, could be considered a hostile action warranting an extremely robust response, Round 2.

There is currently plenty of military firepower available for Round 1. Most of the preparations of which we are hearing, I believe, are for Round 2, which is highly unpredictable. For Round 2, which could come from minutes to days after Round 1, nothing in the arsenal is off the table.

=== the probability of movement by mistake is close to zero. ===

Well, yes: that is what everyone always says after a complex multifactor accident (or mistake). It was always assumed that something "couldn't" happen. Until it did, and they figured out how afterwords. Try _The Challenger Launch Decision_ by Vaughan or _Normal Accidents_ by Perrow.

sPh

The Washington Post is again, like in 2003, doing its part for war

Editorial:
Rogue Regulator
Mohamed ElBaradei pursues a separate peace with Iran.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007; Page A20

FOR SOME time Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian diplomat [and Nobel Peace Prize winner] who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, has made it clear he considers himself above his position as a U.N. civil servant. Rather than carry out the policy of the Security Council or the IAEA board, for which he nominally works, Mr. ElBaradei behaves as if he were independent of them, free to ignore their decisions and to use his agency to thwart their leading members -- above all the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401810.html

It is coat trailing, this absurd story of the six nukes. Just like when the Protestants go out to march through a Catholic area in Belfast and bang away on these huge drums they have. There the threat of the bully is direct. They intend to frighten the Catholics. And they do. The men go into the back yard and dig up their Armelites.

In this case the bully means to frighten American citizens in the USA. The threat is indirect. Be warned, is the message, just be really, really, scared and reflect that you are very lucky your government is not planning to drop these things one you but on disorderly people in a far off place.

This kind of threat in current American terms most resembles the gangster tactic of beating up one shopkeeper and by this means extorting the rest. I mean, just read the transparent rubbish in the CNN story: "...the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the extraordinary sensitivity and security surrounding the case..."

Right, that is why we are reading the whole story in one big gulp, about a half dozen A BOMB warheads flying over your head by mistake. Aren't you glad your government, that could drop these things on you does not plan to, at least not now?

I have heard better versions of the "I have information from the authorities that I am not free to disclose.." from a drunk at closing time in the Kamloops Legion.

These rotten CIA freaks and their murderous pals in the Bush retinue will end up frightening themselves into a real disaster, and I think you Americans should deal with them before they do. I mean see how contemptuous of you they are.

What about theft -- for profit or by some crazy paramilitary organization with people inside the military?

Americans will have no -- as in zero -- Shi'a support: no collaborators, no friends, no employees, no interpreters. Iraqi Arab Shi'a attitude toward Iranian Shi'a is, if not love/hate, at least like/distrust, but that wave function collapses into pure sympathy the moment we open a Pandora's box of whoop-ass on Iran. SIIC and Sadr will have a truce within hours, and will keep it for the duration.

[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

You're really making an apples and oranges comparison, and a pretty silly one. Goofy even.

Our deficit and debt is a problem, but we still have far more conventional military capability than Russia. Technological superiority, larger industrial base, more prosperous allies, etc. It's not even close. Russian saber rattling is really a joke, and has been for several decades, since the 70s really.

And Russia's nukes like ours, are really only useful in a nuclear war. The economic fallout and blowback to using a nuclear weapons would far outstrip their usefulness. And Russia's resource extraction economy doesn't translate into military power.

Do not underestimate Russian military capability. Whatever you may think about the Russians, they are not idiots. Where Americans go for hi-tech, complex and expensive, Russians go for simple, effective and cheap.

Don't be fooled by the fact that the US military can easily overrun the armies of 3rd world countries equipped by Russian-made hardware. Iraq (for example) had Russian weapons, yes, but several generations old. Russians have decent tanks (T-80 and T-90), jet fighters and bombers, and probably world's best anti-tank and anti-ship missiles.

If there was a conventional conflict between the US and Russia, I wouldn't bet on the winner - but I'd bet that the conflict would be bloody with big casualties on both sides.

I've never seen so many people who know so very, very little about nuclear weapons say so much of so very little consequence. I'd try to correct all the errors and misperceptions in these threads, but it would take all day and I have real work to do. Just a few comments related to a bunch of posts. First, the missiles in question, the Advanced Cruise missiles, are slated for retirement, and will be transported to Barksdale for that purpose. You can't tell by looking (from the outside) whether the missile is equipped with a warhead or not (so the bomber crew, even if it did a walk-around, could not tell). This is an error in the weapons-handling process, not an error of the bomber crew. This missile does not have a conventional variant (that would be the older, Air-launched cruise missile, which does look very different), so it was not a conventional/nuclear mix-up. Someone asked about the IMF Treaty. No such thing. Its the INF Treaty (Intermediate NUCLEAR Forces). It had nothing to do with air-launched cruise missiles, they are strategic, not intermediate, so its not relevant. As was noted, the warheads on the ACM are W-80s. Someone asked about the warhead size. Using the 15kt of Hiroshima to judge the size of this missile's warhead is irrelevant; we've long deployed warheads much larger than the Hiroshima warhead, and, yes, 140kt is the standard, unclassified size for the W-80. So there's no conspiracy there. As for the OP's focus on Barksdale. We have two B-52 bases -- Minot and Barksdale. The presence of a B-52 at Barksdale is not a sign of an anti-Iran conspiracy, its a proper place for the bomber to be regardless of anything else. Many bases have multiple missions. Don't read anything into it.

That being said, back around 13 years ago, when I was working on nuke policy in the Pentagon, I devised a scenario for using B-52s as a deterrent to North Korea (this was before the first time when they agreed to close Yong-bon.) My plan called for sending a CNN crew to Minot, and having them film the weapons-loading process for a B-52 (and say the missiles could carry nukes), then, about 36 hours later, have a B-52 fly over NK air space (low enough for the naked eye to see). It would not have to be the same bomber, and would not have to be loaded with anything, but the recipient would still receive the message. This did not occur to me yesterday, when I first read the story, but its possible they have implemented a version of my plan -- announcing the loading up and flying of a nuke-armed B-52.

On the other hand, one of the main tenets I learned in graduate school is the thought that, if you have to choose between chaos and conspiracy, go with chaos almost ALL the time. I choose chaos here, the rest is just too far-fetched.

That being said, I'm going to call a buddy of mine whose pretty high up in the chain of command at Minot, later today.

I read about this yesterday and I think it was on the CNN web page, in that story the reason given for transport was decommissioning.

So this should be easy to confirm, are nukes decommissioned near there or not. If so the story of why the transport is plausible if not then more questions need answering.

Can we plaese get back to talking about serious adult stuff that we might actually be able to do something about-- like next year's election, universal healthcare, the mortgage marlet mess, and the rest of that stuff.

Yes, that strategery worked so well in 2004, and certainly it is what turned congress D is 2006.

sphealey said:

I agree with your post, but I do think the "never blame on malice..." aphorism has to be rethought in an age of Cheney, Addington, and Rove.

I agree with you wholheartedly. Not long after Bush took office it became my belief that this gang is capable of ANYTHING. I have yet to see any reason to change that opinion.

First, the missiles in question, the Advanced Cruise missiles, are slated for retirement, and will be transported to Barksdale for that purpose.

The big failure in Iraq was in not finding any WMDs.

What would happen if we bombed the Iranian nuclear facilities that we knew beforehand weren't actually producing nuclear weapons? Wouldn't it help our case if the bombing of the facility resulting in a big dust cloud of plutonium? That would prove our case, wouldn't it?

So how do you accomplish that?

You take six cruise missiles armed with a nuclear warhead, one already set for decommissioning - and maybe one already decommissioned on paper - and fire those jokers. You don't arm them. You just let them crash into the site and spray plutonium pellets all over the facility. Then you follow that up with a dozen 2,000 pound smart bombs to blow all that plutonium into the air where it can be detected by the Russian, Chinese, French, British, Indian and Pakistani monitors.

Instant justification.

"See, the Iranians already had enough weapons grade plutonium for SIX 140 kt nuclear weapons! Told ya! Nya! Nya! Nya! And we STOPPED THEM! We are the heroes. We saved the world from Iranian nuclear aggression."

Air resistance is the key---very little for a gravity bomb, so altitude would matter, I'd bet. It would take figuring the increasing drag coefficient against the increasing momentum.

Terminal velocity for feathers ain't much, but I wouldn't stand under a bowling ball or hunk of concrete. If there is enough momentum, i.e. incoming comet, drag is trivial, only serving to heat up the outer layer. What do you suppose is the falling speed of ballistic ordinance like the 16-inch guns of the New Jersey? I'd bet it's near-supersonic and non-trivial.

I haven't read all the comments yet but I haven't yet seen the suggestion that this story could be disinformation that was planted to convince someone of the seriousness of the threat to go nuclear. The Iranians, the Europeans... Does this possibility make any sense? It is such an odd story, and of a kind that we simply never see, it seems to me, which makes me somewhat suspicious.

(Just a thought...)

Did they have the votes against Nixon before the investigation began?

Or did the investigation itself lead to the garnering of enough public outrage and votes to impeach, thus leading Nixon to resign before he could be impeached?

Thinking more on this, I seem to remember reading, perhaps last year, that someone in the VPs office actually suggested that by using tactical nukes against Iranian facilities, the resulting radiation could serve as proof that it was a nuclear facitility.

The big drawback then, and with my own theory, being that there are methods to track plutonium to its source.

But then again, who would ever believe that we would attempt something so devious as what I have proposed? Even though it would work? Even if it happened, it would be outside the realm of reasonable discussion and so the UN would spend years developing elaborate theories for how Iran managed to produce plutonium with the same signature as American plutonium.

Meanwhile, Iran is in ruins, George Bush has saved the world and retired to Paraguay, and Iraq has developed into the world's largest exporter of ponies. By the time the truth comes out, they'll all have died of overeating and too much sex. What's not to like about this plan?

What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.
********************************************

This is really very silly. There are already nukes in the region on board our aircraft carriers and most likely nuke-armed SLCMs on subs. According to this source we have 350 sea launch cable AGM-129s with a selectable yield up to 150 KT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

A SLCM would absolutely be the easiest and most risk-free way to do this if you wanted to.

There are many players with varying levels of power and influence that want more war.
Suppose that the hawks [which of course includes many chicken hawks but that is mostly beside the point] of Israel and the US decide to openly join forces and take the whole situation to an entirely new level. Open purposeful domination with an open team effort. Israel for its purposes and the US for domination of resources. A somewhat reformulated version of the Monroe Doctrine. All areas with vital resources are in our area of influence and we WILL exert our power to control those areas.

Consider an analogy with a tournament game of Texas Hold’em and the US and Israel are one player. To win they cannot simply get ahead and leave the table with a profit, they must take their opponent completely out of the game. It is a winner take all game.

Right now they are sitting at the table with a very small stack of chips because they have played both poorly and stupidly. They will be squeezed out of the next tournament unless they win this one.

It becomes the time to go all in, bet the whole stack, in order to survive in the game. Since the first shuffle the US has had the fifty- third card, the joker, sitting next to its stack. They have the wild card which they can play anytime but which the other players can never have in their hand. They can pick up the joker and play it any time they choose.

When team Chaney says it is absolutely imperative that we play a winning hand I don’t have to agree with or even believe his expressed reasons and motives to believe that he will play his best, most powerful, cards. Also, he is a mean sob with a time bomb in his own chest. Regardless the outcome of his decisions he expects to live out his short remaining time in whatever comfort he now has and besides, to him, other’s lives are only chips in the game and almost certainly his last game.

Using an atomic bomb might not be necessary tactically but it might be a part of their greater strategy to demonstrate to any potential adversary that we are willing to do so and will no longer hesitate. Some of the same rationale used to justify Hiroshima could be twisted to apply to Iran if the neocon’s premises are accepted.

There are actually two categories of things where altitude is an issue. One is not strictly terminal velocity, where greater altitude gets greater range for glide weapons such as JDAM and, especially, JSOW. Higher operational altitude for such munitions was one of the design goals for the F-22.

Terminal velocity is another issue. I agree that for a traditional high-drag bomb, it will be a limit. At an extreme, however, consider the experiments with use of a SLBM with a conventional warhead. Reentering ballistically, it has sufficient terminal velocity that the warhead, if intended for a point target, is filled with concrete. There are open-source calculations showing that its kinetic energy is greater than any conventional explosive filler that can be used.

In WWII, Barnes Wallis' "earthquake bombs" were streamlined, and also spin-stabilized. I'm not experienced enough in aerodynamics to give the exact math, but spinning does defeat some aspects of air resistance creating a terminal velocity limit.

Some weapons (e.g., the French Durandal) get around the terminal velocity limit by firing a rocket booster when they hit their terminal velocity.

Yet another area where the B-2 or B-52 can carry a high terminal velocity bomb that a fighter-bomber cannot is the 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

I suspect an Israeli fighter-bomber can fly high enough to shoot down a heavy bomber. So altitude isn't an issue.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Likely true that capability is already present, but the AGM-129 is the one being retired.

Actually no. We haven't had nukes deployed on aircraft carriers or attack subs since 1991 (they were removed under the Presidential nuclear Initiative of Sept 7.) We no longer have the capability to deploy them on aircraft carriers (a result of the 1994 nuclear posture review.) They have not testing, training, or electronics on the carriers anymore. They could be put back on attack subs, over a period of weeks, but my bet is that they have not. The nearest nukes are those based in Europe that would be delivered by fighter aircraft.

And, odds are, if we were to use a nuke in the region, it would come in on a B-52 or B-2. That's the best source of positive control with a man in the loop.

Certainly B-2's for penetration until all the air defense has been suppressed, although B-52s could launch cruise missiles at a distance. For that matter, B-1's could launch cruise missiles and be survivable under some circumstances; they are not certified for nuclear weapons. F-117's, which are being retired anyway, don't have the range to be useful here and are only first-generation stealth.

Submarines and surface vessels certainly could launch Tomahawk cruise missiles with non-nuclear warheads, which they did against Iraq.

Whiteman AFB is the permanent B-2 base, but they could stage from Diego Garcia or Guam. During the 1991 war, B-52's staged out of Egypt, but I don't see that as being plausible here.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

My immediate thought when the story broke was that this "accident" was in direct response to Russia's resumption of bomber flights, and was intended as an indirect show of force. However, the discussion of Iran here has now changed my thinking on that a bit. I would agree wholeheartedly with the statement that this was in no way an accidental incident, and that a.)it was leaked to warn peeps about what Bush/Cheney's Iran strategy is likely to be, or b.) it was leaked to tighten up Vlad's poop chute a notch.

No way was it accidental. Nukes don't get onto planes by accident.

-Buck Turgidson

According to the story I read, the military guys said they were planning a full scale investigation on/by Sept. 14 !!!!
Why wait that long for the "investigation"?
Unless something else is planned before then.

Remember, The PNAC plan states that Iraq, Iran, and Syria and Nigeria are all targets of the NeoCon world order dream.
And I have read elsewhere that Israel will handle Syria for us. All the better to get that pipeline that runs thru it.

Well well..looky here...today's news says .......
how timely...

Linda Young - AHN News Writer

Lagos, Nigeria (AHN) - America and other Western nations are at heightened risk of being terrorist targets in Nigeria, the U.S. embassy in Nigeria said Thursday.

W