UTMC

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... olina-1961" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ed Pilkington on theguardian.com wrote:US nearly detonated atomic bomb over North Carolina – secret document

Exclusive: Journalist uses Freedom of Information Act to disclose 1961 accident in which one switch averted catastrophe

...wait, WHAT? Had someone rung the Zombi-Apocalypse alarm or whatnot?

Ed Pilkington on theguardian.com wrote:... US was narrowly spared a disaster of monumental proportions when two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs were accidentally dropped over Goldsboro, North Carolina on 23 January 1961. The bombs fell to earth after a B-52 bomber broke up in mid-air ...

Oh, it was one of those, accidental bomb-drop, one of them Broken Arrow things. Not like they could have exploded or anything. Damn media and their sensationalism...

Ed Pilkington on theguardian.com wrote:... broke up in mid-air, and one of the devices behaved precisely as a nuclear weapon was designed to behave in warfare: its parachute opened, its trigger mechanisms engaged, and only one low-voltage switch prevented untold carnage.

... come again?

Ed Pilkington on theguardian.com wrote:... its parachute opened, its trigger mechanisms engaged, and only one low-voltage switch prevented untold carnage. ... Each bomb carried a payload of 4 megatons ...

... excuse me?? So, one tiny little switch was all that prevented what could have been the outbreak of omnicidal nuclear war and, at best, would have killed millions? No, couldn't have been. I mean, okay, the early sixties, that bomb would have been 1950s technology, way before permissive action links and all that. But it would have had a little bit more than one tiny switch to stop things happening. Must have. I mean, four megatons, just to make sure US air bases wouldn't get evaporated if a bomber crashed on takeoff or something. A whole bunch of mechanisms stepped in, that switch was just quickest or something.

Ed Pilkington on theguardian.com wrote:Jones found that of the four safety mechanisms in the Faro bomb, designed to prevent unintended detonation, three failed to operate properly. When the bomb hit the ground, a firing signal was sent to the nuclear core of the device, and it was only that final, highly vulnerable switch that averted calamity.

*****shudder*****

I see this like bitching that brakes almost didn't stop you in time...but there was no accident, akin to "three out of my four wheels kept slipping on the ice, only the fourth was able to grip and stop the car from careening into traffic...but you stopped, and everyone is fine...so it was scary, but that's why you have four brakes.

Also as I recollect none of the mechanisms failed, and its interesting that that is not quoted, but inferred. They were rendered ineffective along the way, correctly per design although in this case undesired, and the last switch mitigated the possibility of detonation, keeping it down to 1 in 1 Million of an undesired detonation in adverse environments...and it worked.

This article has some seriously "choice picked" quips from the report, and ironically considering that he's pulling notes edited for correctness, has inaccurate reiterations. There is a big difference between rendered ineffective and failed. Further, the fact that one subject matter expert's opinion of a 50 year old bomb is that it was not safe enough has really little bearing on the current arsenal.

my two cents

I wasn't trying to comment on the current US arsenal with this post. As a matter of fact, as you lot have managed to go 68 years now without an unwanted nuclear explosion, even though there were a few accidents and incidents along the way, you've evidently implemented what there was to be learned from these incidents and figured out how to handle those things as safe as they can be handled.
I thought the quotes from the article fairly accurately represented what was in the article, or did you mean the guardian article itself was quote-picking?

In any case, I only posted this because, the way the article presents it, the idea of a nuclear bomb arming itself by accident, that's scary as FUCK. As you point out in your example of with the wheels on the ice. Ended up fine, even if some stuff didn't, other stuff worked as it was supposed to do. Still scary as a fuckermother.

Spot on rench. No comments meant to you personally DG. As a topic near and dear to my heart, liver, lungs and other easily irradiated organs, I don't like to see nuclear warfare sensationalized. The implication the guardian author seems to be shooting for is that you/we/the world is not safe from even the most elaborately guarded and meticulously maintained weapons on earth, and that is simply not true. I'm not naive enough to say nothing can happen, but trying to invent fear and imply deceit is just asinine. There are enough real threats, and yes real deceit, that there is no need to invent it. The information of exactly what happened is likely controlled in a particular way due to its relation to the inner working of the weapon. Lots of really unsavory characters would love to know how that all works together to better do their evil unto the world; I'm right across the persian gulf from one right now as it happens.

I wish I could tell you how, why, where, and when, but the fact is its kind of irrelevant. The bomb worked like it was supposed to from the ground to the ground, everything worked perfectly. better still, even the conventional explosive did not detonate, and even if it had you would have gotten an extra-green, glowing, swamp, but most likely no parking lot. On top of that we did indeed expand the safeguards, and continue to do so as technology allows...which is a big part of my problem with the original article, and I'm about to go on a slight tangent/gripe, fair warning.

Not long ago the US congress killed the reliable replacement warhead, citing that we didn't want to make more/new nuclear weapons. This decision, based largely on sensationalized reporting and advocacy, means that my personnel and myself will continue to be exposed to a greater hazard than is necessary in the daily care and feeding of this arsenal. For no concrete reason beyond catholic clowns http://defensetech.org/2006/06/23/clown ... e-missile/ and bongo drums a greater level of surety is forfeit. So when an author deliberately pulls things out of context or makes a reference incorrectly, I get a little pissed.

PS. how do I use text as a link? I wanted to hyperlink that story to "catholic clowns" but gave up.

PPS it takes forever to scrub blood out of concrete...thanks asshole

Regarding making text a link:
will look like this:
This is a link
Just put the URL tag around the text you want to be the link, and insert a =, directly followed by the url, no spaces, no " and whatnot. But keep the http://" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Regarding the clowns:
Well, on the one hand, this clown stunt does appear a little dumb and sensationalist. Looks more like a vanity exercise than earnest protest. On the other hand, many people have no desire to live in a world where the machinery to make actual Armageddon actually happen isn't being dismantled. I do think nuclear disarmament is a good idea all around. If India and Pakistan could please start with it, I would appreciate that a lot. Besides those nutters, I don't think anyone needs nukes to frighten us all away from WW3 anymore. On that note, what happened to de-mirving the Minuteman missile, is that still/again going on? Something about cake comes to mind, regarding the having of it and the eating of it.
On that note, have they figured out how to make that fogbank stuff again, for the refurbishing of the old warheads? Or is that just a Navy problem?

BTW: I don't expect many answers to the questions I sprinkled in up there, you're not a press officer. But these things interest me in general, so I try and make use of the opportunity.
But your congress stopping the reliable replacement warhead is probably a bit dumber and more asinine even than these protesters. On the one hand, they don't want to vote away the nuclear deterrent ... but at the same time, they don't want to vote to keep that deterrent in good working order?

DerGolgo wrote:what happened to de-mirving the Minuteman missile, is that still/again going on

That is still in work as part of compliance with New START (jackass Treaty name if ever there was one) I try to stay as far away from the Navy and their shennanigans as possible so no idea there.

The bothersome piece is, the US has stopped all astronomical advancement in the nuclear arena and effectively allowed everyone else to catch up. I don't remember which cold war politician said this, but the axiom remains true "we build more they [russia] build more, we dismantle, they build more]. The US is essentially the only country who has both stopped production and advancement. We've done some, but we've largely sacrificed the edge we held coming out of the coldwar in both technological and numerical superiority. Conceptually we've retained this edge with amazingly advanced conventional capabilities, but for my money a JDAM or LOCAS or SDB doesn't scare the shit out of nearly enough people compared to a nuclear platform. Fighters are fun, bombers are business; we fly fighters around Korea daily, one BUFF overflys South Korea once and its global news. Honestly from the worker bee perspective its nice to see deterrence in action and some little kim jong shitbrick shaking in his wee totalitarian boots. Its hard to argue with "hey fuckface, I can wantonly fly this lumbering dinosaur commissioned in the Truman administration, you know 17 years BEFORE we walked on the moon, load it with 20 ALCM and literally atomize you, and there is fuck all you can do about it"

I think this is one of the few benefits of the dated arsenal, flying a museum piece and being threatening with it. Its like showing up to a track day with an old knucklehead or black shadow (only 3 years older than the BUFF) and saying with full integrity "I've got Panigale, but I can kick your ass with this just fine"