Staging Nukes For Iraq???
Surf Life
Posts: 50
This is scary! Anyone else hear about this? CNN reported this as an "accident"
Nuclear weapons are not supposed to be moved by plane, there must have been someone high up who ordered the move.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/05/staging-nukes-for-iran/
Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.
So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.
Then he told me something I had not heard before.
Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?
His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.
Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. 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.
Nuclear weapons are not supposed to be moved by plane, there must have been someone high up who ordered the move.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/05/staging-nukes-for-iran/
Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.
So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.
Then he told me something I had not heard before.
Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?
His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.
Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. 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.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Nukes are not allowed on airplanes, they haven't been allowed on airplanes because of the danger in that type of transport. They are transported across country via train, the only time a Bomber would be loaded with them is in an emergency situation. You probably think I'm a nut but I live near a Trident Sub base, this is in layman terms a Nuclear Sub base. My friends and family have worked with these weapons all my life. I have a friend who has even more information on it and I'll quote him.
"I worked on nuclear submarines for the Navy at Mare Island Naval shipyard for 20 years. As a Nuc worker I handled nuclear material and weapons for 15 of those years. The controls on weapons and nuclear fuel is insanely tight.. This story just CAN’T happen. The amount of people involved in logistics..Code 105 radcon, Engineers, Nuclear riggers, Code 1390 Engineers..Gawd the paperwork involved for anyone of the groups to sign off on.
This story is impossible.. Something else is afoot..
Who signed off and who told them too?
AND WHY do we need to be moving nuclear weapons unless a logistics operation is underway?
IT JUST DOESN’T HAPPEN…They don’t just move weapons from Minot for the hell of it..
Ring…
hello?
hey..we are a little low on thermonuclear tipped weapons this week..
OK, we’ll send you a few..
Make it 6
OK"
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Actually whenever they transport Nuclear weapons into our area the military for warn the area of the transport. Nuclear weapons get moved all the time. I am in a triangle of about 20 miles apart; Trident Sub Base, Nuclear Warfare Engineering Station and a major Naval Shipyard. They all deal with the Nuclear weapons on the boats and Subs. This is not how they move these missiles.
US abandoned all nuclear-armed bomber flights in 1968, due to the risk of radioactive fissile material being distributed in case of a crash. In 1991, Bush Sr. ordered that nuclear weapons be removed from bombers and kept in storage facilities. [Armed bombers used to be kept on alert on the ground]
I'm sorry but they do not move these missiles via airplane to be decommissioned. It is cheaper to move them via ground transport and they do not load them onto a plane. There would be no reason to load them onto a plane unless it was a rush job, something the military is not known for.
And to say the men and women who loaded those missiles had no idea they were handling live warheads, that would be an even scarier scenario.
But that's sorta what I'm saying... if they really meant to bring nuclear weapons in for launching them at something or staging to take to the middle east, then all they would have to do to cover their ass would be to alert the area of the transport... I would guess when they give alerts, they don't say exactly what they are moving and for what reason. They could have just given some everyday general reason and no one would have been the wiser. the fact that they are making such a big deal about it tells me at least that it really was a mistake.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I know you are and that's why I'm explaining as someone who knows a lot about this subject, that this is unusual activity.
BTW: This story was found out by a leak not by the military saying "Hey guess what we did..oops!"
The weapons would have been stored in a bunker and only certain people would have had access. Any ordnance that is removed is cataloged and signed for. The runway crews would have been informed. The ordnance would have been escorted to the plane by a band of security forces. The crew chief would have known what was being loaded. The pilots would have been informed. etc… etc… etc…
If the missiles were being taken to Barksdale for dismantling, why are they flying them in combat configuration on a B-52 and not train or trucking them to Barksdale (or at least using a C-5 or C-17)?
For me one key is that the Wing Commander has not been removed from his position yet.
Nuclear Surety rules require two person control at every stage of handling these weapons. They would have been stored in an alarmed bunker with two high security locks. Pulling them out would necessitate pre approvals with security forces. Moving them from secured storage to the flight line would be another great amount of coordination. I’d never say never but if this did happen the way it is being reported, it is a monumental failure of many AF and DOD rules concerning the handling of these munitions by several separate groups of people who are trained and tested annually in Nuclear Surety. For a Wing handling these weapons, this is a failure of the highest order. Lesser failures have resulted in the immediate removal of the Wing Commander at a minimum.