B-52 6 Nuke Story -- W T F ?, (changed title from Nukes/Iran) Options

[painter]

EDIT:

I changed the title of this thread -- I may eventually combine another related thread with it. There are multiple 'theories' blooming around this very suspicious incident -- the one quoted below was just one of the first ones I saw online and comes from at least a LIHOP level source. In other words, this level of "revelation" may, itself, be a second tier cover story, right behind "mistake". Or not.

---

Staging Nukes for Iran?

By Larry Johnson on Sep 5, 2007 in Current Affairs

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.

Source: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/05/st...nukes-for-iran/

[painter]

The OP above is apparently in reference to this story:

---

B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer

Posted : Wednesday Sep 5, 2007 19:24:12 EDT

A B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, resulting in an Air Force-wide investigation, according to three officers who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the incident.

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.

Advanced Cruise Missiles carry a W80-1 warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons and are specifically designed for delivery by B-52 strategic bombers.

Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Ed Thomas said the transfer was safely conducted and the weapons were in Air Force custody and control at all times.

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.

An investigation headed by Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg, director of Air and Space Operations at Air Combat Command Headquarters, was launched immediately to find the cause of the mistake and figure out how it could have been prevented, Thomas said.

Air Force officials wouldn’t officially specify whether nuclear weapons were involved, in accordance with long-standing Defense Department policy regarding nuclear munitions, Thomas said. However, the three officers close to the situation did confirm the warheads were nuclear.

Officials at Minot immediately conducted an inventory of its nuclear weapons after the oversight was discovered, and Thomas said he could confirm that all remaining nuclear weapons at Minot are accounted for.

“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.”

At no time was there a risk for a nuclear detonation, even if the B-52 crashed on its way to Barksdale, said Steve Fetter, a former Defense Department official who worked on nuclear weapons policy in 1993-94. A crash could ignite the high explosives associated with the warhead, and possibly cause a leak of the plutonium, but the warheads’ elaborate safeguards would prevent a nuclear detonation from occurring, he said.

“The main risk would have been the way the Air Force responded to any problems with the flight because they would have handled it much differently if they would have known nuclear warheads were onboard,” he said.

The risk of the warheads falling into the hands of rogue nations or terrorists was minimal since the weapons never left the United States, according to Fetter and Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an independent research and policy think tank in Washington, D.C.

The crews involved with the mistaken load at the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot have been temporarily decertified from performing their duties involving munitions pending corrective actions or additional training, Thomas said.

Air Combat Command will have a command-wide mission stand down Sept. 14 to review their procedures in response to this oversight, he said.

“The Air Force takes its mission to safeguard weapons seriously,” he said. “No effort will be spared to ensure that the matter is thoroughly and completely investigated.”

Source: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/09/mari...ar_B52_070904w/

Also: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/mari...ar_B52_070904w/

[Devilsadvocate]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) ...That never occured to me...!

I remember that, at the time some arms-limitation-treaties were finally put in place, they were saying that the nuclear cruise misslile were supposed to be fitted with little fins, to make it possible to verify wether they are nuclear or conventional by satellite-inspection. (Yeah, right...)
But somehow i doubt if that still has any significance today, and i would imagine that all that has gone to the dogs- together with the rest of the international agreements and treaties.

[LizzyTish]

Mike Rivero (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/) accompanied Larry Johnson's story with this comment:

Those five nukes on that B-52 may have something to do with Iran
Posted Sep 5, 2007 03:49 PM PST
Category: IRAN

My understanding is that nuclear weapons are normally transported by rail, to prevent the sort of horrendous crash that might accidentally trigger a detonation, and because of there is a derailing, you know where to look for the weapon.

But when weapons are being transported by air, why not use a cargo plane and carry them inside?

Why a B-52 with real nuclear weapons on the weapons racks?

Did we just dodge the "Eye-ranian nuclear attack" false flag?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

[Devilsadvocate]

I'd say any False Flag involving nuclear weapons would be either a 'dirty bomb', or else some kind of "home-made" contraption hidden in the sewers somewhere.
If they would use something like the kind of yokes carried by a B-52, they would face a lot of stupid questions- from "Where did the Iranians get something like *that* ?" to "How did that get past the defenses".
If they want to blame something like that on the Iranians, they got to make it realistic; air-bursts would be out of the question, because that would simply not be plausible.
What i *would* worry about is that George has changed the US-defense-doctrin ( several times by now, actually) to the point were nuclear first strikes are possible, even if the US is not being attacked with any non-conventional weapons to start with. The latest addition to that, if my memory serves me right, was to say that pre-emptive strikes could be launched against any nation which was perceived to have the intention of attacking the US- even if there was *no* direct proof of that.
Combined with the 'nuclear option', that makes for a pretty explosive kind of shift (pun not intended). Possible that they intend using nukes against Iran; although that would almost certainly be impossible to justify to the public.
Meanwhile, i don't think they are going to use the false-flag-method to justify an attack on Iran. At least not if they can do without.
That option will be kept for greater things...

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Sep 6 2007, 05:03 PM

[Guinan]

<s>
Meanwhile, i don't think they are going to use the false-flag-method to justify an attack on Iran. At least not if they can do without.
That option will be kept for greater things...

Exactly!

They now have a very vocal Truth-movement to contend with which wasn't in place on 911. Any false-flag operation would be uncovered for what it is within days.
And even disregarding the Truth-movement, what about talking heads like Keith Olberman? I'm sure he would do some quick arithmatic if another '911' happened.

[Devilsadvocate]

<s>
Meanwhile, i don't think they are going to use the false-flag-method to justify an attack on Iran. At least not if they can do without.
That option will be kept for greater things...

Exactly!

They now have a very vocal Truth-movement to contend with which wasn't in place on 911. Any false-flag operation would be uncovered for what it is within days.
And even disregarding the Truth-movement, what about talking heads like Keith Olberman? I'm sure he would do some quick arithmatic if another '911' happened.

Exactly. Iran is important to them- very important; but they are not going to take the risk of too many stupid questions being asked just for that. Not now.
Any new false falg incident would have to be so massive, that it justifies measures like declaring martial law in order to pre-empt any dissent: The false flag would not only have to serve as justification for another military adventure, but to justify the end of democracy.
That may well happen yet- but not for Iran- because Iran is just another intermediate stage. It's not the main event.

[painter]

The Navy Times have updated this story. Where they're calling it a "mistake," I think what is really going on here is that a very highly secret operation was outed -- and outed in a very public way. That is to say, a simple "mistake" could be handled through channels -- especially if top clearances were involved -- and kept out of the public eye. That it was not handled that way suggests to me that this is a deliberate action to thwart a black-operation. SIX Nukes going "missing"?? "Mistake????!!" Yeah, r i g h t. And WHO, I wonder, would be authorized to have the launch and detenation codes for these sweethearts? And where was Mr. GWB at this time??

And what is this I'm hearing about a STAND DOWN -- all military fllights GROUNDED on September 14? A soloar eclipse on the 11th and Ramadan on the 15th??!!!

---

Commander disciplined for nuclear mistake

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer

Posted : Wednesday Sep 5, 2007 19:26:41 EDT

The Air Force continued handing out disciplinary actions in response to the six nuclear warheads mistakenly flown on a B-52 Stratofortress bomber from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30. The squadron commander in charge of Minot’s munitions crews was relieved of all duties pending the investigation.

It was originally reported that five nuclear warheads were transported, but officers who tipped Military Times to the incident who have asked to remain anonymous since they are not authorized to discuss the incident, have since updated that number to six.

Air Force and defense officials would not confirm the missiles were armed with nuclear warheads Wednesday, citing longstanding policy, but they did confirm the Air Force was “investigating an error made last Thursday during the transfer of munitions” from Minot to Barksdale.

The original plan was to transport non-nuclear Advanced Cruise Missiles, mounted on the wings of a B-52, to Barksdale as part of a Defense Department effort to decommission 400 of the ACMs. It was not discovered that the six missiles had nuclear warheads until the plane landed at Barksdale, leaving the warheads unaccounted for during the approximately 3 1/2 hour flight between the two bases, the officers said.

President Bush was immediately alerted to the mistake and the Air Force launched a service-wide investigation headed by Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg, director of Air and Space Operations at Air Combat Command Headquarters, said Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Ed Thomas.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has requested daily briefings from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley on the progress of the probe. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., a member of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, requested a full classified briefing, not just the preliminary information being provided to lawmakers, to explain how a mistake of this magnitude could have happened.

Thomas said the transfer was conducted safely and the American public was never in any danger since the weapons were in Air Force custody and control at all times.

But few critics were placated Wednesday by the Air Force’s reassurances.

“Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible,” said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, co-chair of the House Bi-partisan Task Force.

Non-proliferation treaty experts said the Air Force didn’t violate any international nuclear treaties by transporting the nuclear warheads on the B-52, but it was the first time since 1968 that it’s been known publicly that nuclear warheads were transported on a U.S. bomber.

After six nuclear-armed B-52s crashed from 1959-1968, the Defense Department ordered all bombers off nuclear airborne alert. The policy change occurred after a B-52 crashed in Greenland in January 1968, dropping three nuclear warheads on the island and one into the ocean.

As a gesture to Russia and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the first Bush administration took it one step farther in 1991 by ordering all bombers to halt nuclear ground alerts, which allowed bomber crews to practice loading a nuclear warhead, but never taking off with one.

The Defense Department does transport nuclear warheads by air, but instead of bombers it uses C-17 or C-130 cargo aircraft.

“These reports are deeply disturbing,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “The American people, our friends, and our potential adversaries must be confident that the highest standards are in place when it comes to our nuclear arsenal.”

Nuclear weapon experts said they were shocked to find out how completely command and control over the six nuclear warheads failed to allow such a mistake to occur.

Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said a host of security checks and warning signs must have been passed over, or completely ignored, for the warheads to have been unknowingly loaded onto the B-52.

ACMs are specifically designed to carry a W80-1 nuclear warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons and delivered by B-52 strategic bombers.

“It’s not like they had nuclear ACMs and conventional ACMs right next to each other and they just happened to load one with a nuclear warhead,” Kristensen said.

The Defense Department uses a computerized tracking program to keep tabs on each one of its nuclear warheads, he said. For the six warheads to make it onto the B-52, each one would have had to be signed out of its storage bunker and transported to the bomber. Diligent safety protocols would then have had to been ignored to load the warheads onto the plane, Kristensen said.

All ACMs loaded with a nuclear warhead have distinct red signs distinguishing them from ACMs without a nuclear yield, he said. ACMs with nuclear warheads also weigh significantly more than missiles without them.

“I just can’t imagine how all of this happened,” said Philip Coyle, a senior adviser on nuclear weapons at the Center for Defense Information. “The procedures are so rigid; this is the last thing that’s supposed to happen.”

The risk of the warheads falling into the hands of rogue nations or terrorists was minimal since the weapons never left the United States, said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an independent research and policy think tank in Washington D.C.

At no time was there a risk for a nuclear detonation, even if the B-52 crashed on its way to Barksdale, said Steve Fetter, a former Defense Department official who worked on nuclear weapons policy in 1993-94. A crash would ignite the high explosives associated with the warhead, and possibly cause a leak of plutonium, but the warhead’s elaborate safeguards would prevent a nuclear detonation from occurring, he said.

“The main risk would have been the way the Air Force responded to any problems with the flight because they would have handled it much differently if they would have known nuclear warheads were onboard,” Fetter said.

It’s still unclear specifically how the B-52’s flight from Minot to Barksdale would have been different since most nuclear security protocols are classified. But, Kristensen said the flight pattern might have been different since there would have been airspace restrictions. Also, security at both airports would have heightened considerably and the communications between the pilot and the control towers would have been altered, he said.

Air Combat Command will have a command-wide mission stand-down Sept. 14 to review its procedures in response to the mistake. Even units without oversight of nuclear weapons will take part in the stand-down, Thomas said.

“The Air Force takes its mission to safeguard weapons seriously,” he said. “No effort will be spared to ensure that the matter is thoroughly and completely investigated.”

Along with the 5th Munitions Squadron commander, the munitions crews involved in mistakenly loading the nuclear warheads at Minot have been temporarily decertified from performing their duties involving munitions, pending corrective actions or additional training, Thomas said.

The error comes after the Air Force announced last March the 5th Bomb Wing won two servicewide safety awards during fiscal year 2006.

“This is really shocking,” Coyle said. “The Air Force can’t tolerate it, and the Pentagon can’t tolerate it, either.”

[Devilsadvocate]

So, there.
The *Groundcrews* are to blame.
...And does the Groundcrew have any personal, private key to the bunker where they keep that stuff?
Since when do common soldiers have access to nuclear weapons?
*They* decide when to load that kind of material onto an aircraft??
Without being specifically ordered to do so by an officer???
Well, as they say in Dublin:
"Jayzus, Mary and Joseph..."

[André]

I don't believe this was a 'mistake' but I can't imagine why they would want these particular nukes. Nukes can be had more easily and in a more discrete fashion from other countries such as Israel or Pakistan (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) , somebody is playing a dangerous game here.

[painter]

I don't believe this was a 'mistake' but I can't imagine why they would want these particular nukes. Nukes can be had more easily and in a more discrete fashion from other countries such as Israel or Pakistan (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) , somebody is playing a dangerous game here.

There are all sorts of possibilities here, all we can do is speculate.

Be sure to read the comments in the Larry Johnson link, OP of this thread.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/05/st...nukes-for-iran/

[e-dog]

So, there.
The *Groundcrews* are to blame.
...And does the Groundcrew have any personal, private key to the bunker where they keep that stuff?
Since when do common soldiers have access to nuclear weapons?
*They* decide when to load that kind of material onto an aircraft??
Without being specifically ordered to do so by an officer???
Well, as they say in Dublin:
"Jayzus, Mary and Joseph..."

"Jayzus, Mary and Joseph..."

Don't forget Mohammed and Mozes (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

This sure smells fishy.
Soldiers don't have access to nuclear weapons so someone from the "Higher-Up" had to authorized this.
Do you guys know who has this ability? The Generals And or the President?
Also I think they are trying to divert our attention from something bigger with this... I don't think someone really "Leaked" this story on his/her own will.. I think the leaking was a part of their plan...

Why would they want to fly nukes over to the middle east? They've already got like 5 freaking nuclear submarines in the area (each of them able to nuke Iran over and over).
Yea I know.. A lot of speculation.
Did I overlook anything? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)


IT--

This post has been edited by e-dog: Sep 6 2007, 04:47 AM

[Carl Bank]

Also I think they are trying to divert our attention from something bigger with this... I don't think someone really "Leaked" this story on his/her own will.. I think the leaking was a part of their plan...

Why would they want to fly nukes over to the middle east? They've already got like 5 freaking nuclear submarines in the area (each of them able to nuke Iran over and over).
Yea I know.. A lot of speculation.
Did I overlook anything? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)


IT--

Yes, you are probably right that the leaking could be some kind of
their plan. On the other hand, it could be real leaking and you8 are right again,
that they got enpough nukes in the gulf to vaporize the region.

But what if it really leaked without their permission and the nukes are to stage
a nuclear assault in the US, like they trained some weeks ago big time in
Portland harbour?

Won't book Theran nor Portland for vacation this month: Carl

[André]

I believe the point is that these nukes could be flown across the USA and possibly activated without the proper authorization, someone is trying to send a strong message here... :ph43r:

[LizzyTish]

...someone is trying to send a strong message here... :ph43r:

I agree. I think this is a "We mean business" message, to Iran and possibly to 'we the people' at the same time.

[painter]

...someone is trying to send a strong message here... :ph43r:

I agree. I think this is a "We mean business" message, to Iran and possibly to 'we the people' at the same time.

Good points -- but I don't see how, if a nuclear 'accident' from within our own military were to occur, it would benefit the NWO/neocon agenda. The question is, is the result we're observing socially the 'desired' result.

[André]

...someone is trying to send a strong message here... :ph43r:

I agree. I think this is a "We mean business" message, to Iran and possibly to 'we the people' at the same time.

Or maybe it's not about us or Iran directly at least.

Here is what we can do with out your authorization if you don't play ball, so the other side replys Oh yeah we can make this public and prosecute your people, so back off...

just speculating (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[painter]

...someone is trying to send a strong message here... :ph43r:

I agree. I think this is a "We mean business" message, to Iran and possibly to 'we the people' at the same time.

Or maybe it's not about us or Iran directly at least.

Here is what we can do with out your authorization if you don't play ball, so the other side replys Oh yeah we can make this public and prosecute your people, so back off...

just speculating (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

This is sort-of how I see it, too, André. Usually these "messages" don't make their way into the "news" -- or, if they do, we don't 'get' what they are (the beheading of Michael Berg being an example). The news media never present them in that light, of course, for that would validate a 'conspiratorial' reading of events. However, all in all, I think that reading of events is more accurate than the usual gloss. Obviously, to call this event a "mistake" is a gloss, not a reality.

[Blunt Force Trau...]

This story has many flabber-ghasted, to say the least. Here are the links that I could find with regards to this story. It smells to high hell and of a False Flag op to me. One puzzling question I have is why; if the nukes are to be decommissioned; would you strap them onto the wings with warheads intact and not transport them in a C-17 cargo plane, truck or by rail then and then claim you didn't know that that the warheads were on them after landing?

Forget that this violates some 40 year old protocol with regards to transporting these things. The only time these things are attached to the underside of a plane is under high alert. It shouldn't have happened mistake or otherwise. Warheads or no warheads. They should not have been under the wings of that plane.

Another astounding fact is that when you read some of this, you'll find that there is mention of a full stand-down of all military planes on Friday, September 14th, 2007. Seems weird. They claim it's to assess this situtaion. I say if you're going to let the thieves rob your house or attack it, nothing beats assurity by leaving a note on the door that states you're not going to be home.

From No Quarter

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/05/st...nukes-for-iran/

From The Military Times (origin of story before all the lamestream media presstitutes got it and spun it as "routine")

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/09/...warhead_070905/

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/09/...ar_B52_070904w/

From FAS

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/09/flying_nuclear_bombs.php

I hope this was all just stupidity at every level and not some way of sneaking nukes to a base that is a jump point for Mid-East ops. If they were to be decommissioned, it seems they might be off the inventory list, if you know what I mean. They might've ended up in some sinister deployment scheme for the Decider Guy to become Dictator once and for all if it weren't for a few squealers. Thank God for them.

Oh, by the way, another Flase Flag op is scheduled for mid-October (15th - 24th), named TOPOFF.

From Worchester Indymedia

http://worcester.indymedia.org/node/11402

....and lots more from Cpt. Eric H. May

http://www.spiritone.com/~pazuu/pow-mia/Gh...roopCaptMay.htm

May truth be told as a way of stopping this new tyranny. I reside in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and I'm as worried as you are.

[lunk]

I think the truth movement
may have been responsible
for Noble Resolve NOT
going live.

imo lunk