Air Force loses communication with FIFTY nuclear missiles, 6 Nuclear weapons launched
97 replies, posted
...But safley landed in Louisina. If the titles misleading, im sorry, title word limit reached
[quote]Washington (CNN) -- The Air Force lost partial communications with 50 nuclear missiles for almost an hour last weekend, an Air Force spokesman said Tuesday.
The problem, characterized as a "single hardware issue," affected more than 10 percent of the country's ICBM arsenal on Saturday morning, according to Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Wesley Miller IV.
Because of redundant systems, at no time was the Air Force unable to monitor, communicate with or, if need be, launch the intercontinental ballistic missiles on the president's command, several military officials said.
"Any time the president wanted to fire those missiles, he could have," a senior defense official said. At no time was the public in jeopardy, according to another military official.
The Minuteman III ICBMs are multiple warhead missiles that are controlled from Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming but are in missile silos spread out over a wide area around the base.
After the problem was detected, each silo was inspected by base personnel to make certain all 50 missiles were safe and secure.
The exact nature of the problem is still under investigation.
"The specific cause for the disruption is currently being analyzed on site by engineers from the ICBM systems program office," according to an Air Force statement.
A senior defense official said it was an underground cable that got disrupted.
The United States currently has 450 Minutemen III ICBMs. While the squadron of 50 that had problems Saturday represents 11 percent of America's ICBM arsenal, the United States also has bomber-based and sea-based nuclear weapons.
The Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, informed Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, about the problem during the weekend.
Mullen made sure Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was informed. President Obama was briefed on the issue on Tuesday morning, according to a report in Atlantic Monthly.
Gates takes nuclear weapon security very seriously. In 2008, Gates took the unprecedented step of firing both the Air Force secretary and the Air Force chief of staff because of two highly publicized mistakes involving Air Force nuclear weapons.
First there was the embarrassing revelation in August 2007 that a B-52 bomber took off from North Dakota with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that no one knew were live weapons until after the plane landed in Louisiana.
Then came word that the Air Force mistakenly shipped fuses that are used in nuclear weapons to Taiwan in 2006 in crates believed to contain helicopter batteries.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/26/nukes.lost.communications/index.html?hpt=T2[/url]
oops
This is why we need no nuclear weapons in the world.
[QUOTE=Roof;25671611]This is why we need no nuclear weapons in the world.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear weapons saved the world from a conflict that would have been 10 times deadlier than World War 2.
[QUOTE=Explosions;25671680]Nuclear weapons saved the world from a conflict that would have been 10 times deadlier than World War 2.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear weapons also killed plenty of civilians in Hiroshima.
[QUOTE=Roof;25671611]This is why we need no nuclear weapons in the world.[/QUOTE]
If we get rid of ours, someone with malicious intent will still have theirs.
[QUOTE=Explosions;25671680]Nuclear weapons saved the world from a conflict that would have been 10 times deadlier than World War 2.[/QUOTE]
nuclear weapons also nearly ended the world at least twice
Hence, "in the world."
[QUOTE=Roof;25671716]Nuclear weapons also killed plenty of civilians in Hiroshima.[/QUOTE]
They would have died along with a much larger percentage of Japan's population if we hadn't used them.
Not to mention the Allied casualties.
[QUOTE=Roof;25671716]Nuclear weapons also killed plenty of civilians in Hiroshima.[/QUOTE]
They were going to die by relentless carpet bombing anyways.
Plus, now USA and Japan best friends now. Great way to make someone your bitch is by saying "hey.. remember when we droped those two bombs on you.. yeah that was good"
[QUOTE=Roof;25671716]Nuclear weapons also killed plenty of civilians in Hiroshima.[/QUOTE]
And saved hundreds of thousands/millions of other lives that would have been lost otherwise. I'm talking American soldiers, Japanese soldiers, Japanese civilians, and not to mention that immense structural damage that would have occurred due to more massive bombing raids on pretty much all of Japan's remaining population and industrial centers. Trust me, two atomic bomb drops was the best thing that could have happened to Japan at the end of the war, and it's arguably far better than what it deserved.
[editline]26th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=professor cool.;25671738]nuclear weapons also nearly ended the world at least twice[/QUOTE]
Nuclear weapons almost ended the world since they were created, and that means still today.
[QUOTE=Roof;25671716]Nuclear weapons also killed plenty of civilians in Hiroshima.[/QUOTE]
Or we could've went in and killed a whole lot more with troops.
I love how they say "At no time was the public in jeopardy, according to another military official."
If another country attacked us with similar weapons, whether or not we have nukes is a bit irrelevant. It's our ability to stop the nukes that saves us. Otherwise, the nukes could even be operational as long as another country doesn't think they are (and thus fires zeh missiles).
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;25671759]They were going to die by relentless carpet bombing anyways.
Plus, now USA and Japan best friends now. Great way to make someone your bitch is by saying "hey.. remember when we droped those two bombs on you.. yeah that was good"[/QUOTE]
Problem is, the average Japanese citizen's understanding of the Second World War is that one day, out of nowhere, America decided to drop a couple of nuclear weapons on Japan and force them to surrender.
You can imagine their opinion of the United States with that knowledge.
Obviously it ended the war, but from what it seems, you don't realize that the world can end at any specific time if there would be a accidental launch that wasn't stopped.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;25671808]Problem is, the average Japanese citizen's understanding of the Second World War is that one day, out of nowhere, America decided to drop a couple of nuclear weapons on Japan and force them to surrender.
You can imagine their opinion of the United States with that knowledge.[/QUOTE]
yeah, don't piss us off is what i get from it
Japanese citizen: hey don't piss off the fucking americans man or you'll be growing another dick on your cheek
Okay OP. They were not in any way "launched". When you say launched, FP pictures a silo opening up and a rocket shooting out. A plane flew around with them and landed.
Second of all, that part happened in [B]2007[/B], it even says so in the source you posted...
But wow, pretty bad fuck up.
[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;25671790]It's our ability to stop the nukes that saves us.[/QUOTE]
Our ability to stop any nuclear weapons from being used on us is irrelevant, as there is no way to possibly stop every single weapons even one of our enemies possesses. A single nuclear attack from an enemy power would throw the world into chaos.
[QUOTE=professor cool.;25671738]nuclear weapons also nearly ended the world at least twice[/QUOTE]
Twice?
what was the second?
Hurr durp nuclear deterrence argument.
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;25671824]yeah, don't piss us off is what i get from it
Japanese citizen: hey don't piss off the fucking americans man or you'll be growing another dick on your cheek[/QUOTE]
No. What I mean is, the average citizen, at the very least, dislikes and mistrusts America. Add that to a history of mistrusting foreigners, and you have some problems.
What my question is, is our opinion correct? Was Japan really the aggressor? I know that makes me sound paranoid, but the habit of questioning what I know is what led me to convert to atheism after all.
Shit, my heart sank when I read the title.
War... War never changes.
[QUOTE=professor cool.;25671738]nuclear weapons also nearly ended the world at least twice[/QUOTE]
Actually more like 2049840000 times.
*The number of seconds that have passed since the Trinity test.
[QUOTE=alienmartian23;25671836]Twice?
what was the second?[/QUOTE]
i'd imagine it's one of these two
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov[/url]
(they both stopped separate nuclear launches)
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;25671900]What my question is, is our opinion correct? Was Japan really the aggressor? I know that makes me sound paranoid, but the habit of questioning what I know is what led me to convert to atheism after all.[/QUOTE]
Well who attacked first? The answer is the aggressor. You figure it out.
Sure, you might say "o lol well da us FORCED dem into da war!". But there is always a choice. Japan's choice was to stop its imperialist expansion, or continue suffering oil sanctions.
[QUOTE=Roof;25671716]Nuclear weapons also killed plenty of civilians in Hiroshima.[/QUOTE]
Idiot, mutual destruction with nuclear destruction as a final stage of war was the only thing that stopped a direct conflict with the U.S and the Soviet. The Hiroshima bombing took place because Japan had NO weapon that equaled the bomb.
[QUOTE=Explosions;25671984]Well who attacked first? The answer is the aggressor. You figure it out.
Sure, you might say "o lol well da us FORCED dem into da war!". But there is always a choice. Japan's choice was to stop its imperialist expansion, or continue suffering oil sanctions.[/QUOTE]
or we could nuke the chinese
solves all problems
[QUOTE=Roof;25671611]This is why we need no nuclear weapons in the world.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that profound revelation.
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;25672038]Idiot, mutual destruction with nuclear destruction as a final stage of war was the only thing that stopped a direct conflict with the U.S and the Soviet. The Hiroshima bombing took place because Japan had NO weapon that equaled the bomb.[/QUOTE]
The point is, the bombing shouldn't have happened in the first place, or the Japanese should have evacuated (even with belief there is no bomb with that capable destruction).
[QUOTE=Roof;25672130]The point is, the bombing shouldn't have happened in the first place, or the Japanese should have evacuated (even with belief there is no bomb with that capable destruction).[/QUOTE]
1. They had no knowledge of the existence of such a weapon.
2. There was only one enemy bomber, so nobody felt much of a need to get to the shelters. May not have prevented all casualties, but it would have saved around 17,000 according to estimates. The people who ordered the attack expected the civilians to take shelter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.