nuclear warheads defy treaty?

This is more a question than a real diary, the data is clearly not in.  There's a report on CNN that there were nuclear warheads on a plane flying over the US.  This is apparently a violation of a treaty forbidding plane travel for nukes.  It's being billed as a mistake, but,. how can nuclear warheads be mistakenly placed on a military plane.  So, some questions:

Who told?
What was the ultimate destination?
and,
could this possibly be a whistle-blower who can't say all he or she knows, but who can say that there were nukes on a plane flying within the US?

Makes me wonder if nukes are being moved to be in place for those potential tactical nuclear first strikes in Iran.  

•  tip to more info on this 'mistake'

  by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:26:13 PM PDT

  •  there was an ap story today and one in...

    "military times." Also, an a.m. diary with some interesting comments. Fact is, we don't know what it was, and yes, hard to swallow "mistake" when nukes involved. To what treaty are you referring?

    by Son of Beale on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:28:51 PM PDT

    •  on cnn

      they referred to a treaty between us and the former Soviet Union, after a plane carrying nukes went down near Europe, that no more nukes would be on planes.  I guess it's straightforward, to avoid accidents. They made it clear that the nukes couldn't be used mistakenly, because only the president has the code, comforting, no?  

      by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:36:21 PM PDT

•  Just heard this on NPR

  and they mentioned that the most frightening aspect of this story is that the nukes were "live" while they were flying. They had not been deactivated. I think this is getting very little press and frankly, it seems like a story that deserves a hell of alot more.

  by Pager on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:34:41 PM PDT

  •  When I first read this on Yahoo this morning,

    I thought. Wow, this is scary. The morning story had a bit more. This is the CNN
    story. I felt, wouldn't that have been something to have nuked ourselves? No Dakota to Louisiana. Now they say they could not have detonated if there had been a crash, but they sure did not say that this morning. And the guys in DC had no comments or were not available.
    They were going to be destroyed but this was not a good thing to have happened. Heads should roll on this. So far, they decertified the handlers. Big deal.

    by BarnBabe on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:44:34 PM PDT

    •  thank you

      there is a newer blog on this too, and the diary cited an expert whose ideas seem close to the rest of ours. These guys are being obvious.  We need to shrick to keep from strike.  

      by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:50:14 PM PDT

      •  Can you add the link to the new diary, please?

        Thank you.

        by Pager on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:54:05 PM PDT

        •  don't know how

          but it's now on the recommended site.  Sorry.  

          by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:09:05 PM PDT

          •  That's okay. :)

            by Pager on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:18:21 PM PDT

  •  "Live" is a little misleading

    Apparently the cruise missiles were being flown to Barksdale to be decommissioned.  The nuclear warheads should have been removed prior to transport, however it appears they were not.  I assume this is what NPR meant when they said they were "live".  

    But the missiles were not armed, which is an important distinction.  It means that there is virtually no chance of a nuclear detonation.  Of course there is the small chance that if the plane had crashed there would have been a release of radioactive material, thus the reason that this is so serious.

    Regardless, this should not have happened.  In fact, it is supposed to be impossible for this to happen.  Heads should roll for this one, but I'm not holding my breath.

    by bluerevolt on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:56:13 PM PDT

    •  Good clarification. Thank you. n/t

      by Pager on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:04:56 PM PDT

    •  AP says heads are starting to roll

      In addition to the munitions squadron commander who was relieved of his duties, crews involved with the mistaken load - including ground crew workers - have been temporarily decertified for handling munitions, one official said.

      http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...

      by buddabelly on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:08:41 PM PDT

      •  but which one

        was the whistle-blower? They had to remove him, double quick?

        by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:10:25 PM PDT

        •  what whistleblower, my guess

          they landed at Barksdale the ground crew took one look at what was on the pylons and freaked calling everyone they could. Warshots don't normally land on your runway.

          by buddabelly on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:13:47 PM PDT

          •  that's why

            they had to put so many people on leave?  Could have been any of many?  

            by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:31:12 PM PDT

            •  The people placed on leave we know of were

              at Minot the source of the screwup.

              by buddabelly on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:04:38 PM PDT

              •  it's the

                that we know of at issue. the looks weird.  There is very likely more to it.  

                by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:05:01 PM PDT

•  loose nukes

  I wonder if the Commander in Cheif knows anything about this.

  Makes you wonder doesn't it?

  by Sam Wise Gingy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:35:30 PM PDT

  •  a lot of wondering

    what with the increased in tensions over Iran, and his having tactical nukes as a possible first strike against Iranian research facilities option on his so-called option list.  If someone in the military knows, and wants the rest of us to know, are we supposed to follow up on this and find out where they were heading?  

    by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:39:55 PM PDT

    •  tactical?

      Do you even know what exact weapon was being carried?

      Do you even know why the B52 was ferrying the missiles down south?  

      If you would pay attention instead of being paranoid, you would know that they were strategic weapons that were being ferried to LA to be taken apart.

      by djpat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:53:47 PM PDT

      •  I"m being a bit paranoid

        for sure, but there are reasons, this isn't just grabbing my attention.  I'm (finally) coming to think maybe this isn't a smoking gun for moving nukes, there have been some compelling arguments for amazing incompetence, and I'm feeling swayed.  But my main point was that this was a cover story, because the real story might have been too dangerous for the whistle-blowers to reveal, and so they revealed part of it, and left it to us to notice that the story was strange, and then to investigate.  I actually think Cheney is nuts and that if he can get away with it, and I don't know how much he can get away with, he'd like nothing better than to use nukes in Iran, and the facts on that one lean toward this 'paranoia,' and at any rate I see it as my patriotic duty to keep saying it, like Sy Hersh only no one listens to me, with the hope that enough attention would dissuade him.  LIes live best in the dark and there isn't much light in this administration, and so sometimes we need to guess.  In this way I'm not sure anyone know exactly what weapon was being carried.  

        by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:40:06 PM PDT

•  More info please

  1.  Which treaty purportedly bans plane travel for nuclear weapons?  (Note that there is some degree of liklihood to suspect there is none as no treaty bars deployment of nuclear weapons on planes.)

  2.  Why would one think this would have anything to do with Iran as there is no particular reason to assume B-52s from one airbase in the midwest are more/less likely to be used against Iran than B-52s from another?

  by Justanothernyer on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:37:27 PM PDT

  •  don't know

    that's the verbal report on CNN, a very very short report, not repeated often.  I came in at the end, had to listen for an hour to hear it repeated, they reported on the violation of some treaty.  Does anyone know?

    by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:42:22 PM PDT

•  Why move those nukes?

  We have plenty of usable nuclear weapons on our subs, which may or may not be near Iran at the moment.  That's in addition to our ICBMs, which don't need to be moved anywhere.

  There's no reason to fly obsolete nuclear cruise missiles around the midwest just for Iran.

  by RyoCokey on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:38:52 PM PDT

  •  unless

    the tactical ones aren't yet on subs, because they are still in production, and the plane flying was to get to subs.  

    by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:41:15 PM PDT

    •  Supposedly...

      ...they are nuclear cruise missiles of the air launched variety.  So unless our confidential source was lying, I think we can rule that out.

      by RyoCokey on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:45:11 PM PDT

      •  read a newer blog

        that has more info

        by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:50:38 PM PDT

  •  They were being sent to be destroyed

    Or so the morning story goes.

    by BarnBabe on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:45:56 PM PDT

    •  a fast spin?

      wow, they're trying to kill this story. But if they kill it and they use them in Iran, will that be even more criminally insane?  

      by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:51:36 PM PDT

  •  They were being moved for decommisioning

    the warheads were supposed to be removed first but they weren't.

    http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...

    by buddabelly on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:11:00 PM PDT

  •  Not obsolete.

    The B-52 may be an old airplane, but it works just fine, and a nuclear cruise missile is still an incredibly effective weapon.

    There are also reasons why one might favor a cruise missile on an airplane over an ICBM or SLBM.  One is to use it against a moving target (like a foreign aircraft carrier).  Another is that a cruise missile is less likely to distress other nuclear powers, because they will not know that a nuclear weapon has been deployed until after they know that they are not the target of it.  If an SLBM or ICBM goes off, Russia and every other nuclear power without advance warning would freak.

    Now, going nuclear at all is an extreme move, but if you are going to use them, none of them are obsolete.

    by ohwilleke on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:16:10 PM PDT

    •  Depends on "obsolete"

      A sword is still capable of killing, but is obsolete in a modern military.  I imagine the US simply possesses better methods of nuclear delivery.

      by RyoCokey on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:36:13 PM PDT

      •  Not really.

        While the B-2 is "better" in that it's harder to attack when it's within a certain range of an air defense system, because of its stealthy design, it doesn't have the carrying capacity of a B-52; also, I think it has a shorter range overall, so it would need more refueling. And cruise missiles have ranges measured in hundreds of miles, while air defense systems... generally don't. Cruise missiles are designed for being launched at ranges where an entrenched and well-defended force can't attack the aircraft (or ship) launching them.

        A B-52 can carry 20 cruise missiles, 6 under each wing and 8 inside on a sort of rotary magazine. A B-2 has no external carrying capacity; I would guess its internal magazine can hold eight, maybe a dozen missiles. Now, the computers that you need to have built into the plane to set up the missiles for launch, they aren't that big, and both types of aircraft are enormous compared to the amount of space required for these computers. So, all things considered, I would say the B-52 is to the B-2 as an ugly 18-wheeler rig is to a pleasantly shaped parcel truck.

        by Shaviv on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:20:00 PM PDT

        •  Well... ok.

          The decision to retire the cruise missiles isn't really the issue at hand, though.

          by RyoCokey on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:19:27 AM PDT

          •  As a total aside one big issue facing the

            military is whether to deploy cruise missiles on big conventional bombers like the B-52, on ships, or on submarines.  We do all three now.  But, a cruise missile carrying ship or submarine costs $1 billion+ per unit and goes 50 mph at a sprint.  A B-52 class airplane can move from theater to theater much faster.

            If you want to have a platform for dealing with surface ships or attacking land targets pre-emptively, the plane is much better.

            If you want something to sulk around for weeks and then respond very, very quickly from short range (i.e. if the diffence between 45 minutes notes and 4.5 hours notice matters), the ship or submarine is better.

            by ohwilleke on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 03:24:48 PM PDT

•  I have no idea what they are talking about

  when they say this violated a treaty. I just perused my well-worn START treaty, and this arms control inspector can't figure out how this violated the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, since there are provisions in START to inspect an alert heavy bomber, which is defined in Section VII, Paragraph 14(d)  of the START  Inspection Protocol

  (d) Inspectors shall have the right to inspect one alert heavy bomber of each type, category, and, if applicable, variant each year during baseline data inspections and data update inspections. Only heavy bombers loaded with nuclear armaments shall be considered to be alert heavy bombers.

  Additionally, I couldn't find anything in the Notifications section of the treaty that addresses the movement of nuclear ALCMs. Now, this may have violated a gentleman's agreement between Bush I and Gorbachev regarding alert nuclear forces, but I can't figure out how this violated any treaties.  

  by calipygian on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:47:02 PM PDT

  •  a new blog

    has more info and an earlier comment has the CNN site.  

    by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:52:24 PM PDT

    •  L.C. Johnson has a rec diary on this.

      N/T

      by BarnBabe on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:22 PM PDT

      •  yes

        I was glad to see that, he's obviously has more facts than me, i was looking for a diary on it, and finally got worried it wouldn't be covered, so I did my less than great one.  He's apparently ex-CIA?  

        by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:11:26 PM PDT

  •  My thoughts are similar.

    I'm not aware of any treaty that forbids the United States from moving nuclear warheads from one base to another within the United States by plane.

    There are caps on the size of the ICBM, SLBM and aircraft borne nuclear weapon force of the United States.  But, I'm not aware of any treaty that prohibits the U.S. from flying a B-52 with a live nuke in it.  I've always assumed that short of an act of war against another country, the U.S. is free to fly its nukes where it wants to do so, and that it routinely does so.

    Now, not knowing where your nuclear weapons are is still a bad thing, even if it is a momentary mistake and no harm is actually done (other than an extra trip to take the nuke back where it belongs).  But, this is only because it indicates poor procedures and lack of organization.

    by ohwilleke on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:26 PM PDT

    •  look at the CNN site n/t

      by anna shane on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:11:49 PM PDT

•  Yahoo AP Link

  Yahoo

  by BarnBabe on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:51:08 PM PDT

•  Um...

  It's being billed as a mistake, but how can nuclear warheads be mistakenly placed on a military plane?

  You know, one day I was using the oven, and I wasn't paying attention, and so I put the chicken dish I was cooking in to broil instead of to bake.

  It meant that the meal was almost ruined. There was no conspiracy behind it, it was just a mistake caused by lack of attention.

  And this other time, I was driving to the auto mechanic's shop, and I wasn't really paying attention, and I (in a Honda Civic) broadsided a guy in a Ford Focus and totally demolished his car in a 20 mph collision. Fortunately he wasn't harmed. What ultimately caused the destruction of his car? I wasn't trying to hit him, nobody had sabotaged my brakes or anything, I was just being preoccupied with other things while driving. (It didn't help he was driving a tin can and I was driving a real car, but that was just bad luck.)

  I bet the same thing happened here. The crews whose job it was to make sure this didn't happen were preoccupied with something else, or were tired, or were drunk, or were poorly trained, and simply didn't think to check.

  by Shaviv on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:26:09 PM PDT