Breaking: Nuclear warheads flown over US

Short diary but I thought it was something that people should hear about.  I will put up a link as soon as I see one on the CNN website.

Nuclear warheads were in the air over the united states for 3 1/2 hours last Thursday.

Update:  MSNBC has a video of the story up, but no text so far.

Update 2:  (h/t Oreo) Here is the link to the Army Times article.

Barbara Starr just now on CNN reported that a mistake was made and somehow an Airforce B52 bomber was loaded with six nuclear warheads and it flew with them for 3 1/2 hours over the country.  She was careful to say that there are checks and balances before such weapons could be launched, however she said this was a very very serious error.

Bush was notified of the mistake and an investigation has been launched.  I have not seen the link on CNN yet.

•  asdf

  I keep refreshing the CNN website for a link and will post it as soon as it is up.  I would like to hear a better explanation other than that it was a "mistake".

  by BDA in VA on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:40:45 AM PDT

  •  this whole administration

    has been a mistake of the Supreme Court in Dec. 2000.  Now we'll have a mushroom cloud as "icing on the cake"?

    by billlaurelMD on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:42:06 AM PDT

  •  how can that be a mistake?

    How could this have happened as a "mistake"?
    Makes zero sense.
    We need to rid ourselves of this disastrous   administration----no one knows what they're doing.  They're too dangerous, subjecting us all to a potential catastrophe.

    by dotster on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:54:08 AM PDT

    •  That the info got out was the "mistake"

      The plane was probably accidentally bound for Iran.

      by bejammin075 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:31:37 AM PDT

•  Given the incompetence of the Bush Administration

  it is a miracle one of those things did not fall off and incinerate St. Louis.  

  by Delaware Dem on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:41:05 AM PDT

  •  that's the administration who's incompetent

    not the loaders.  now he could have accidentally given a go-code and incinerated St. Louis, but i doubt anything short of that.

    by guyermo on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:42:09 AM PDT

  •  good point

    think of it
    nuke goes off over kansas city ( by.. accident)

    country blames them damn terraists

    and becomes a police state
    right up shrub alley...

    by johnfire on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:05:53 AM PDT

  •  They shouda' dropped one on the WH...

    and then said, "Oops, sorry we made an error."  We'll report back after we see what happened.

    by victoria2dc on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:12:10 AM PDT

    •  That is a very bad comment

      by bejammin075 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:33:22 AM PDT

    •  Exactly what O'Reilly is looking for

      You save him the trouble of having to make new user IDs and plant the nasty comments himself.

      by bejammin075 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:41:45 AM PDT

      •  Why are we still afraid of what....

        O'Reilly thinks?  

        And why do we feel the need to make sure that an offhand comment on a blog is taken the same way as something said on the 6 o clock news?

        Jesus, stop being such shrinking violets....

        by cometman on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:54:52 AM PDT

        •  Well, some of us simply believe

          that this blog should not be used to call for the assassination of government officials.  And I find it a little disturbing that you think this IS a good place to do that.

          by I on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:59:35 AM PDT

          •  Not to mention many thousand citizens. n/t

            by valion on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:07:44 AM PDT

          •  Please don't put words in my mouth...

            A sarcastic comment from a trusted user does not equate to a serious call for assassination IMHO.

            And ever since O'Reilly discovered this website, I have noticed a lot of regular users being trollrated 'for their own good' so the mean people won't be able to see what they said.  Well, I've got news for you--I doesn't take all that long to get TU status around here and I'm sure that there are more than a few republicans registerd here who can see all the hidden comments too.

            by cometman on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:39:12 AM PDT

            •  What does your "Recommend" rating indicate?

              Seems to indicate some measure of support, I would think.  I mean, imagine some moron wrote a comment saying, "I think cometman is a fucking idiot," and I recommended it.  What message would you take from that recommendation?

              As for my troll-rating, that's meant to indicate that to the best of my knowledge, this type of comment is not welcome here.

              by I on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:59:04 AM PDT

              •  My recommends can mean....

                a lot of things.  Sometimes I recommend posts that someone obviously put a lot of work into, whether I agree 100% or not.  Sometimes I recommend things that make me chuckle, sometimes I recommend responses to my own comments just to let the poster know I read them, sometimes I recommend comments from a newer poster that noone else recommended  because I want them to feel welcome,sometimes I recommend because I whole-heartedly agree, and sometimes, as in this case, I recommend comments that in my opinion do not warrant a troll rating. Obviously we differ on this one.

                And if someone recommended a comment that said 'Cometman is a fucking idiot', well obviously that person is mentally deranged and I would suggest they get treatment...;)

                What I never do is troll rate anyone.  There are plenty of other people here who seem to take care of that.

                by cometman on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:48:46 AM PDT

                •  I use recommends like that, too.

                  That's almost the only thing I use them for -- to counter-act what I think are inappropriate troll ratings.  The whole system needs to be re-thunk because too many people become "trusted" users simply because a lot of people "recommend" everything they see.

                  Anyhow, enough of a tangent.

                  by I on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:54:01 AM PDT

        •  Make some substitutions

          Instead of the remark being about someone you already don't like (the Bush WH), imagine if the comment was about the Bill Clinton White House, or the Obama campaign HQ, or the Edwards campaign HQ. Most of us would say that the Secret Service should take note and perhaps visit the person who made such a comment.

          Comments like the above drag down the integrity of this site. If I may also play the national security card, the comment could be interpreted as a threat to the WH, which then drains our finite national security resources.

          There are an infinite number of other ways to critisize the Bush WH harshly without calling for a nuke to be dropped on our White House.

          by bejammin075 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:15:37 AM PDT

    •  TR'd for the call to assassination and violence.

      The "means really are the ends", and there is no need to devolve to neocon fascist hatemongering, IMHO.

      by means are the ends on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:07:00 AM PDT

  •  Or CT or IL or NC or KS or . . .

    @#%+(&#@ing morons.

    Rethuglicans: trying to bring us, in leaps and bounds, back to the Stone Age.

    by Samer on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:17:07 AM PDT

  •  Why is it a miracle? Do ALCMs fall off routinely?

    by valion on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:36:09 AM PDT

•  "a mistake was made..."

  Whooopsie!  Jesus! With these people, it's either total and complete criminal negligence or a nihilistic arrogance that allows them to circumvent every law and ethical standard with impunity...unless they get caught...Then, it's "whooops...shucks, we had no idea."  And to think that they roared into town seven or so years ago on a "personal accountability" platform.  Makes me retch.

  by mayan on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:42:24 AM PDT

  •  I have close to a cast-iron stomach

    And even I'm worried I might be driving the porcelain bus in a few minutes.

    by Samer on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:17:52 AM PDT

•  "Breaking"

  I wish we could come to terms on a definition for use of the word "Breaking" especially in caps in a diary title.

  To me, "breaking" means you have broken the story.  It's not likely I will see this story anywhere else, save for perhaps some not-so-well-known website or tabloid.  And technically, THEY broke the story.

  "Breaking" in the context of a Kos diary is a kind of cheap tool to get people to read your diary.  By the time this diary was posted, I had seen this story on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.

  Maybe I have a boner for this word because our local news folks abuse the shit out of it and it drives me crazy.  "BREAKING NEWS THIS HOUR ... A HOUSE FIRE ON DETROIT'S NORTHEAST SIDE ..."  That's not breaking news.  It's just ... news.

  "Breaking" doesn't automatically translate to "Important" news.  I just wish we could be more careful.  Last week I saw 4 "BREAKING" diaries on Kos in and out of the rec lists.  It really starts to look cheap and uninformed after a while.

  by Detroit Mark on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:42:41 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    Well I did debate with myself whether to write that or not.  Yeah, it definitely is a way to get people to read the diary (although it isn't in caps).  But sorry it is like nails on a blackboard to you.

    by BDA in VA on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:48:00 AM PDT

    •  Really, Not Breaking would

      be more like it. Google news, 24 articles.
      How the hell do you put nukes on a plane by mistake?
      We in deep deep shit.

      by emmasnacker on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:34:29 AM PDT

  •  aoei

    You have to admit though, that this diary is hardly the most egregious abuse of "breaking" since the story wasn't even up on news sites when the diarist posted it, and errors + nuclear bombs + flying over america is hardly on the level of "house fire"

    by Scientician on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:49:57 AM PDT

    •  You're Right

      To be honest, I was waiting for another "breaking" diary to make this point and I pounced on it.

      The diary is, without a doubt, important.  Just wanted to get the opionion out there.  We don't need to linger over it.  I feel better.

      by Detroit Mark on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:54:55 AM PDT

  •  FOX News Alert!

    Bush walks across WH lawn and pisses on scotty dog.

    by phrogge prince on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:45:36 PM PDT

•  You beat me by 2 minutes

  Here's the link to an Army Times story
  http://www.armytimes.com/...

  I'll delete my diary.

  by Oreo on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:48:50 AM PDT

  •  Links keep crapping out

    Here's the text:

    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.

    by Oreo on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:52:28 AM PDT

    •  Which begs the question...

      Why were nuclear tipped cruise missiles on that plane to begin with?

      by RichM on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:06:58 AM PDT

      •  that's a devastating signature

        Wow, it's sort of embarrassing, really.

        by YoyogiBear on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:23:45 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the link

    I will post it if you don't mind.

    by BDA in VA on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:54:55 AM PDT

•  Added nuclear weapons to the tag list

  by Oreo on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:49:24 AM PDT

•  I guess I'm surprised this is a surprise

  I assumed that since we have nuclear warheads and they aren't born where they get deployed that they probably got attached to planes and flown to their final destination air or missile bases.

  It'd be a lot safer than trucking them there.

  by nightsweat on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:57:04 AM PDT

  •  I agree...

    (BTW, love your sig line...  I was just saying to my husband last night when he told me the Cubs were in first place in their division, "So?")

    by madame defarge on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:59:49 AM PDT

  •  It's not that they were flown....

    It's that they had no clue that they were for the 3 1/2 flight. They basically lost a handful of tactical nuclear weapons.

    WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY  A GAME?

    by Oreo on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:07:36 AM PDT

  •  They are transported on cargo planes

    I was a B-52 Aircraft Commander in SAC back in the late 80's and early 90's.

    We never flew with nuclear weapons on the aircraft. We never even taxied the aircraft with nuclear weapons on the aircraft. The most we would ever do was start the engines as part of an alert response exercise (like in the old movies when you see the crews running to the airplanes).

    On the plus side, the weapons cannot be armed by the crew without the unlock codes being transmitted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There was no danger of an accidental or intentional nuclear detonation.

    There was however, the danger of weapons-grade fissionables being scattered in the event of a crash. A "dirty bomb" type scenario.

    by Major Kong on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:39:16 AM PDT

•  Cynical ole me...

  Do we really think this is the first time this has happened under this regime?  Maybe it's the first time they've reported it, but I'm betting that mistakes like this have happened before.  

  There is so much they never tell us.

  by madame defarge on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:57:39 AM PDT

  •  It's not the first time it's happened at all

    You don't even want to know how mant "oops? where'd I put that?" events have happened with nukes.

    They are sort of like leaving $100 bills around.

    They just get lost a lot more often than $1 bills.

    by cskendrick on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:02:22 AM PDT

    •  Number of lost nuclear bombs never recovered?

      Eleven Fact-let #44.

      by OHdog on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:12:39 AM PDT

      •  Lost in accidents

        Any thefts or misplacements.

        11's a scary number, too.

        by cskendrick on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:02:55 AM PDT

  •  Why was it reported at all?

    This administration has raised bald-faced lying to the public to an art form. There is nothing they wouldn't lie about and they've locked the rest of the information about our government behind walls of secrecy and obfuscation.

    What is the purpose of this leak?

    Who did it?

    Where did this info come from? If it came from an official source, then the government wants it out there...

    Why?

    by bablhous on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:56:07 PM PDT

•  tempest in a teapot

  What do you think has been going on with nuclear weapons for the past 50 years? They put 'em together onsite out of tinker toys?

  by Jim J on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:00:42 AM PDT

  •  that brings up questions in of itself

    I wonder why they released the information then?  If it is business as usual, why are they having an investigation?  I just have a lot of questions about why this particular time it is important enough for the military to report on it.

    by BDA in VA on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:07:40 AM PDT

    •  Could be 'disinformation'...

      ...related to a different situation. Like, say, Iran. We can't invade, so saber-rattling requires credibleAF and Naval threats. Navy's deployed, AF can come in from NATO bases. What they'd both need are some extra tactical nukes. Operational, not thousands of miles from their warheads.

      So they report it as an 'oops' to the public that doesn't care, but whoever's watching says 'yikes!'

      by Joy Busey on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:23:18 AM PDT

  •  Indeed, there are lots of interesting cold war

    stories about 'lost' nuclear weapons.

    For example, a plane carrying 4 nuclear bombs crashed just off the coast of Spain and the weapons were just 'out there' for quite some time, waiting for the terrorists to sccop them up . . . .

    by Roadbed Guy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:25:36 AM PDT

•  You dirty apes, you almost blew it up.

  God damn them, nukes? NUKES?

  Gonna go kick some walls now.

  by pinche tejano on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:04:36 AM PDT

•  I just heard this on Air America...

  seems they were lost for a couple hours too....Now what is with THAT?

  This Administration is soooo incompetent and has no clue about real oversight!

  by Temmoku on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:05:13 AM PDT

•  Par for the course

  Although the memory is fading in the shadow of all the horrors that came after, who has forgotten the infamous USS Greenville accident on February 9, 2001?  Not even a month in office, and the incompetence of this Administration already was clear to see.  A joy ride for cronies turned into a deadly international incident.  

  Who then knew just how far down the hell hole the incompetence would lead us?

  by Ernest T Bass on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:06:06 AM PDT

•  Someone was trying to steal them

  They got lost track of in the same way that weapons and money get lost track of in private contractor Iraq.

  Somebody had an immediate use for those weapons.

  by cskendrick on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:10:08 AM PDT

•  As far as the airforce is concerned

  The major part of this story is a breakdown of procedure that is supposed to be fail safe.

  The danger of dropping the unarmed warheads between ND and LA should be understood as the possibility of a cleanup of radioactive material spread by the kinetic energy of the cruise missile trenching some farmers soybean field.

  But the idea that warheads could be misplaced and unaccounted for at Minot, should be investigated all the way up the chain of command and the base CO, like the Captain of a ship, will be held responsible even if he was not directly involved in the event.

  That is the way it works and careers died today of officers who were in that chain no matter who made the mistake.

  by NCrefugee on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:13:47 AM PDT

  •  they'll probably end up as the head of the JCS

    or get the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    by YoyogiBear on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:27:45 AM PDT

•  I know the military is a sacred cow

  and that we're supposed to never question their judgement, ever.  

  But WTF?

  by YoyogiBear on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:19:57 AM PDT

•  A Flying Dirty Bomb

  If that plan crashed or exploded bad things would have happened. Why not rail or a regular ol' convoy?

  by owl06 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:29:27 AM PDT

  •  Road is more dangerous than flying, by lots

    Couldn't say for rail transport, though.

    by Shaviv on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:59:53 AM PDT

•  so this is what we've

  turned out military into huh?  the good, honest and patriot (non spinners) retiring at an alarming rate and we've left our military in the hands of jerkoffs.

  Jerkoff is all that I can think of when nuclear war heads go missing on US soil for HOURS - the image of what coulda happened is not something I want to visualize.

  sorry state of the nation.

  by bobnbob on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:43:16 AM PDT

•  They did drop one by accident once

  on Albuquerque. Didn't go off, but....oopsie!

  Abq Tribune story

  by BoogieMama on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:52:04 AM PDT

  •  They dropped one on Spain once by accident

    They used to fly "airborne alert" back in the 50's and 60's. Sometime around 1968 or 1969 a B-52 collided with it's air-refueling tanker off the coast of Spain and two nuclear weapons fell from the wreckage. One landed on Spanish soil and the other landed right off the coast.

    by Major Kong on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:56:21 AM PDT

•  i was navy back in the 60's

  every carrier has nuke bomb's on board(how many??)  plane are loaded everyday on carriers with nuke's 24/7 i've stood many a nuke watch.
  SAC B52 & B1 planes are flying with nuke bombs on board everyday
  the tracking and not knowing is the problem, hard to believe they could screw this up

  by vet on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 08:04:13 AM PDT

•  It's been a long time since I was in the military

  but it's virtually impossible for me to believe that nukes were put on a B-52 'accidentally.' If B-52's were going to haul nukes into position to be used on Iran, what bases would they be flying to/from? Just wondering...

  by phrogge prince on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:51:53 PM PDT