18 ms·
Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed
- le-mark 9y agoThere's a LOT of cold war history up there in the central plains. The Strategic Air Command museum just outside of Omaha Nebraska has really incredible displays and a surprisingly large aircraft collection (to me at least). Including an SR-71. Highly recommended for anyone interested in that kind of thing. http://sacmuseum.org/ http://sacmuseum.org/
- nerdponx 9y agoHicks said the metal of the screwdriver contacted the positive side of the fuse and also the fuse’s grounded metal holder, causing a short circuit that sent electricity flowing to unintended places. Is there some company out there making non-conductive screwdrivers designed for electrical work? I can understand that maybe the materials science to make strong plastic screwdrivers didn't exist in the 1950s, but surely they exist today, right?
- planteen 9y agoOh yeah they exist. There are ceramic ones and I have also seen plastic ones. I've seen other fun specialized types of screwdrivers in my career: Screwdrivers with conductive plastic in the handle, to deal with ESD requirements in the spacecraft industry. Alternatively, take a normal plastic screwdriver handle and wrap it in copper tape. Beryllium screwdrivers (non-ferrous) for use around MRI machine bores thanks to the insane magnetic fields. You also have to wear ceramic hard-toed shoes.
- saagarjha 9y agoWait, isn’t Beryllium toxic? I was under the impression that you don’t want to be around it.
- scrooched_moose 9y agoIt's mostly an inhalation risk. You definitely don't want to be around the manufacture of it without serious PPE, but touching a screwdriver should be fine. Just don't take it to a grinding wheel. I'd guess anyone working on an MRI machine is wearing gloves anyway for other reasons.
- lostlogin 9y agoHave watched a few engineers work on MR scanners - no gloves unless dealing with helium.
- katastic 9y agoDidn't you mother ever tell you to stop putting things in your mouth? Also, it's used in dental alloys. It seems it's only toxic if you inhale its dust. Fun fact: Your body has no way to remove it from your body, so you accumulate it forever.
- sliverstorm 9y agoSounds like a candidate for chelation.
- 0xfeba 9y agoSame problem as lead, IIRC.
- lostlogin 9y agosurprisingly it is similar for iron too, luckily we can bleed.
- planteen 9y agoYes, beryllium is very nasty. You don't ever want to breathe its dust, so don't machine/cut/grind it ever. There are usually warning symbols on things containing it. But it has applications so it gets used. For example, it is used in spacecraft to save weight over aluminum. When I worked with MRI machines, we used FETs with beryllium oxide ceramic (BeO) backing. BeO is an amazing thermal conductor, electrical insulator (only diamond is better).
- aptwebapps 9y agoAnd steel sheathed with plastic. The end still conducts, but that's not usually a problem.
- fhood 9y agoAt a company I used to work for we used to get a set of these every time we made a bulk order. But the company was just four people and we made those orders 3 or 4 times a year, so eventually we were basically drowning in very well insulated hand tools.
- gebeeson 9y agoAbsolutely. And when dealing with nuclear weapons (i.e. Specials) they are the only tools authorized. Nylon and the like.
- lostapathy 9y agoYes, tons of options https://www.kctoolco.com/insulated-tools/ https://www.kctoolco.com/insulated-tools/
- Justin_K 9y agoInsulated tools won't prevent a short from a metal tipped tool. The operator should have used a plastic fuse puller.
- GCU-Empiricist 9y agoThe proper tool is a fuse puller not a screwdriver. These days similar maintenance evolutions are heavily controlled operation performed under reader/worker controls.
- Animats 9y agoHe was supposed to be using a fuse puller, but he didn't have one. This is a fuse puller.[1] It's a pair of pliers made from nylon. Before good plastics, they were made of hardwood.[2] Standard electrician tool for a century. [1] https://www.jensentools.com/gc-waldom-9356-fuse-puller-molded-nylon/p/60-356 https://www.jensentools.com/gc-waldom-9356-fuse-puller-molde... [2] https://www.etsystudio.com/listing/552201603/antique-wooden-pliers-fuse-pullers https://www.etsystudio.com/listing/552201603/antique-wooden-...
- leeoniya 9y agooh, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash "The two 3–4-megaton MK. 39 nuclear bombs separated from the gyrating aircraft as it broke up between 1,000 and 2,000 feet (300 and 610 m)." For reference, Little Boy's (Hiroshima) yield was 15 kilotons.
- gilleain 9y agoUsing the nukemap, with a target of Faro: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=4000&lat=35.5111142&lng=-77.8447581&hob_ft=0&ff=55&zm=10 http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=4000&lat=35.5111142&l...
- leeoniya 9y agothe default there is airburst, but at Faro it would have detonated at the surface which reduces the radius a lot and casualties by a factor of 3, (prolly since less of densely-populated Goldsboro is affected)
- HarryHirsch 9y agoBut with a surface burst there would have been a fallout plume all the way to Norfolk, VA. The area would be uninhabitable for years, if not decades.
- _Microft 9y agoThere was a frightening number of close calls over the course of decades on the american side alone. One can just assume what must have happened on the sites of other nuclear powers that just doesn't get reported. You can find a timeline of these almost accidents here: https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/ https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-ti... It's certainly time to reduce the number of warheads from a nuclear-winter-guaranteeing one to an at least nuclear-deterrence-still-works-but-an-accident-is-terrible-but-no-longer-civilization-ending one.
- gozur88 9y agoThe incident in the article isn't a "close call". There was never any danger the warhead would go off.
- HarryHirsch 9y agoIf the warhead had damaged the fuel tank there would have been an explosion, and the radioactive materials in the bomb would have been spread around the site. It would have looked like the Palomares explosion, and that was a mess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash There was an incident (this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_ex...) when a serviceman dropped a spanner while working on a missile. There was a fuel leak and an explosion, thankfully the warhead was thrown clear of the silo by the blast.
- retSava 9y agoThere have been many accidents, of a kind where even one is one too many. Given the potential damage, I certainly don't feel comfortable with your assessment that there wasn't any danger it would go off. Likely these things happen more often than is publicly known, yet we've not (yet) seen a full-on swiss cheese kind of accident.
- gozur88 9y agoNuclear bombs aren't like normal bombs. You can burn them or blow them up with conventional explosives and they won't go off.
- mrbill 9y agoI swear I read about this in Schlosser's "Command and Control" a couple of years ago.. maybe not. https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion-ebook/dp/B00C5R7F8G https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill...
- throwaway7645 9y agoThis comes up on HN every few months (I've commented on it before)and that documentary is shocking and terrifying. The Arkansas one was crazy. We almost lost a rather sizeable area and the radiation zone is out to Memphis.
- pvg 9y agoThe bulk of Command and Control is about a different accident but this one is briefly summarized as well in a couple of paragraphs (p311).
- rrggrr 9y agoThis is why nuclear non-proliferation is important. Its difficult enough for a super power to safely store and control its WMD. Each new nuclear state magnifies the risks, and all the more so because they lack the after action experience that a half century of mishaps delivers.
- vkou 9y agoArms reduction is even more important. I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each. A weapon detonating by accident is terrible. Thousands of weapons on hair-trigger alert is civilization-ending. It's absolutely insane that we're conditioned to believe that this is not only normal - but the best possible state of affairs.
- notheguyouthink 9y agoWhat's the realistic approach to this though? I don't know anything about this area, but to me it seems like hoping for 20 countries having 50 each would be effectively the same as hoping for 20 countries having 0 each. That is to say, we're in the arms race because each country did have N each. But then one country had N+1, and so the others raced for N+2, and so on. If we hoped for 50 each, wouldn't it drop back to the same pattern, and someone would become 50+1? Note that 4,000 of course doesn't solve the N+1 issue, but my point is if you're going to aim for 50 - I'm not sure what problems it solves. May as well shoot for 0, no? 0 seems equally impossible to me as 50, but at least it solves a single problem.. nukes, in general.
- raquo 9y agoYou can't just un-invent nukes. They're there, they provide nuclear deterrence. They will continue to exist no matter how many countries "agree" to stop using them. Regardless of whether you have them, there is always a chance that someone might still keep the nukes in secret despite what they agreed to. No one would want such a risk if they have an option to avoid it.
- sandworm101 9y ago>> without hitting the missile and causing an explosion. >> caused a short circuit that resulted in an explosion. >> Luckily, the cone did not do enough damage to the missile to cause the missile to explode. To clarify: There was absolutely no chance at any point of a nuclear explosion. The article suggests that some big explosion was on the edge of possibility which, given the context, one might think would be a nuclear explosion. The warhead, the "physics package", was never really a worry. Getting those to detonate requires some careful triggering. This was also a SOLID fuel rocket. While you wouldn't want to damage it, it wasn't full of the nasty pressurized liquids of other missiles. Getting its fuel to actually ignite would require more than hitting it with a hammer. You need something akin to a blasting cap. Shuttle used something more like a giant flamethrower. The solid retro rockets were not directly triggered by a the short circuit. I'd bet good money that their ignition system felt the short rather than the fuel being ignited by the short.
- bjt2n3904 9y agoNot an aerospace engineer or anything. I think the fear was that the rocket may tip over and collapse under its own weight. I wouldn't be too surprised if that could trigger an ignition of the rocket fuel at the very least, risking nuclear contamination. While the physics package surely has numerous safeties, I'd be concerned that the safeties would be damaged in a way that no one could really predict after falling 80 feet. They served their purpose well, but you can bet all the engineers were in the lab for the next 72 hours straight looking for various failure modes.
- sandworm101 9y ago>> ...one could really predict after falling 80 feet. I'd say that deep within the archives is a report detailing exactly this scenario. Drop testing of munitions is standard stuff. See https://www.rtc.army.mil/Resources/Capability%20Sheets/Insensitive%20Munitions%20Testing.pdf https://www.rtc.army.mil/Resources/Capability%20Sheets/Insen...
- robryk 9y agoAny damage to the warhead would likely make it impossible to have a nuclear reaction. In order to do that, the warhead would have to explode multiple precisely shaped conventional explosives with precise timing. If any one of them was deformed, nothing (apart from the small conventional explosion) would happen, even if all the safeguards incorrectly decided to explode the warhead.
- skellertor 9y ago“I wasn’t there,” Smith said of the explosion, “but I know there were two technicians who ruined their underwear. 'Cause that ain’t supposed to happen.” Best line of the story. I'm curious how close we've been to nuclear annihilation and we had no idea.
- leeter 9y agoAs bad as this story may seem... it's nothing to the Demascus Titan Explosion... that really could have gone off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_ex...
- roywiggins 9y agoInteresting that both incidents caused by using the wrong tool (screwdriver here, socket there). Such a tiny thing, a hand tool in the wrong place...
- knappe 9y agoI recently finished Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety [0]. I can't recommend the book enough for how eye opening it really is into how blasé we have been with nuclear weapons. We've been reckless and by all accounts it is a miracle we haven't had a serious accident (there have been a few, just not on our own soil). The number of close calls is just astounding. Further the book, at one point, talks about America's position on Russia and the attempts to keep them from getting "the bomb". It is exactly what has played out and will continue to play out with North Korea and Iran. History is repeating itself and we sure haven't learned from it. [0] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00C5R7F8G/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00C5R7F8G/
- fokinsean 9y agoThanks, you just reminded me about this book. Gonna pick it up this weekend! Lately I have been feeling very anxious about the North Korea situation, but for some reason reading about nuclear accidents, close-calls, stories, etc. calms me in a morbid way. I guess it has to do with "facing your fears" or something like that.
- abandonliberty 9y agoHey it's not all bad, we managed to convince Ukraine to destroy their nuclear weapons and it worked out really well for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
- Animats 9y agoThis wasn't really that big a deal. By the Minuteman era, warheads were safe against fires and crashes. Nuclear weapons from several B-52 bombers hit the ground hard in crashes without a nuclear explosion. (Sometimes the implosion charges did go off, but not symmetrically, as is needed to get implosion.) The Minuteman missile itself had a solid fuel engine. This was nowhere near as bad as the incident described in "Command and Control". That one was a liquid-fueled missile with hypergolic propellant. See Wikipedia's list of nuclear accidents.[1] This wasn't one of the big ones. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- collinmanderson 9y agoThat sounds right: > Incredible as it may sound to a civilian, Hicks said he spent no time worrying about the thermonuclear warhead. He had been convinced by his training that it was nearly impossible to detonate a warhead accidentally. Among other things, he said, the warhead had to receive codes from the launch-control officers, had to reach a certain altitude, and had to detect a certain amount of acceleration and G-force. There were so many safeguards built in, Hicks later joked, that a warhead might have been lucky to detonate even when it was supposed to.
- gh02t 9y agoYep, a modern nuclear bomb takes a very coordinated sequence to actually have the confinement needed to get good utilization of the fissile fuel (i.e., be a nuclear-driven explosion), otherwise they just fly apart before any significant fission/fusion can occur. The fuel used for a nuclear weapon is also basically radiologically inert by necessity so if it does explode conventionally there is not a significant release of radiation. It's pretty toxic chemically, but there's not a lot of it so it's not nearly as bad the fallout that would precipitate from a nuclear explosion.
- Animats 9y ago
- twobyfour 9y agoMakes you wonder what's going on right now that nobody's telling you about...
- jt93 9y agoWe've been very lucky so far not to have had any serious incidents.
- slezakattack 9y agoI found that the side-story as to how they even got this story was pretty fascinating: http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/revealing-a--year-old-secret-how-we-got-the/article_66b0ef10-10ba-5584-b582-f80cd3f275fa.html http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/revealing-a--year-old...
- jacquesm 9y agoThis article sounds like a recruitment effort.
- mtuker 9y agoThis was really a big deal
- tomcatv 9y agoThat sounds pleasant
- nikkig 9y agoIt's amazing we've not had a major incident because of our recklessness.
- tomcatv 9y agoits good
- pwaai 9y agoIncidents like this shows us that things will inevitably go wrong with increasing frequency and gravity. Furthermore, I fear regional conflicts involving mass scale conventional face-off (ex. dmz) are converting to a low operating cost high risk situations in the form of mutually assured destruction. East Asia is venturing into a potential double whammy of naval and nuclear arms race--smaller countries like South Korea are entering a phase of normalization for nuclear armament with pressure mounting from the public to have a deterrence and a back up plan yet cannot have land based missile silo's, instead relying on nuclear submarines that will host the IRBMs. The cost is much higher than the "previous generation", as smaller countries will most certainly be decimated, land based silos do not make sense.
- zedpm 9y agoIf you happen to visit Badlands National Park, or western South Dakota in general, make time to visit the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site mentioned in the article. I toured Delta-01 last summer, and it was fascinating. The tour guide did a fantastic job of conveying the gravity of the mission and just how scary the Cold War was.
- markrages 9y agoWhen I visited, the guide was retired veteran from that missile site. He spent a lot of time discussing the living situation, and the maintenance schedule, and the phone setup. The guy had internalized that bureaucracy over his entire career, and wanted to explain in in painstaking detail. The underground control center was amazing though.
- meej 9y agoI really wanted to visit this in 2009 while driving across the state. Unfortunately there were no signs on the highway to guide us (it was a relatively new historic site at the time) and me and my traveling companion missed it.
- thrillgore 9y agoThis article didn't seem like that much of an incident. The warhead didn't fire, at least. SL-1 is more of what I would think would be a real .mil-sector nuclear accident.
- Havoc 9y agoThe irony of calling people working underground "airmen" is strong...
- royala_block 9y agoIn my experience it is like US nukes in Turkey.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- anovikov 9y agoWell in a solid fuel missile, there was simply no way it was going to explode due to any kind of external damage (or at all, solid fuel does not explode). Good that nuclear safety of the warhead itself worked well, as none of the explosive lenses gone off.