7 ms·
A Burning B-52 Nearly Caused A Nuclear Catastrophe
- tyingq 7y agoTook nearly 10 years after this for a decision to first modify, then later, decommision the W69, based on how unsafe it was in a fire. https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-19900524-1990-05-24-9005240182-story.html https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-19900524-1990-05-24-9...
- leeoniya 7y agohere's another close call which almost ended very badly: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash "He also said the size of each bomb was more than 250 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb, large enough to create a 100% kill zone within a radius of 8.5 miles (13.7 km)."
- tyingq 7y ago"Lieutenant, we found the arm/safe switch." And I said, "Great." He said, "Not great. It's on arm." Oof.
- lazyant 7y agoiirc this incident is one of several captured in the book "Command and Control", awesome read.
- nodesocket 7y agoClearly I am wrong, but my understanding was a fire would not be enough to initiate the nuclear reaction. Don't two unstable masses have to slam into each other at super high velocity to release enough nuetrons to start the chain reaction?
- Rafert 7y agoThat's covered in the article: > If this had happened in the 1980 accident, the rocket motors in the SRAMs, as well as the conventional explosives inside their W69 warheads, used to initiate the thermonuclear reaction, would very likely have exploded. While this may not have triggered a nuclear explosion, it would have thrown a plume of highly radioactive plutonium into the air, easily covering a 60 square mile area, which would have included parts of North Dakota and Minnesota.
- khuey 7y agoThere's a part further down where they mention that the other type of bomb had a design flaw that could have led to a nuclear detonation under the conditions.
- moltensodium 7y ago"Oops"
- olex 7y agoAccording to the article, the W69 would not have detonated their nuclear payload, but there was a significant risk of their conventional explosives (used to compress the nuclear mass for detonation) as well as rocket engines igniting and spreading the radioactive payload in a "dirty bomb" manner. Also, in the other type of bomb that was on board there apparently was a design flaw that could've actually triggered the nuclear detonation after prolonged exposure to extreme heat.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago> Also, in the other type of bomb that was on board there apparently was a design flaw that could've actually triggered the nuclear detonation after prolonged exposure to extreme heat. So who found that bug and how? I mean... Yikes.
- tolien 7y agoIt was a known issue that setting explosives on fire makes them...quite unhappy (hence why nowadays the detonators mostly use insensitive explosives [1]). In the context of a partial/asymmetrical detonation around a warhead - they tried it! [0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_57 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_57 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insensitive_munition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insensitive_munition
- rjsw 7y agoAn even more dangerous bomb was the Violet Club [1], an airplane couldn't land with one on board. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Club
- jdsully 7y agoThey literally put a bag of ball bearings into the hollow interior of an enriched uranium sphere (to prevent its accidental implosion which would set off the bomb). Even scarier they didn't really know if this would actually work, but it was better than doing nothing.
- tolien 7y agoThe Atomic Weapons Establishment was doing Minimum Viable Product before it was cool to build MVPs! More seriously, most of the reason they cobbled this together was because the US suddenly cut off access to research after WW2 (because of the McMahon Act [2]) and the UK had to look as if they were an independent member of the Big (nuclear) Boy's Club. Between this and the Windscale fire [1], that could've led to absolute disaster. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946
- dash2 7y ago"At least one accident, dated 1960, was reported in the press when the plastic bung was removed and 133,000 steel ball bearings exited onto the aircraft hangar floor, leaving the bomb armed and vulnerable." Wow. Real Dr Strangelove stuff.
- moltensodium 7y agoIf the conventional explosives around a warhead go off in an uncontrolled manner then they are almost certainly not going to kick off a nuclear chain reaction. Things have to happen at a very specific time. But what you're going to get is a massive plume of weapons grade plutonium flying in all directions. Depending on where this happens and the wind this could be the end of a few million people.
- dboreham 7y agoIf you read the literature it turns out that's in some cases wishful thinking. You'd never get full yield, but no chain reaction turns out to not be guaranteed in the older designs.
- moltensodium 7y agoCan you point me towards what you read on this outside of the article? Not doubting you it's just been like 500 years since I studied nuclear chem and I'm not sure what literature you're talking about.
- agurk 7y agoA good introduction is Eric Schlosser's Command and Control. For the points here the concept of one-point safe is the idea of if a nuclear device is likely to detonate in an uncontrolled situation. A good definition I found was[0]: > What is one-point safe? > Apart from preventing unauthorized use, it is equally important to ensure that the weapons do not explode accidentally. For example, if it is accidentally dropped during transportation (such incidents have occurred), it should not explode. A nuclear weapon is one-point safe if, when the High Explosive inside the weapon is initiated and detonated at any single point, the probability of producing a nuclear yield exceeding 4 pounds TNT equivalent is less than 1 in one million. A surprising number of early nuclear devices were not one-point safe. [0] http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearandconventionalweapons/ http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearandconventiona...
- nabla9 7y ago
- dboreham 7y agoNo. That's how only one bomb worked (little boy). All other bombs use the implosion technique. One mass and the implosion changes its shape/density.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoThe high explosives surrounding the core are triggered by electronic firing (today). I assume this is the most "weak" part of the firing chain physically.
- W-Stool 7y agoIf this topic is an area of interest to you I can't recommend Eric Schlosser's book enough: "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety". It is a whole history of known accidents in the missle and aircraft domains that involved nuclear weapons.
- kenned3 7y agoAgreed, this was a really good book. "American Experince" also turned the book into a film, which was pretty true to the book and worth a watch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(film)
- rsa4046 7y ago+1
- interestica 7y agoAh, I didn't know it was based on a book. Now I need to find the book. I suspect they will be very different experiences. Seeing the deep emotion of the interviewed really did well to convey the human elements.
- jhbadger 7y agoThe film (which was very good) mostly focused on the Damascus, AR incident. That was just one chapter of the book though.
- kenned3 7y agohttps://www.amazon.ca/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=command+and+control&qid=1569188814&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.ca/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illu...
- mindslight 7y agoThe militaries' stewardship of nuclear weapons really puts the modern state surveillance panopticon into perspective. Collateral damage of tens of thousands of civilians accidentally dying in a fireball because these weapons "had" to be developed quickly so "the evil guys" didn't get ahead. And a similar dynamic where only civilian oversight can impart prudence, but the military works to escape any such oversight, so the only check is leaked anecdotes decades later. Our trajectory seems bleak nowadays, but really we should be thankful the powermongers are just playing with data rather than inventing new weapons of mass destruction. With hope that topic will resolve itself with pervasive encryption.
- phillco 7y ago> Worse still – and unmentioned by Batzel – a design flaw in the B28 bomb meant that if exposed to prolonged heat, two wires too close to the casing could short circuit, arm the bomb, trigger an accidental detonation of the HE [high explosives] surrounding the core, and set off a nuclear explosion" P0 - WontFix
- 7952 7y agoIt's a feature really. A bomb that is too safe has lower detterance value. And because we really don't want to have a nuclear war it would be irresponsible to have bombs that are too safe.
- mikeash 7y agoThis was an actual reason for not having authentication devices, and why the Minuteman force had a password of 00000000 for a couple of decades. But it doesn’t apply to safety in a fire.
- toomanybeersies 7y agoDr Strangelove? Is that you?
- 7952 7y agoyee haw!
- chvid 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
- doggydogs94 7y agoWorse than Chernobyl, not even close.
- qwerty456127 7y agoAren't nuclear warheads supposed to only detonate when triggered the right way?
- caf 7y agoThe W69 in particular was an older warhead that lacked the Enhanced Nuclear Detonation Safety system.
- mikhailfranco 7y agoB-52 collides with KC-135 during in-flight refuelling. Four H-bombs rain down on sleepy Spanish fishing village ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash