6 ms·

The SAC had plenty of nasty screw ups, including littering large areas of Spain and (iirc) Greenland with plutonium dust from nuclear weapons accidents. It's a

by timr 12y ago

The SAC had plenty of nasty screw ups, including littering large areas of Spain and (iirc) Greenland with plutonium dust from nuclear weapons accidents. It's also pretty much dumb luck that we've never had an accidental detonation of an SAC-controlled nuclear weapon: http://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Eric-Schlosser-ebook/dp/B00C5R7F8G/ http://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Eric-Schlosser-ebook/d...

sc68cal 12y ago
Here's some more information about the plutonium dust in Spain - there was a mid-air collision between a KC tanker and a B-52 which was carrying nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
gambiting 12y ago
I very strongly recommend that book to anyone who hasn't read it yet - fascinating stuff.
CapitalistCartr 12y ago
Yeah, we had amazing accodents until they finally decided to stop flying them drop-ready. Bombing Franco's farmers was a major impetus towards that. But the lack of accidental detonation was not luck; they were crazy overbuilt.
- timr 12y ago
  If you read the book, you might change your mind about that. It spends a lot of time documenting some really basic deficiencies -- bombs that could detonate if overheated or struck by a single projectile, for example. A large number of weapons were made with high explosives that weren't thermostable. Others could detonate if dropped from a few feet. There were many deployed ballistic missiles that were susceptible to lightning strikes. The arming switches in SAC aircraft were, for years, simple open-loop circuits that had a high probability of short-circuiting in an accident. In fact, most of the book is about the attempts of the weapons labs to make the arsenal safer. Most of those attempts were rebuffed by the military. The SAC's strict policies definitely helped to prevent disaster, but if you read about some of the incidents, it's clear that there was a lot of stupid luck involved, too.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Most of those would probably cause a non nuclear detonation. Still bad, but no where near as dangerous.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - Lagged2Death 12y ago
      The author deals with this line of reasoning and finds it wanting.
      - JackFr 12y ago
        Take my comment with a grain of salt, as I have not read the book, but there is no story if there is no danger. If the author concluded that there was no nuclear danger, its likely the book has little more than academic interest, and doesn't get published. You can both be correct and want to sell books but commercial considerations can also direct rhetoric.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - jloughry 12y ago
    British strategic nuclear weapon designs used mechanical safeguards, including thousands of steel ball bearings poured in through a hole in the casing, which made the bomb safe to carry but had to be drained out before use [1]. BLUE PEACOCK, however, used chickens [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Club#Design_features http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Club#Design_features [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock#Chicken_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock#Chicken_power
    - blueskin_ 12y ago
      The chicken wasn't a safety feature; it was to keep the warhead's electronics warm for a few days when buried in the ground so it would still work when needed.

by timr 12y ago

sc68cal 12y ago

Here's some more information about the plutonium dust in Spain - there was a mid-air collision between a KC tanker and a B-52 which was carrying nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

gambiting 12y ago

I very strongly recommend that book to anyone who hasn't read it yet - fascinating stuff.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

Yeah, we had amazing accodents until they finally decided to stop flying them drop-ready. Bombing Franco's farmers was a major impetus towards that. But the lack of accidental detonation was not luck; they were crazy overbuilt.

timr 12y ago
If you read the book, you might change your mind about that. It spends a lot of time documenting some really basic deficiencies -- bombs that could detonate if overheated or struck by a single projectile, for example. A large number of weapons were made with high explosives that weren't thermostable. Others could detonate if dropped from a few feet. There were many deployed ballistic missiles that were susceptible to lightning strikes. The arming switches in SAC aircraft were, for years, simple open-loop circuits that had a high probability of short-circuiting in an accident. In fact, most of the book is about the attempts of the weapons labs to make the arsenal safer. Most of those attempts were rebuffed by the military. The SAC's strict policies definitely helped to prevent disaster, but if you read about some of the incidents, it's clear that there was a lot of stupid luck involved, too.
- Retric 12y ago
  Most of those would probably cause a non nuclear detonation. Still bad, but no where near as dangerous.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lagged2Death 12y ago
    The author deals with this line of reasoning and finds it wanting.
    - JackFr 12y ago
      Take my comment with a grain of salt, as I have not read the book, but there is no story if there is no danger. If the author concluded that there was no nuclear danger, its likely the book has little more than academic interest, and doesn't get published. You can both be correct and want to sell books but commercial considerations can also direct rhetoric.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- jloughry 12y ago
  British strategic nuclear weapon designs used mechanical safeguards, including thousands of steel ball bearings poured in through a hole in the casing, which made the bomb safe to carry but had to be drained out before use [1]. BLUE PEACOCK, however, used chickens [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Club#Design_features http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Club#Design_features [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock#Chicken_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock#Chicken_power
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    The chicken wasn't a safety feature; it was to keep the warhead's electronics warm for a few days when buried in the ground so it would still work when needed.