Pakistan, Russia ‘vulnerable to N-theft’

[Officer of Engineers]

That defeats the purpose of such preparation. You let the bad guy know that you're ready for him so that he doesn't try. You just don't tell him what you're ready for.

 

[Spring Onion]

Pakistan, Russia ‘vulnerable to N-theft’​

WASHINGTON, Sept 27: A new report by a prestigious Washington think-tank claims that Pakistan and Russia are the most vulnerable to nuclear theft

Such BS by such rag tag think tanks gets me rolling for the reason how pittyful it is that they never questuion the safty of their own nukes and warheads.

if you guys had been following news regularly im sure you must have seen the news about carrying of warheads by an aircraft of US which even no one knew and afterwards they said it was carrying these by Mistake.

The US Air Force did not know how a bomber inadvertently carried five nuclear weapons across the US last month before the air force discovered the weapons were missing.

MY GOD you can imagine what would have happend to the thousands of population the city the aircraft was flying with live nukes which even the piolt didnt know.


Any Answer to this

 

[Spring Onion]

And the intresting thing is that there was a news that the crew that was apparently involved in the transfer of these 6 warheads have all died in strange circumstances

Till tommorrow if anyone answer this to me ?

i will post the news if you guys are intrested about debating on this blunder of missing warheads

 

[Spring Onion]

FT.com / World - Nuclear missiles went missing from US airbase


Nuclear missiles went missing from US airbase
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington

Published: September 6 2007 03:00 | Last updated: September 6 2007 03:00

The US Air Force is investigating how a bomber inadvertently carried five nuclear weapons across the US last month before the air force discovered the weapons were missing.

Army Times reported yesterday that a B-52 mistakenly fitted with five nuclear-armed cruise missiles flew from North Dakota to Louisiana without the air force realising that the weapons were missing from their storage location. The incident has prompted an investigation by the air force.

In an indication of the seriousness of the error, Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said yesterday that Robert Gates, the defence secretary, and President George W. Bush had been briefed on what happened last week. He added that the air force would provide Mr Gates with the results of its investigation next week.

The Pentagon declined to comment on whether the missiles were carrying nuclear warheads, citing a long-standing policy on discussing nuclear weapons, but said the US public was never in any danger.

Army Times said it was not discovered that the weapons - advanced cruise missiles that have nuclear warheads with yields ranging from five to 150 kilotons - were missing until theB-52 landed at Barksdaleair force base in Louisiana.

Democrats expressed outrage at the news yesterday. Ike Skelton, the Democratic chairman of the House armed services committee, said the reports were "deeply disturbing", adding that his committee would be investigating the matter.

"There is no more serious issue than the security and proper handling of nuclear weapons," said Mr Skelton. "The American people, our friends and our potential adversaries must be confident that the highest standards are in place when it comes to our nucleararsenal."

Edward Markey, a top Democrat on the House homeland security committee, said: "It is absolutely inexcusable that the air force lost track of these five nuclear warheads, even for a short period of time,.

"Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible."

Lt Col Ed Thomas, an air force spokesman, said it was investigating "an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases.

"It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times."

Lt Col Thomas added that the weapons had been accounted for.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

 

[Bull]

MY GOD you can imagine what would have happend to the thousands of population the city the aircraft was flying with live nukes which even the piolt didnt know.

Why would the B52 bomber fire those nuke tipped cruise missiles over US mainland?

 

[IceCold]

Why would the B52 bomber fire those nuke tipped cruise missiles over US mainland?

Because they did not knew infact no one knew what the plane was carrying and accidents can happen this way besides what if they would have got lost somewere i mean other then the plane, as no one had any idea that the nukes were missing. My point is isnt that a threat or because it was US so no one bother to utter a single word about it.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Jana,

While you may have point about accountability, get it through your head. Those nukes never left USAF custody. Those crews knew exactly what they were carrying and who they were carrying it for and where they were carrying it to. The nukes were NEVER in danger of being stolen NOR delivered into the wrong hands.

Yes, the procedures failed BUT it NEVER failed to your suggestion.

"It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times."

Lt Col Thomas added that the weapons had been accounted for.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

MY GOD you can imagine what would have happend to the thousands of population the city the aircraft was flying with live nukes which even the piolt didnt know.


Any Answer to this

Stop your panic! NOTHING WOULD'VE HAPPENED. If this was the case as you suggested (and it was not, the crews knew what they were carrying), they would not have had the codes to arm the warheads (and in this case, the crews knew they didn't have the codes to arm the warheads). These were just big rocks as far as lethality is concerned.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

And the intresting thing is that there was a news that the crew that was apparently involved in the transfer of these 6 warheads have all died in strange circumstances

Till tommorrow if anyone answer this to me ?

Yeah, I got one. You do a very poor Tom Clancy. Read SUM OF ALL FEARS to at least get an idea will ya?

i will post the news if you guys are intrested about debating on this blunder of missing warheads

How about starting with the KURSK? Do you know how many warheads were on that thing when it sank?

Jana, do at least some semblance of research instead of wild butt imagination that does not conform to known procedures.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

First of all, niether in india and nor in pakistani nuclear bomb storage facilities, a mob can overcome the guards. It won't happen. There are one too many security parameters set up forthe protection.

Now about the U S aircraft flying with those missiles----the same thing paksitan has been saying all along---without the codes, there is no bang. Drop it from the air, or launch it, if you don't have all the pieces to put it together and if you don't have all the codes, it will be a dud.

The proganda against pakistan is just a hype to keep control of pakistan---keep pakistan busy in making explanations all the time and take the attention away from other main issues. That is propaganda lesson 101.

But it is a good thing that happened about the B 52 carrying the nuke missiles over u s OF a ---- a good thing for pakistan----pakistanis can tell the american journalists and think tank analysts on indian payroll to shut up for awhile. Time, at times is a great equalizer of things----look at the american media arrogance and spite towards pakistan on this issue----suck on it now.

Kursk was supposedly sunk by a u s sub torpedo----seemingly there were two american subs in the area spying on the launch of the kursk. The waters were very shallow----kursk found out about the presence of one and had flooded its tubes to fire. There was no place to hide for the american subs---they were supposedly extremely extremely vulnerable at that point. The russian was uncertain and possibly hesitated to launch a first strike---the american sub not yet track, feeling the imminent threat from the sky and sub-surface made the decision to strike first and take off in the confusion after the strike to save the other boat.

 

[blain2]

Here's a question for you all. When was the last time any of the nuclear facilities had a drill?

Many a times but then again you do not hear about them. The military nuclear sites have ample security in and around them. The problem in the west is their inability to penetrate the security and secrecy around the Pakistani nuclear program, so a lot of the claims about vulnerability of the N-theft are actually out of sheer ignorance and maybe even frustration due to lack of available information.

As far as I know, Pakistan has worked fairly closely since the AQK deal with the US on the security aspect of the nuclear sites. Internally (within the US government), the US knows that Pakistani nuclear safeguards are rock solid.

The arming of the weapons in Pakistan is done on a fairly sophisticated basis (3 man rule) and even for PAF, the pilot is not given the release code until he is airborne (meaning that no one person has complete access to the weapon).

Based on information provided by the officialdom, Pakistan is using a three-man rule, a variant of the two-man rule for security. The code to arm a weapon is divided between three people, rather than two people. For example, at an air force base the code may be divided between the base commander and the unit commander. In the army, the code may be divided between the group commander and the unit commander. This rule also applies to a launch site. The only exception is a single pilot who will receive the full code during flight; however, a single person cannot provide the full code. The Pakistani system is not as sophisticated as the U.S. Permissive Action Link (PAL) system, but it appears that attention is being given to security issues.

So even if someone takes over the physical ownership of the weapon, it cannot be armed that easily.


The concern is what if some very anti-US government takes control of these assets....given the situation in Pakistan, this is far from reality.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Kursk was supposedly sunk by a u s sub torpedo----seemingly there were two american subs in the area spying on the launch of the kursk. The waters were very shallow----kursk found out about the presence of one and had flooded its tubes to fire. There was no place to hide for the american subs---they were supposedly extremely extremely vulnerable at that point. The russian was uncertain and possibly hesitated to launch a first strike---the american sub not yet track, feeling the imminent threat from the sky and sub-surface made the decision to strike first and take off in the confusion after the strike to save the other boat.

From what little that was released on the hull, there was no impact nor over pressure marks on the hull that I can see.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

So even if someone takes over the physical ownership of the weapon, it cannot be armed that easily.

Well, yes and no. You cannot use the current weapon as it stands ... and that is all I'm willing to say. I'm sure you get my meaning.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Uss toledo and memphis were tracking the kursk. Incidently, toledo collided with the kursk--toledo was damaged--kursk opened up its tubes to launch its torpedos. Memphis launched her m 48 torpedo first to save the Toledo.

Clinton reached a settlement with the russians---the sailors in the kursk were left to die so that there were no witnesses. The deal was between 12 to 25 billion dollar.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Again, I saw no impact nor external over-pressure damage.

2ndly, it was the Norwegians who 1st had upfront and close examination of the KURSK and nothing they reported indicated an external source of the damage. All the visible evidence thus far that has been presented (and quite a bit of that) all point to an internal explosion. The hull was blown outwards.

All submariners I've talked to and saw the photos of the KURSK have stated that they see no torpedo nor any collision damage. No amount of money is going to change the laws of physics. If there was a collision or an external explosion, the hull would have been dented inwards, not outwards which is an indication of an internal blast.