Stuff for a thriller: US lost and abandoned nuke in Greenland '68

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7720049.stm

Ice station Zebra, anyone?

[AVGWarhawk]

Just one of our many Ice Station Zebras :yep:;)

[SteamWake]

Actually this incident did inspire a thriller...

Tom Clancey's "Sum of all fears"

[MadMike]

The story is not true, but try telling that to the BBC.
When the B-52 hit the ice at 450 knots, all four weapons high explosive content detonated, spreading plutonium and scattering debris in a 1 by 3 mile path. Material that wasn't consumed immediately in the fire was later recovered on the sea ice (four reservoirs, one complete secondary, bits and pieces to make up two secondaries). Material that was frozen into the ice and not recovered later fell to the seafloor when the ice melted a few months later. Parts of the B-52 and weapon components also settled on the seabed immediately after the initial impact (the sea ice froze soon after, temperature was about -40 F).
Underwater searches recovered parts of the fourth weapon in the area charted on the seabed (which also matched that on the sea ice). Components included a cable fairing, polar cap, and a 3 by 1 foot section of the warhead casing (other components are listed, but nomenclature deleted in declassified documents). Much of the material is detailed in the sanitized document "USAF Nuclear Safety", 1 July 1968, and declassified letters from the U.S. Department of Energy which were released in 1988 and 1991.
Also, BBC claim of "obtaining" a video of the cleanup is absurd, since the tape has been declassified and available from DOE Historical Films since July 1997.

Technical details of the crash and weapon recovery are available in the book I co-wrote with Jim Oskins-

"Broken Arrow, The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents"

http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_ss_w?__mk_de_DE=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=maggelet

Review here-

http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Arrow-Declassified-History-Accidents/dp/1435703618/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226493259&sr=8-7

Bottom line- there is no missing nuclear weapon.

Yours, Mike

[jpm1]

... and that's what happens when you go spend some holidays in Greenland

http://www.wedoourownstunts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/cat-man.jpg

http://comtesse00.canalblog.com/images/t-wildenstein.jpg

http://data1.blog.de/media/392/2001392_f15d54adeb_m.jpg

http://soft-baza.info/uploads/posts/1189327919_6.jpg

[stabiz]

:rotfl:

[Skybird]

The story is not true, but try telling that to the BBC.
When the B-52 hit the ice at 450 knots, all four weapons high explosive content detonated, spreading plutonium and scattering debris in a 1 by 3 mile path. Material that wasn't consumed immediately in the fire was later recovered on the sea ice (four reservoirs, one complete secondary, bits and pieces to make up two secondaries). Material that was frozen into the ice and not recovered later fell to the seafloor when the ice melted a few months later. Parts of the B-52 and weapon components also settled on the seabed immediately after the initial impact (the sea ice froze soon after, temperature was about -40 F).
Underwater searches recovered parts of the fourth weapon in the area charted on the seabed (which also matched that on the sea ice). Components included a cable fairing, polar cap, and a 3 by 1 foot section of the warhead casing (other components are listed, but nomenclature deleted in declassified documents). Much of the material is detailed in the sanitized document "USAF Nuclear Safety", 1 July 1968, and declassified letters from the U.S. Department of Energy which were released in 1988 and 1991.
Also, BBC claim of "obtaining" a video of the cleanup is absurd, since the tape has been declassified and available from DOE Historical Films since July 1997.

Technical details of the crash and weapon recovery are available in the book I co-wrote with Jim Oskins-

"Broken Arrow, The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents"

http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_ss_w?__mk_de_DE=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=maggelet

Review here-

http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Arrow-Declassified-History-Accidents/dp/1435703618/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226493259&sr=8-7

Bottom line- there is no missing nuclear weapon.

Yours, Mike

with all due respect, your version of the story is right the story the BBC claims to have been put in doubt. Just repeating that story does not make it any less or any more true.

But that there is no interest to let the info on a missing nuke circulate in public awareness, is clear. and that a lot ov cover-up would be done to hide it, also is clear.

I think you expressed in your posting you are in a position to challenge the BBC report, well, then you may want to do that - officially? If you have sufficient argument and evidence to prove that the research done by them is wrong and lead them to false statements in the media, you can even legally force them to admit that in the media. At least I would like you to send them a letter and hear what they say in their reply.

[MadMike]

Skybird,
The BBC moved the story from the front page after I posted a note to the UK Daily Mail website clarifying the matter. Have they bothered to correct their falsehoods? Of course not, it makes good reading along with the purported 1958 accident at RAF Greenham Common.

What coverup? Information is readily available from the Department of Energy, if you know what documents to look for AND contact the proper agency. I've never had any problems getting declassified documents and the response is reasonably fast. My co-author and I are following several leads on suspected accidents, but we've never found any evidence of a "cover up" (poor record keeping yes, but no cover up).

By the way, we have over 35 years experience in the nuclear weapons career field.

The declassified material we reference is readily available from the Department of Energy (DOE Historical Films), DOD.mil, and DOE Restricted Data Declassification Decisions.

Yours, Mike

[Blacklight]

T Rex in Dinosaur Comics yesterday obviously read that article ! :D

http://www.qwantz.com/archive/001343.html

[Skybird]

Skybird,
The BBC moved the story from the front page after I posted a note to the UK Daily Mail website clarifying the matter. Have they bothered to correct their falsehoods? Of course not, it makes good reading along with the purported 1958 accident at RAF Greenham Common.

What coverup? Information is readily available from the Department of Energy, if you know what documents to look for AND contact the proper agency. I've never had any problems getting declassified documents and the response is reasonably fast. My co-author and I are following several leads on suspected accidents, but we've never found any evidence of a "cover up" (poor record keeping yes, but no cover up).

By the way, we have over 35 years experience in the nuclear weapons career field.

The declassified material we reference is readily available from the Department of Energy (DOE Historical Films), DOD.mil, and DOE Restricted Data Declassification Decisions.

Yours, Mike
Mike,

I am not personally arguing with you, since I have no first hand insight into the matter, I just can take note of their cliam, and your different claim. But the BBC claims to possess official documents proving that one weapon has not been found or it's fate not verified, but that it has been left behind after it was not found. That is the message. It is between you and the BBC to clear that dispute on wether the documents are false or not. I just say that they attack right the argument and position that you are representing.

I will also not argue about why I said a nation losing a WMD has an interest to cover up such an incident if it looses one of them. It should be self-explanatory why such a self-interest in that scenario is a given.

Meanwhile, German news has taken up the story as well, saying that the Pentagon refuses to comment, and that the head of the commission or the leader of the operation trying to find the lost fourth weapon back then, expressed the deep frustration of their team that they never were able to locate the fourth device and clear it's fate, and that they were ordered to leave it behind after they did not know what else could be tried.

The BBC obviously bases on documents they rate as authentic. Wether them or you are right obviously to large ammounts depends on the nature and quality of these documents.

[FIREWALL]

Hell !!! Just be thankfull we didn't drop the s.o.b. on one of you. :p

[Task Force]

AAAAh, mutian polar bears.:huh: :lol:

[MadMike]

Skybird,
The reason the Pentagon hasn't commented on the accident is that it isn't their responsibility- it's under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy. Elaboration above and beyond what already has been declassified is outlined in directives (Executive Orders) to prevent unauthorized disclosure of classified material.

As for the material used by the BBC, it's been declassified for nearly ten years and is featured on the Thulesagen.dk website. It's obvious from reading the article that the journalist knows nothing about the subject matter. However, it's better to create controversy rather than stick to the facts. I call it irresponsible journalism.

There is no missing fourth weapon. What is missing, if one bothers to read the declassified "Weapons Recovery" summary and the "Thule Status Report" of 10 Sep 68, is the secondary. Since all four weapons underwent high explosive detonation (of the primary), how can there be a "missing nuclear weapon"?

A secondary was never recovered after the Goldsboro accident of January 21, 1961. We outline virtually every one of the 36 U.S. accidents in exceptional detail, using air accident reports, EOD reports, and government photographs. Feel free to order a copy of the book, I'm sure you'll have problems sleeping after reading it (lol).

Yours, Mike

[Skybird]

I just quote:


The Pentagon maintained that all four weapons had been "destroyed".

This may be technically true, since the bombs were no longer complete, but declassified documents obtained by the BBC under the US Freedom of Information Act, parts of which remain classified, reveal a much darker story, which has been confirmed by individuals involved in the clear-up and those who have had access to details since.

The documents make clear that within weeks of the incident, investigators piecing together the fragments realised that only three of the weapons could be accounted for.

Even by the end of January, one document talks of a blackened section of ice which had re-frozen with shroud lines from a weapon parachute. "Speculate something melted through ice such as burning primary or secondary," the document reads, the primary or secondary referring to parts of the weapon.

By April, a decision had been taken to send a Star III submarine to the base to look for the lost bomb, which had the serial number 78252. (A similar submarine search off the coast of Spain two years earlier had led to another weapon being recovered.)

But the real purpose of this search was deliberately hidden from Danish officials.

One document from July reads: "Fact that this operation includes search for object or missing weapon part is to be treated as confidential NOFORN", the last word meaning not to be disclosed to any foreign country.
(...)
But eventually, the search was abandoned. Diagrams and notes included in the declassified documents make clear it was not possible to search the entire area where debris from the crash had spread.

As well as the fact they contained uranium and plutonium, the abandoned weapons parts were highly sensitive because of the way in which the design, shape and amount of uranium revealed classified elements of nuclear warhead design.

It would be very difficult for anyone else to recover classified pieces if we couldn't find them."

The view was that no-one else would be able covertly to acquire the sensitive pieces and that the radioactive material would dissolve in such a large body of water, making it harmless.

Other officials who have seen classified files on the accident confirmed the abandonment of a weapon.


That are not any distorted, complex, twisted statements, but pretty much straight statements. Also, it is not as if it would not make sense, assuming that one of the explosions of conventional explosives around the warheads saw one warhead melting through the ice and falling down to the bottom of the ocean floor.

technically I cannot decide who is right and who is wrong here. just wiping the story off the table becasue it just were some "unknowing journalists", I do not accept, though. the incompetence of these researchers needs to be proven, then. Assuming they have those documents indeed, that might be a bit difficult.

You referred to that Danish website, and you implied the documents there, and those the BBC got, are one and the same. How do you know? Have you seen and compared both? Or did you mean the vids on the BBC site only - well, they are hardly the "evidence" the BBC mentioned when they talked of "declassified documents obtained by the BBC under the US Freedom of Information Act, parts of which remain classified". Different to that part on "documents", the BBC refers to it'S obtained video like this: "A declassified US government video, obtained by the BBC, documents the clear-up and gives some ideas of the scale of the operation. " It is not the evidence they claim to have, only illustrates the scope of the cleaning operation.

So, Mike, for the public it is your claim against theirs. I wonder how sure you can be of your sources, considering that if the thing happened back then it would have fallen under top secrecy to cover the incident? Do you think the official version is the true version just because it is the US Air Force saying so? If they would tell the truth every time they are getting asked, that hardly would be called secrecy and "NOFORN".

[SUBMAN1]

The bashing of the US will never cease, no matter who is in the White House.

Need I remind you that Germany killed 13 million people and won't go out after dark in Afghanistan? You could cut the US a bit of a break here in light of these things.

-S

[baggygreen]

Subman - thats a little below the belt, don't you think?

Like you say, regardless of who is in charge, the US will be a target. thats because they exert so much influence over the world. I think the term is 'tall poppy syndrome'. When the US turns inwards again, someone else will be the bashed nation, probably china.

[MadMike]

Skybird,
First and foremost, the quote the BBC refers to is based on speculation during the initial month of the accident, not facts from the declassified USAF Nuclear Safety document. You can read the document in full in my book.
However, I'm not going to waste my time reputing nonsense put out by the BBC. There is no missing nuclear weapon, only parts which would equal a fourth secondary (none of the secondary parts recovered, except for one damaged secondary, could be traced to any particular weapon).
All four weapons underwent high explosive detonation. This is detailed in the declassified report of 10 Sept 68 which lists parts of weapons recovered on the sea ice, and those located during the underwater search.

"Other officials who have seen classified files on the accident confirmed the abandonment of a weapon. "

Really? What officials "confirmed abandonment of a weapon"?

As stated earlier, the facts clearly show all four weapons underwent HE detonation, as evidenced by the dispersal of plutonium, tritium, and weapon components over a one by three mile area. Therefore, there is no "missing weapon", only unrecovered weapon components.
The underwater search revealed components such as a cable fairing, polar cap, and a three by one foot fragment of a weapon case in an area matching the recovery of components for the fourth weapon (reservoir).

There is no "cover up", and there certainly is no missing nuclear weapon at Thule.

As I stated earlier, buy a copy of the book and read the facts for yourself. :|\\

Yours, Mike

[Konovalov]

Well the BBC story and MadMike's comments I found to be very insightful and interesting stuff. This has been a good thread. :yep:

[August]

I'd have to say that Mike has pretty much wiped the floor with Skybird. Well Done Mike!:up:

[Skybird]

Skybird,
First and foremost, the quote the BBC refers to is based on speculation during the initial month of the accident, not facts from the declassified USAF Nuclear Safety document. You can read the document in full in my book.

I ask for a second time: how do you know the BBC bases on the same documents like you did when saying they have been declassified ten years ago and you have seen those old ones? Have you had access to the BBC material? Not rethoric question, no attack meant. A simple, straight question it is.

As second question: consider a moment the BBC story is true: why do you think that whzen you wrote the book you have been given access to all valid information, if in case of that scenario their interest would have been to keep such confirming nformation from you or the public? I understand that both the documents the BBC refers to, and the ones you refert to, have been obtained under the Freedom of Information act. but are these really the same documents we talk of?

If they are the same, then the issue is about two different interpretations of one and the same database. If they are not the same but two different sets of documents, then we are talking about a completely different data basis.

There is no missing nuclear weapon, only parts which would equal a fourth secondary (none of the secondary parts recovered, except for one damaged secondary, could be traced to any particular weapon).
All four weapons underwent high explosive detonation. This is detailed in the declassified report of 10 Sept 68 which lists parts of weapons recovered on the sea ice, and those located during the underwater search.

As stated earlier, the facts clearly show all four weapons underwent HE detonation, as evidenced by the dispersal of plutonium, tritium, and weapon components over a one by three mile area. Therefore, there is no "missing weapon", only unrecovered weapon components.
The underwater search revealed components such as a cable fairing, polar cap, and a three by one foot fragment of a weapon case in an area matching the recovery of components for the fourth weapon (reservoir).




The BBC speaks of that "The high explosives surrounding the four nuclear weapons had detonated but without setting off the actual nuclear devices, which had not been armed by the crew. (...)
The documents make clear that within weeks of the incident, investigators piecing together the fragments realised that only three of the weapons could be accounted for. (...)
Even by the end of January, one document talks of a blackened section of ice which had re-frozen with shroud lines from a weapon parachute. "Speculate something melted through ice such as burning primary or secondary," the document reads, the primary or secondary referring to parts of the weapon. " - I wonder what it is that upsets you since there is nothing said that contradicts your description of a secondary being left behind.


"Other officials who have seen classified files on the accident confirmed the abandonment of a weapon. "

Really? What officials "confirmed abandonment of a weapon"?

For example this one when they wrote: "One was William H Chambers, a former nuclear weapons designer at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory who once ran a team dealing with accidents, including the Thule crash.

"There was disappointment in what you might call a failure to return all of the components," he told the BBC, explaining the logic behind the decision to abandon the search.

"It would be very difficult for anyone else to recover classified pieces if we couldn't find them."

Wether or not they have other sources as well, we do not know. But they talked in plural. you can accuse them of lying, of course, but that is so far just a claim, like your accusation is a claim, too. If only three, not four "secondaries" have been accounted for, like the BBC claims by it's documents, and the fourth one went missing as described, this would be all reason in the world to cover up the incident. The reasons range from avoiding responsibility for possible health risks, over not wanting to loose one's face, to finally simple secrecy

P.S. I have no personal quarrel with you over this, Mike, at least not this time, and I am not in possession of the qualification to discuss the technical details with either the BBC or with you. I am really just wondering if you two are referring to the same database, or two different ones, and if you say it is the first option, why you think their basis is the same like the one you have used in your book. this question is important, and I would say it is absolutely valid and legitimate.

Im also would like to know why the Danes were kept out and the issue was declared NOFORN - when nothing was there to hide.

[Blacklight]

News flash !!!! Hundreds of Al-Quada members flock to their new Mecca.....with SHOVELS !!!

[baggygreen]

News flash !!!! Hundreds of Al-Quada members flock to their new Mecca.....with SHOVELS !!!That would be a reallllllly funny sight:lol:

[bookworm_020]

News flash !!!! Hundreds of Al-Quada members flock to their new Mecca.....with SHOVELS !!!That would be a reallllllly funny sight:lol:

The two headed children that would follow would be even better!

[MadMike]

Skybird,
The reason the search was kept NOFORN is SOP, it was 1968 and any mention of a nuclear weapon was Secret. Even photographs of nuclear weapons were classified in those days (with the exception of Fat Man and Little Boy).
Obviously, telling our enemies where we have missing components could aid them from a technological standpoint. Such was the case of the USS Scorpion when it sank in May 1968. Everyone knew it was the Scorpion, but only some knew it had two nuclear torpedoes aboard. The fact that the Scorpion sank and had two nukes aboard was only declassified in 1995.
DOD listed 32 nuclear weapons accidents in 1980. Four more were declassified in 1983 by Field Command, Defense Nuclear Agency. However, our research shows that there may be another four- we're awaiting declassified documentation from several agencies. We have also chronicled Soviet accidents which contains some eye opening material along with dozens of U.S. incidents (lightning strikes, fire, sabotage, etc).
Summaries of the weapons recovery are in the USAF Nuclear Safety document (1969) and the 10 Sep 68 document; these documents are a compilation of the content of the declassified messages (the 10 Sep 68 document clearly refers to the missing secondary). The fact that the BBC hasn't posted the document they are referring to (dated Jan 68) leaves me to believe it's a summary of crash scenarios (which I've reviewed a few times- they're just speculation as to what may have happened to weapons components before the recovery was complete).

Yours, Mike

[Monica Lewinsky]

they're just speculation as to what may have happened to weapons components before the recovery was complete).

Yours, Mike

just speculation

[FIREWALL]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5810/250pxmadhk1zz5.jpg

[Linton]

Gordon Corera wrote the BBC story.You can leave a comment for him here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4030000/newsid_4032600/4032695.stm

The BBC are duty bound to correct any incorrect news story.I bet Corera has not read Mike's book!

[Skybird]

The fact that the BBC hasn't posted the document they are referring to (dated Jan 68) leaves me to believe it's a summary of crash scenarios (which I've reviewed a few times- they're just speculation as to what may have happened to weapons components before the recovery was complete).
I agree it would be helpful to know if they are indeed using the same documents that you date to 68. Maybe probability even is in favour of that scenario, and their material is not different to yours. But we do not know.

[Skybird]

Gordon Corera wrote the BBC story.You can leave a comment for him here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4030000/newsid_4032600/4032695.stm

The BBC are duty bound to correct any incorrect news story.I bet Corera has not read Mike's book!
That's what I just did.

[Skybird]

It's spreading.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,590513,00.html

[MothBalls]

It's spreading.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,590513,00.html


Makes you wonder about the ones nobody witnessed. How many are out there that the public doesn't know about? Or maybe the ones that didn't "fall". Ever see the movie Space Cowboys? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0186566/)

[MadMike]

Just read the "Der Speigel" article. It's so full of inaccuracies that one would have to write a Skybird style essay to correct the errors.
One common misconception is that the Goldsboro weapon "went through five of six safety" mechanisms. Not true, there are certainly more than six safety devices in a Mark 39 bomb. The offical observers report and post mortem of the accident is included in full in our book.
As far as more undisclosed accidents and incidents in the U.S., Soviet Union, and Great Britain, stay tuned for our next book, which we hope to publish by the end of December 2008.

Yours, Mike

http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Arrow-Declassified-History-Accidents/dp/1435703618/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226701247&sr=8-1