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.

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

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

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

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.



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.

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.

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!

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

just speculation

Gordon Corera wrote the BBC story.You can leave a comment for him here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs...00/4032695.stm

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

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.

That's what I just did.

It's spreading.

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