SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Stuff for a thriller: US lost and abandoned nuke in Greenland '68

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Stuff for a thriller: US lost and abandoned nuke in Greenland '68 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=144275)

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

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

Actually this incident did inspire a thriller...

Tom Clancey's "Sum of all fears"

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?_...words=maggelet

Review here-

http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Arrow-D...6493259&sr=8-7

Bottom line- there is no missing nuclear weapon.

Yours, Mike

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMike

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.

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMike

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.

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

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

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

I just quote:

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".

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