Nuclear Weapons Accidents, Volume II

[MadMike]

Greetings,
James C. Oskins and I have finally finished (after three years) our second volume on nuclear weapons accidents (Broken Arrows) and incidents (Bent Spears).

The book is called "Broken Arrow, Volume II- A Disclosure of Significant U.S., Soviet, and British Nuclear Weapon Incidents and Accidents, 1945-2008" by Michael H. Maggelet and James C. Oskins (ISBN 978-0-557-65593-9). It is available off Amazon.com and e-bay; if you order from e-bay I will autograph it. At the moment only U.S. sales, will look into shipping costs to Europe. It should be available soon on Amazon.uk and other booksellers.

http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Arrow-D...7195820&sr=1-2

So, what did we uncover in our three year endeavor using the Freedom of Information Act?
At least two dozen previously undisclosed nuclear weapons accidents, including the jettisoning of a Navy nuclear bomb off Jacksonville, Florida in 1957.

In another incident, a US Navy warship was hit by communist bloc artillery fire which destroyed one nuclear armed ASROC.
Other incidents included accidental releases of early, large diameter thermonuclear weapons by bomber aircraft onto the ramp at Loring AFB, Maine and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, which resulted in major internal damage.

A number of lightning strikes also occurred on nuclear missiles in the '60's at bases in Europe, which activated tritium reservoirs and burned out fire lines in the warhead.

We have additional declassified data on the loss of the USS Scorpion, the USS J.F.K and USS Belknap collision, and numerous incidents which involve espionage, terrorism, and sabotage.

In all, we believe the Broken Arrow list is substantially larger than the 32 accidents quoted by the US Department of Defense, with at least 60 accidents having occurred.

Chapters are devoted to Soviet accidents and incidents, including some interesting info on the recovery of a Golf II sub by the CIA in 1974 (Project Azorian). Another chapter covers UK incidents, declassified by the UK MOD and the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment.

In all, I think you'll find the book an informative, if not shocking read with many previously unpublished drawings, photographs, and documents.

Yours, Mike

Yet we have had no nuclear weapon accidents which have lead to large loss of life. Civilian nuclear is a different story, in one case.

Nuclear weapons have, whether liked or not, kept the world from major existential conflicts since 1945. So the risk is certainly worth the cost at this point.

Casualties of the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), 371,000 killed in action

World War I, military were 16 million military deaths

WWII, 22,576,700 to 24,491,800 military casualities.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Yet we have had no nuclear weapon accidents which have lead to large loss of life. Civilian nuclear is a different story, in one case.

Nuclear weapons have, whether liked or not, kept the world from major existential conflicts since 1945. So the risk is certainly worth the cost at this point.

Casualties of the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), 371,000 killed in action

World War I, military were 16 million military deaths

WWII, 22,576,700 to 24,491,800 military casualities.

I think you're arguing the wrong thing. I doubt that he's proposing that nuclear weapons are unneccesary. Rather, I suspect that the idea is that proper care has not always been taken regarding such weapons. I can hardly blame anyone for being concerned that our nuclear stockpile is at risk.

On another note, will your book be in stores?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Nuclear weapons have, whether liked or not, kept the world from major existential conflicts since 1945. So the risk is certainly worth the cost at this point.

Umm... "existential", as in pertaining to the existence of humanity? How on earth could conventional wars like WW2 ever threaten the existence of the entire species? The stockpiles of nukes which have supposedly prevented a repeat of conventional wars (which never threatened our existence), are ironically some of the few things which do threaten our species' existence.

And I'm sure everyone would still be loving the bomb's peace keeping abilities if the Cuban Missile Crisis went hot. At least those who survived it, that is.

[Aramike]

Umm... "existential", as in pertaining to the existence of humanity? How on earth could conventional wars like WW2 ever threaten the existence of the entire species? The stockpiles of nukes which have supposedly prevented a repeat of conventional wars (which never threatened our existence), are ironically some of the few things which do threaten our species' existence.

Yeah, I was wondering about that too...

And I'm sure everyone would still be loving the bomb's peace keeping abilities if the Cuban Missile Crisis went hot. At least those who survived it, that is.

Aren't you creating a fallacy argument? You're suggesting that nuclear weapons would be a poor deterrent if they hadn't actually deterred. That makes no sense.

It's like saying "I'm sure everyone would love their eye-glasses if they didn't cause blindness". Well they didn't cause blindness.

Let's use the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example: say the Russians put nukes in Cuba and we had no nukes in Turkey. What would our bargaining chip have been? Or are we to assume that the USSR would have just played nice and stayed away from nuclear weapons if we did the same? Okay, I'll bite - what precedence gives you the belief that the Russians have such a stronger moral basis that they would have done just that?

Or do you concede that they would have likely built nukes anyway? In which case, what response would you believe appropriate?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Let's use the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example: say the Russians put nukes in Cuba and we had no nukes in Turkey. What would our bargaining chip have been? Or are we to assume that the USSR would have just played nice and stayed away from nuclear weapons if we did the same? Okay, I'll bite - what precedence gives you the belief that the Russians have such a stronger moral basis that they would have done just that?

Or do you concede that they would have likely built nukes anyway? In which case, what response would you believe appropriate?

Actually, say what you will about Soviet morals in general (and I am likely to even agree), but when it comes to the pure Aggression, try-and-push-other-side-over-the-border-then-whine crap, America is well in the lead.

We might speculate on what the Soviets might have done if the US had not taken the hardball stance, but the historical fact is that it was the Americans who first developed the bomb, who became the first and only to use it (pages of justification would not change the fact American did it, well in advance of any leader who America considers Evil and Unstable), who first built a massive SAC to deliver them, then we have the SSBNs, the Pershings IIs... on the non-nuclear naval front, there was one navy who had the equivalent of 15 Air Divisions on floating bases ready to strike (God knows what America would have said had the Soviets had 15 divisions of any type they could place with such flexibility) and who basically run roughshod over the spirit of innocent passage in favor of the most pedantic interpretation of its legal clauses, who places its subs well into the national waters of other people... the air force is heavily oriented toward deep, offensive operations with supposedly defensive concepts like Airland Battle. All of three arms maintaining a high op tempo and running a fairly big, ten year war in Vietnam plus a bunch smaller elsewhere. Oh, I forgot the Marines, another three Corps of highly offensive, mobile combat power!

Now, these people have the sheer lack of shame to accuse another nation of aggression. A nation that built nuclear weapons in response to America, emphasizing the PVO versus the DA, a submarine and strike bomber heavy navy vs carriers (this is somehow considered offensive by NATO but to put it in land terms would be similar to defending against combined arms armies using a mix of ATGMs, machine guns and possibly deep interdiction against supply lines - crap, that sounds a bit like the defensive strategy of NATO in Central Europe, only more biased in a defensive direction). Oh, OK, the Ground Forces are big, but one has to put it in perspective with the enormous frontage it has to defend, the aggressiveness of NATO on other fronts, and among its other problems it has to undergo a lengthy mobilization to reach full combat strength compared to the high-readiness formations of the West.

It would, of course, be unfair to place the blame for every last bit of aggression in the Cold War to America and the West (most of the West tend to be a bit more defensive-minded than America), but on the question posed, it is not so much a question of overall morals but one of offensive versus defensive mentality, and on that front there is actually a fair pile of evidence to suggest the Soviets would have chosen a less aggressive route if they had been in the driver seat...

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Yeah, I was wondering about that too...Aren't you creating a fallacy argument? You're suggesting that nuclear weapons would be a poor deterrent if they hadn't actually deterred. That makes no sense.

It's like saying "I'm sure everyone would love their eye-glasses if they didn't cause blindness". Well they didn't cause blindness.

But the deterrent argument really boils down to faith. While we have not fought wars with nuclear weapons, nearly every war fought has been over nuclear weapons. As such, they have not been a dampening force in world conflict.

If the deterrent argument is based on the fact that we have not duplicated the largest war in human history yet, then it uses the same logic as stating that I have a paperclip that repels sharks. I own a paperclip. I don't see any sharks around. Therefore my paperclip repels sharks.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

While we have not fought wars with nuclear weapons, nearly every war fought has been over nuclear weapons. As such, they have not been a dampening force in world conflict.

We have not fought wars with nuclear weapons? We, the United States, are the only nation that fought a war with nuclear weapons.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

We, the United States, are the only nation that fought a war with nuclear weapons.

It could be said that the other side was defeated by our nuclear bombs before they developed their nuclear weapons.

Germany and Japan both had A Bomb projects at one time...

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

It could be said that the other side was defeated by our nuclear bombs before they developed their nuclear weapons.

Germany and Japan both had A Bomb projects at one time...

According to Wilcox (Japan's Secret War), the Japanese detonated a test device in Aug 45. An interesting theory and not one easily refuted. Most historians believe that Japan was about one year from a device, but there is evidence that supports (but does not confirm) Wilcox's theory.

I have been trying to get a hold of some aerial survey photographs of Hamhung harbour prior to 12 Aug 45, but have not been successful.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Yeah, I was wondering about that too...Aren't you creating a fallacy argument? You're suggesting that nuclear weapons would be a poor deterrent if they hadn't actually deterred. That makes no sense.

It's like saying "I'm sure everyone would love their eye-glasses if they didn't cause blindness". Well they didn't cause blindness.

I'm saying the risk involved isn't justified. To use your analogy, it's as if glasses will sometimes improve your vision, and sometimes they won't, but if a lens falls out, they'll melt your eyes right in your sockets. I'd keep on squinting, given the choice. Likewise, I'd take the risk of conventional wars that are supposedly prevented by the bomb (which wars are these, exactly, and how can we know it was the bomb that prevented them?) over the risk of nuclear annihilation any day.

Let's use the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example: say the Russians put nukes in Cuba and we had no nukes in Turkey. What would our bargaining chip have been?

Why would the Soviets put them in Cuba if we didn't have them in Turkey? Why couldn't we put them in Turkey in response? But anyway, I only mentioned Cuba because it's the closest the superpowers came to war. And again, if it did escalate to a nuclear exchange, the survivors would probably look back and choose to forgo the post-WW2 not so peaceful peace, in exchange for, you know, not slowly dying of radiation sickness. The risk of this scenario occurring is not justified by the benefits of the bomb.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

According to Wilcox (Japan's Secret War), the Japanese detonated a test device in Aug 45. An interesting theory and not one easily refuted. Most historians believe that Japan was about one year from a device, but there is evidence that supports (but does not confirm) Wilcox's theory.

I have been trying to get a hold of some aerial survey photographs of Hamhung harbour prior to 12 Aug 45, but have not been successful.

They say the same about Germany at Thuringa or in the Baltic Sea.

We'll never really know.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Oberon

They say the same about Germany at Thuringa or in the Baltic Sea.

We'll never really know.

I have not read a lot on the German weapons. My reading points out that the German's focused on two different aspects of nuclear technology.

Radiological dispersion weapons - They were considered at Normandy. But there was no evidence Germany ever seriously considered this, and for good reason.

Nuclear Reactor - Some of my reading talks about Germany, being concerned at a repeat of what happened to them after WWI was considering making the first nuclear power reactor and offering it to the victors so they would not get raped again after the war. Unfortunately, the German D2 plants has some technological issues. The German enrichment work was very small and mostly unsuccessful due to a shortage of critical materials and ... well.. the fact that they were losing a war.

I will have to do some research on whether Germany was working on an explosive device.

I find this type of history very interesting.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Platapus

We have not fought wars with nuclear weapons? We, the United States, are the only nation that fought a war with nuclear weapons.

My apologies. I believed that I clearer than I was in using 'wars with nuclear weapons' as a reference to a global thermonuclear exchange. I was not directly refering to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasakii in that statement, as they were not actually nuclear 'exchanges'. I am sorry that I was unclear on the matter.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I will have to do some research on whether Germany was working on an explosive device.

I find this type of history very interesting.

Kurt Diebner is the man to look at.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4598955.stm

To be quite honest, there's not a great deal of evidence to support it, but like other German projects like 'Die Glocke', there's some things we'll never know for sure.