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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Skybird]

It's spreading.

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

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It's spreading.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...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?

[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-D...6701247&sr=8-1