The incident with U.S. bombers flying across the country loaded with nuclear weapons by mistake, which was reported in Military Times, is just an illustration of the dangers of designs that mix together nuclear and conventional weapons, like the Prompt Global Strike plan. The United States has in place a number of elaborate systems (described by Hans Kristensen in his blog) that are supposed to prevent things like this from happening. Still, it happened. As Hans described it, "the Minot incident is the apparent break-down of nuclear command and control for the custody of the nuclear weapons". You don't want a break-down like this to happen in an operational environment, with ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads instead of conventional. I know that the probability of a mix-up is extremely small, but I don't think it should be tolerated unless it is exactly zero.
The book
Comments
"is just an illustration of the dangers of designs that mix together nuclear and conventional weapons, like the Prompt Global Strike plan."
Please. There are weapons out there (mostly Russian) that have both nuclear and conventional options of the SAME missile. You don't see any hand-wringing over "what if we launch the wrong kind" do you? And this may come as a suprise to you but there have been DOZENS of kinds of missiles on boths sides that had both nuclear and conventional options over the last HALF CENTURY. To prop up this straw man as an example of the horrors of Prompt Global Strike is ludicrous bordering on hysteria.
There are weapons out there (mostly Russian) that have both nuclear and conventional options of the SAME missile.
Which ones these would be? The only Russian weapons outside of storage sites today are those on ICBMs and SLBMs.
The issue here is not dual-capable systems. It is having nuclear-armed and conventional-armed missiles side by side. That's quite different.
"It is having nuclear-armed and conventional-armed missiles side by side. That's quite different."
That depends on how you define "side-by-side". Conventional and nuclear D-5s on an Ohio? Obviously. Nuclear ICBMs in North Dakota and conventional ICBMs in California or Alaska? Hardly. As you are well aware both the US and Russia have deployed mixes of conventional and nuclear weapons on the same platform countless times over the years without accidentaly launching a nuke.
BTW are you stating that all Russian tactical nukes have been removed from their carrier missiles and are in storage?
Yes, the main point of the Prompt Global Strike (in its current form) is having conventional and nuclear Tridents on the same submarine.
On Russian tactical nukes - yes, they are all in storage.
The Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) is a nuclear armed missile that does not now, nor ever had, a “conventional” mission. The earlier ALCM is operated in both a nuclear and convention version. This error was not because nuclear and conventional missiles were being used side-by-side. This was a most severe breakdown in Command & Control and I’m sure “heads will roll” because of this mistake. By the way, the ACMs were being moved to Barksdale AFB for disposal when they were inadvertently transported with their W-80 nuclear warheads attached. Just a real stupid mistake.
All the global strike references are silly. The US Navy operated nuclear and “conventional” torpedoes on its submarine fleet for decades together without incident. The precedent of operating both types of weapons in the same “delivery vehicle” is well established on both sides.
One might argue that Russia today in 2007 is still trying to determine exactly how many nuclear weapons it actually possesses left over from Soviet days. I honestly doubt all have been accounted for.
Frank Shuler
USA
I agree that there were no conventional ACM around, but that is not really the point. Which is that the system that was supposed to keep track of nuclear warheads did not work. Why we should trust the Navy system to work?
If you have any data that would suggest that Russian weapons are unaccounted for, I'd be very much interested to take a look.
"Why we should trust the Navy system to work?"
Why should we trust anybody's system to work? As the saying goes "abscence of evidence does not equate to evidence of abscence". As far as we know Russia has had hundreds of such occurances but with them being such a regulated society we might never know.
As for conventional D-5s I'd think it's a safe bet they'd know which tubes held the conventional ones. As I pointed out in an apparently circular-filed post both the US and Russia have operated numerous systems over the years that had both conventional and nuclear variants side-by-side. Talos, Nike Hercules, Iskander, Frog, Scud, Scaleboard, SS-23, AS-4, AS-6, SS-N-12s, -19s, -9s, and so on and so forth so really the claims of possible accidents of confusion have no merit.
Pavel:
The same personal doubt that would lead you to believe the US Navy’s “system on nuclear weapons” could fail is the same as my personal doubt that all Soviet nuclear arms have been accounted for. Just an opinion.
Frank Shuler
USA
I agree - we should not trust anybody's system. This is why I would much rather see nuclear weapons removed from service completely, whether in Russia, U.S., or Pakistan.
On "hundreds of such occurrences" in Russia and doubts about Soviet weapons being accounted, I'd be more cautious. I understand the feeling that "the U.S. system is the best, so if we have accidents, others must have too", but I'm not sure it can be applied here. The institutional culture in the Soviet Union was quite different and it is entirely possible that the system had fewer accidents (although we don't know if it had).
A big first step to either removing nuclear weapons completely or at least preventing such incidents as this one would be to eliminate all aircraft and cruise missile delivered nuclear weapons- leaving just ICBM's and maybe SLBM's (although I would prefer ICBM's only, and have all of them in super-hardened silos to prevent any possibility of weapon theft or "misplacement").
Perhaps the better decision for world nuclear safety would be to eliminate all nuclear weapons with the exception of submarine SLBMs and forgo all missile defense systems. That would take away any excuse whatsoever for a “first strike” by anyone. The British would be the first to agree because their nuclear arsenal today is only composed of submarine weapons. The French would quickly follow only having to give up a few aircraft tactical atomic weapons. Russia and the US would have the most nuclear weapons to dispose of and be left with the largest and most effective submarine fleets. Obviously in the case of Russia and China, time and conditions would have to be negotiated as both would be transitioning from relatively modern, new ICBMs, such as Russia with its SS-27 family of missiles. The US would be spared the time and expense of a Minuteman III replacement; a weapon designed to never be used anyway.
A great idea, except… What do you do about North Korea? Israel? Pakistan? Iran? What do you do about India; with its current building plan she may very well have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet before it’s all over? What do you do if Al-Qaeda acquired a bomb?
I think the “Principle of Deterrence” that guides the “Great Powers” would work just as well interacting with the “Minor Powers”. Is Iran really going to launch a missile at the United States and face the retaliation of even a single Trident submarine? I honestly don’t think so.
Al-Qaeda is another subject.
Frank Shuler
USA
No nuclear weapons or ABMs might work in a world where everybody was honorable but we all know that unilateral disarmament by the US and Russia won't keep nations like China, Iran, and so forth from acquiring nukes. No different than gun control- outlaw guns and only the low-lifes will have them leaving the law-abiding citizens at their mercy. And get rid of ABMs? Countries like China and Iran would just LOVE that, then they don't have to keep as many ICBMs in service to blackmail with. Seriously people why would you want to give the bad guys a free pass to do as they wish unfettered?
That's the point though, if you read the previous poster's messages closely noone advocates *unilateral* nuclear disarmament by anyone. Obviously that would not work, no doubt. Personally, I deeply regret to say that you may have a point in your gun control analogy - i.e. now that the cat is out of the proverbial bag, it is impossible to enforce a complete disarmament by all parties. As far as gun control goes, the situation in America should be a powerful warning to other nations never to open that bag in their country in the first place. But I digress.
Getting rid of ABMs should be the easiest part, I doubt Iran and China are in a position to blackmail the US in their absence. It is completely unknown when and indeed if ever Iran will deploy working ICBMs while China's arsenal is still pathetic compared to America's and only growing quite slowly. How could either nation hope to blackmail the USA in the face of such a massive overmatch? Why should the principle of MAD, which kept the much more powerful USSR at bay, fail against far weaker countries (i.e. even taking the M out of MAD)? If you were talking about them still having ICBMs while the US no longer does, that would take us back to the point made in the first paragraph.
Political comments?
i used to think that this blog don´t allowed
political comments.
But it appears that there is a fail in the filtering.
"China? a Bad guy that do blackmail with nukes?"
(by Scott Ferring)
It is a pity that i can´t answer that because of the filtering.
"By Scott Ferring- No nuclear weapons or ABMs might work in a world where everybody was honorable but we all know that unilateral disarmament by the US and Russia won't keep nations like China, Iran, and so forth from acquiring nukes. No different than gun control- outlaw guns and only the low-lifes will have them leaving the law-abiding citizens at their mercy. And get rid of ABMs? Countries like China and Iran would just LOVE that, then they don't have to keep as many ICBMs in service to blackmail with. Seriously people why would you want to give the bad guys a free pass to do as they wish unfettered?"
From F-16.net
"Smitty - your spot on, the idea this was a mistake is so insane it is hard to even laugh about. Special Weapons load a mistake, no way in hell friends.
First a convoy is established, then no lone zones for loading, pre-flight, the guards placed on that aircraft, the pilot signs for that weapon...the list goes on....Smitty is spot on, this is BS of the highest order.
The USAF must now look at how foolish the whole idea of this flight was from the beginning, saying this was a mistake is pure crap...hell, most crew chiefs that have been around fro awhile netter know what a "special looks like too"...what a crook of crapola this whole report is and the fool from PA that allowed it to leak out.
Like many here, I too have been involved in many load outs, special and training loads, had my fair share of "alert duty" too, this is no mistake,
CC's" know what real weapon looks like, to say otherwise is pure BULL.
The only time one taxi's is for an Elephant Walk or the sh*t has hit the fan and we launch as we did from Lakenheath (and around USAFE) back in 1978 when a computer glitch told us (NORAD) that the Russians had launched and we launched against them (they were recalled in minutes) no other time have we ever flew live...never other then a planned munitions movement (cargo aircraft wise).
Sorry but BS is spot on Smitty is right as rain on this event...far too many of us know better this excuse some loser PA person is running with."
"As far as gun control goes, the situation in America should be a powerful warning to other nations never to open that bag in their country in the first place. But I digress."
Indeed. A powerful warning against the folly of thinking that outlawing guns will take them out of the hands of criminals.
Alopes:
It wasn't meant as a political statement as such. More just pointing out that removing your means of defense leaves you wide open to having anybody who wants do anything they want to you. Not too smart in my book.
Scott:
I would continue to argue no rational nation on earth can “blackmail” the United States with a missile strike. Any nation, a “major” or “minor” power, would face a devastating retaliation if ever they launched an ICBM attack on America. Would China swap Shanghai for Los Angeles? Iran swaps Tehran for Chicago? Nope. “Blackmail” may well come but it will be in the form of a truck bomb, container ship, or 2nd day UPS delivery. No ICBM’s. The general fear is that the United States would use its technology to “enhance” its ABM system to the point where a US first strike coupled with a robust ABM system to pick off any straggler launches could destroy a rival. (i.e. Russia). No ABM systems and no ICBMs, no first strike. I believe it might be possible to have the “major” powers agree to such an arrangement; impossible for the “minor” powers. After all, the ambition of a “minor” power is to become a “major”.
The military-industrial complex arms race will continue.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
The key there is "rational". Also history is full of examples of leaders who miscalculated. I doubt Japan expected to be nuked in WWII. I'm sure Saddam never expected the ulitmate outcome of his adventure in Kuwait, nor do I think the Taliban expected to pay for their support of Al Qaeda.
Who's to say radical Islam won't come to power in Iran an inherit ICBMs? Or in Pakistan for that matter? (Obviously they don't have ICBMs- yet, but then they didn't have medium range missiles 30 years ago either.)
Thirdly (and I hate to put it this way but it fits) there's the game of brinkmanship. An Iran with nuclear armed ICBMs can act with impunity and simply dangle the "we'll nuke you if you interfere" threat out there and there would be nothing we could do about it. With no ABMs would we risk it or let them do whatever they want? You can be certain this is the game China will play when they make a grab for Taiwan. Will we honor our agreements or will we say "you can have Taiwan?" There's a reason we're rather quietly building 60 ABM silos in Alaska right now. With no ABMs China could make their move, threaten nuclear attack if the US interferes and the US's feet would be nailed to the ground. With the ABMs in place it effectively pulls the teeth out of such a threat even if it doesn't work 100% and maybe China decides to stay home.
ABMs are like insurance: better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them.
Scott:
China’s nuclear strategy against the United States for the last 20 years is to have a large enough nuclear capacity to hold 20 American cities at risk. What grievance between China and the US would ever be worth the potential loss of 20 American cities? Today, that capacity is in the form of 20 liquid fueled single warhead soft-silo ICBMs. China’s 20-city strategy will continue and she will build whatever capacity necessary to achieve her nuclear goals; road mobile multiple-warhead ICBMs in numbers to overcome any US ABM system. The rules of the game may change but the game remains the same.
Taiwan is a most interesting situation and always a cause for speculation. However, the US is under no treaty obligation to defend Taiwan if attacked by China or anyone else. Remember, the US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country and therefore no such formal mutual defense treaty could be negotiated. The US law most referenced is the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 which states the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means “of grave concern to the United States" but does not mandate that the United States intervene in these situations. Even more interesting historically is this agreement only covers expressly the island of Taiwan itself and not the outer islands of Kinmen or Matsu under National control. The law requires the US government to provide (sell) all arms necessary for Taiwan to defend itself and requires the Pentagon to maintain a military capability in the Western Pacific strong enough to “discourage” any third-party country from such a non-peaceful interference in Taiwan’s geo-political integrity. The Pentagon is required by this law to report to Congress yearly on the status of such.
Having nuclear weapons only assures you of a conventional war when fought against another nuclear power unless a catastrophic meltdown in reason happens. The opposite doesn’t seem to be the same. Argentina had no fear of nuclear armed Great Britain when she seized the Falkland Islands in 1982.
Frank Shuler
USA