From www.worldpoliticsreview.com, 25 September 2007
September 25, 2007
by
Richard
Weitz
For approximately 36 hours last month, the U.S. Air Force lost
track of half a dozen nuclear weapons. Although Air Force leaders
characterize the event as a unique occurrence, the incident will likely
encourage opposition to the Bush administration's Prompt Global Strike
plan, which aims give the United States the option of using nuclear and
non-nuclear weapons on the same delivery systems.
On Aug. 30, the crew of an Air Force B-52H Stratofortress unknowingly
carried six nuclear-tipped AGM-129 cruise missiles while flying from
Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in
Louisiana. Throughout the three-and-a-half-hour flight, neither the
plane's crew nor their air traffic controllers were aware that the
aircraft was carrying nuclear munitions. The error was only discovered
some nine hours after the plane had landed.
The immediate source of the problem was that, the previous morning, the
ground crew had accidentally loaded six nuclear-armed AGM-129s onto a
pylon that they then attached to the underside of one of the B-52's
wings. The six missiles under the other wing were appropriately
unarmed. From the 9 a.m. loading on Aug. 29 through the afternoon of
Aug. 30, the six nuclear missiles remained under U.S. military custody,
but without the special protection usually required of nuclear
munitions.
The Air Force has decided to retire its remaining 400 AGM-129s, which are designed to carry a W80-1 nuclear warhead
with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons. The service will rely entirely on
the more advanced Air-Launched Cruise Missiles. The unlucky crew of the
Aug. 30 flight was transporting the AGM-129s to Barksdale for formal
decommissioning, but the nuclear munitions should have been replaced
with inert warheads at Minot prior to the trip.
In recent years, the Air Force typically has used only specially
designated cargo planes (such as C-130 or C-17 aircraft) belonging to
its Primary Nuclear Airlift Force (PNAF) to transport nuclear weapons
by air. Such transfers occur most often between operational bases and
other facilities when the weapons undergo maintenance, modernization,
or (as in this case) retirement. Unlike patrolling bombers, cargo
planes cannot launch nuclear strikes, so other countries are less
likely to see their actions as threatening.
Air Force officials insist that the nuclear warheads never presented a danger
to the crew or to the general public. They point out that the weapons
had not been activated and have extensive safety features designed to
prevent an accidental or deliberate explosion (i.e., one caused by
terrorists). Nevertheless, the incident does raise concerns about the
effectiveness of the Air Force's command and control safeguards for the
handling of nuclear weapons.
The Department of Defense (DOD) -- along with the Department of Energy,
which designs and builds U.S. nuclear weapons -- uses several computerized tracking programs
to account for its nuclear warheads. DOD procedures also require
explicit authorization by senior military commanders for any movement
of U.S. nuclear weapons. According to those who have participated in
the process, the Air Force protocols for the handling of nuclear munitions
require multiple authorizations whenever a nuclear warhead is removed
from its storage bunker, transported to a runway, or loaded onto a
plane.
Since the AGM-129 does not have a conventionally armed variant, the
Aug. 29-30 error involves more than a ground crew simply selecting the
wrong version of the missile. An AGM-129 with a nuclear warhead also
looks different (having special red markings) than one with an inert
warhead.
The military considered the incident sufficiently serious to inform
President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates immediately. Gates
initially requested daily briefings from the current Air Force Chief of
Staff, Gen. Michael Moseley, on the status of the USAF inquiry led by
Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg, director of air and space operations at Air
Combat Command. More recently, Gates requested that former USAF chief
of staff Larry Welch head a study by the Defense Science Board to
determine the wider implications of the B-52 incident for the security
and transfer of nuclear munitions.
The Air Force's investigation will likely focus on the behavior of the
ground crew. Its members inexplicitly selected and loaded the six live
nuclear warheads onto the plane, in apparent violation of numerous
safety and security regulations. Pending the results of the inquiry,
the Air Force has already relieved of his duties the munitions squadron
commander who oversaw the Minot munitions crews. In addition, it has
"temporarily decertified" other personnel from handling munitions. At a
minimum, the Air Force will likely require that those involved undergo
additional training.
Although an Air Force representative described the affair as an "isolated mistake,"
the Air Combat Command ordered a stand down at all its bases -- even
those not involved with nuclear weapons -- on Sept. 14. All Air Force
commands suspended their normal "nonmission essential" operations to
review proper munitions handling procedures.
The Air Force also subsequently conducted an unusually large number of no-notice and short-notice "limited nuclear surety inspections"
of select Air Force units. The Air Force routinely performs these
inspections to assess the safety, security and reliability of its
nuclear weapons. The Aug. 30 incident, however, probably has resulted
in reviews of whether USAF personnel are properly performing counting
and verification procedures for stored nuclear munitions. The Air
Combat Command, which operates the U.S. strategic bomber fleet, is
inspecting its units. But so is the Air Force Space Command, which
oversees the U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) arsenal.
The details of DOD nuclear security protocols are classified. The
military also has a policy of not confirming information regarding the
movement of U.S. nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the secrecy was
aimed primarily at discouraging public protests about the movement of
nuclear explosive devices. Today, U.S. officials justify the policy by
citing the need to prevent terrorists from seizing the weapons.
The Air Force's unauthorized transportation of nuclear munitions on
Aug. 30 is certain to heighten concerns about the Bush administration's
proposals to allow some U.S. ICBMs to carry conventional rather than
nuclear warheads. Opponents of the Prompt Global Strike plan will now
find it easier to argue that Russian, Chinese, and other governments
cannot be sure whether any U.S. strategic missile is carrying a
conventional warhead if American military units can mistakenly load
nuclear weapons on U.S. delivery systems.
Richard Weitz is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson Institute.
Home | Learn About Hudson | Hudson Scholars | Find an Expert | Support Hudson | Contact Information | Site Map
Policy Centers | Research Area | Publications & Op-Eds | Hudson Bookstore
Hudson Institute, Inc.
1015 15th Street, N.W. 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202.974.2400
Fax: 202.974.2410
Email the Webmaster