Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

fas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

#31

Post by thrill »

bragr wrote: post #24
23B1 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article: “It must be emphasized up front that there is no official confirmation that the image was taken at Volkel Air Base, that the bent B61 shape is a real weapon (versus a trainer), or that the damage was the result of an accident (versus a training simulation).” Headline writer/editor: “Hold my beer”

>there is no official confirmation that the image was taken at Volkel Air Base, that the bent B61 shape is a real weapon (versus a trainer), or that the damage was the result of an accident (versus a training simulation) Even if it was at Volkel, and it is a real weapon, there's no confirmation that it contains a physics package, so there may be no "nuclear" risk, even if the weapon is badly damaged. I suspect if the…

Exactly.

Re: Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

#32

Post by bell-cot »

rootusrootus wrote: post #27
ceejayoz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would they be wearing protective gear if it was an actual accident? Nuclear warhead cores were routinely handled by hand. Not sure if they still are, but when intact and non-critical, they present very little radiation risk. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/after-wwii-scienti...

Plutonium is quite toxic, however, and I think by now it would be normal to have some protection when working with it. And given the consequences for playing fast & loose in the past, it's likely we aren't as flippant now. Also, you're talking about the scientists, not the EOD grunts.

> Plutonium is quite toxic...

Myth. For example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity

Re: Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

#33

Post by vuln »

warner25 wrote: post #17
The28thDuck wrote: post #5

I remember hearing about bad OPSEC at Volkel. Something about how there was sensitive national security secrets indirectly being leaked bc soldiers didn’t set their Quizlet flashcards to private when studying for their exams.

If someone puts classified information into Quizlet, that constitutes spillage whether they set it to private or not. Sometimes this kind of thing needs to be explained even to very senior people, not just lowly troops. I knew of a four-star general asking a few years ago why we didn't use Signal for stuff instead of Teams (O365 tenant hosted in Microsoft's Government Community Cloud), because he "heard that it's so…

> Edited to add: Another very senior DoD person actually got in trouble for using Signal for official business a couple years ago because, among other reasons, there's no way for the government comply with FOIA when someone is using a personal account on a commercial application like that.

Do you have any additional information on the punishment? The precedence has been set that “no reasonable prosecutor “ would prosecute someone over using personal servers/apps/out band communication to subvert FOIA and National Security.

> Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

> Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-dir...

Re: Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

#34

Post by whalesalad »

itronitron wrote: post #18
The28thDuck wrote: post #5

I remember hearing about bad OPSEC at Volkel. Something about how there was sensitive national security secrets indirectly being leaked bc soldiers didn’t set their Quizlet flashcards to private when studying for their exams.

uhm, setting the quizlet flashcards to private would have still resulted in a leak of sensitive data...

You’re not wrong - but “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” comes to mind.

Re: Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

#36

Post by detrites »

bragadiru_mafia wrote: post #8

Ok and then the water supply and all the farms got contaminated and that’s why they are closing all the farms If you’re in NL can you buy a Geiger meter and take a really long cycle ride and validate the hypothesis?

There's an app for that:

https://map.safecast.org/?y=52.34&x=4.91&z=7&l=0&m=0

Re: Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

#37

Post by tremblane »

vintermann wrote: post #21
23B1 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article: “It must be emphasized up front that there is no official confirmation that the image was taken at Volkel Air Base, that the bent B61 shape is a real weapon (versus a trainer), or that the damage was the result of an accident (versus a training simulation).” Headline writer/editor: “Hold my beer”

"There is no official confirmation" isn't especially noteworthy, when they simultaneously boast that they would never, ever officialy confirm something like that if it was true. My bet is most of the editors publishing this story called to ask if it was OK to publish first, and got a yes. They call it a "limited hangout". Better that a reputable source publicizes it with a ton of caveats about how unverified it is, t…

Trying to remember the specifics of the training we got when I was in the US Air Force on the rules concerning nukes. This is the gist of it:

Above all: Don't lie.

The default is "neither confirm nor deny". For example: somebody asks if there were nukes on the plane that just crashed? Can't say. Even if you know there weren't, you can neither confirm nor deny.

You MAY deny if it would benefit safety. For example: someone started a rumor there was a nuke on a plane that crashed nearby and panic/riots are starting. An official statement saying there was no nuclear material involved could help settle things down.

You MUST confirm if there is a safety concern. For example: There really was a nuke on the plane that just crashed nearby and people need to evacuate ASAP. Get that confirmation out now and get people away from the situation.

In other words, when it comes to nuclear things with the US military, "no official confirmation" means exactly nothing, other than there is/was no public safety concern.

edit: I never looked at the regulations, this was just told to us in tech school. But I just looked it up and there actually is a reg for that:https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do...

Re: Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

#38

Post by ambicapter »

vuln wrote: post #33
warner25 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone puts classified information into Quizlet, that constitutes spillage whether they set it to private or not. Sometimes this kind of thing needs to be explained even to very senior people, not just lowly troops. I knew of a four-star general asking a few years ago why we didn't use Signal for stuff instead of Teams (O365 tenant hosted in Microsoft's Government Community Cloud), because he "heard that it's so…

> Edited to add: Another very senior DoD person actually got in trouble for using Signal for official business a couple years ago because, among other reasons, there's no way for the government comply with FOIA when someone is using a personal account on a commercial application like that. Do you have any additional information on the punishment? The precedence has been set that “no reasonable prosecutor “ would pros…

Your quoted text doesn't reflect the sentence you use to introduce it

> there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

is not the same thing as

> using personal servers/apps/out band communication to subvert FOIA

Re: Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

#39

Post by bragadiru_mafia »

detrites wrote: post #36
bragadiru_mafia wrote: post #8

Ok and then the water supply and all the farms got contaminated and that’s why they are closing all the farms If you’re in NL can you buy a Geiger meter and take a really long cycle ride and validate the hypothesis?

There's an app for that: https://map.safecast.org/?y=52.34&x=4.91&z=7&l=0&m=0

Magnificent. From the bottom of my Heart. Thank you.

Re: Was there a U.S. nuclear weapons accident at a Dutch air base?

#40

Post by boomboomsubban »

vuln wrote: post #33
warner25 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone puts classified information into Quizlet, that constitutes spillage whether they set it to private or not. Sometimes this kind of thing needs to be explained even to very senior people, not just lowly troops. I knew of a four-star general asking a few years ago why we didn't use Signal for stuff instead of Teams (O365 tenant hosted in Microsoft's Government Community Cloud), because he "heard that it's so…

> Edited to add: Another very senior DoD person actually got in trouble for using Signal for official business a couple years ago because, among other reasons, there's no way for the government comply with FOIA when someone is using a personal account on a commercial application like that. Do you have any additional information on the punishment? The precedence has been set that “no reasonable prosecutor “ would pros…

https://www.nextgov.com/cxo-briefing/2021/06/defense-digital...

He stepped down, and my quick search doesn't show him actually facing punishment. And his case was different, as some members of staff did believe he was encouraging use of Signal to prevent FOIA strikes.

Post reply on HN