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

51–60 of 96 posts

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

#51

Post by GartzenDeHaes »

To me, this kind of looks like a host country demonstration, joint exercise, or maybe a damaged trainer.

- EOD nuclear procedures are classified Secret Critical Nuclear Design Information. They will not allow someone to take pictures, nor allow civilians to watch.

- USAF EOD does use three person teams for nuclear operations, two workers and one supervisor. Normally there are two people on incident response teams.

- Some USAF tactical fighter wings do train to drop tactical nuclear weapons, even if they do not have such weapons themselves (for contingency/war plans).

- Some nuclear weapon trainers have some explosives, so it is possibly a real EOD response. However, even if the procedures in this case were not classified, I doubt EOD would allow any pictures of an actual operation.

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

#52

Post by gambiting »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #25
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.

(When Russia opened its archives in the 90s we learned were all the nukes in Europe were stored. It wasn't a secret to the KGB). Officially to this day this is all a Dutch state secret (can neither confirm nor deny bla bla bla). But there was an interview with ex prime minister Lubbers and he talked about the nukes. The poor man's mental faculties were already slipping. If anyone is wondering according to NATO plans…

That last part is literally in the article. If US President, UK Prime Minister and NATO Nuclear planning group all approve the strike, then the weapon is loaded on a Dutch F-16 and dropped by a Dutch pilot.

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

#53

Post by guenthert »

"Most people would describe a nuclear bomb getting bent as an accident, but U.S. Air Force terminology would likely categorize it as a Bent Spear incident, which is defined as “evident damage to a nuclear weapon or nuclear component that requires major rework, replacement, or examination or re-certification by the Department of Energy.” The U.S. Air Force reserves “accident” for events that involve the destruction or loss of a weapon."

That'll buff right out.

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

#54

Post by karaterobot »

50 comments in, there should be a top level comment pointing out that the answer is "no", as stated as an update in the first paragraph of the article. So, this is that.

> Did the U.S. Air Force suffer a nuclear weapons accident at an airbase in Europe a few years back? [Update: After USAFE and LANL initially declined to comment on the picture, a Pentagon spokesperson later clarified that the image is not of an actual nuclear weapons accident but of a training exercise, as cautioned in the second paragraph below. The spokesperson declined to comment on the main conclusion of this article, however, that the image appears to be from inside an aircraft shelter at Volkel Air Base.]

So: no.

Gimlet-eyed viewers may have concluded the same thing independently, by noticing that there a couple people standing around in the background looking bored, one of them holding what may as well be a clipboard.

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

#55

Post by rep_lodsb »

avar wrote: post #47
bostonsre wrote: post #9

Would they be wearing protective gear if it was an actual accident? Also, the dude with the clip board doesn't look very concerned...

Hypothetically, if the bomb is damaged in such a way that it may accidentally detonate, it's going to be pointless to try to fix the issue while wearing protective gear.

This couldn't happen. It takes precision timing of the conventional explosives inside a nuke to trigger detonation.

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

#56

Post by stametseater »

avar wrote: post #47
bostonsre wrote: post #9

Would they be wearing protective gear if it was an actual accident? Also, the dude with the clip board doesn't look very concerned...

Hypothetically, if the bomb is damaged in such a way that it may accidentally detonate, it's going to be pointless to try to fix the issue while wearing protective gear.

The protective gear would presumably be to protect the EOD guys in scenarios in which the bomb doesn't blow up. Just spitballing here but.. maybe SCBA gear in case it starts to leak tritium gas?

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

#57

Post by hnburnsy »

karaterobot wrote: post #54

50 comments in, there should be a top level comment pointing out that the answer is "no", as stated as an update in the first paragraph of the article. So, this is that. > Did the U.S. Air Force suffer a nuclear weapons accident at an airbase in Europe a few years back? [Update: After USAFE and LANL initially declined to comment on the picture, a Pentagon spokesperson later clarified that the image is not of an actua…

I don't know anything about FAS, but this article does not reflect well on them, especially if they are representing scientists.

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

#59

Post by zokier »

bell-cot wrote: post #32
rootusrootus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> so that the toxicity of plutonium is roughly equivalent with that of nerve gas

Is not exactly saying that it is not toxic. I tried looking for actually credible sources for toxicity, one Los Alamos publication claims:

> For example, the LD50(30) for dogs after intravenous injection of plutonium is about 0.32 milligram per kilogram of tissue.

Less than nerve gases, but still I'd classify as "quite toxic"

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

#60

Post by havblue »

dragonwriter wrote: post #48
havblue wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The espionage act treats negligence with strict liability. So if you "could have" caused a leak, it's still treated like a leak.

> The espionage act treats negligence with strict liability “Negligence” and “strict liability” are different standards, you can’t treat one with the other. > So if you "could have" caused a leak, it's still treated like a leak. That’s very much not how the Espionage Act works, even just on the statute and beforr considering Supreme Court precedent limiting its application.

My original explanation wasn't that good and yes, I conflated the espionage act with how this situation would be handled (by the DOD)

https://www.cyberdefensemagazine.com/data-spill-an-everyday/

This is a better summary. At the start, everyone's phones would likely be confiscated and, I would think, destroyed, if they were discovered to have classified data on them. However, if the data was in the cloud it would be an even bigger deal.

Post reply on HN