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

61–70 of 96 posts

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

#61

Post by mistermann »

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…

If saying something was true was all that was required for it to be true, we likely wouldn't need nuclear weapons in the first place.

This isn't to say that there was an incident of course, I am just pointing out a rather absurd aspect of our culture.

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

#62

Post by verisimi »

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…

Right. How could a figment of the imagination be involved in an accident?

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

#63

Post by 0xDEF »

hnburnsy wrote: post #57
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.

They are an organization founded by scientists. However today their primary goal is anti-nuke activism. For example the author of this piece is a former Danish Greenpeace activist who according to his LinkedIn profile doesn't have any scientific background other than protesting against Nordic nuclear energy projects before moving to the US.

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

#64

Post by themodelplumber »

hnburnsy wrote: post #57
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.

From what I understand, they have had kind of a history of hiring PR / communications experts and later realizing those people don't really have the same goals or perspectives as the scientists.

Seeing that this is a blog post (and one of many) and not a FAS report or article, it's also different in that particular way: Maybe it's written through more of an exploratory / human interest angle and meant less as a scientific publication.

This seems especially relevant given the updates posted on the blog post; somebody is trying to keep on top of it, at least...

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

#65

Post by mistermann »

tremblane wrote: post #37
vintermann wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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: som…

> 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.

"Can't say" is a lie (as it is physically possible to say). "I have been ordered to say 'Can't say', even though I actually do know the truth" would be not lying.

Not that it matters because no one really cares about fine-grained, actual truth, I'm just pointing out a neat part of our righteous, democratic culture.

> 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.

If one was to pay attention to official US announcements over the years, one might realize that "no official confirmation" in the above could be replaced with anything and remain correct, due to their long, diverse track record of lying and getting caught.

Of course, everyone lies, it is a fundamental part of our culture and "getting things done", I'd just rather we stop representing ourselves as being something other than what we really are.

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

#66

Post by slim » 

  At first a visor cover can be seen showing an orange-yellow mushroom cloud illustrating a nuclear explosion. However, when the video cuts and the commander turns to face the camera, the nuclear mushroom cloud cover is gone, presumably to avoid sending the wrong message to Russia
I guess now is the right time to send the wrong message to Russia /s

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

#67

Post by Someone »

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…

> 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.

Not necessarily. Those 50 comments may have come before the update.

I think many if not most of them did.

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

#68

Post by dcdc123 »

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…

It looks like a staged training photo in just about every way.

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

#69

Post by Fnoord »

mistermann wrote: post #65
tremblane wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: som…

> 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. "Can't say" is a lie (as it is physically possible to say). "I have been ordered to say 'Can't say', even though I actually do know the truth" would be not lying. Not that it matters because no o…

Can't say is a so-called white lie, its why the more diplomatic cannot confirm or deny is preferred. OP refers to lying as saying A while its nowhere near the truth. For example, all that RU propaganda is an entire different league.

UA have a nice way of summarizing: its complicated. Also a white lie. Both are show stoppers, they don't encourage further dialog.

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

#70

Post by cronix »

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 heard somewhere that if a headline has a question in it, the answer is basically always no.
Post reply on HN