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

71–80 of 96 posts

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

#71

Post by barry-cotter »

themodelplumber wrote: post #64
hnburnsy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scien…

> 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.

If these are the doomsday clock people then that level of bending over backwards to be kind is unwarranted. If you consistently err in one direction it’s because you want to. If your organisation is consistently alarmist it’s a policy decision not an accident.

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

#72

Post by pnw »

cronix wrote: post #70
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.

You heard right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

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

#73

Post by pigbearpig »

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…

> 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.

Beside the fact that a classified photo isn't going to be in a student handbook, this has all the hallmarks of a training session. Like you said, a bored instructor that's done this 100 times, student sitting cross-legged (next to a damaged nuke? ok), students simulating the checklist actions by just touching stuff, and some guy watching for some reason. (edit: not to mention, no personal protective equipment whatsoever)

This is from a powerpoint filled with stock images and this article is absurd.

I'd be more concerned about the truck explosion image (https://i.imgur.com/zUWLf4B.png) next to this one in the handbook. Is that how Transformers are created? Is FAS.org covering something up?

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

#74

Post by themodelplumber »

barry-cotter wrote: post #71
themodelplumber wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scien…

> 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. If these are the doomsday clock people then that level of bending over backwards to be kind is unwarranted. If you consistently err in one direction it’s because you want to. If your organisation is consistently alarmist it…

> If you consistently err in one direction it’s because you want to

Eh, seems like it could also be a lack of skill or experience, despite best intentions. Esp. wrt scientists & public communications.

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

#75

Post by mike_d »

pigbearpig wrote: post #73
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…

> 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. Beside the fact that a classified photo isn't going to be in a student handbook, this has all the hallmarks of a training session. Like you said, a bored instructor that's done this 100 times, student sitting cross-legged (next to a damaged nuke? ok), students simulating the c…

That looks a lot like the trucks they use to transport nuclear materials by road. They do all sorts of terrible things like shoot rockets into them, hit them with trains, and set them on fire during exercises so they can ensure they have training for and mitigations in place for every worst case scenario.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguards_Transporter

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

#76

Post by pigbearpig »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #22
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...

The guy with the beard (most likely the one who knows the most about it) looks like he's ready to take a big step back though.

Then he would know that's pointless.

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

#77

Post by mistermann »

Fnoord wrote: post #69
mistermann wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Can't say is a so-called white lie....

White lies are still lies.

>... its why the more diplomatic cannot confirm or deny is preferred.

This is an appealing story, but neither of us has a way of knowing the comprehensive truth of why our various public officials lie, in fact. A substantial amount of propaganda has been written that seems to have rendered us unable to realize this, but it is objectively true, for what should be obvious reasons.

> OP refers to lying as saying A while its nowhere near the truth. For example, all that RU propaganda is an entire different league.

A substantial proportion of our communication is also in the forms of misinformative memes and catchphrases like "an entire different league". This can (or is almost guaranteed to) cause 3rd party readers to form incorrect beliefs about the relative quality and magnitude of American vs Russian propaganda. The fact of the matter is: not any one single person on the planet possesses this knowledge. So what do we do instead: we literally make things up. It is like we exist within a stage play, created by and starring us, where we write the script as we go along, but pretend that we are doing something else.

> UA have a nice way of summarizing: its complicated. Also a white lie.

It isn't complicated? What is "it" in this case?

>Both are show stoppers, they don't encourage further dialog.

Which I believe is the point of a lot of the popular memes that can now be seen in the wild: stop people from thinking, and cause them to form a confident, incorrect belief prematurely - basically, make the public hallucinate a virtual reality that has been designed for them.

The degree to which this "conspiracy theory" (gasp!) is true vs all of this being simple emergence, I can only speculate. But regardless, the problem is there, it can be understood, and it is physically possible to improve upon it, just as the enlightenment, the scientific method, etc demonstrated that it is possible for humanity to gain substantial control over the physical realm, if one can manage to find a way to try.

Pardon the vitriol, but this never-ending and never talked about situation really bugs me.

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

#78

Post by bell-cot »

zokier wrote: post #59
bell-cot wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

> ...after intravenous injection...

Nerve agents are very readily absorbed through the skin. Metallic plutonium is not. The context here is (at worst) people poking around the outside of slightly-damaged nuclear warhead.

Back in the day, I directly (metal-on-skin) handled lead totalling >1000X the human lethal dose...if administered via intravenous injection. No lethal effects were observed to occur.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by calgarymicro »

barry-cotter wrote: post #71
themodelplumber wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scien…

> 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. If these are the doomsday clock people then that level of bending over backwards to be kind is unwarranted. If you consistently err in one direction it’s because you want to. If your organisation is consistently alarmist it…

> If these are the doomsday clock people

No, that's the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.[0]

[0]https://thebulletin.org/

Post reply on HN