Share this
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Blogmarks
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
TagsWhy the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.
So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.
Then he told me something I had not heard before.
Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?
His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.
Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.
Quote this article on your site
To create link towards this article on your website,
copy and paste the text below in your page.
Preview :
Staging Nukes for Iran?
Thursday, 06 September 2007
Thursday, 06 September 2007
Powered by QuoteThis © 2008
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 4242
Comments (27)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
a guest
said:
 |
... Give me a break. Can you, personally, tell the difference between a cruise missle with a nuclear warhead, and a cruise missle with a conventional explosive warhead? We use cruise missiles constantly in wartime; this seems like a non-event to me. I highly doubt they were nuclear... |
a guest
said:
|
... Sure you can doubt that, but... "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Six nuclear warheads on cruise missiles were mistakenly carried on a flight from North Dakota to Louisiana last week, prompting a major investigation, military officials have confirmed." http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/?iref=mpstoryview |
a guest
said:
|
Another guess ... The temperament of the Nation is being tested; if you ask me! This, is another stage of the psychological war on Iran! I hope it stay that way: psychological! And I hope Iran will not give in to bullyism! |
a guest
said:
|
too many questions what would be the best way to divert a nuclear warhead? You can't swap one out at the armory, but you can enroute at 30,000 ft. I hope not, but the question derives from the proven diabolical misdirection and subterfuge practiced by our own government. |
a guest
said:
|
Look for the logo Shouldn't the nukes be clearly marked with the the radioactive logo? http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/radiation/radiatt.gif It's time to watch Dr. Strangelove again. |
a guest
said:
|
Aeneas imo it's not trying to warn the american people but warning the iranian government.. |
a guest
said:
|
... Why is this a big deal? Nuclear warheads and conventional warheads arent thrown into the same storage facilities, so there was no confusion when they loaded these nuclear warheads up. Nuclear security standards and procedures are extremely stringent. You just can't go sign out a nuclear warhead at the weapon storage area, redundant forms of authorization for a nuclear warhead movement are required and pre planning for the movement is necessary. There is absolutely no way security forces would allow a nuclear munition to be loaded onto anything without high level authorization. Someone high up gave the go ahead to load that plane with those warheads. Why the hell would we load up a B-52 with nuclear cruise missiles and land at barksdale afb to admit someone screwed up? Nukes don't get moved on accident. Word must've gotten out quickly, and someone became the fall guy. I can't even speculate why the hell this happened, but it cant be good news. This story is gonna get buried or distorted really quick. |
a guest
said:
|
Hey uh, isn't Sept. 11th coming up? Maybe a little personal retaliation? It doesn't even have to be government related. |
a guest
said:
|
Didn't anyone READ the original article? The nukes were flown, in an alleged move to have them dismantled. What they fail to mention is that Barksdale is NOT where they dismantle nukes, hence the concern. Also, payload would not be shipped while attached to the delivery device (missle). THAT was what caused alarm - that there were "active" nuclear missles being flown across domestic soil, which goes against protocol. It's a strange event, and a strange article. Most nuclear weapons are not transported by air unless they are on their way to deployment. They are almost always shipped by land, in a separate vehicle from their delivery component (missle). I'm thinking this is a distraction from the 40-50 that were likely sent via truck to a waiting ship. E.g., "hey look over there!!!! Now pay no attention to what I'm doing over here behind this curtain..." |
a guest
said:
|
They were decommissioning them! Read around...these were ACM, Advanced Cruise Missiles, which are being de-activated. They were transporting them to Barksdale to take them apart. I imagine because the ACM is nuclear-only, and it is a high-cost item to maintain. |
a guest
said:
|
... It occurs to me that this might not be the first time nuclear missiles have been moved around the country. |
a guest
said:
|
Relax guys.... I think these were just nookular weapons. Okay... okay... So the question is, is this a story leaked to scare the Iranians, or is someone spilling the beans on a government that is actually marching towards war? Hey, perhaps the best way to cover up marching towards war is to make it look like you're just trying to scare the enemy. |
a guest
said:
|
Relax guys.... I think these were just nookular weapons. Okay... okay... So the question is, is this a story leaked to scare the Iranians, or is someone spilling the beans on a government that is actually marching towards war? Hey, perhaps the best way to cover up marching towards war is to make it look like you're just trying to scare the enemy. |
a guest
said:
|
non-event We've already got enough nukes on ships/subs in the area to own Iran many times over. Five more on a B-52 in Louisiana isn't going to make a difference. This is a non-event. |
a guest
said:
|
Don't read so much into it... As someone else pointed out, we have enough nukes in the middle east right now to turn the entire region into a big plate of glass. I'm pretty sure Iran already knows that. Staging 5 more isn't going to make any difference. |
a guest
said:
|
be afraid Don't be surprised when one of these goes off in the US and they blame terrorists and/or Iran. |
a guest
said:
|
Sketchy Randoms talking nonsense about that which they don't understand. A question is why was this reported? The implication of the story is that this shows how shoddy some parts of the US military are. The reality is, it's a piece of news that started from nothing and spawns events, the reverse should be true i.e. events cause news. In fact, this note is redundant. The circle of irony continues. |
a guest
said:
|
Idiot To the highly uninformed person that doesn't understand the difference between a cruise missile with a conventional warhead and one with a nuclear warhead, I'll give you a hint. A cruise missile with a conventional warhead, has a conventional warhead, and a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead, has a nuclear warhead. They've been around for a long time, look it up (or at least think) before you write something so stupid. |
a guest
said:
|
Non Issue There is no "hubbub" with the repositioning of nukes via B-52s. It's the safest way to transport via air than by other means. This event is a non-issue and is SOP within the Military Service. Like others have mentioned . . . we already have more than enough nukes on and below the oceans to handle any situation globally . . . anytime and anywhere. That's why we're the Global Superpower. Smile all . . . :-) |
a guest
said:
|
plenty of nukes already? so, perhaps the navy has enough nukes on ships and submarines to blow the piss out of iran. but does the air force have enough? i believe bush's goal is to start as much war as he can. perhaps he wants multiple branches of the military equipped in case one of them does their patriotic duty and refuses his orders. |
a guest
said:
|
THIS IS SOLID NEWS The news of nukes being on the B-52 has been officially reported in the mainstream media, and yes, there WERE NUKES ABOARD THE B-52. With that said, I personally don't believe that nukes will be used on Iran, at least not unless absolutely necessary, since they would not be needed with the huge, powerful arsenal the U.S. already has. I don't believe even dubya would approve that. The rest of the world would come down hard on the U.S for such an action, so I believe the nukes were simply being transported for logistical reasons. Now, IF they ARE to be used on Iran, may God have mercy on Iran, but also on the U.S. |
a guest
said:
|
Nuke Diplomacy Couldn't this be a deliberate leak to signal to Iran that the U.S. is up for playing games. Come on - the leaders of Iran are probably sweating just a little because of this news. And don't forget that Russia is diking around with it's own nukes right now. The U.S. adminstration is deliberately, but indirectly, reminding Putin that "We have nukes too" [so many we don't know how to account for all of them!] |
a guest
said:
|
... To number 24: Trust me, the Iranians do not sweat over these poker games! It clearly is a little cold warian gesture! The Iranian leaders will laugh it off, and will get a little more hostile, should these hostilities continue. Of course, Americans are trying to PROVOKE Iranians into hostility, but again, you can be SURE they have been tolerating America's provokative behavior for 30 years ... they are not about to give in! You are dealing with a far smarter rulers in Iran than you imagine. Iran has been weathering western HOSTILITY not only for 30 years, but also for 200 years! It was the Russians then, it is Americans now. If you think Iraq is bad, don't even think of comparing what you will get from the Iranians in return! |
a guest
said:
|
Things that make you go hmmmm.... This puts Barack Obama's comment about not using nukes in a different light, doesn't it? |
Matt
said:
|
... All this is a little ridiculous. There are already hundreds of nuclear weapons permanently stored at Barksdale AFB. It's not like the military needs to stage some elaborate subterfuge to have the weapons available - they already are. |
Write comment
