|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Making sure there is no confusion between nuclear-tipped and dummy warheads on B-52s Feb 27, 2008 10:08 AM
Much has already been written regarding the B-52 bomber that took off from an Air Force base in Minot, North Dakota in August with six nuclear-tipped AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles and then these missiles were transferred on a 1400-mile flight to the Air Force base in Barksdale, La. Of course, the missile tips should have been dummies, but somehow actual nuclear warheads were loaded for the cross-country trip. As Senator Carl Levin underscored during a hearing several weeks ago, "No one knew where they were, or even missed them, for over 36 hours." Though the Air Force demoted and disciplined dozens and stressed that the missiles were not primed for actual use and could not have caused nuclear havoc, the lawmakers discovered a deeper underlying problem — a precipitous decrease in military vigilance over the nation's missile arsenal. As the New York Times said in an editorial: "The laxity on the home front uncovered by the dodgy B-52 flight presents the same kind of nuclear risk once epitomized by the cold war. The Pentagon should, without hesitation, reverse this dangerous perception by appointing the ranking watchdog plus a flag officer in each of the services to the sole task of keeping the missiles secure, as the study recommends."
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Back to Top |