What does it take to convince the blind, deaf and dumb media that a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy fact? The original plan was for Israel to attack Iran. This would provoke an Iranian retaliation, and provide a pretext for an American bombing campaign against three or four thousand targests in Iran. Tactical nuclear weapons would be used against hardened underground targets. Israel decided to attack Syria, instead. Read "B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater," by Wayne Madsen, at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/frameup.html

For information on government conspiracies, in general, including the terrorism of September 11, the best place to start is whatreallyhappened. Download http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/quickindex/index.htm

It is time that The Washington Post admitted that our government has been hijacked by maniacs, willing to do anything in the name of Israeli expansion. Only the Air Force and intelligence services saved us from a war with Iran and a direct confrontation with Russia and China. All out nuclear war would be an added bonus, as far as the Christian Zionists are concerned. The battle of Armageddon is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus.

//"Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Thursday declared "open war" on Israel worldwide after accusing the Jewish state of killing his top commander Imad Mughniyeh outside the battleground.\\

I'm glad that you put this bit in your post. This particular excerpt is classic Hizballah propaganda. Imad Mughniyah, Salameh('Black September'), and other have been notorious for their experience and effect of their fear-bent bombings. Bombs are used -in particular- to instill fear because they can indescriminately kill noncoms as well. Thus - fear. This has been Imad's own mode of operation for a long time; I'm amazed the Israelis didn't get to him earlier. I think they were just plain fed up with Imad. If he got killed by a bomb, it is certainly not unexpected or a surprise.
Q: When is a guerilla cmndr ever out of a battlefield?
A: Never!

//Wrong again, if you consider Israel to be an ally or even a client state\\

Wrong; Israel share many of the same terrorist organizations that we fight. Adm Mullen of the JCS had a recent meeting with Mossad after the new NIE was released. Seems the Israelis had something to SHARE with US about Iranian capabilities. One doesn't share notes at this level if we are enemies. Yes, we do have a relationship with Israel; a far better relationship than having the late-Mughiniyah's Hizballah as friends. I'm thankful for that!

To use an old axiom: "the enemies of our enemies is our friend"...

plainfacto: "If we left a bad taste in the mouths of our foes because some nukes were being moved around at a critical point in ME politics/history, then its effects were realized and gave these foes pause; so much the better than having to actually use them. Bluff or not; it worked."

Wrong again, if you consider Israel to be an ally or even a client state:

"Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Thursday declared "open war" on Israel worldwide after accusing the Jewish state of killing his top commander Imad Mughniyeh outside the battleground.

Nasrallah issued the war declaration in an address to mourners taking part in Mughniyeh's funeral procession at south Beirut's Master of the Martyrs compound.

"You Zionists have killed hajj Imad in Damascus, outside the battleground. You've crossed the limits," Nasrallah said.

"Let the whole world hear this, if you want this kind of open war, open war let it be," Nasrallah added as mourners chanted "death to Israel, death to America."

"Our battlefield with you is on Lebanese territory and you have overstepped the border," Nasrallah told Israeli leaders who had denied involvement in the Mughniyeh assassination by a car bomb in the Syrian capital of Damascus on Tuesday evening.

Nasrallah pledged that Mughniyeh's blood would result in the "disappearance" of Israel.

In full: http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/2514772CB269C179C22573EF00575194?OpenDocument

Nuclear weapons are WEAPONS; their purpose is to inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy. We HAVE no other agency apart from the military which is capable and directed by Congress to execute this mission.

Unless Mr. Arkin is interested in amending the Constitution of the United States of America to provide another agency to defend the United States with nuclear weapons, or has a magical wand to make other nations' nuclear stockpiles disappear, he should stop spouting nonsense.

SO let me see what can go wrong. A muclear alert, Bombers & missles on the way. Call the AEC to release the nukes. Opps its a weekend and the AEC is hunting with Chensy. Call back in 2 days.

Bend over and kiss your sweet posterior goodby.

How's that for a different scenerio for you Mr. Arkin

//The true problem, the one the Air Force can't address, is that the nation doesn't really want to invest in a cadre of dedicated nuclear weapons experts in uniform anymore. Some see that as a crisis; I see it as an opportunity to get the military even more out of the nuclear business.\\ -Arkin

This is one of those times that I disagree with Arkin. I can just see us now; having to go remove submarines and other LRBM's. Let's keep in focus that the USAF is not the only nuke deterrent service; it is shared with the USN. I personally know military personel who do this work; I can assure you that it is in the most capable of hands.

I guess if Russia, China, EU, and the UK all removed them all at once - you would still have to deal with any rogue nation that has already procured some from China or Russia. I don't think anyone has the answer to that dilemma; although everybody seems to know better - or at least thinks so. I am satisfied that our military has control of these weapons - even though the 'alleged' Air Force incident has left the pundits chomping at the bit to criticise.

Putting our nukes underneath yet another federal body other than the military is pointless and only makes us more vulnerable. Deterrents are also used in rare cases to dissuade their use by others who consider using such weapons - I am referring to this USAF incident in particular. That is to say: If we left a bad taste in the mouths of our foes because some nukes were being moved around at a critical point in ME politics/history, then its effects were realized and gave these foes pause; so much the better than having to actually use them. Bluff or not; it worked.

So Arkin went to great lengths in his piece to qualify a point that just won't fly.
Pardon the pun...

dWho has the oversight? It would appear that someone was asleep at the helm!

Mr. Arkin is correct about the occupation of military personnel and hazzardous communications with career oriented service men and women. There is a word to describe the situation and it is called 'collective apathy'! Where there is no training there is no understanding and what used to be standard procedure before the cold war declination is now brought up in these hastily formed panels which do nothing more than point fingers and place blame and try to create or assign a point of origen for responsibility in case there is another anomaly. Not only are we talking about procedural errors but we are letting everyone in the world know what we are doing and how we do it for everyone to see our mistakes and so let us hope that this dirty laundry makes it to the cleaners and not the clothes line in the front yard for all our adversaries to gaze at and wonder. . . ......! The horn has sounded and the warning has been sent. How many good people will lose a career and position due to inadequate training (no fault of their own) and lack of communication due to potential repercussions! Nuclear Safety when dealing with munitions is a must. Dedicated Nuclear Surety Team trained in PRP and responsible procedures training will actually prevent these series of unfortunate events in the future.

//If I'm wrong, if details of the USAF investigation are available - other posters, please let me know.\\ -al75

You aren't wrong about everything you said; I think you only got one part wrong in all of it.
It was:
"The lack of a transparent investigation is another sign of something seriously wrong".
It isn't 'wrong' - if it was planned that way; yes?

The part that said:
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist - but I am not aware of a transparent investigation, including a chronology of what happened, what officer was responsible for each stage of the transfer, how that officer came to fail, what disciplinary measures have been taken against each officer."
- is also up-to-snuff as well.
In fact, it is the dictum of the services to do it this precise manner - anything else would have to be called on the carpet; yes?

But when you said:
"The fact that this "mistake" occurred one day before the mysterious Israeli strike in Syria last September is probably a coincidence"
-I think that statement said it all. I don't fault the US for doing this, it provided some needed puctuation to that op.

The Air Force's Blue Ribbon commission readily admits that the emphasis on nuclear weapons since the Cold War has declined...

Ergo,

The United States ought to do what we have been demanding that other nations of the
world do, disarm!

And I now have a plan that will facilitate getting rid of American nukes. It is called NABGAP. The USA will sponsor a 'Nuclear Amnesty Bomb Give Away' program, also known as 'Bombs Away'!

For every non-democratic nation that will voluntarily become democratic, America will give you a bundle of nukes; depending
on the size of your country of course. Cuba would get one nuke for example!

The Benefits: Other non-democratic nations are eventually going to 'get the bomb' anyway, get it?

How? Either by creating one of your own, buying the technology off of the black market, joining NABGAP, or when America drops the bomb on you - which is certain to happen eventually!

So why not do it the easy way. Besides, it will reduce the number of nukes that America has to monitor!

Defense Science Board, have concluded that the U.S. military has lost focus on its nuclear weapons missionhave concluded that the U.S. military has lost focus on its nuclear weapons mission --

Mr. Arkin,

Not only has the U.S. Military 'lost focus on its mission', so has the United States Congress, and the Executive Branch.

Can you believe that with all that is going on in the world (domestically and abroad), that the Congress is wasting time trying to determine whether or not Barry Bonds and Roger Cleamons were on steroids, B12..., and or whether they lied to Congress about being on Steroids...!

They never investigated the lies that Bush told. Look, it would appear that many of our paid civil and military employees from the President on down have 'lost focus' on what their priorities should be - The Air Force is not an exception!

Our leaders are more concerned about baseball and steroids that the status of America's nukes!

http://www.jesseshunting.com/photopost/data/555/2204slim-pickens-dr-strangelove-bomb-ride.jpg

Mr. Arkin thinks we should not invest in military uniforms for those dedicated so called 'Nuclear Weapons Experts!' I am curious as to who Mr. Arkin believes should be in control of the nuclear weapons! Maybe some caretaker in civillian clothes that can afford a nice suit from the store of his choice. I think this is the solution to Mr. Arkins problem and if he owns a mens store this might be his opportunity!

Arkin writes: "The true problem, the one the Air Force can't address, is that the nation doesn't really want to invest in a cadre of dedicated nuclear weapons experts in uniform anymore".

By using the phrase "... experts in uniform anymore" Arkin includes the Navy in his judgement.

A couple points:

- Since the end of the Cold War, the nation's credible nuclear deterent capablity resides in the Navy (with their Trident submarines), not the Air Force.

- If Arkin is right, and the Air Force has institutionally de-emphasized it's strategic deterent mission, they would then have defacto abdicated that mission to the Navy.

And so I suspect Arkin is painting with too broad a brush and over splattering onto Navy capability whe he portrays Air Force institutional weakness.

My first full time job was as a Munitions Specialist in the Air Force. I worked in what is popularly known as the Bomb Dump. These were conventional munitions, but I did have occasion to see a tactical nuclear weapon once in Western Europe. This is so much B.S. We always knew where our Conventional Munitions were going, and I am sure tight controls are maintained over Nuclear Weapons. What the Administration is trying to do is use Nuclear personnel for regular duty, because they do not have enough personnel for combat assignment. They are too cheap to use properly trained people for staffing nuclear weapons type assignments. There are certain fields in the military that require special assignments.
I remember one casualty that was reported in Iraq was an American Arab Language Interpreter. His family also mentioned he as a cryptographer. He had to be ASA personnel who was pulled from that specialized unit to perform infantry duties. This means one less set of ears was listening to enemy communications which could have provided vital intelligence.
This is another instance where the Administration is trying to conduct this war on the cheap. They Are lying again! The Defense Policy Board are a bunch of civilians who don't have a clue about the military.

If I'm reading this editorial correctly, Mr Arkin is essentially calling for the Air Force to 'outsource' the care and feeding of nuclear weapons.

Considering the uniformly unacceptable showing of current outsourced military functions in Iraq, this thought makes me shudder.

The Air Force was split off from the Army because the Air Force wanted to pursue a strategic mission. If the Air Force no longer wants to shoulder the responsibility for nuclear weapons -- *the* strategic weapon -- then they clearly no longer have a strategic focus, and should be folded back into the Army.

The Air Force needs to manage their part of the Nation's strategic nuclear arsenal, or their strategic role in the armed forces is non-operational.

You cannot transfer the terrible responsibility for nuclear weapons to someone else simply because an organization has decided to move on to other things. This is a time when the Nation's civilian leadership needs to step in and refocus the Air Force on it's mission.

And if you did decide to outsource to a civilian organization, who would you choose? Blackwater? Halliburton? The Department of Homeland Security?

One of the problems with nuclear weapons is that they are weapons that nobody expects to use. It would be easy for any organization to tire of maintaining and guarding them, and to look for more interesting things to do.

Unfortunately, another problem with nuclear weapons is that because of the danger they represent, the controllers of these weapons must be eternally vigilant. The managers of these weapons cannot be worried about profit. They must not cut corners because of budget limitations. They must not be more worried about their own career advancement than the seriousness of what they are responsible for.

Our nation must either do what is necessary to ensure our nuclear weapons are ready, they are secure, and -- if necessary -- they will be used to defend our nation.

If the Air Force is not willing to step up to the responsibilities that they have long held, and as a Nation we are willing to let the Air Force shirk their responsibilities, then we as a nation need to reduce the number of nuclear weapons to a level that we *are* willing to care enough about.

Arkin is reporting the Pentagon line: the nuclear missile transfer was a mistake. I remember at the time that many posters with USAF experience maintained that it was simply impossible for such a mistake to occur: too many people need to sign off on the weapons transfers.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist - but I am not aware of a transparent investigation, including a chronology of what happened, what officer was responsible for each stage of the transfer, how that officer came to fail, what disciplinary measures have been taken against each officer.

Absent a transparent investigation, conspiracy theories take root - whether there is in fact a conspiracy, or not.

The fact that this "mistake" occurred one day before the mysterious Israeli strike in Syria last September is probably a coincidence. The pressure from the right for military action against Iran, and a go-it-alone attack by Israel if the US doesn't strike, are also probably not related. Probably.

The lack of a transparent investigation is another sign of something seriously wrong.

If I'm wrong, if details of the USAF investigation are available - other posters, please let me know.

I agree with Da'Buffalo. This was not a mistake. It was an attempt to get some nukes to where they could be used without oversight or traceability. Maybe Iran, maybe Iraq, maybe NY City. For whatever was needed politically to keep control and to keep people afraid.

"Yeah, on planes staged for the Azores, a logistics point for US forces in the Middle East... Funny thing hunh?

"It was NOT a screw up. Big DICK Cheney was just checking to see if wwe we all paying attention, and if not, a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran."

You are crazy. Get your head out of your rear-end and debate issues and stop talking about the boogey man. Only you crackpots believe any of this trash you write.

The last dammn thing we need is for the military to lose total control of the nuclear weapons that we do have. As an old Emergency Actions NCO I was on a team that use to train daily on the control of nuclear weapon. So what when the time came to use them we could do so without thinking about it. We trained to execute orders. That's it. So, the writer suggests that the U.S. places control and maintenance of nuclear in the control of civilians - can you see the picture in the future. SAC is ordered to bomb someplace in the world, so he orders up some nuclear weapons. But the civilians in charge of maintaining them objects to their use and prevents the release and movement of the weapons to the airfields... Who's in control now?

We are very fortunate to have Cheney where he is, and he should be serously considered as a Special Civilian Gov Head of all Nuclear Weapons Capablity with no public acknowledgement being necessary. He would first serve to define and organize this mew solidly secure Gov agency that the President wold turn to for Nuclear War Adminisration at the very top AS "Acting President in Times of Global War"-- as of now would make me feel a lot better!

Great idea, but to quote Tom Lehrer: "nothing will be done, because it was the mayor's son".
The military needs to be drastically cut back in general: too many bases everywhere. Example: there are 3 air force bases in S. AZ; maybe one is needed. They do nothing except create noise & crash danger.

Can you imagine handing over nuclear weapons to the hands of the boys at BLACKWATER? Iraq would be a nuclear wasteland in a week...

Embarrassed by last August's megaton-size screw-up, in which six nuclear weapons were inadvertently removed from their secure bunkers, loaded on B-52 bombers, and flown from North Dakota to Louisiana, with no one noticing for hours that the nukes were even loose

Yeah, on planes staged for the Azores, a logistics point for US forces in the Middle East... Funny thing hunh?

It was NOT a screw up. Big DICK Cheney was just checking to see if wwe we all paying attention, and if not, a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran.

You knew that Arkin.

"Some see that as a crisis; I see it as an opportunity to get the military even more out of the nuclear business."

Come on Bill, that isn't even a consideration. The nukes exist as a strategic military capability to execute national military strategy. The facts that there have been no forward-leaning ideas for a post-Cold War nuclear strategy and that the AF promotes pilots to general officer, not missiliers, doesn't give basis to your recommendation.

OSD leadership took their eyes off the ball, because Iraq-Iran was the flavor of the day. They screwed up, and so did the AF leadership. Shake out the leaders, punish them, get some innovative leaders who understand "Arms and Influence" theory, and move on. You really, really don't want DOE in charge of these systems.

As a retired AF missile operations officer who served in ICBM and tactical nuclear operations wings from 1978-2004, I remember one manpower study examining placing the land based ICBM operations wings (which include the maintenance groups) in the Air Force Reserve and or Air National Guard. While this move wouldn't solve the challenge of air wings tasked with conventional and nuclear missions, it provides a chance to put in place a workforce solely focused on land based missile operations and maintenance, including weapons maintenance. With Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units fully integrated into existing command structures, Air Force Space Command could still maintain its leadership role over the wings and continue to serve as the component command for US Strategic Command.