
Fifty-three year old nuclear missile accident revealed - tomohawk
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/communities/belle_fourche/fifty-three-year-old-nuclear-missile-accident-revealed/article_653347a4-04e8-5c29-a778-3a6a6c3cfd84.html#tracking-source=home-latest-1
======
knappe
I recently finished Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus
Accident, and the Illusion of Safety [0]. I can't recommend the book enough
for how eye opening it really is into how blasé we have been with nuclear
weapons.

We've been reckless and by all accounts it is a miracle we haven't had a
serious accident (there have been a few, just not on our own soil). The number
of close calls is just astounding.

Further the book, at one point, talks about America's position on Russia and
the attempts to keep them from getting "the bomb". It is exactly what has
played out and will continue to play out with North Korea and Iran. History is
repeating itself and we sure haven't learned from it.

[0]
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00C5R7F8G/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00C5R7F8G/)

~~~
tzs
> Further the book, at one point, talks about America's position on Russia and
> the attempts to keep them from getting "the bomb". It is exactly what has
> played out and will continue to play out with North Korea and Iran. History
> is repeating itself and we sure haven't learned from it.

Is it actually similar, though?

The US got the bomb in 1945.

The Russians got theirs in 1949.

Given the size of the Soviet Union, how far it is from the United States, the
available spying and reconnaissance technology (no satellites, no stealth
aircraft), and that the US was only four years out of World War II, I don't
think there is any way the US could have made a creditable threat to use
military force to stop the Russians.

Also, China and Russia were still on good terms back then. China might not
have stayed out of it if the US attacked their ally and neighbor.

Compare to North Korea and Iran. In both cases the US can make a creditable
military threat. From a purely military point of view, the US could easily
wipe either (or both) of them out.

Furthermore, neither has any powerful allies who want them to get nukes.

With North Korea, their only powerful ally is China and I don't think China
actually cares if North Korea gets destroyed as long as (1) it doesn't send a
lot of refugees across the Chinese border, and (2) whatever replaces it
continues to function as a buffer zone between them and South Korea because
they do not want a US ally right on their border.

~~~
scrumper
That’s not quite an accurate read though, at least as far as NK. The US can’t
really make a credible military threat because of the north’s proximity to the
south, an important US ally and a country all but guaranteed to be mortally
wounded in the event of north/USA hostilities.

~~~
marcoperaza
Sure we can. We have the capability to totally annihilate as much of North
Korea as we need in order to prevent a counter attack. The question is if we
are willing to do it, and kill millions of North Korean civilians. Trump is
sure trying to convince the North Koreans that he is.

~~~
PostOnce
> We have the capability to annihilate as much of NK as we need to prevent a
> counterattack

...from North Korea

If we start launching nukes in the direction of NK, how does China know it's
going to stop in NK and not hit them? Do we call them up first? Then what do
they say?

Is it totally out of the question that China would panic (or reason?) and
counterattack? NK doesn't exist in a vacuum, and in fact NK wouldn't exist at
all today had China not intervened in the last war.

~~~
MertsA
It's simple orbital mechanics to calculate the trajectory. ICBMs aren't like
planes, it's not like they just fly to the target and stop. It's powered
during the first minutes of flight and then it just coasts from there. The
exception to this is MIRV ICBMs where warheads are deployed one at a time and
the final stage changes orbit a bit before releasing the next warhead. MIRVs
can't change their trajectory that much though, you can target multiple
locations, but they have to be in a couple hundred kilometers of each other.

Basically if there's an ICBM flying over China and it looks like it's going to
hit NK, there's no way to kill all of that horizontal velocity and
significantly change its trajectory.

~~~
ben_w
I’ve read that ICBMs are very hard to spot after the initial boost phase. That
being the case, if I was an ICBM designer, I’d add a cold gas thruster to the
payload stage that allowed the target to be adjusted or fine tuned while it
was out of the atmosphere in a stealthy way — even a delta-V of just 100 m/s
adds up to 280km when the missile takes 45 minutes to arrive.

------
Animats
This wasn't really that big a deal. By the Minuteman era, warheads were safe
against fires and crashes. Nuclear weapons from several B-52 bombers hit the
ground hard in crashes without a nuclear explosion. (Sometimes the implosion
charges did go off, but not symmetrically, as is needed to get implosion.) The
Minuteman missile itself had a solid fuel engine. This was nowhere near as bad
as the incident described in "Command and Control". That one was a liquid-
fueled missile with hypergolic propellant.

See Wikipedia's list of nuclear accidents.[1] This wasn't one of the big ones.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents)

~~~
gh02t
Yep, a modern nuclear bomb takes a very coordinated sequence to actually have
the confinement needed to get good utilization of the fissile fuel (i.e., be a
nuclear-driven explosion), otherwise they just fly apart before any
significant fission/fusion can occur.

The fuel used for a nuclear weapon is also basically radiologically inert by
necessity so if it does explode conventionally there is not a significant
release of radiation. It's pretty toxic chemically, but there's not a lot of
it so it's not nearly as bad the fallout that would precipitate from a nuclear
explosion.

~~~
Animats
"Radiologically inert" is a bit much. Both uranium and plutonium are alpha
emitters. This basically means that if you can keep the stuff outside your
body, you're OK. A chunk of metal is safe; breathing dust is lethal.

------
le-mark
There's a LOT of cold war history up there in the central plains. The
Strategic Air Command museum just outside of Omaha Nebraska has really
incredible displays and a surprisingly large aircraft collection (to me at
least). Including an SR-71. Highly recommended for anyone interested in that
kind of thing.

[http://sacmuseum.org/](http://sacmuseum.org/)

------
sandworm101
>> without hitting the missile and causing an explosion. >> caused a short
circuit that resulted in an explosion. >> Luckily, the cone did not do enough
damage to the missile to cause the missile to explode.

To clarify: There was absolutely no chance at any point of a nuclear
explosion. The article suggests that some big explosion was on the edge of
possibility which, given the context, one might think would be a nuclear
explosion. The warhead, the "physics package", was never really a worry.
Getting those to detonate requires some careful triggering.

This was also a SOLID fuel rocket. While you wouldn't want to damage it, it
wasn't full of the nasty pressurized liquids of other missiles. Getting its
fuel to actually ignite would require more than hitting it with a hammer. You
need something akin to a blasting cap. Shuttle used something more like a
giant flamethrower. The solid retro rockets were not directly triggered by a
the short circuit. I'd bet good money that their ignition system felt the
short rather than the fuel being ignited by the short.

~~~
bjt2n3904
Not an aerospace engineer or anything. I think the fear was that the rocket
may tip over and collapse under its own weight. I wouldn't be too surprised if
that could trigger an ignition of the rocket fuel at the very least, risking
nuclear contamination.

While the physics package surely has numerous safeties, I'd be concerned that
the safeties would be damaged in a way that no one could really predict after
falling 80 feet. They served their purpose well, but you can bet all the
engineers were in the lab for the next 72 hours straight looking for various
failure modes.

~~~
robryk
Any damage to the warhead would likely make it impossible to have a nuclear
reaction. In order to do that, the warhead would have to explode multiple
precisely shaped conventional explosives with precise timing. If any one of
them was deformed, nothing (apart from the small conventional explosion) would
happen, even if all the safeguards incorrectly decided to explode the warhead.

~~~
robotresearcher
parent was concerned about

> risking nuclear contamination.

not a nuclear explosion. A conventional boom could spread radioactive
materials all over.

~~~
robryk
EDIT: I was wrong. See the child for correction.

There are no radioactive materials in the warhead. In other words: there are
no materials that undergo radioactive decay. What is in there are fissile
materials: ie. materials that emit neutrons upon being irradiated with
neutrons.

The only way the warhead might become radioactive is if it partially
detonated.

~~~
rrmm
Pu-239 is radioactive no? Along with impurities like Pu-240 which are slightly
more radioactive.

~~~
robryk
Thanks, I stand corrected. For some reason I was considering Uranium only
(which also decays, but with such a long half-life).

------
rrggrr
This is why nuclear non-proliferation is important. Its difficult enough for a
super power to safely store and control its WMD. Each new nuclear state
magnifies the risks, and all the more so because they lack the after action
experience that a half century of mishaps delivers.

~~~
vkou
Arms reduction is even more important. I'd rather live in a world where 20
countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000
warheads each.

A weapon detonating by accident is terrible. Thousands of weapons on hair-
trigger alert is civilization-ending. It's absolutely insane that we're
conditioned to believe that this is not only normal - but the best possible
state of affairs.

~~~
ars
> I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then
> one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each.

I absolutely would not. Those 2 countries know far more about the process then
those other countries, and they have the budget to do it right. You would have
to duplicate labs, and computers, and other efforts 20 times in your scenario,
and each of those labs will not be as good as the 2 higher funded ones.

> A weapon detonating by accident is terrible. Thousands of weapons on hair-
> trigger alert is civilization-ending.

Look at it from a fear point of view: No one will detonate a thousand weapons
unless they are declaring total war. So all one needs to do is read global
moods and see if total war is likely (it's not). (i.e. war might happen, but
not total war)

An accident on the other hand can happen randomly, you would be permanently
and constantly worried about one.

~~~
taurath
Major conflicts only happen in non nuclear states. In all honesty I’ll bet
that’s what has kept India and Pakistan from a war.

~~~
exhilaration
Ahem... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-
Pakistani_wars_and_confli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-
Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts)

~~~
taurath
After 1971 it has been relatively "minor" conflicts. Granted, none of this is
a long time on the world scale, but thus far it has brought a lot more
restraint.

------
nerdponx
_Hicks said the metal of the screwdriver contacted the positive side of the
fuse and also the fuse’s grounded metal holder, causing a short circuit that
sent electricity flowing to unintended places._

Is there some company out there making non-conductive screwdrivers designed
for electrical work? I can understand that maybe the materials science to make
strong plastic screwdrivers didn't exist in the 1950s, but surely they exist
today, right?

~~~
planteen
Oh yeah they exist. There are ceramic ones and I have also seen plastic ones.

I've seen other fun specialized types of screwdrivers in my career:

Screwdrivers with conductive plastic in the handle, to deal with ESD
requirements in the spacecraft industry. Alternatively, take a normal plastic
screwdriver handle and wrap it in copper tape.

Beryllium screwdrivers (non-ferrous) for use around MRI machine bores thanks
to the insane magnetic fields. You also have to wear ceramic hard-toed shoes.

~~~
saagarjha
Wait, isn’t Beryllium toxic? I was under the impression that you don’t want to
be around it.

~~~
katastic
Didn't you mother ever tell you to stop putting things in your mouth?

Also, it's used in dental alloys. It seems it's only toxic if you inhale its
dust.

Fun fact: Your body has no way to remove it from your body, so you accumulate
it forever.

~~~
0xfeba
Same problem as lead, IIRC.

~~~
lostlogin
surprisingly it is similar for iron too, luckily we can bleed.

------
mrbill
I swear I read about this in Schlosser's "Command and Control" a couple of
years ago.. maybe not.

[https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-
Ill...](https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion-
ebook/dp/B00C5R7F8G)

~~~
throwaway7645
This comes up on HN every few months (I've commented on it before)and that
documentary is shocking and terrifying. The Arkansas one was crazy. We almost
lost a rather sizeable area and the radiation zone is out to Memphis.

------
skellertor
“I wasn’t there,” Smith said of the explosion, “but I know there were two
technicians who ruined their underwear. 'Cause that ain’t supposed to happen.”

Best line of the story. I'm curious how close we've been to nuclear
annihilation and we had no idea.

~~~
leeter
As bad as this story may seem... it's nothing to the Demascus Titan
Explosion... that really could have gone off

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_ex...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion)

~~~
roywiggins
Interesting that both incidents caused by using the wrong tool (screwdriver
here, socket there). Such a tiny thing, a hand tool in the wrong place...

------
slezakattack
I found that the side-story as to how they even got this story was pretty
fascinating: [http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/revealing-a--year-
old...](http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/revealing-a--year-old-secret-
how-we-got-the/article_66b0ef10-10ba-5584-b582-f80cd3f275fa.html)

------
zedpm
If you happen to visit Badlands National Park, or western South Dakota in
general, make time to visit the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site
mentioned in the article. I toured Delta-01 last summer, and it was
fascinating. The tour guide did a fantastic job of conveying the gravity of
the mission and just how scary the Cold War was.

~~~
markrages
When I visited, the guide was retired veteran from that missile site. He spent
a _lot_ of time discussing the living situation, and the maintenance schedule,
and the phone setup. The guy had internalized that bureaucracy over his entire
career, and wanted to explain in in painstaking detail.

The underground control center was amazing though.

------
pwaai
Incidents like this shows us that things will inevitably go wrong with
increasing frequency and gravity.

Furthermore, I fear regional conflicts involving mass scale conventional face-
off (ex. dmz) are converting to a low operating cost high risk situations in
the form of mutually assured destruction.

East Asia is venturing into a potential double whammy of naval and nuclear
arms race--smaller countries like South Korea are entering a phase of
normalization for nuclear armament with pressure mounting from the public to
have a deterrence and a back up plan yet cannot have land based missile
silo's, instead relying on nuclear submarines that will host the IRBMs. The
cost is much higher than the "previous generation", as smaller countries will
most certainly be decimated, land based silos do not make sense.

------
leeoniya
oh, and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash)

"The two 3–4-megaton MK. 39 nuclear bombs separated from the gyrating aircraft
as it broke up between 1,000 and 2,000 feet (300 and 610 m)."

For reference, Little Boy's (Hiroshima) yield was 15 _kilo_ tons.

~~~
gilleain
Using the nukemap, with a target of Faro:

[http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=4000&lat=35.5111142&l...](http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=4000&lat=35.5111142&lng=-77.8447581&hob_ft=0&ff=55&zm=10)

~~~
leeoniya
the default there is airburst, but at Faro it would have detonated at the
surface which reduces the radius a lot and casualties by a factor of 3,
(prolly since less of densely-populated Goldsboro is affected)

~~~
HarryHirsch
But with a surface burst there would have been a fallout plume all the way to
Norfolk, VA. The area would be uninhabitable for years, if not decades.

------
_Microft
There was a frightening number of close calls over the course of decades on
the american side alone. One can just assume what must have happened on the
sites of other nuclear powers that just doesn't get reported.

You can find a timeline of these almost accidents here:
[https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-
ti...](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)

It's certainly time to reduce the number of warheads from a nuclear-winter-
guaranteeing one to an at least nuclear-deterrence-still-works-but-an-
accident-is-terrible-but-no-longer-civilization-ending one.

~~~
gozur88
The incident in the article isn't a "close call". There was never any danger
the warhead would go off.

~~~
retSava
There have been many accidents, of a kind where even one is one too many.
Given the potential damage, I certainly don't feel comfortable with your
assessment that there wasn't any danger it would go off.

Likely these things happen more often than is publicly known, yet we've not
(yet) seen a full-on swiss cheese kind of accident.

~~~
gozur88
Nuclear bombs aren't like normal bombs. You can burn them or blow them up with
conventional explosives and they won't go off.

~~~
retSava
Yes, but there are two risks to that: 1) the conventional explosive detonates
and it's similar enough to "normal" operating procedures to create critical
mass and the nuke detonates

2) the radioactive material is spread out over a large area, contaminating

neither are as benign as an ordinary explosive of any yield, and I'd rather
not risk any of that, at all.

~~~
gozur88
It's hard to imagine your #1 could happen. The compression wave in a nuke has
to be just right to achieve critical mass. It's not an easy thing to pull off
deliberately under the best of circumstances

#2 is sort of half true. You wouldn't get nuclear material over a large area
because it's so heavy. You could get a big plume from Chernobyl, but that was
because there was a nuclear reaction going on, and it wasn't uranium that got
boosted into the sky by the fire.

Still an expensive mess, but a pretty localized mess.

------
Havoc
The irony of calling people working underground "airmen" is strong...

------
anovikov
Well in a solid fuel missile, there was simply no way it was going to explode
due to any kind of external damage (or at all, solid fuel does not explode).
Good that nuclear safety of the warhead itself worked well, as none of the
explosive lenses gone off.

------
twobyfour
Makes you wonder what's going on right now that nobody's telling you about...

------
thrillgore
This article didn't seem like that much of an incident. The warhead didn't
fire, at least. SL-1 is more of what I would think would be a real .mil-sector
nuclear accident.

------
jacquesm
This article sounds like a recruitment effort.

------
nikkig
It's amazing we've not had a major incident because of our recklessness.

------
jt93
We've been very lucky so far not to have had any serious incidents.

------
royala_block
In my experience it is like US nukes in Turkey.

------
tomcatv
That sounds pleasant

------
mtuker
This was really a big deal

------
tomcatv
its good

