http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/BC/broken_arrow.htm

HMB

Point being, as the war games with nuclear weapons, or even internal practice maneuvers with live weapons will always pose a danger. There is no room for error obviously with a thermo nuclear weapon..

When JF Cooper states in one his remarks ” Any global reduction in nuclear weapons must occur not only in the realm of multinational arms control ” I have to laugh smugly at least a little. In 2007, the United Nations made 20 proposals against the proliferation, use and testing of nuclear weapons. Guess which country had the perfect ‘ No ‘ to each proposal, thus stopping any chance that a multi national arms control agreement might even have a breath of chance to start.

Here’s hoping on all accounts

HMB

Your argument against nuclear weapons is a moral one and in truth has little place in international power politics. Nuclear weapons, when detonated, could kill millions from both the initial and secondary effects. Nevertheless, they remain the ultimate guarantor of national sovereignty. The United States could rid itself of its weapons tomorrow and not one other state would follow.

The first and second Iraq wars have proved that if you do not have a nuclear weapon, you are vulnerable to the US’ conventional superiority. Hence, the push by Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran to have them. The same goes for Russia and China…why improve/expand their arsenals? US conventional superiority. Any global reduction in nuclear weapons must occur not only in the realm of multinational arms control, but also conventional weapons reductions as well.

Seriously, folks, does the nuclear mission ever really have any relevance to the real world? Weapons which would invite universal condemnation if ever used under any circumstances, not to mention wreaking unimaginable destruction if ever used in quantity? And what’s so exciting and sexy about practicing to deliver a genuine weapon of mass destruction which will cause guaranteed casualties in the thousands at least from fallout? (Try to find a region of the world where we would want to use nuclear weapons that does not have large vulnerable civilian populations downwind.)

The true madness of nuclear weapons will never truly occur to the nuclear weapons establishment.

Shall I dust off my copy of Dr. Strangelove?

I also think that you misjudge the report from the Defense Science Board. I do not think that a return to alerts would necessarily be a step backward. The fact of the matter is that the BENT SPEAR occurred because of a lack of training and operational emphasis for the nuclear mission. If the US wants to keep the ability to launch nuclear weapons from aircraft and maintain the recall capability, then it makes sense for the military to place emphasis on that.

The broader question is that of nuclear weapon utility. As long as China and Russia maintain arsenals, then the US is unlikely to give them up. Nuclear disarmament should occur within the context of the major nuclear powers and should not be a unilateral move by any of them

You are using arguments about nuclear safety and security to make the point that the airborne component of the deterrent should be shut down. However, such a decision would ultimately be a strategic and political one, and those are the types of arguments you need to use if you want to support such a position, not the organizational and bureaucratic ones you use here. Clichés about “the real world” and “thinking outside the box” are not good enough. No disrespect to you or your organization, but one of the things that troubles me about FAS is the frequency with which it lapses into convoluted bureaucratic rationales to support positions that are fundamentally political and strategic in nature. The bureaucracy (in this case, the Air Force) ultimately exists to execute the mission assigned it by the political authorities. I have no doubt that you are able to argue persuasively in favor of shutting down the airborne component (or even more, for that matter), but I would ask that you use the appropriate rationale for making that type of argument.