• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US nearly detonated atomic bomb on own soil by accident in 1961

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When they were first working on the bomb, there was more than one time they almost blew Los Alamos off the map.
 
That's what I thought. This was already known about. I remembered coming across a similar story about Robert McNamara and thought crack open a book.

From Counsels of War by Greg Herken (1985), pages 137-138:

McNamara learned during the investigation that the crash of the bomber had been only one of scores of such accidents involving nuclear weapons since the start of the atomic age. Two of those prior mishaps had involved the inadvertent launching of short-range American missiles carrying nuclear warheads. The North Carolina incident, by far the most serious nuclear accident to date prompted McNamara to order new fail-safe interlocks installed on the weapons in the nuclear arsenal. The close call, he admitted, had also profoundly impressed him with the danger of accidental nuclear war.

Only a short time after the B-52 crash, there occurred what McNamara later characterized as 'a massive false alarm' at the Northern American Air Defense Command of a Soviet missile attack on the United States. The false alarm underscored to McNamara the fact that not even new safety switches on the bombs would remove the threat of an accidental nuclear war. What he termed 'that great danger' was one of the factors which caused him to decide there was no circumstance under which he as defense secretary would recommend a retaliatory nuclear strike on the evidence of warning alone.
 
Last edited:
Probably not, or we would have heard about them.

We've heard of plenty, including this one. The problem is remembering who published what, when, and who was interviewed.
 
Well, what I mean is would we have false flagged it?

I don't even know that you could really bother at that point. After a detonation, you have little time to react. Should the United States have been involved in a nuclear weapons accident, any intentions damn near go out the window.
 
We've heard of plenty, including this one. The problem is remembering who published what, when, and who was interviewed.

good show old chap, wonder whether this was a faux pas or the past people had loose lips?
 
I don't even know that you could really bother at that point. After a detonation, you have little time to react. Should the United States have been involved in a nuclear weapons accident, any intentions damn near go out the window.

I suppose, but there'd be an awful lot of 'splainin to do...
 
good show old chap, wonder whether this was a faux pas or the past people had loose lips?

In terms of discussing it? Nothing out of the ordinary, really.

From Herken's footnotes.

1. This incident and other mishaps involving nuclear weapons are recounted in "U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents: Danger in Our Midst," The Defense Monitor, v. 10, no.5 , Center for Defense Information, Washington, D.C.
 
I wonder why the B-52 was carrying two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs in the first place? I knew they tested bombs a lot back in the 50s and 60s but I didn't think it was in the eastern US. When they were testing nuclear bombs back in the 50s and 60s the fallout spread all over the US....but more so in the mid and southwest. Which means a lot of people were exposed and never knew it.
 
I suppose, but there'd be an awful lot of 'splainin to do...

If you believe in Eisenhower's overall view of nuclear weapons, such an exercise would likely be pointless. Even the folks at RAND had difficulty contemplating a one-time shot.
 
Well, what I mean is would we have false flagged it?

I'm not sure just what you mean by that. Would the people involved have denied an actual nuclear accident? That would be pretty hard, not like trying to deny who set off the firecracker. Would they have attributed it to an act of war? Wow, that's a really chilling idea. Would they risk a nuclear war in order to avoid taking blame for a nuclear accident? I don't know.
 
I'm not sure just what you mean by that. Would the people involved have denied an actual nuclear accident? That would be pretty hard, not like trying to deny who set off the firecracker. Would they have attributed it to an act of war? Wow, that's a really chilling idea. Would they risk a nuclear war in order to avoid taking blame for a nuclear accident? I don't know.

The latter is what I meant and while 62 was the Cuban Missle Crisis, the event's leading up to it would have given an easy scapegoat...
 
I'm not sure just what you mean by that. Would the people involved have denied an actual nuclear accident? That would be pretty hard, not like trying to deny who set off the firecracker. Would they have attributed it to an act of war? Wow, that's a really chilling idea. Would they risk a nuclear war in order to avoid taking blame for a nuclear accident? I don't know.

As far as I am aware (and I am perhaps incorrect in procedure), SIOP at that time did not account for accident potential all that well. You probably would not even know it was an accident. Again, it was to the point where McNamara wanted he and the President to physically visit the area of destruction. Should a detonation actually occur, would they have been able to figure out it was an accident as a result of the United States? Though I do think they would be wondering where the rest are, I would have to imagine being tugged between needing the information and acting would be nuts.

Furthermore, should the exchange start, all attempts at figuring out what happened after the fact would be pointless, as the United States and countless other regions throughout the world would cease to exist as an organized society.
 
Last edited:
The latter is what I meant and while 62 was the Cuban Missle Crisis, the event's leading up to it would have given an easy scapegoat...

and such a thing could still happen. It would be more difficult, as the Soviet Union no longer exists, but then, there is China.
 
And by the article the only thing that stopped it from happening of a glitch in one component. It should have gone off. 268 Hiroshima-bombs all at the same time.

Had that happened, it would have changed the future radically.

I do NOT think the break up of the USSR made the world safer in terms of nuclear weapons. When ALL major nuclear weapons and delivery systems existed only on 1 or the 2 sides in the cold war era, things were NOT as dangerous as they are now - and increasing are becoming.

During the cold war, NEITHER of the 2 sides dare use their nuclear weapons. As same theocratic or ubber bizarre governments of highly unstable governments and society have nuclear weapons, as missile systems become more available to them - as do supersonic aircraft, and as the potential of terrorists getting one - the world is LESS safe - though total earth nuclear holocaust possibly less likely.

I shutter to think of the Bill of Rights essentially being totally eliminated and the USA becoming a true gestopo style police state if even a small atom bomb goes off domestically.
 
I'm not sure just what you mean by that. Would the people involved have denied an actual nuclear accident? That would be pretty hard, not like trying to deny who set off the firecracker. Would they have attributed it to an act of war? Wow, that's a really chilling idea. Would they risk a nuclear war in order to avoid taking blame for a nuclear accident? I don't know.

Had it gone off, there would be little to even determine what happened since there certainly would be no physical evidence. Only a radio transmission maybe. I suspect even back then they would have blamed someone - like Castro - and sent a million troops there after massive carpet bombing.
 
And by the article the only thing that stopped it from happening of a glitch in one component. It should have gone off. 268 Hiroshima-bombs all at the same time.

I don't know. Are we getting confirmation it was actually a glitch? It doesn't quite read that way.

Per the source: "Three of the four safety mechanisms in place to prevent an explosion failed. A single low-voltage switch prevented mass destruction."

Now, I do not know why every one of those had reported that it was a situation in which 3 out of 4 had failed, when in fact the report from Lapp, along with every other document I have stated it was 5 out of 6 that had failed. The critique of Dr. Lapp in the report below is perhaps the real count. They make the point that the sequence of the fail-safe isn't important, that one of them is ineffective in the air anyway, but one stopped the detonation, indeed.

"An investigation showed that five of six safety devices designed to prevent the bomb from exploding accidentally had failed at the moment of impact. 'Only a single switch prevented the bomb from detonating and spreading fire and destruction over a wide area,' one physicist testified at a subsequent hearing."
-Herken, 137.

That physicist was Ralph Lapp, and it was Daniel Ellsberg who also stated it was five out of six, rather than 3 out of 4. The critique of the Ellsberg and Lapp then shows the bomb had 4 fail-safe mechanisms.

http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_81010001a_n22.pdf

Here is the declassified document he was able to get:

Goldsboro revisited: account of hydrogen bomb near-disaster over North Carolina

In this document it seems as though the heavy critique of Lapp is not entirely offset by the promotion of it being a legitimate function. Perhaps I am reading it wrong.
 
Last edited:
and such a thing could still happen. It would be more difficult, as the Soviet Union no longer exists, but then, there is China.

Oh, nowadays it wouldn't be a country, it be those rascals who hate us for our freedom...
 
Back
Top Bottom