HH 59 : The Destroyer of Worlds

[SuburbanFarmer]

The safety mechanism on a Titan II was the same as a 1950s lightswitch, so yeah, basically. There's a current running to a breaker, if the breaker fuses in the heat, the circuit is closed, that fires the fission warhead, which then initiates the deuterium capsule.

9Mt's detonated just below the surface, for maximum fallout, right in the middle of the CONUS.

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/e ... tryID=9001

Coincidentally, the missile that was in the launch duct, serial number 62-0006, was the same missile that later exploded in Launch Complex 374-7 in Southside (Van Buren County) just north of Damascus (Van Buren and Faulkner counties) on September 19, 1980.

How amazing that the same missile blew up twice.. and didn't go nuclear..

Srsly tho, how do you envision that one circuit being fused, and all of the other hundreds being operational? Can't happen, unless you're talking about a welding torch pointed at exactly the right spot.

[Speaker to Animals]

Most likely, it was a relay switch in which, if power was lost, the circuit closed and executed some chain of events to mitigate some catastrophic failure to the missile.

That's how lots of military hardware works. This stuff has relay panels all over the place controlling various circuits. If something goes wrong, the relay deactivates and the circuit loses power.

[Smitty-48]

Notice that during the operation which resulted in a fire in 1965, the warhead wasn't on the missile, they had removed the warhead, because they well knew that fire + warhead equals; uh-oh.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Notice that during the operation which resulted in a fire in 1965, the warhead wasn't on the missile, they had removed the warhead, because they well knew that fire + warhead equals; uh-oh.

It could (I'd imagine) crack the containment vessel around the fission material, and result in radioactive contamination within the silo - possibly the base, if the fuel explosion was large enough. That's about the worst-case scenario that I see here. Same as a tiny nuclear reactor, I suppose.

[Smitty-48]

Most likely, it was a relay switch in which, if power was lost, the circuit closed and executed some chain of events to mitigate some catastrophic failure to the missile.

That's how lots of military hardware works. This stuff has relay panels all over the place controlling various circuits. If something goes wrong, the relay deactivates and the circuit loses power.

The W53 did not have the Enhanced Nuclear Detonation Safety system which prevents accidental firing by electrical surge, Sandia even told the government that it was unsafe in the event of a fire.

[Smitty-48]

Notice that during the operation which resulted in a fire in 1965, the warhead wasn't on the missile, they had removed the warhead, because they well knew that fire + warhead equals; uh-oh.

It could (I'd imagine) crack the containment vessel around the fission material, and result in radioactive contamination within the silo - possibly the base, if the fuel explosion was large enough. That's about the worst-case scenario that I see here. Same as a tiny nuclear reactor, I suppose.

If you had a fire which burned the warhead and then created a plume, would have been like a mini-Chernobyl.

But that's why they removed the warhead before they did anything, because they knew the W53 was unsafe, even in 1965. In 1980 however, much hotter event, much faster, the warhead is present, and no ENDS system to prevent a detonation; they just got lucky.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Notice that during the operation which resulted in a fire in 1965, the warhead wasn't on the missile, they had removed the warhead, because they well knew that fire + warhead equals; uh-oh.

It could (I'd imagine) crack the containment vessel around the fission material, and result in radioactive contamination within the silo - possibly the base, if the fuel explosion was large enough. That's about the worst-case scenario that I see here. Same as a tiny nuclear reactor, I suppose.

If you had a fire which burned the warhead and then created a plume, would have been like a mini-Chernobyl.

No doubt. But not a nuclear explosion.

[Smitty-48]

It could (I'd imagine) crack the containment vessel around the fission material, and result in radioactive contamination within the silo - possibly the base, if the fuel explosion was large enough. That's about the worst-case scenario that I see here. Same as a tiny nuclear reactor, I suppose.

If you had a fire which burned the warhead and then created a plume, would have been like a mini-Chernobyl.

No doubt. But not a nuclear explosion.

Not guarunteed neither, like I say, the W53 was an unsafe warhead, the electrical systems were shockingly rudimentary by today's standards, literally, it was just a lightswitch style circuit breaker, the heat from a fire could have closed the circuit, and they well knew it, that's why 1980 was the worst case scenario narrowly averted, because they never would have messed around with it as they did in 65', with the warhead present, it was never designed with a Fire Pit Safety system.

In 1980, when they called Martin-Marieta to tell them the situation, Martin-Marietta said; "GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE!!!"

[SuburbanFarmer]

If you had a fire which burned the warhead and then created a plume, would have been like a mini-Chernobyl.

No doubt. But not a nuclear explosion.

Not guarunteed neither, like I say, the W53 was an unsafe warhead, the electrical systems were shockingly rudimentary by today's standards, literally, it was just a lightswitch style circuit breaker, the heat from a fire could have closed the circuit, and they well knew it, that's why 1980 was the worst case scenario narrowly averted, because they never would have messed around with it as they did in 65', with the warhead present, it was never designed with a Fire Pit Safety system.

In 1980, when they called Martin-Marieta to tell them the situation, Martin-Marietta said; "GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE!!!"

According to this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Dama ... _explosion

The initial explosion catapulted the 740-ton silo door away from the silo and ejected the second stage and warhead. Once clear of the silo, the second stage exploded. The W53 warhead landed about 100 feet (30 m) from the launch complex's entry gate; its safety features operated correctly and prevented any loss of radioactive material.

Apparently, you can launch the damn thing a mile, and not set it off lol

[Smitty-48]

The danger was not impact, the danger was heat, the heat wave from the explosion reaches the circuit before the blast wave, fuses the circuit, and that fires the detonator, the fact that it popped straight off and flew clear of the heat; just dumb luck.

Let's say the first stage collapses on an angle, buckles sideways instead of straight down, so the warhead doesn't pop straight off but gets driven into the side of the silo instead; cooks off in the heat, when the circuit fuses.

Every single strategic warhead you have in the inventory now, has built in safety systems to prevent this, ENDS, FPS, IEM, etcetera, but the W53 in 1980; didn't have any of them.

The people who designed the warhead at Sandia Labs, were the ones who had been lobbying for twenty years; "Get rid of them, they are ticking time bombs!"