Please note this does not mean the USSR wasn’t that way. Just want to clarify I’m not a tankie, lol.

  • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    A near miss and a disaster are worlds apart in terms of consequence, but very close in terms of what went wrong.

    • prettybunnys@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Tbh the bomb exploding would be worse because you’d have the kinetic blast and death from that PLUS fallout (though on the east coast that fallout would likely be headed to Europe)

      They didn’t drop the bombs by accident, there was a plane crash, the plane broke apart and the bombs began arming themselves as part of the separation process, but didn’t detonate due to the failsafes.

      • turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 hours ago

        To be clear the failsafes barely did.

        Of the steps in this diagram the only one that prevented a nuclear detonation of the first bomb was the arming switch. In the swiss cheese model of accidents, out of 17 layers of protection, 16 failed. The safety mechanism that succeeded in this case had a history of failing because nuts in the plane could fall down and short the switch, arming the bomb unintentionally in flight.

        The pilots who bailed out were both arrested by base MPs for ‘stealing parachutes’ while trying to get to the base and warn about the unsafe condition of the crash site. It probably didn’t help that the first pilot to make it to base was black in NC in the 60s.