Broken Arrows

Nuclear Weapon Accidents and Incidents

Broken Arrows are nuclear weapon accidents involving the accidental launching, firing, detonating, theft, or loss of nuclear weapons, representing some of the most serious incidents in the nuclear age. The U.S. military has officially acknowledged 32 Broken Arrow incidents since 1950, though the actual number may be higher. These accidents highlight the inherent risks of maintaining large nuclear arsenals and the constant challenge of ensuring nuclear safety while maintaining nuclear readiness. From aircraft crashes to missile explosions, Broken Arrows demonstrate that even the most sophisticated safety systems cannot entirely eliminate the risk of nuclear accidents.

Definition and Classification

Official Definition

• U.S. military term: Official U.S. military accident classification
• Serious incidents: Most serious category of nuclear incidents
• Nuclear weapons involved: Accidents involving actual nuclear weapons
• Safety compromise: Incidents compromising nuclear weapon safety

Related Classifications

• Bent Spear: Nuclear weapon incidents of lesser significance
• Empty Quiver: Missing or stolen nuclear weapons
• Faded Giant: Nuclear reactor or radiological accidents
• Nucflash: Possible detonation of nuclear weapon

Incident Criteria

• Accidental launch: Accidental launching of nuclear weapon
• Accidental firing: Accidental firing of nuclear weapon
• Accidental detonation: Accidental nuclear detonation
• Theft or loss: Theft or loss of nuclear weapon

Major Broken Arrow Incidents

Palomares Incident (1966)

• January 17, 1966: B-52 collision over Spain
• Four hydrogen bombs: Four nuclear weapons involved
• Conventional explosion: Two weapons had conventional explosions
• Recovery operation: Massive recovery operation in Mediterranean

Thule Incident (1968)

• January 21, 1968: B-52 crash in Greenland
• Four nuclear weapons: Four weapons aboard crashed aircraft
• Radioactive contamination: Plutonium contamination of crash site
• Diplomatic crisis: Crisis with Denmark over nuclear weapons

Damascus Incident (1980)

• September 18-19, 1980: Titan II missile explosion
• Nuclear warhead: Nuclear warhead thrown from silo
• Fuel explosion: Missile fuel explosion
• Evacuation: Evacuation of surrounding area

Goldsboro Incident (1961)

• January 23, 1961: B-52 breakup over North Carolina
• Two nuclear bombs: Two Mark 39 nuclear bombs
• Near detonation: One weapon nearly detonated
• Safety systems: Multiple safety system failures

Aircraft-Related Incidents

B-52 Accidents

• Multiple incidents: Numerous B-52 nuclear accidents
• Structural failures: Aircraft structural failures
• Weather-related: Weather-related crashes
• Mechanical failures: Mechanical system failures

Fighter Aircraft

• F-100 incidents: F-100 nuclear weapon accidents
• Carrier operations: Aircraft carrier nuclear accidents
• Training accidents: Training mission accidents
• Equipment failures: Equipment malfunction incidents

Transport Accidents

• Nuclear weapon transport: Transport mission accidents
• Ground handling: Ground handling accidents
• Loading incidents: Weapon loading accidents
• Storage facility: Storage facility incidents

Missile-Related Incidents

ICBM Accidents

• Titan missile incidents: Titan missile system accidents
• Minuteman incidents: Minuteman missile accidents
• Fuel explosions: Missile fuel explosions
• Electrical failures: Electrical system failures

Submarine Incidents

• Nuclear submarine accidents: Nuclear submarine incidents
• Missile compartment: Missile compartment accidents
• Fire incidents: Submarine fire incidents
• Collision incidents: Submarine collision incidents

Naval Accidents

• Surface ship incidents: Surface ship nuclear accidents
• Loading accidents: Nuclear weapon loading accidents
• Storage incidents: Shipboard storage incidents
• Port incidents: Nuclear weapon port incidents

Safety System Failures

Multiple Failures

• Redundant systems: Failure of redundant safety systems
• Human error: Human error in safety procedures
• Design flaws: Design flaws in safety systems
• Maintenance issues: Maintenance-related safety failures

Near Detonations

• Close calls: Incidents with near nuclear detonation
• Final safety: Final safety system preventing detonation
• Seconds from disaster: Incidents seconds from nuclear explosion
• Miraculous prevention: Accidents miraculously prevented

Environmental Sensors

• Altitude sensors: Altitude sensing system failures
• Timer failures: Timer mechanism failures
• Arming system: Arming system malfunctions
• Impact sensors: Impact sensor failures

Environmental Consequences

Radioactive Contamination

• Plutonium dispersal: Plutonium contamination from accidents
• Cleanup operations: Massive cleanup operations
• Long-term contamination: Long-term environmental contamination
• Health monitoring: Health monitoring of affected populations

Palomares Cleanup

• Soil removal: Removal of contaminated soil
• Area monitoring: Long-term area monitoring
• Health studies: Health studies of local population
• Ongoing concerns: Ongoing contamination concerns

Thule Cleanup

• Ice cap contamination: Contamination of Greenland ice cap
• Danish cooperation: Cooperation with Danish government
• Worker exposure: Cleanup worker radiation exposure
• Diplomatic settlement: Diplomatic settlement with Denmark

International Incidents

Overseas Accidents

• Allied territory: Accidents on allied territory
• Diplomatic complications: Diplomatic complications
• Host nation relations: Impact on host nation relations
• Base agreements: Impact on base agreements

Soviet Incidents

• Soviet accidents: Soviet nuclear weapon accidents
• Limited information: Limited information availability
• Submarine incidents: Soviet submarine nuclear incidents
• Storage accidents: Soviet storage facility accidents

Other Nations

• UK incidents: British nuclear weapon incidents
• French incidents: French nuclear accidents
• Unreported incidents: Suspected unreported incidents
• International cooperation: International accident cooperation

Safety Improvements

Design Changes

• Safety system upgrades: Enhanced safety system design
• Redundancy increases: Increased safety redundancy
• Fail-safe mechanisms: Improved fail-safe mechanisms
• Human factor design: Human factors in safety design

Procedural Changes

• Enhanced procedures: Enhanced safety procedures
• Training improvements: Improved safety training
• Maintenance protocols: Enhanced maintenance protocols
• Emergency procedures: Improved emergency procedures

Technology Advances

• Insensitive explosives: Insensitive high explosives
• Enhanced security: Enhanced physical security
• Monitoring systems: Improved monitoring systems
• Communication systems: Enhanced communication systems

Modern Safety Measures

Current Safeguards

• Multiple barriers: Multiple independent safety barriers
• Environmental sensing: Environmental sensing devices
• Permissive action links: PAL security systems
• Use control: Enhanced use control systems

Accident Prevention

• Risk assessment: Comprehensive risk assessment
• Safety culture: Strong nuclear safety culture
• Continuous improvement: Continuous safety improvement
• Lessons learned: Lessons learned integration

Emergency Response

• Rapid response: Rapid accident response capability
• Specialized teams: Specialized nuclear emergency teams
• Containment procedures: Contamination containment procedures
• Public safety: Public safety protection measures

Psychological Impact

Public Awareness

• Media coverage: Extensive media coverage of incidents
• Public concern: Increased public concern about nuclear safety
• Anti-nuclear movement: Fuel for anti-nuclear movement
• Safety questions: Questions about nuclear weapon safety

Military Impact

• Safety emphasis: Increased emphasis on nuclear safety
• Training changes: Changes in nuclear training
• Procedure revision: Revision of safety procedures
• Culture change: Change in nuclear safety culture

Political Consequences

• Policy reviews: Reviews of nuclear weapon policy
• Safety regulations: Enhanced safety regulations
• Congressional oversight: Increased Congressional oversight
• International cooperation: Enhanced international cooperation

Lessons Learned

Technical Lessons

• System redundancy: Importance of system redundancy
• Human factors: Human factors in nuclear safety
• Design principles: Nuclear weapon design principles
• Testing requirements: Comprehensive testing requirements

Operational Lessons

• Procedure discipline: Discipline in following procedures
• Training importance: Importance of thorough training
• Maintenance quality: Quality of maintenance procedures
• Emergency preparedness: Emergency preparedness requirements

Policy Lessons

• Safety investment: Investment in nuclear safety
• Transparency benefits: Benefits of safety transparency
• International cooperation: Value of international cooperation
• Continuous vigilance: Need for continuous vigilance

Current Risk Assessment

Remaining Risks

• Aging systems: Risks from aging nuclear systems
• Human error: Continuing human error risks
• Technical failures: Potential technical failures
• Natural disasters: Natural disaster impacts

Risk Mitigation

• Modernization programs: Nuclear modernization programs
• Safety upgrades: Ongoing safety upgrades
• Training programs: Enhanced training programs
• Emergency planning: Comprehensive emergency planning

Future Challenges

• Technology evolution: Evolution of nuclear technology
• New threats: New security threats
• Aging workforce: Aging nuclear workforce
• Knowledge preservation: Nuclear knowledge preservation

Connection to Nuclear Weapons

Broken Arrows are directly connected to nuclear weapons safety and security:

• Inherent risks: Demonstrate inherent risks of nuclear weapons
• Safety importance: Highlight importance of nuclear safety
• Accident potential: Show potential for serious nuclear accidents
• Continuous vigilance: Emphasize need for continuous safety vigilance

Understanding Broken Arrows is essential for comprehending the challenges of maintaining nuclear weapons safely while preserving their deterrent value.

Deep Dive

The Price of Nuclear Readiness

The term “Broken Arrow” sounds almost benign, but it represents one of the most serious categories of incidents in the nuclear age. These accidents involving nuclear weapons have brought the world dangerously close to accidental nuclear detonation, created international diplomatic crises, and highlighted the inherent risks of maintaining thousands of nuclear weapons in a state of constant readiness.

The U.S. military has officially acknowledged 32 Broken Arrow incidents since 1950, though experts believe the actual number may be higher due to classification restrictions and incidents that were never publicly disclosed. Each incident represents a failure of the complex safety systems designed to prevent nuclear accidents, and collectively they demonstrate that even the most sophisticated engineering and rigorous procedures cannot entirely eliminate the risk of nuclear weapons accidents.

The Nuclear Safety Paradox

Nuclear weapons present a fundamental paradox: they must be safe enough to prevent accidental detonation during normal operations, yet reliable enough to detonate when commanded during a nuclear conflict. This contradiction has driven the development of increasingly sophisticated safety systems, but it has also created opportunities for accidents when these systems fail or are compromised.

The challenge of nuclear safety is compounded by the operational requirements of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear weapons must be deployed on aircraft, ships, and submarines; transported between facilities; and maintained in a state of readiness that allows for rapid deployment. Each of these activities introduces risks that must be carefully managed through engineering design, operational procedures, and rigorous training.

The Palomares Incident: When Heaven Met Hell

On January 17, 1966, a routine mid-air refueling operation over the Mediterranean Sea became one of the most serious nuclear accidents in history. A U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress carrying four hydrogen bombs collided with a KC-135 tanker aircraft during refueling. The collision killed seven crew members and scattered four nuclear weapons across the Spanish countryside near the village of Palomares.

Two of the weapons fell on land, where their conventional high explosives detonated on impact, scattering radioactive plutonium across several acres of farmland. The third weapon was recovered relatively intact from a riverbed, but the fourth weapon fell into the Mediterranean Sea, where it remained lost for nearly three months despite a massive international recovery effort.

The incident created a diplomatic crisis with Spain, which had not been informed that nuclear weapons were routinely flown over its territory. The U.S. government initially denied that nuclear weapons were involved, but the scale of the contamination and recovery effort made the truth impossible to hide. The cleanup operation involved removing thousands of tons of contaminated soil and vegetation, which was shipped to the United States for disposal.

The Thule Incident: Nuclear Weapons in the Arctic

Just two years later, on January 21, 1968, another B-52 carrying four nuclear weapons crashed at Thule Air Base in Greenland. The aircraft, on a routine Chrome Dome patrol mission, experienced a cabin fire that forced the crew to attempt an emergency landing. The aircraft crashed and burned on the ice, detonating the conventional explosives in all four nuclear weapons and scattering radioactive material across the frozen landscape.

The Thule incident was particularly sensitive because it occurred on Danish territory, and Denmark had a policy of not allowing nuclear weapons on its soil. The presence of nuclear weapons at Thule had been kept secret from the Danish government, and the accident forced the United States to acknowledge that it had been violating Danish sovereignty.

The cleanup operation was conducted in harsh Arctic conditions, with workers wearing protective clothing while operating in temperatures as low as -70°F. The contaminated ice and debris were collected and shipped to the United States, but concerns about residual contamination persisted for decades. The incident led to the termination of the Chrome Dome program and a review of all nuclear weapon deployment policies.

The Damascus Incident: Nuclear Weapons and Fuel Don’t Mix

The most dramatic missile-related Broken Arrow incident occurred on September 18-19, 1980, at a Titan II missile silo near Damascus, Arkansas. A maintenance worker accidentally dropped a heavy wrench socket, which fell 70 feet and punctured the missile’s fuel tank. The highly toxic and explosive fuel began leaking, creating a dangerous situation that threatened to cause an explosion.

For hours, technicians worked to address the fuel leak while the missile’s nuclear warhead remained in the silo. The situation deteriorated when the fuel vapor ignited, causing a massive explosion that threw the 740-pound W-53 nuclear warhead out of the silo and more than 100 feet away. The explosion killed one technician and injured 21 others, while also causing extensive damage to the surrounding area.

Miraculously, the nuclear warhead did not detonate, despite being subjected to forces far beyond its design specifications. The incident highlighted the vulnerabilities of liquid-fueled missiles and contributed to the decision to phase out the Titan II system in favor of solid-fueled missiles that were considered safer and more reliable.

The Goldsboro Incident: Five Minutes from Disaster

Perhaps the most terrifying Broken Arrow incident occurred on January 23, 1961, when a B-52 bomber carrying two Mark 39 nuclear bombs broke up in flight over Goldsboro, North Carolina. The aircraft experienced structural failure during flight, forcing the crew to abandon the aircraft. As the B-52 disintegrated, both nuclear weapons were released and fell toward the ground.

One weapon deployed its parachute and landed relatively intact in a tree, while the other weapon fell free and broke apart on impact. Investigation revealed that the weapon that deployed its parachute had gone through all but one of the steps required for nuclear detonation. Only a single safety switch prevented the weapon from detonating with a yield of 3.8 megatons—260 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

The incident was kept secret for decades, with the full details only revealed through declassified documents released in the 1980s. The revelation that the United States had come so close to accidentally detonating a nuclear weapon on its own soil shocked the public and led to increased scrutiny of nuclear weapon safety systems.

The Human Factor

Many Broken Arrow incidents have involved human error as a contributing factor. The Damascus incident was caused by a dropped tool, while other incidents have involved maintenance errors, procedural violations, and failures to follow established safety protocols. These human factors highlight the challenge of maintaining nuclear safety in systems that rely on human operators.

The complexity of nuclear weapon systems means that even small errors can have catastrophic consequences. A maintenance worker who fails to properly secure a component, a pilot who deviates from established procedures, or a technician who makes an error in handling procedures can all contribute to accident scenarios. This reality has led to increasingly rigorous training programs and the development of systems designed to be more tolerant of human error.

International Incidents and Diplomatic Consequences

Several Broken Arrow incidents have occurred on foreign soil, creating diplomatic complications and straining relationships with allied nations. The Palomares and Thule incidents both involved extensive negotiations with host governments and raised questions about the wisdom of deploying nuclear weapons on foreign territory.

These incidents have also highlighted the global nature of nuclear risks. When nuclear weapons are involved in accidents, the consequences can extend far beyond national borders. Radioactive contamination does not respect political boundaries, and the fear of nuclear accidents can affect international relations and public opinion worldwide.

Soviet and Other Nuclear Incidents

While the United States has been relatively transparent about its nuclear accidents, other nuclear powers have been less forthcoming about their own incidents. The Soviet Union experienced numerous nuclear weapon accidents, including submarine incidents, storage facility accidents, and transportation mishaps. The full extent of Soviet nuclear accidents remains classified, but intelligence reports suggest that the Soviet Union experienced accident rates similar to or higher than those of the United States.

Other nuclear powers, including the United Kingdom, France, and China, have also experienced nuclear weapon accidents, though information about these incidents is often limited. The secrecy surrounding nuclear accidents in these countries makes it difficult to assess the true global scope of nuclear weapon safety problems.

Safety System Evolution

Each Broken Arrow incident has contributed to the evolution of nuclear weapon safety systems. The Palomares incident led to improvements in aircraft safety systems and changes in nuclear weapon transport procedures. The Thule incident resulted in the termination of airborne alert missions and the development of new safety protocols for nuclear weapon deployments.

Modern nuclear weapons incorporate multiple independent safety systems designed to prevent accidental detonation. These systems include environmental sensing devices that prevent detonation unless specific conditions are met, Permissive Action Links (PALs) that prevent unauthorized use, and enhanced nuclear detonation safety systems that require multiple independent actions to arm the weapon.

The Technological Challenge

The development of safer nuclear weapons has been a constant challenge for weapons designers. Early nuclear weapons were relatively simple devices with basic safety systems, but modern weapons incorporate sophisticated safety features that make accidental detonation extremely unlikely. However, these safety systems add complexity to the weapons, potentially creating new failure modes and maintenance challenges.

The use of insensitive high explosives in modern nuclear weapons has significantly reduced the risk of accidental detonation caused by fire or impact. These explosives are designed to be much less sensitive to heat, shock, and friction than the conventional explosives used in earlier weapons. However, they still retain the ability to trigger nuclear detonation when properly initiated.

Environmental and Health Consequences

Broken Arrow incidents have created lasting environmental and health consequences that persist decades after the original accidents. The plutonium contamination at Palomares continues to be monitored, and health studies of the local population continue to track potential health effects from radiation exposure.

The cleanup of nuclear weapon accidents is an enormously complex and expensive undertaking. The contaminated soil and materials must be carefully collected, transported, and disposed of in specialized facilities. The process can take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, while the environmental and health monitoring may continue for decades.

The Modern Safety Challenge

Today’s nuclear weapons are far safer than those of the 1960s and 1970s, but they still pose significant safety challenges. The aging of nuclear weapon systems creates new risks as components deteriorate and institutional knowledge is lost. The modernization of nuclear arsenals introduces new technologies that must be thoroughly tested and validated.

The continuing need for nuclear deterrence means that nuclear weapons must remain ready for use, which inherently involves some level of risk. The challenge for nuclear weapons managers is to maintain this readiness while minimizing the risk of accidents through improved safety systems, rigorous procedures, and comprehensive training programs.

Lessons for the Future

The history of Broken Arrow incidents provides important lessons for the future of nuclear weapon safety. First, it demonstrates that no safety system is perfect and that constant vigilance is required to prevent accidents. Second, it shows the importance of learning from accidents and using that knowledge to improve safety systems and procedures.

Third, it highlights the need for transparency and international cooperation in nuclear safety matters. The secrecy that has surrounded many nuclear accidents has hindered the development of improved safety systems and has prevented the international community from learning from these incidents.

The Continuing Challenge

As long as nuclear weapons exist, the risk of accidents will persist. The challenge for nuclear weapon states is to continue improving safety systems while maintaining the effectiveness of their nuclear deterrent forces. This requires ongoing investment in safety research, regular review of safety procedures, and maintenance of the technical expertise necessary to manage nuclear weapons safely.

The history of Broken Arrow incidents serves as a reminder that nuclear weapons are not just instruments of war but also sources of peacetime risk. The men and women who work with nuclear weapons carry an enormous responsibility for the safety of their communities and the world. Their dedication to safety and their willingness to learn from past mistakes are essential for preventing future nuclear accidents.

Understanding Broken Arrows is crucial for anyone seeking to comprehend the full implications of nuclear weapons. These incidents demonstrate that nuclear weapons pose risks not only in war but also in peace, and that the price of nuclear deterrence includes the constant vigilance required to prevent accidents that could have catastrophic consequences for humanity.

---

Sources

Authoritative Sources:

• U.S. Department of Defense - Official Broken Arrow incident reports
• Sandia National Laboratories - Nuclear weapon safety analysis
• Federation of American Scientists - Nuclear accident documentation
• Brookings Institution - Nuclear safety policy analysis
• Center for Defense Information - Nuclear incident analysis