Читаем Command and Control полностью

The scope of the Fowler Letter had deliberately been limited to the weapons whose safety devices were Sandia’s responsibility — mainly bombs carried by airplanes. The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force were responsible for the arming and fuzing mechanisms of the nuclear warheads carried by their missiles. And the safety of those warheads in an abnormal environment was even more questionable than the safety of the bombs. The batteries, accelerometers, barometric switches, and safety devices weren’t located inside the warhead of a ballistic missile. They were in an adaptation kit a few feet beneath it — which meant the arming wires traveled a good distance to the detonators. That distance made it easier for stray voltage to enter the wires. And the missile was constantly linked to sources of electrical power inside the silo. In 1974 the oldest nuclear warhead deployed on a ballistic missile was also the most powerful, the W-53 atop the Titan II, designed in the late 1950s. Tucked away inside a silo, the W-53 was less likely to encounter abnormal environments than a bomb. But how the warhead would respond to them was less clearly understood.

PART FIVE

DAMASCUS

Balanced and Unbalanced

During the summer of 1979, James L. “Skip” Rutherford III was working in the Little Rock office of Senator David H. Pryor. Rutherford was twenty-nine years old. He’d grown up in Batesville, Arkansas, a small town in the northern part of the state, attended the University of Arkansas, and edited the student newspaper there. After graduation he did public relations work for a bank in Fayetteville. The job introduced him to Pryor, who was running for a seat in the United States Senate, after two terms as the governor of Arkansas. Pryor was a new breed of southern Democrat, an opponent of racism and segregation, a supporter of women’s rights, a progressive who greatly enjoyed meeting with voters, rich or poor, in every corner of the state. Rutherford worked as a volunteer for the campaign and joined Pryor’s staff after the election, representing the senator at events throughout Arkansas. And then one day Rutherford took a call from someone at Little Rock Air Force Base, a young airman who wanted to meet with Pryor confidentially. The airman sounded nervous. When Rutherford asked what this was about, the airman said: “It’s about the Titan missiles.”

Skip Rutherford didn’t consider himself an expert on intercontinental ballistic missiles. But he’d served in the Arkansas Air National Guard for six years, spending one weekend a month at Little Rock Air Force Base. He knew a lot of people at the base and felt comfortable there. The airman agreed to meet with Rutherford at the federal building in Little Rock, after hours, to avoid being seen — and brought a couple of other guys who worked with the Titan II. They were about Rutherford’s age. They didn’t want their names used as the source of any information. They were scared about getting into trouble. And most of all they were scared about what was happening at the Titan II silos in Arkansas.

The missiles were old, the airmen said, and most of them leaked. The portable vapor detectors and the vapor detectors in the silos often didn’t work. Spare parts were hard to find. The Propellant Transfer System crews were overworked, sometimes spending fifteen or sixteen hours on the job. And many of the young PTS technicians weren’t adequately trained for the tasks they were being ordered to perform. After that first meeting, Rutherford secretly met with other airmen from the base and took their calls from pay phones late at night. He spoke to roughly a dozen members of the 308th Strategic Missile Wing, promising not to reveal their identities to the Air Force. And they all said basically the same thing: the Titan II was a disaster waiting to happen.

Rutherford told Senator Pryor about the meetings. Pryor was disturbed by the information and decided that something had to be done. He wrote to Dr. Hans S. Mark, the secretary of the Air Force, asking for details about the staff shortages and training deficiencies at Little Rock Air Force Base. And Pryor learned that other members of Congress were concerned about the Titan II. Representative Dan Glickman, a Democrat, and Senator Bob Dole, a Republican, had already asked the Air Force to launch a formal investigation of safety problems with the Titan II. Glickman and Dole were both from Kansas, where some of the missile’s flaws had been revealed during an accident the previous summer.

* * *

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Афганская война. Боевые операции
Афганская война. Боевые операции

В последних числах декабря 1979 г. ограниченный контингент Вооруженных Сил СССР вступил на территорию Афганистана «…в целях оказания интернациональной помощи дружественному афганскому народу, а также создания благоприятных условий для воспрещения возможных афганских акций со стороны сопредельных государств». Эта преследовавшая довольно смутные цели и спланированная на непродолжительное время военная акция на практике для советского народа вылилась в кровопролитную войну, которая продолжалась девять лет один месяц и восемнадцать дней, забрала жизни и здоровье около 55 тыс. советских людей, но так и не принесла благословившим ее правителям желанной победы.

Валентин Александрович Рунов

Военная документалистика и аналитика / История / Военная документалистика / Образование и наука / Документальное
«Умылись кровью»? Ложь и правда о потерях в Великой Отечественной войне
«Умылись кровью»? Ложь и правда о потерях в Великой Отечественной войне

День Победы до сих пор остается «праздником со слезами на глазах» – наши потери в Великой Отечественной войне были настолько велики, что рубец в народной памяти болит и поныне, а ожесточенные споры о цене главного триумфа СССР продолжаются по сей день: официальная цифра безвозвратных потерь Красной Армии в 8,7 миллиона человек ставится под сомнение не только профессиональными антисоветчиками, но и многими серьезными историками.Заваливала ли РККА врага трупами, как утверждают антисталинисты, или воевала умело и эффективно? Клали ли мы по три-четыре своих бойца за одного гитлеровца – или наши потери лишь на треть больше немецких? Умылся ли СССР кровью и какова подлинная цена Победы? Представляя обе точки зрения, эта книга выводит спор о потерях в Великой Отечественной войне на новый уровень – не идеологической склоки, а серьезной научной дискуссии. Кто из авторов прав – судить читателям.

Игорь Иванович Ивлев , Борис Константинович Кавалерчик , Виктор Николаевич Земсков , Лев Николаевич Лопуховский , Игорь Васильевич Пыхалов

Военная документалистика и аналитика