Читаем Command and Control полностью

President Eisenhower allowed the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to start moving nuclear cores to their own storage sites, both in the United States and overseas. But his faith in military custody had its limits. Eisenhower insisted that the AEC retain control of the cores for all of the nation’s hydrogen bombs, even during an emergency. “No active capsule will be inserted in any high yield weapon,” the new rules stated, “except with the expressed approval of the AEC custodian and in the custodian’s presence.” Civilian employees of the Atomic Energy Commission were posted on aircraft carriers, ammunition ships, and air bases where H-bombs were stored. These AEC custodians were supposed to keep the cores securely locked away and hold on to the keys, until the president ordered them to do otherwise. But the Joint Chiefs considered this arrangement inconvenient, largely symbolic, and an insult to the military. Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson agreed, and in 1956 the AEC custodians were withdrawn from ships and air bases. Instead, President Eisenhower allowed the captains of those Navy ships and the commanders of those Air Force bases to serve as “Designated Atomic Energy Commission Military Representatives.” And they were given the keys to the nuclear storerooms.

Legally, the hydrogen bombs were still in civilian custody. But in reality, after nearly a decade of unrelenting effort, the military had gained control of America’s nuclear weapons. The Navy carried them on ships in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Mediterranean. The Strategic Air Command stored them at air bases in the ZI and overseas — at Homestead in Florida and Ellsworth in South Dakota, at Carswell in Texas and Biggs in South Carolina, at Plattsburgh in New York and Castle in California; at Whiteman in Missouri, Schilling in Kansas, and Pease in New Hampshire; at Fairford, Lakenheath, Greenham Common, Brize Norton, and Mildenhall in Great Britain; at Nouasseur, Ben Guerir and Sidi Slimane in French Morocco; at Torrejón and Morón and Zaragoza in Spain; at Kadena in Okinawa; and at least nineteen other locations. Atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs had been liberated from civilian oversight and scattered throughout the world, ready to be assembled by military personnel.

For safety reasons, the nuclear cores and the bomb components were stored separately. On naval vessels they were kept in different rooms. At SAC bases they were kept in different bunkers, shielded by earthen berms and walls ten feet thick. The storage bunkers, known as “igloos,” were located near runways, by order of the Joint Chiefs, “to provide rapid availability for use” and reduce “the possibility of capture.”

In addition to gaining custody of nuclear weapons, the military also assumed a much larger role in their design. The AEC’s authority had been diminished by a revision of the Atomic Energy Act in 1954 and by an agreement signed the previous year with the Department of Defense. A civilian agency that had once enjoyed complete control over the stockpile became, in effect, a supplier of nuclear weapons for the military. The Army, Navy, and Air Force were now customers whose demands had to be met. The AEC labs at Livermore and Los Alamos aggressively competed for weapon contracts, giving the armed services even greater influence over the design process. The rivalry between the two labs became so intense that at times their dislike for each other seemed to exceed their animosity toward the Soviet Union. When Livermore’s first three designs for hydrogen bombs proved to be duds, it was an expensive setback to America’s weapons program, but a source of much amusement at Los Alamos.

* * *

As the number of storage sites multiplied, so did the need for weapons that were easy to assemble and maintain. Ordinary enlisted men would now be handling hydrogen bombs. The weapons in the stockpile during the mid-1950s were much simpler than the first generation of atomic bombs, and yet they still required a good deal of maintenance. Their batteries were large and bulky and could hold a charge for only about a month. When a battery died, the bomb had to be taken apart. After the battery was recharged, the bomb had to be reassembled, and its electrical system had to be checked. One of the final steps was a test to make sure that all the detonators had been properly connected. If the detonators didn’t work, the bomb would be a dud — but if they were somehow triggered by the maintenance procedure, the bomb could go off. On at least three different occasions during the 1950s, the bridgewire detonators of nuclear weapons were set off by mistake during tests of their electrical systems. These accidents occurred during training exercises, and none resulted in the loss of life. But they revealed a worrisome design flaw. An error during routine maintenance or hurried preparations for war could detonate an atomic bomb.

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.

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

Военная документалистика и аналитика
Берлин 45-го. Сражение в логове зверя
Берлин 45-го. Сражение в логове зверя

1945. Год Великой Победы. «Звездный час» советского народа. Дата величайшего триумфа в русской истории.Однако и сейчас, спустя 75 лет после Победы, финал Великой Отечественной, ожесточенная Битва за Берлин, вызывает множество вопросов.Каковы реальные потери в Берлинской операции?Можно ли было обойтись без штурма Зееловских высот?Действительно ли было «соревнование» между Жуковым и Коневым?И, наконец, а стоило ли вообще штурмовать Берлин?В предлагаемой книге ведущего военного историка Алексея Исаева не только скрупулезно анализируется ход Битвы за Берлин, но и дается объективная оценка действий сторон, неопровержимо доказывая, что Берлинская наступательная операция по праву считается одной из самых успешных и образцовых в истории.

Алексей Валерьевич Исаев

Военная документалистика и аналитика / Публицистика / Документальное