Military Incident

There are a number of military incidents which occur daily which the public may not be made aware of. Reasons for keeping these events quiet may be related to worries of national security, or the simple fact that the incident was small and there was no need to report to the public. These reasons can make it difficult for anyone without a good connection or knowledge of how to conduct research into military incidents.

In an attempt to locate an incident, preferably with an officially approved and publicly released report or case study, I found instead one of the types of incidents which had been unknown to the public at one time. Unfortunately, while some of the story is known, there are many details which still remain unclear—an issue which may, in fact, show how strongly the military can abide by a form of ICS. It is also possible that these unknown elements may remain unknown simply to hide the fact that the incident was not handled properly. We may never know.

On November 7, 2003, a ladder was mistakenly left in USS Georgia’s # 16 tube after a sailor had climbed down to attach the necessary cabling to hoist the nuclear missile out. As the weapon was being lifted out of the tube it’s nose struck the bottom of the ladder. Hoisting operations were quickly halted when the err was discovered; by that time a large gash was in the nose of the weapon and the foot of the ladder was a few inches from the detonation device. (Fitzpatrick, 2004)

It is unclear as to what actions took place next, however it can be assumed that higher ranking officers took charge of the event and reports eventually made their way back to D.C. In December of 2003, Capt. Lyles, commander of the Navy Strategic Weapons Facility, Pacific—the Bangor, WA location where the incident occurred—was relieved of duty and transferred to another base. While word of Lyles’ removal was made public, details other than there being a “lack of confidence” in his command were not available.(Barber, 2003) At the time, the public was still unaware of the November incident; details of the damaged nuclear missile were not released until March 7, when published by a former Navy officer (unrelated to the incident). Walter Fitzpatrick broke the story on a blog.

Fitzpatrick’s story eventually gained the attention of area news organizations, two Washington US Representatives, and a Canadian member of parliament.(Associated Press, March 12, 2004) Inquiry was made by the news outlets and the Representatives. Navy officials declined comment to the media. Media outlets reported that the offices for the Sheriff and Emergency Management for the county were never notified of the incident (Bryant, 2004).

US Representatives Inslee and Dicks were eventually briefed on the situation, and released a statement to what they learned on March 19. Rep. Inslee stated that the Navy had a dire need to find better ways of communicating with the public. He went on to say that the Navy appeared to take the event seriously and had kept things fairly quiet and internal in order to conduct a thorough investigation and review of policies and practices. (Associated Press, March 19, 2004)

Approximately one month later, it was announced that the facility in question and the base which Capt. Lyles was transferred to were merging. This merger was approved after a six-month review of the merger proposal. (Associated Press, April 27, 2004)

Command over the incident was assumedly under the direction of Capt. Lyles at some point, as well as anyone else further up the chain, depending upon how you choose to view the incident. There was also NCIS involvement at some point (Barber, 2003), though it has not been published which of the persons involved at the base or scene were investigated.

Operations took place over an unknown period of time, as the full details of the incident were not released to the public. As the incident was relatively small in nature, one can imagine that operations did not go much farther than examining the area for possible radiation leaks, carefully extracting the ladder, removing the missile from the tube, and either sending it off for repair or destruction. It would be possible for some conspiracy-theorist to look at all of the information that has been provided and assume that there was actually something slightly larger than what was described, and that the true incident/action/operation took place over a six month period or greater. [The “incident” took place in November, CO transferred to another base as reprimand, and six months later the two bases merge. Coincidence? Likely, but still an entertaining thought.]

Planning had assumedly started some-time beforehand and following the incident. The Navy would have had some sorts of plans in place for an accident similar to what had happened. The degree to which these plans were enacted is unclear, however we can assume that the incident was determined to be fairly insignificant where no action was taken in notifying the public.

Financial aspects of the incident are not mentioned in any of the articles found about the event, and are likely negligible.

Overall, the incident was likely handled properly. While I agree with the concerns of the Representatives and believe that the public should have been made aware at some point sooner than four-five months after it occurred, keeping it quiet was likely a good thing. Had there been an announcement of an accident on the base, the public could have gotten unnecessarily frightened by the news. Still, had it not been for the leak of information, would we have known at all?

…then again, how can I say that the incident was handled properly when I know none of the details? It is possible that the unknown points of the incident are being kept quiet because there was a failure somewhere else in the handling of the incident.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Associated Press. (2004, March 12). Canadian lawmaker upset over missile accident. [Online] Retrieved May 24, 2011 from LexisNexis Academic.

Associated Press. (2004, March 19). STATEMENT ON BRIEFING BY NAVY ABOUT BANGOR MISSILE ACCIDENT. [Online] Retrieved May 24, 2011 from LexisNexis Academic.

Associated Press. (2004, April 27). Navy will merge bases at Bangor, Bremerton. [Online] Retrieved May 24, 2011 from LexisNexis Academic.

Barber, M. (2003, December 24). Bangor officer in charge of key missile systems loses his command. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Bangor-officer-in-charge-of-key-missile-systems-1133028.php

Bryant, M. (2004, March 12). Missile reportedly damaged at Bangor sub base. Associated Press. [Online] Retrieved May 24, 2011 from LexisNexis Academic.

Fitzpatrick, W. (2004, March 7). BROKEN ARROW: Hood Canal, WA. The JAG Hunter [blog]. Retrieved May 24, 2011 from: http://jaghunters.blogspot.com/2004/03/broken-arrow-hood-canal-wa.html

Mirrored from Being Jeremiah Palmer[1].

1: http://kg4vma.duckdns.org/2011/05/military-incident/

Tags: #American Public University, #APUS, #college, #school

📝 Comment on this post

Comments

Military Incident – J. Palmer

[…] “Military Incident” was originally published on J. Palmer […]

🔙 Previous Page