Talk:Mass suspensions and relief of duties after US B-52 flew with armed nuclear missiles

The title acts like it is recent news that it happened. The title needs to be changed, to reflect that the article has new information about the after effects. It's misleading now. Contralya 09:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried a page move; how's this now? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Better. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How were they supposed to be transported

"...were not supposed to be transported on the plane. Instead, the missiles were placed on the planes wings..." So, how were they supposed to be transported if not on the plane as this quote states? --Nzgabriel | Talk 10:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Headline is incorrect and imflamatory.

The missiles were not armed. The arming packages never left proper custody.

Actually they were armed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying my comment -- The warheads weren't armed, and could not have produced a nuclear detonation. 131.6.84.67 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

* "Report: B-52 Crew Transported Nuke Weapons Over US Soil" — Aero-News Network, September 5, 2007 

Pong

Ping DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)