Given the treatment I would say these things are extremely safe, and will only go off when they are supposed to.

Nigel MacDonald, Camborne, UK

I'm not in the MOD but I would think that it is officialese for 'we dropped it and it hit the ground with a hell of a bang".

The risk of a warhead going off subsequently should be zero due to the inherent safety features that are believed to be designed into them (see Wikipedia for an explanation).

The risk with the Polaris missile of the solid-fuel rocket booster being accidentally ignited by the shock would depend on the specific design but it would also most likely be very low. When they were designed the possibility of shock damage would have been very prominent in the designer's thinking.

Stuart, Sydney, Australia

Mikios is quite correct - detonating a nuclear bomb by impact is nigh on impossible. It takes the detonation of the carefully placed compression charges to do this, and they all have to go off at exactly the same time and this is controlled electronically. You could quite happily kick a nuke around all day (if it had been armed then I wouldn't suggest it as a compression charge detonation would still be scary). Radiological contamination is probably the most likely outcome. But I think the main reason for the disciplining of the servicemen is the sheer cost of the thing they broke - these bombs aren't cheap you know!

M Jones, Brighton, UK

carelessness may cause more terror

Jimmy, Yangzhou, Chian

Can you imagine the lads at Strathclyde running for cover?! I bet that was a sight with a nuclear warhead swinging clumbsily from a crane!!

Phil Abbott, Rayleigh, Essex, UK

I'm with Mikios. Nukes don't just explode. You guys should chill out.

dan, ottawa, canada

Mikios is correct - it's actually extremely difficult to set a nuclear bomb off by accident (or even by hitting it hard).

Of course, if you walloped it hard enough, you might eventually break it up, causing radioactive material to be released; but even that would be of a pretty small-scale affair - nothing even close to Chernobyl, for example.

Ade, Wallasey, UK

Those who are ignorant of the science involving nuclear weapons, or even power in general, will be frightened by this story.
Thank God, not everyone in the world is so ignorant and aims to arm himself with truth and knowlege.

Carlton, Ocala, Florida

Carelessness may cause much more terror

Jimmy, Yangzhou, Chian

In the Goldsboro accident, a 2 megaton thermonuclear bomb (Hiroshima x 100) fell from a B-52 that broke up in the air over North Carolina in 1961. According to the official report, all but one of the stages in the arming of the weapon were accidentally completed!

Marius Overholt, Tromso, Norway

This article seems to be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Sensationalist journalism...news agencies tend to do that. The incidents were investigated, and rightly so. Not because of potential danger, but rather because of sloppy handling of very expensive ordnance. The press releases at the time were to assuage public fears about any chance of a nuclear accident. An impossibility. If anything, that kind of damage would more likely cause it to dud. And BTW, conventional unarmed ordnance is just as safe even if mishandled that way. Explosives used in military weapons are, by military specification very stable, specifically for the potential of negligent mishandling. If I'm not mistaken, unexploded WW II bombs are yet being unearthed from beneath the streets of London, are they not? And those bombs were armed when dropped. They didn't explode then, but can be dangerous now only because they're still armed and have tended to become unstable over time in that
environment.

DJ , Yuma, USA/Arizona

Mikios is right - dropping a nuclear warhead will not make it detonate, no matter how serious the impact. The worst that could happen is that the damage would be so great that some radioactive material would escape, but that would take a considerably larger impact than those described here.
It would actually be more dangerous if the warheads were conventional.

Chris, Newbury, UK

The chance of a nuclear weapon going off because somebody bumps it is, surely, about the same chance of its spontaneously turning into a giraffe?

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Anyone remember the incident where the US Air Force dropped four of these things out of a broken B-52, without any bangs or radiation leaks. People still go to Spain (the drop zone) on holiday. I don't think that falling off a trolley is going to do much. Mind you, if that had been a normal explosive bomb without the degree of safety controls embedded in a nuke.....

KR, Stockport,

I'll take that bet.

Alistair, London,

Whilst it is obviously concerning that these accidents happened, it is also very impressive that the weapons are so well-designed that they can be chucked off a cornering lorry onto tarmac and dented without any dangerous results.

Mark Wallace, London,

the term 'adverse shock' isn't scientific. It's just a way of saying the bomb was knocked into something. Although as commented earlier, to detonate a nuclear bomb you need to create a critical mass forcing the two stable isotopes together. Not a easy thing, and not something that would happen by knocking it about a bit.

graeme comley, preston,

Banging a nuclear warhead about is a lot safer than banging a convetional bomb about. They will not explode.
There has never been a case where a nuclear device has exploded through being mishandled, and there's been far worse cases than this. For instance, the USAF accidently dropped two nukes out of a plain near Spain.
Nukes gone down to the depths with Nuclear subs - didnt explode.
This article is nothing but scare mongering.

Phill Barlow, Heswall, UK

If this sort of thing goes on here, just imagine what goes on in Russia which we will never get to hear about.

Gerard, London, UK

These things clearly are not that safe and we should be getting rid of them.

Roger S Kingston, york,

Excuse me for being extemely concerned but as someone who stays directly opposite from this site, I would like to know what "adverse shock" actually means. Does the spokesman happen to live near any nuclear missile sites. Has he heard the expression never say never. Any rocket scientists reading this please explain what "adverse shock" actually means.

louise, inverclyde, scotland

And they think that the "Yes Minister" series are fictional...

Sir Humphrey Appleby stated that:

"Both incidents had been minor. They had been fully investigated to rigorous safety standards and, where necessary, procedures had been modified.
The MoD continues to maintain the highest standards of safety and security during the storage, transportation or deployment of nuclear weapons. There has never been an accident involving UK nuclear weapons that has presented any risk to the public."

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

I would have thought the servicemen were disciplined more for the cost to the taxpayer than putting people at risk. As I understand nuclear weapons are designed quite safe. The only way to set off the nuclear explosion on the implosion devices is for all of the explosive plates surrounding it to detonate simulatneously.
I bet you could throw the bomb off a building and still be safe.

Mikios, Hull, England

Scary.

paul h, Tayport, FIFE