This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

is hot garbage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.25.158 (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). 108.35.59.228 (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story may be a fake, but that's how I heard it.

Apparently the u.s. once almost started the war. Back then (probably no later than the 50s) when most bombs were still carried by planes. One such airforce base did not have an air traffic control tower and thus no way to communicate with aircraft once they were sent on their way. One night a guard heard some strange activity at a fence and mis-identified this as possible Soviet special forces trying to enter the base. He telephoned another part of the base from where the aircraft crews were ordered to their planes and to take off. The guard then investigated the fence and found it to be a bear. He called back, but the aircraft were already starting their engines. Then someone drove a Jeep on the runway with the headlights towards the planes, to block the runway. This stopped the incident. Later it was determined that the guards had only recently been warned of the possibility of some special forces maybe trying to sneak into the base. As a result, all low-end bases were upgraded with flight-control towers.

GMRE (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nuclear_close_calls&diff=prev&oldid=759618038. I leave it to those working on this article to work out whether this is based on anything (it has stood here over a year). I just reverted a totally bogus edit by this same IP at Jack Block Park. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 2021-09-25T00:18:07 user:115.166.25.16 inserted "[sic]" between "24" and "megaton", claiming, "24 January 1961: 24 megaton is in the source but is wrong."

If anyone knows that any source that's wrong, let's discuss. In the meantime, I've reverted that edit. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As widely reported in the news a few days ago, Putin claimed to have put Russia's nuclear forces on 'special alert'. My view is that this is not suitable for inclusion on this page, for two reasons:

1. Common to many entries of this list is that genuine readiness was made for nuclear war (bombers scrambled, missiles ready to fire etc.). In my view, Putin's claim doesn't seem to convey this; it just seems like rhetoric designed to warn the West to back off. Rhetoric like this has been used before (mostly during the Cold War) and doesn't merit an entry in this list.
2. This is related to a current event, and thus this situation is yet to fully play out. Furthermore, inclusion of this would be an example of recency bias.

I'm interested to hear arguments to the contrary, I've realised in thinking about this that it might be suitable for inclusion, I'm just erring on the side of not including it. @Morgankarki: since we've been engaged in a little reverting, what say you? — JThistle38 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a close call, and no one has been able to say what 'special alert' means. The lead here says "an incident that could have led to at least one unintended nuclear detonation or explosion" -- if russia launched a nuke right now it would not be unintended. And like you said this is an on going incident. There is zero evidence anyone has been close to pushing the button Strangerpete (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgankarki, Jthistle38, and Strangerpete: I might support inclusion, but people who think it belongs here should provide at least one reference and explain, at least in the note -- and first here -- why they think it belongs. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kixean777: The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been added to and deleted from this article several times recently. Please (a) discuss here why you think it belongs, (b) including relevant references. I reverted your addition for these reasons. Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it yet qualifies for inclusion. The closest I can see was probably the discussion among Russian commanders about use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine which took place in November 2022. I don't think it qualifies unless a later source indicates that a strike was actively considered during that meeting, otherwise it's just more of the continued debate about nuclear doctrine. As with many of the Cold War close-calls, I suspect we won't have the full details until years after this conflict ends. --ERAGON (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to put near-misses where a nuclear reactor nearly failed, or is it for Nuclear weapons only? I think yes, and am putting in the 2022 bombing of Zaporizhzhia fire, but if not then feel free to undo my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SqueakSquawk4 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in this article says, "A nuclear close call is an incident that could have led to at least one unintended nuclear detonation or explosion." A reactor melt down would NOT be considered a "nuclear detonation or explosion", I think. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would partially consider it to count (e.g. chernobyl had a large explosion as part of the meltdown), but I accept your point. Do you know of a page for near-misses for meltdwons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SqueakSquawk4 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an entry in the 2020s listed in the 2010s section. Can someone who knows how, please add a new decade to the list? Egmonster (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thx. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should really be two main sections or even two articles, one for "close calls" caused by equipment failure like bomber crashes and early warning false positives, and one for "close calls" caused by actual political and military intent to carry out nuclear attacks, like the Cuban Missile Crisis or Sino-Soviet border conflict. Granted there is sometimes overlap like the 1983 false alarm with Able Archer, but for the most part they are two different categories and it is more confusing to combine them. Doeze (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would support you doing that. Sadly, I cannot spare the time to help you much with the details. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doeze: Where are you planning to put the material you just deleted?

FYI, the Wikipedia article on "Broken Arrow" is a disambiguation page with a link to "Broken Arrow (nuclear)", which redirects to a "Broken Arrow" section of the Wikipedia article on "United States military nuclear incident terminology". That latter article lists a variety of terms like that with examples that may or may not include the incidents described in the text you just deleted. ??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what part of the text did I delete? I intended just to rearrange and add sections. Doeze (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Click "View history", then select a range including all the edits you made today, then click, "Compare selected revisions" to see them. There were several. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me an example please? I believe all of the events were reinstated in a different locations. Due to my rewriting the headings the day and month information may be lost in a few cases. Doeze (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse: I erred. Thank you for our meticulous work on this.

FYI, in 2019 I gave a presentation at the Joint Statistical Meetings on "Time to nuclear Armageddon. That included a literature review of different estimates of the probability of a nuclear war in the next year or the next three years. A median estimate from the team with seemingly the best documented procedures was a 2% chance in the next 3 years. If that remained constant for 70 years, it would accumulate to a 40% chance of a nuclear war in that time period.

However, that ignores the phenomenon of "system accidents", which say that it is humanly impossible to manage any system subject to rare but catastrophic failures to ultra high levels of reliability, because managers "learn" from experience that they can "safely" take ever increasing risks -- until a catastrophe proves them wrong. Considering that, I'm now estimating the probability of a nuclear war by 2100 at 90%. I have not yet published this, but I plan to.

Reviewing this article, including your resent work on it, strengthens my conviction that 90% probability of a nuclear war by 2100 is conservative. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The "unintentional use" wording is a bit insufficient for now, as it covers crashes and accidents, but not as much "mistaken intentional use" caused by faulty early warning, which is similar to (narrowly avoided) mistaken intentional use caused by incorrect assumptions of political tension. The unintentional use section's accidents has significant overlap with List of military nuclear accidents, which has far far more 1950s American weapons accidents. Some incorporation of that material should be considered or its complete removal from this page. An accidental nuclear detonation of an operational weapon, as an extension of these bomber or silo accidents, would not create as close a call with nuclear war, in the way that a targeted nuclear strike would.

That work seems very interesting, although I would counter the argument that is such a 90% probability estimate for nuclear war realistic for the last 80 years of nuclear weapons (assuming we are living in the 10%). Doeze (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the hazard rate is increasing: If it were constant, then the probability of a nuclear war in the next 81 years, between now and 2106, would be no greater than it would be in an independent repeat of the experience between the Trinity (nuclear test) and today.

However, during that period the number of nuclear weapon states grew from 1 to 9, which means that fewer humans could initiate a nuclear war then than today. And the logic of system accidents I mentioned suggests that many leaders would likely be more aggressive today and in the future than they would have been in the past.

What am I missing? Thanks for your comments. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the order of magnitude shrinking of nuclear arsenals from Cold War heights, as the associated shrinking of land, air, and sea-based strategic and tactical weapon and nuclear sharing failure points, has diminished the current risk. Unless a significant rearmament to those levels occurs, which "Russian super weapons" and Golden Dome could represent the beginning of, then I don't expect the risk over the next 80 years to differ from the last.

I also don't know if I agree with the leader aggression logic. Crises such as with Cuba or North Korea can equally lead to a longer period of lower tensions i.e. leaders can also learn from experience that such escalation will only eventually result in de-escalation. Doeze (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. It seems inconsistent with the documentation of "system accidents" -- and with what is happening today with the Russo-Ukraine and Israel-Iran wars. However, I've been wrong in the past ;-) Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doeze: What about the nuclear proliferation argument?

At the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, there were 4 nuclear weapon states. At the time of the 1984 Soviet nuclear false alarm, there were 7. Now there are 9.

There's documentation that the US helped both Pakistan and Iraq with their nuclear weapons programs in the 1980s in violation of their commitments under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Richard Barlow (intelligence analyst) was fired and his career destroyed for documenting US State Department complicity in Pakistan's program and telling his managers they should not lie to Congress. In 2013, he said, "If they had busted those [Pakistani] networks, ... Iran would have no nuclear program, North Korea wouldn't have a uranium bomb, and Pakistan wouldn't have over a hundred nuclear weapons they are driving around in vans to hide from us." And in August 1989, between the Iran-Iraq war and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when Saddam Hussein was still rated as a friend of the US, the US invited three Iraqi nuclear scientists for highly classified training on designing nuclear weapons.^[1]

Nuclear proliferation has slowed, but I see no evidence that it has stopped. I'm on record for v:Forecasting nuclear proliferation using a purely statistical argument to compute statistical tolerance bounds on the number of nuclear weapon states into the future.

Do you believe that more nuclear weapon states would reduce the risks of nuclear Armageddon?

The book More Guns, Less Crime claims that more guns produce less crime. However, that conclusion is highly controversial and seemingly contradicted by the Wikipedia article on "Gun violence in the United States".

Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this UFO tracking resulting in a response by the US toward the USSR. ~2025-41889-87 (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any credible documentation of any such incident. My search for such led me to a Wikipedia article on, "Montauk Project", which discusses a conspiracy theory that has "circulated since the early 1980s." DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]