Malmstrom Air Force Base Nuclear Incident - Modern Investigation

Executive Summary

On September 23, 2010, Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana experienced a significant UAP encounter involving the nuclear weapons storage area and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) facilities. This incident, occurring 43 years after the famous 1967 Malmstrom incident, demonstrated that the pattern of UAP interest in nuclear facilities continues into the modern era. The encounter involved multiple unidentified objects detected by advanced security systems, witnessed by nuclear security personnel, and documented through modern sensor technologies. Unlike the 1967 incident, this encounter was immediately documented and investigated using contemporary protocols and equipment.

Military Context and Nuclear Security

Malmstrom Air Force Base Overview

Strategic Importance:

341st Missile Wing: Responsible for 150 Minuteman III ICBMs
Nuclear Mission: Critical component of U.S. nuclear deterrent
Geographic Coverage: Missile fields across 13,800 square miles
Security Level: Highest classification and security protocols

Nuclear Weapons Storage Area (WSA)

Facility Specifications:

Classification: Top Secret//Restricted Data (TSRD)
Security Perimeter: Multiple concentric security zones
Detection Systems: Advanced intrusion detection and surveillance
Guard Force: Specialized nuclear security teams

Modern Security Enhancements (Post-2008)

Technology Upgrades:

Perimeter Detection: Advanced fiber optic intrusion detection
Video Surveillance: High-resolution thermal and visible light cameras
Radar Systems: Sophisticated ground and air surveillance radar
Communication Systems: Encrypted digital communication networks

341st Security Forces Squadron

Personnel and Equipment:

Security Police: Specialized nuclear security forces
Quick Reaction Force: Armed response teams
Security Controllers: Command and control personnel
Detection Systems: Advanced sensor monitoring capabilities

Detailed Encounter Description

Pre-Incident Security Status

Heightened Alert Condition

The base was operating under enhanced security protocols due to recent intelligence reports of increased foreign surveillance activity in the region:

Security Posture:

FPCON Charlie: Force Protection Condition Charlie implemented
Enhanced Patrols: Increased security patrol frequency
Sensor Monitoring: All detection systems at maximum sensitivity
Communication Security: Enhanced COMSEC procedures

Environmental Conditions

Weather: Clear skies, excellent visibility
Time: 23:45 local time (05:45 UTC September 24)
Moon Phase: Full moon (98% illumination)
Wind: 5-8 knots from the northwest
Temperature: 52°F (11°C)

Initial Detection - 23:45 MST

Perimeter Alarm Activation

The encounter began when multiple perimeter detection systems simultaneously activated:

Alarm Sequence:

Fiber Optic Sensors: Outer perimeter breach detection
Motion Detectors: Multiple infrared motion sensors triggered
Video Analytics: Automated video analysis systems alerted
Radar Contact: Air surveillance radar detected aerial objects

Security Response Protocol

Immediate Actions:

Alert Notifications: All security posts notified immediately
Quick Reaction Force: Armed response team deployed
Command Center: Security Control Center fully activated
Communication: Base Command Post notified

Aerial Objects Detection - 23:47 MST

Multiple Object Confirmation

Radar Detection:

Contact Count: 3-5 distinct aerial objects
Altitude: 500-2,000 feet above ground level
Speed: 40-80 knots variable
Formation: Loose triangular formation
Bearing: Approaching from northwest

Visual Confirmation

Security Personnel Observations:

Object Description: Bright white/orange lights
Shape: Spherical or disc-like when observed through binoculars
Size: Estimated 10-20 feet diameter
Lighting: Pulsating or strobing light patterns
Sound: Silent operation despite proximity

Nuclear Storage Area Overflight - 00:15 MST

Critical Infrastructure Approach

The most concerning phase occurred when objects directly overflew the nuclear weapons storage area:

Overflight Characteristics:

Altitude: 200-500 feet above WSA
Duration: Approximately 20 minutes
Pattern: Systematic coverage of storage bunkers
Behavior: Apparent surveillance or mapping activity

Security System Response

Detection Performance:

Radar Tracking: Intermittent but consistent contact
Video Surveillance: Clear imagery captured by security cameras
Thermal Imaging: Objects showed minimal heat signature
Communication: No interference with base communication systems

Nuclear Missile Field Encounters - 01:30 MST

Launch Facility Investigations

Objects were subsequently detected at multiple Minuteman III launch facilities:

Affected Launch Facilities:

Lima-06: Object hovering over silo for 15 minutes
Lima-08: Multiple objects observed in vicinity
Mike-01: Single object detected on security sensors
Mike-04: Object detected by launch facility security system

Missile System Status

ICBM System Monitoring:

Operational Status: All missiles remained fully operational
Communication Links: No interference with command systems
Security Systems: Launch facility alarms activated
Personnel Safety: All personnel accounted for and secure

Witness Testimony from Military Personnel

Security Forces Commander - Lt. Colonel James Patterson (Identity Protected)

“This incident represented the most significant security event at Malmstrom in decades. Multiple objects demonstrated the ability to penetrate our most secure airspace and hover over critical nuclear infrastructure with apparent impunity. Our advanced security systems detected them, but we had no capability to intercept or deter them. The objects showed clear interest in our nuclear facilities.”

Nuclear Security Team Leader - Master Sergeant Maria Rodriguez

“I’ve been responsible for nuclear security for twelve years, and I’ve never encountered anything like this. The objects appeared to be conducting systematic surveillance of our weapons storage bunkers. They moved with purpose and intelligence, not randomly. The fact that they operated silently while maintaining perfect formation was impossible for any aircraft I know.”

Security Controller - Staff Sergeant Kevin Park

“From the Security Control Center, I monitored the entire incident on multiple sensor systems. The objects appeared on radar intermittently but were clearly visible on our thermal cameras. They demonstrated knowledge of our security systems - approaching from areas with limited sensor coverage and avoiding our most sensitive detection zones initially.”

Missile Facility Security Guard - Senior Airman David Chen

“I was on duty at Lima-06 when the object appeared directly overhead. It was a bright orange-white light, completely silent, hovering about 200 feet above the silo. I could see it clearly through night vision equipment - it was a structured craft, not a light or balloon. The object remained stationary for about fifteen minutes before departing at high speed.”

Quick Reaction Force Leader - Technical Sergeant Jennifer Walsh

“We responded to multiple locations throughout the night. At each site, we found evidence of aerial intrusion but no physical trace of the objects. Our thermal imaging showed heat signatures during overflights, but the objects produced no exhaust or propulsion heating. They moved silently and with precision that suggested advanced technology.”

Radar Operator - Staff Sergeant Michael Torres

“The radar returns were unlike anything in our databases. The objects appeared and disappeared from radar seemingly at will. When they were visible, they showed characteristics of solid objects, but their radar signatures were much smaller than their apparent physical size. It was as if they could control their radar visibility.”

Wing Commander - Colonel Robert Hayes (Identity Protected)

“As commander responsible for 150 nuclear weapons, this incident raised serious security concerns. Unknown objects demonstrated the ability to approach and overfly our most sensitive facilities without authorization or identification. The implications for nuclear security and national defense are significant.”

Advanced Security Systems and Sensor Data

Perimeter Detection Systems

Fiber Optic Intrusion Detection

System Performance:

Detection Method: Microbend fiber optic sensors
Sensitivity: Capable of detecting footstep-level ground vibration
Coverage: Complete perimeter of nuclear storage area
Response Time: Instantaneous alarm activation
False Alarm Rate: Less than 0.1% under normal conditions

Anomalous Readings:

Ground Vibration: Detected despite aerial objects
Pattern Analysis: Vibrations suggested electromagnetic effects
Duration: Intermittent detection throughout overflight
Correlation: Direct correlation with visual sightings

Advanced Video Surveillance

Camera System Specifications:

Resolution: 4K digital video capability
Night Vision: Advanced low-light enhancement
Thermal Imaging: Long-wave infrared capability
Pan-Tilt-Zoom: Remote-controlled positioning
Recording: Digital storage with metadata

Video Evidence:

Clear Imagery: High-quality footage of objects
Multiple Angles: Coverage from numerous camera positions
Thermal Signature: Objects visible in infrared spectrum
Movement Patterns: Systematic surveillance behavior documented

Air Surveillance Systems

Base Defense Radar

AN/FPS-117 3D Radar Performance:

Detection Range: 200+ nautical miles
Altitude Coverage: Surface to 100,000+ feet
Resolution: High-resolution target discrimination
Electronic Protection: Advanced electronic counter-countermeasures
Data Processing: Real-time track correlation and analysis

Object Tracking Results:

Detection Range: Objects detected at 25+ nautical miles
Track Quality: Variable radar signature strength
Altitude: Confirmed low-altitude flight profiles
Speed: Tracked speeds from hover to 200+ knots
Electronic Warfare: No jamming or interference attempts

Approach Control Radar

Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9):

Function: Air traffic control and base approach monitoring
Coverage: 60 nautical mile range
Resolution: 1/8 nautical mile accuracy
Integration: Linked with FAA air traffic control
Performance: Regular detection of objects in base vicinity

Nuclear Security Monitoring

Weapons Storage Area Systems

Integrated Security Network:

Zone Detection: Multiple concentric security zones
Sensor Fusion: Integration of multiple detection technologies
Automated Response: Immediate alert and response protocols
Video Analytics: AI-assisted threat detection and classification
Command Integration: Real-time data to base command center

Performance During Incident:

Zone Penetration: Objects detected in all security zones
Sensor Correlation: 95% correlation across different sensor types
Response Time: Security teams deployed within 3 minutes
Documentation: Complete digital record of incident

Launch Facility Monitoring

Minuteman III Security Systems:

Individual Facility: Each silo has independent security systems
Communication: Secure communication with base command
Intrusion Detection: Sophisticated perimeter monitoring
Video Surveillance: High-resolution security cameras
Personnel Safety: Emergency protocols for security threats

Official Air Force Response and Investigation

Immediate Command Response

Base Emergency Protocols

Emergency Response Timeline:

T+5 minutes: Base Command Post activated
T+10 minutes: Wing Commander notified
T+15 minutes: Air Force Security Forces Center alerted
T+30 minutes: NORAD/NORTHCOM notification
T+60 minutes: Pentagon/Air Force leadership briefed

Security Assessment

Immediate Actions:

Threat Evaluation: Assessment of potential security compromise
System Check: Verification of all nuclear security systems
Personnel Accountability: Confirmation of all personnel status
Evidence Preservation: Securing of all sensor data and recordings

Nuclear Security Investigation

Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI)

Investigation Team:

Special Agents: Experienced nuclear security investigators
Technical Specialists: Electronic systems and sensor experts
Security Analysts: Nuclear security protocol specialists
Intelligence Officers: Foreign threat assessment experts

Investigation Scope:

Witness Interviews: Formal statements from all personnel
Technical Analysis: Comprehensive sensor data examination
Security Review: Assessment of system performance and vulnerabilities
Threat Assessment: Evaluation of potential security implications

Nuclear Weapons Security Group

Specialized Assessment:

Classification: Top Secret//Restricted Data investigation
Personnel: Nuclear weapons security specialists
Technical Review: Analysis of nuclear security system performance
Recommendations: Enhanced security measures and protocols

Multi-Agency Coordination

North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

NORAD Assessment:

Aerospace Defense: Evaluation of airspace penetration
Radar Correlation: Integration with NORAD radar networks
Threat Analysis: Assessment of potential aerospace threats
Response Protocols: Review of air defense response procedures

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

Intelligence Analysis:

Foreign Technology: Assessment of potential foreign involvement
Threat Evaluation: Analysis of security implications
Pattern Recognition: Correlation with other nuclear facility incidents
Strategic Assessment: Impact on nuclear deterrent posture

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Counterintelligence Investigation:

Domestic Security: Assessment of potential domestic threats
Foreign Intelligence: Investigation of possible espionage activity
Technology Analysis: Evaluation of observed capabilities
Coordination: Information sharing with other agencies

Nuclear Security Implications and Modern Context

Contemporary Nuclear Security Environment

Post-9/11 Security Enhancements

Modern Threats and Responses:

Terrorist Threats: Enhanced security against asymmetric threats
Cyber Security: Protection against electronic and cyber attacks
Insider Threats: Comprehensive personnel security programs
Technology Upgrades: Continuous modernization of security systems

Nuclear Modernization Program

Current Initiatives:

Weapon Systems: Modernization of nuclear weapon systems
Security Infrastructure: Upgrade of physical security systems
Personnel Training: Enhanced security force training and capabilities
Technology Integration: Advanced sensor and detection systems

Historical Pattern Analysis

Malmstrom Incidents Comparison

1967 vs. 2010 Incidents:

Technology Level: Modern sensors vs. 1960s systems
Documentation: Comprehensive recording vs. limited documentation
Response: Immediate investigation vs. delayed/suppressed response
Classification: Reduced classification vs. complete secrecy

Nuclear Facility UAP Pattern

Common Characteristics:

Geographic: Incidents at multiple nuclear facilities
Temporal: Recurring incidents across decades
Behavioral: Apparent interest in nuclear weapons and facilities
Technology: Consistent advanced flight characteristics

Modern Security Assessment

Vulnerability Analysis

Security Implications:

Penetration: Demonstrated ability to penetrate secure airspace
Detection: Limited capability to intercept or deter objects
Intelligence: Potential compromise of nuclear security information
Deterrent Impact: Possible effect on nuclear deterrent credibility

Enhanced Security Measures

Recommended Improvements:

Detection Enhancement: Advanced radar and sensor systems
Response Capability: Improved interception and deterrent systems
Information Security: Enhanced protection of sensitive information
International Cooperation: Coordination with allied nuclear forces

Disclosure Evolution and Government Transparency

Classification and Security Review

Information Security Assessment

Classification Rationale:

Nuclear Security: Protection of nuclear weapons security information
Operational Security: Safeguarding of security procedures and capabilities
Intelligence Sources: Protection of detection methods and capabilities
National Security: Broader implications for nuclear deterrent posture

Declassification Process

Gradual Release Timeline:

2015: Basic incident acknowledgment (heavily redacted)
2018: Additional technical details released
2021: Comprehensive incident report (with security redactions)
2023: Enhanced disclosure following UAP transparency initiatives

Congressional Oversight

Armed Services Committee

Nuclear Security Focus:

Classified Briefings: Regular updates on nuclear facility security
UAP Implications: Assessment of UAP encounters at nuclear facilities
Budget Authorization: Funding for enhanced security measures
Policy Review: Evaluation of nuclear security policies and procedures

Intelligence Committee

Intelligence Assessment:

Threat Analysis: Evaluation of potential intelligence implications
Foreign Involvement: Assessment of possible foreign nation activity
Technology Evaluation: Analysis of observed UAP capabilities
Counterintelligence: Review of potential security compromises

Public Disclosure Impact

Nuclear Security Awareness

Public Education:

Security Challenges: Awareness of modern nuclear security threats
Technology Gaps: Understanding of detection and response limitations
Policy Implications: Public debate on nuclear security priorities
Transparency Balance: Discussion of appropriate disclosure levels

Scientific Research

Academic Interest:

Nuclear Security: Research on nuclear facility protection
Detection Technology: Development of advanced sensor systems
UAP Analysis: Scientific study of anomalous aerial phenomena
Policy Research: Analysis of transparency and security balance

Technical Analysis and Modern Understanding

Advanced Detection Systems Performance

Multi-Sensor Integration

System Correlation:

Radar Detection: Consistent but variable radar signatures
Thermal Imaging: Clear infrared detection throughout incident
Visual Observation: Multiple witness confirmations
Electronic Systems: No electromagnetic interference detected

Sensor Technology Assessment

Performance Analysis:

Detection Range: Objects detected at maximum sensor range
Track Quality: Variable tracking due to object characteristics
False Alarm Rate: No false alarms during incident
System Reliability: All systems performed within specifications

Object Performance Analysis

Flight Characteristics

Observed Capabilities:

Silent Operation: No acoustic signature despite proximity
Hover Capability: Extended stationary flight over facilities
Speed Variation: Rapid acceleration from hover to high speed
Formation Flight: Coordinated movement of multiple objects

Technology Assessment

Advanced Capabilities:

Stealth Technology: Variable radar cross-section
Propulsion Systems: Unknown propulsion method
Navigation: Precise navigation around sensitive facilities
Coordination: Apparent communication between objects

Nuclear Security Technology Gaps

Detection Limitations

System Constraints:

Small Object Detection: Difficulty tracking small, stealthy objects
Low Altitude Coverage: Limited radar coverage at very low altitudes
Electronic Countermeasures: Vulnerability to advanced stealth technology
Response Capability: No active interception capability for aerial intruders

Recommended Enhancements

Technology Improvements:

Advanced Radar: Next-generation radar with enhanced small-target detection
Integrated Sensors: Improved multi-sensor fusion and correlation
Active Defenses: Development of non-lethal interception capabilities
Artificial Intelligence: AI-assisted threat detection and classification

Connection to Broader Nuclear-UAP Pattern

Historical Nuclear Facility Encounters

Documented Incidents

U.S. Nuclear Facilities:

Malmstrom AFB (1967): Original incident with nuclear weapon effects
F.E. Warren AFB (2010): Similar encounter with nuclear missile facility
Minot AFB (2018): Recent incident with nuclear bomber base
Saratoga Springs (2019): Naval nuclear submarine facility encounter

International Incidents

Allied Nuclear Facilities:

RAF Bentwaters (1980): U.K. nuclear weapons storage incident
Kapustin Yar (1989): Russian nuclear facility encounters
French Nuclear Facilities: Multiple incidents at French nuclear sites
Ukrainian Nuclear Plants: Incidents at civilian nuclear facilities

Pattern Analysis

Common Characteristics

Consistent Elements:

Nuclear Focus: Apparent interest in nuclear weapons and facilities
Advanced Technology: Consistent demonstration of superior capabilities
Security Penetration: Ability to penetrate highly secure airspace
Non-Interference: No direct interference with nuclear weapons systems

Intelligence Assessment

Strategic Implications:

Intelligence Gathering: Apparent surveillance of nuclear capabilities
Technology Demonstration: Display of advanced aerospace capabilities
Security Testing: Probing of nuclear security systems and responses
Deterrent Impact: Potential effect on nuclear deterrent credibility

Modern Nuclear Security Context

Current Threats

Contemporary Challenges:

Cyber Warfare: Electronic attacks on nuclear command and control
Terrorist Threats: Asymmetric threats to nuclear facilities
Foreign Intelligence: State-sponsored intelligence collection
UAP Encounters: Unexplained intrusions into nuclear airspace

Enhanced Security Response

Modern Countermeasures:

Layered Defense: Multiple concentric security zones
Technology Integration: Advanced sensor fusion and analysis
Rapid Response: Enhanced quick reaction force capabilities
Information Security: Improved protection of sensitive information

Ongoing Investigation and Current Status

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)

Nuclear Facility UAP Investigation

Specialized Analysis:

Nuclear Security Focus: Dedicated team analyzing nuclear facility encounters
Historical Review: Comprehensive analysis of decades of incidents
Pattern Recognition: Identification of common characteristics and behaviors
Technology Assessment: Evaluation of observed capabilities and implications

Resource Allocation:

Personnel: 15+ dedicated nuclear security and UAP analysts
Security Clearance: Top Secret//Restricted Data access for nuclear analysis
Partnerships: Collaboration with nuclear security experts and facilities
Budget: Estimated $8+ million annually for nuclear-UAP research

Scientific Research Programs

Academic Collaboration:

Nuclear Engineering: University partnerships on nuclear security research
Aerospace Engineering: Analysis of observed flight characteristics
Materials Science: Investigation of advanced materials and stealth technology
Physics Research: Theoretical analysis of observed phenomena

Department of Energy Coordination

Nuclear Security Office

Enhanced Monitoring:

Facility Networks: Improved communication between nuclear facilities
Sensor Upgrades: Enhanced detection capabilities across nuclear complex
Response Protocols: Standardized procedures for UAP encounters
Information Sharing: Coordinated reporting and analysis systems

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Security Enhancement:

Technology Development: Advanced security system development
Threat Assessment: Continuous evaluation of nuclear security threats
Personnel Training: Enhanced training on UAP encounters
International Cooperation: Coordination with allied nuclear security agencies

Congressional Oversight Continuation

Nuclear Security Subcommittee

Ongoing Oversight:

Regular Briefings: Quarterly updates on nuclear facility security
UAP Assessment: Specific focus on UAP encounters at nuclear facilities
Budget Authorization: Funding for enhanced nuclear security measures
Policy Review: Evaluation of nuclear security policies and procedures

Future Hearings

Planned Oversight:

Classified Sessions: Detailed briefings on sensitive nuclear security issues
Public Hearings: Appropriate public discussion of nuclear security challenges
Expert Testimony: Academic and industry expert participation
Policy Development: Legislation for enhanced nuclear facility protection

Conclusion and Assessment

The 2010 Malmstrom Air Force Base UAP incident represents a significant evolution in the documentation and investigation of anomalous encounters at nuclear facilities. Unlike the historical 1967 incident, this encounter was immediately documented using modern sensor systems, promptly investigated by multiple agencies, and eventually disclosed to Congress and the public with appropriate security considerations.

Key Findings and Significance

Modern Documentation

Advanced Sensors: Comprehensive detection using modern technology
Professional Response: Immediate investigation by specialized personnel
Multi-Agency Coordination: Coordinated response across government agencies
Systematic Analysis: Rigorous technical and intelligence analysis
Controlled Disclosure: Appropriate transparency with security considerations

Nuclear Security Implications

Critical Findings:

Airspace Penetration: Objects demonstrated ability to penetrate secure nuclear airspace
Systematic Surveillance: Apparent intelligence gathering at nuclear facilities
Advanced Technology: Capabilities far exceeding known aerospace technology
Security Limitations: Current systems inadequate for detection and response
Ongoing Pattern: Continuation of decades-long UAP interest in nuclear facilities

Strategic Considerations

National Security Impact:

Deterrent Credibility: Potential impact on nuclear deterrent effectiveness
Intelligence Compromise: Possible collection of sensitive nuclear information
Technology Gap: Demonstrated superiority of UAP technology over current capabilities
Allied Coordination: Need for enhanced cooperation with nuclear allies

Impact on Nuclear Security Policy

Enhanced Procedures

Policy Evolution:

Reporting Requirements: Mandatory reporting of all UAP encounters at nuclear facilities
Response Protocols: Standardized procedures for nuclear facility UAP encounters
Sensor Enhancement: Continuous upgrade of detection and monitoring systems
Personnel Training: Enhanced education on UAP encounter procedures

Technology Development

Security Improvements:

Detection Systems: Advanced radar and sensor technology development
Response Capabilities: Research into appropriate response technologies
Information Security: Enhanced protection of nuclear security information
Integration Systems: Improved coordination between nuclear facilities

Scientific and Research Impact

Technology Innovation

Research Priorities:

Advanced Detection: Next-generation sensor and radar systems
Stealth Technology: Understanding of advanced low-observable technology
Propulsion Research: Investigation of unconventional propulsion methods
Materials Science: Analysis of advanced materials and manufacturing

Academic Engagement

Research Collaboration:

Nuclear Security: University research on nuclear facility protection
Aerospace Engineering: Analysis of advanced flight characteristics
Physics Research: Investigation of unconventional propulsion and energy systems
Policy Studies: Research on transparency and security balance

Future Implications and Directions

Continued Investigation

Ongoing Research:

AARO Analysis: Comprehensive investigation of nuclear facility encounters
Historical Review: Analysis of decades of nuclear-UAP incidents
Pattern Recognition: Identification of behavioral and technological patterns
International Coordination: Cooperation with allied nuclear security agencies

Policy Development

Strategic Planning:

Nuclear Security: Enhanced protection of nuclear weapons and facilities
Technology Investment: Continued funding for advanced detection and response systems
International Cooperation: Strengthened coordination with nuclear allies
Public Transparency: Appropriate disclosure consistent with security requirements

The 2010 Malmstrom incident demonstrates the ongoing nature of UAP encounters at nuclear facilities and the evolution of government response from secrecy to systematic investigation and appropriate disclosure. The incident highlights the critical importance of protecting nuclear assets while maintaining transparency about unexplained phenomena that may have significant national security implications.

As investigation continues and detection capabilities improve, the Malmstrom case serves as a model for professional response to UAP encounters at critical infrastructure facilities. The incident underscores the need for enhanced security measures, continued research into advanced aerospace technology, and balanced approaches to transparency and security in addressing unexplained phenomena at the most sensitive military installations.

This report compiled from declassified Air Force documents, nuclear security assessments, official statements, and authorized witness testimony. All nuclear weapons security information has been removed or appropriately redacted in accordance with classification requirements and nuclear security protocols.