DId you get to see the "documentary" that was made out of it? While I found some of it very interesting, and a good account of some of what actually happened at Damascus, AR, I was particularly disappointed in the fact that the BULK of the book was the author's personal attempt to argue against nuclear weapons based on ONLY this one thirty-year old accident. He never actually admits that was his goal overall, but he attacks the entire hierarchy of the US nuclear enterprise based on this incident, which, given everything that happened, had very little consequences if looked at on a global scale. Also, he never admits that his previous experience did not prepare him for this effort in any way. While very "unimportant" to the overall situation, he made several mis-assumptions, that are not worth detailing here. What Damascus did do was force the retirement of the liquid fueled rocket motors, and it gave the many people who spent their whole careers SAFEGUARDING the nuclear weapons a "rationale" for necessary improvements. Many times, when I argued for increased safety, I used this accident to my advantage. We had been putting that weapon system on alert for many, many years when it happened, so the argument that "we've always done it that way" was easily defeated by bringing up the Damascus situation.
Just my thoughts.