On January 24, 1996, the Pentagon disclosed details about an incident involving a nuclear-armed missile that officials characterized as a near-miss. The announcement added to concerns that had grown since the end of the Cold War about the safety and reliability of nuclear command-and-control systems previously kept tightly secret. What was revealed Officials said the incident involved a missile that, due to a combination of technical malfunction and human error, came closer than acceptable to an unintended launch or arming. The disclosure did not assert that a detonation occurred or that any nuclear yield resulted; rather, it identified serious procedural and technical vulnerabilities that could have led to catastrophic outcomes under different circumstances. Context and background Throughout the 1990s U.S. defense officials increasingly acknowledged and declassified episodes from the Cold War era and its aftermath to explain risks in nuclear stewardship. Concerns in this period focused on aging hardware, complex safety interlocks, and the potential for miscommunication in command channels. The 1996 disclosure fit into broader Pentagon efforts to be more transparent about incidents that might inform policy and safety reforms. Consequences and responses Following the revelation, military and civilian leaders said they would review safety protocols, maintenance practices, and training for personnel responsible for nuclear weapons. Congressional and independent oversight bodies called for investigations to determine how the incident had occurred and what corrective steps were required. The episode contributed to ongoing debates over modernization, force posture, and measures to reduce the risk of accidental nuclear use. Limitations of the public record Public accounts of the January 1996 disclosure are constrained by classification and redaction. Available summaries from official statements and later reporting describe the event in general terms—emphasizing that no detonation occurred—but do not release full technical or operational details. Assessments of the incident therefore rely on government summaries, contemporaneous news reporting, and later declassified material where available. Significance The Pentagon’s 1996 admission underscored how even after the Cold War, nuclear arsenals posed management and safety challenges. The disclosure reinforced calls for stronger safeguards, improved equipment reliability, and clearer command-and-control procedures to reduce risks of accidental or unauthorized use. It remains part of the public record that informs discussions about nuclear risk reduction and the oversight of strategic forces. Notes on sourcing This summary is based on Pentagon statements and contemporaneous reporting about the January 1996 disclosure. Because detailed technical records remain classified or partially redacted, specific operational details are presented by officials in summarized form; where concrete technical specifics are absent from public sources, this account reflects that limitation.