A question about those nuclear cruise missiles we "accidentally" transported....

[Richard Steele]

Their story is that they THOUGHT the warheads had been removed
for dismantling, which made me kinda wonder:
Is that standard procedure for transporting a disabled weapon
in the first place?

If they were simply delivering missiles without warheads to
another base, why would they need to mount them in firing
position on a long-range bomber? Wouldn't it make more sense
to just put them on a truck, or in the hold of a cargo plane?

Am I missing something here?

[GeorgeGist]

1. larry johnson has some very scary thoughts ...

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/staging_nuke_for_iran

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Yes, it points to several things

1.- For whatever reason, insert any paranoia here, they didn't feel it was safe to transport by ground. FYI warheads are transported by ground

2.- Somebody goofed

3.- reacihng for the tin foil hat, this was a dry run for something, and the something ranges from a coup to war with Iran which includes, so rumor has it, tactical nukes

Now if the weapons were disabled, and no warheads present, they are so long that it may actually make some sense to transport the way they did

Oh my god, I hate to be thinking on the same grounds as Larry Johnson

Yesterday I sent the story to my brother in law and both of us went... DRY RUN

This is much worst...

[Rick Myers]

3. I've never seen a nuke readied for shipment

But, I've seen Sparrow and Sidewinders 'decommissioned' and they are taken APART!!! The G and C unit is packed in a case (guidance and control), the warhead is
REMOVED and placed in a WELL MARKED container, and the motor sections are 'safed' are put on racks to be shipped.Could be some strange 'rehersal' gone WAY wrong, but it is VERY odd!

Nukes would be handled with ALOT more safety protocols than AAM systems...