U.S. Army Jeep Rear-Ends A Nuke

Wehateporn approves it.

Who says that there was a "nuclear missile" in that semi?

Even if there was you could hit it all day and it would not go off.

While it's a bit silly, the thing isn't going to go off by tapping it. It's not a bullet. Looks like the semi stopped quick, driver of the armored vehicle must not have been paying attention.

trailer, this is ghostrider requesting a drive-by.

negative ghostrider, the pattern is full.

That's of course true, and that's why the question is misleading. But that's not very interesting. (Of course, the dangerous consequences of physical damage to a special weapon are not limited to events that detonate the explosives inside the device in a way that starts a nuclear chain reaction. Plutonium is a most toxic and dangerous substance.)

But the really interesting question is that which I posted earlier: Who says that this involves a nuclear weapon? And why would someone with no information about the contents of that semi pose a question assuming that it contains a nuclear weapon - something that he doesn't know? What's the motive? To discredit our country, maybe? Given the imperfections and troubles of the US that are real and provable, why would someone (who labels himself with "CCCP") invent/concoct some hazard of a nuclear event without proof of his smeer?

For one year of my life, it was my job in the Army JAG Corps to deal with issues involving the handling, storage, transportation, and use of nuclear-tipped Pershing missiles then deployed in Germany (they are long gone now), and to work face-to-face with the men who worked with and commanded those missiles, sometimes in the field, about incidents arising from all of that. There really might be some GFY posters here who have had a closer connection to nuclear weapons, but looking around, I doubt it. Look, everyone who gets close to these weapons is profoundly serious about them and they each take it as a grave responsibility, so seriously that they'd give up their lives to prevent harm. All of them. Really. And if they are merely suspected of any different attitude, their proximity to special weapons is terminated in a heartbeat.

Funny looking jeep

the military always see around enemies and conspiracies.

I served in the Army for four years and a few months during a term that ended about 32 years ago and I am hardly "the military". I've practiced law continuously for 36 years. Matters of proof, evidence, and motive to falsify are always interesting to an American lawyer - and through having conducted many, many jury trials, I've learned that these are the same issues interesting to jurors - ordinary people, nonlawyers, who make decisions about facts in our courtrooms. Ordinary people understand that when people make scary allegations against others - without knowing that they are true - that person's credibility, his believability is impaired. Anyone naturally wonders, what is the motive? And that's why I ask, why would someone claim that there was a nuclear weapon in that trailer without knowing?

Joe Obenberger, I agree with you that there is no way of confirming what's in that tractor trailer, especially a nuke. But how do you account for the civilian knowing that there was a pretty serious military transport coming through?

Hillary Clinton's makeup truck

No doubt of that! But the implication was that there were Nuclear Weapons in jeapardy. That's what he posted. In truth, a sensitive radar ot encryption system or antenna array or sensitive aircraft parts would get similar security.

4 years in the army are change the mentality, of a young man.
in young age laid the prism through which one looks at this world)
Internet blogger does not need credibility he needs views
is there a nuclear warhead or is not present is not so important.
and here in the forum simply trolling fanatic American patriots who come and would justify US

looks like they hit the curb

so interesting. citizen journalism at it's best!

Who gives a fuck If I wanted new I would have went to CNN.