question about the cruise missile screw up

[onenote]

I've read that the missiles were supposed to be moved for "decommissioning" and that the screw up wasn't that the missiles were transported, but that the warheads were not removed from the missiles before they were moved.

So here is my question, which reflects my lack of knowledge about cruise missiles and their warheads:

Is the presence of the warhead on a cruise missile exterally obvious to an observer or is it an internal component (ie. located internally) located within a portion of the missile such that the missile doesn't look signficantly different with the nuke warhead or without?

[Rick Myers]

1. Internal, however, it would be marked on the exterior

That warhead is just a cylinder, 12" around and about 30" long. It weighs only 290 lbs. But there are VERY CLEAR markings when the missile has a warhead in it.

[onenote]

3. thanks

[uppityperson]

2. What if they were moving one to drop, to use?

This doesn't address your "is it immediately obvious" question, but just a question I had. Seems there should be obvious ways of making sure of the difference.

[soothsayer]

4. or maybe it was to drive the USAF stand-down that will take effect on 9-14

so we can LIHOP or MIHOP again