Claim: Nuclear Warheads in Newark, a open Container with Level 3 Nuclear Warheads missing?
No-one transports nuclear warheads (or their physics package) unattended, in a shipping container.
Other radioactive materials, appropriately packaged, are sometimes transported by largely "normal" means, for instance radionuclides for medical use. These can be dangerous if deliberately tampered with- in Goiânia, Brazil in 1987, thieves stole a radiotherapy source from a derelict hospital; the resulting contamination killed 4 people, contaminated at least 249 and required an extensive clean-up operation; Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goiânia_accident.
But that's a
very long way from being anything like a missing nuclear bomb.
The video includes this example of a "drone",
...which looks like the (stationary) overhead cable marker which has already been debunked, so the video maker might not be all that well-informed about the subject. Or perhaps not too bothered by the accuracy of the information he's sharing.
(Apologies, I can't find the Metabunk posts about this solved "drone", if someone could tell us I'd be grateful).
Edit: see @jarlmai's post after this, which links to the appropriate thread (thank you).
@SuppaCoup has drawn our attention to the "hunt for radioactive materials" hypothesis,
There's an article on MSN titled "Radiation spike in New York after flood of drone sightings as Americans warned 'plan for the worst'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/radiation-spike-in-new-york-after-flood-of-dronoutlooke-sightings-as-americans-warned-plan-for-the-worst/ar-AA1w6cvF
External Quote:
US-China relations expert has issued a chilling warning for Americans to "plan for the worst" in light of the ongoing New Jersey drone mystery, following reports of unexplained radiation spikes in the area.
The "US-China relations expert" mentioned is author and political commentator Gordon G. Chang, who...
[...]has a track record of making incorrect predictions and what might be considered scare stories:
External Quote:
...Chang has made numerous predictions of the imminent collapse of the Chinese government and fall of the Communist Party since 2001 including the specific years. Chang insisted that it would be year 2011 when the Chinese government would collapse. When 2011 was almost over, he admitted that his prediction was wrong but said that he was off by only a year and wrote in the
Foreign Policy magazine, that "Instead of 2011, the mighty Communist Party of China will fall in 2012. Bet on it."
External Quote:
He has also claimed in relation to the second wave of COVID-19 in India that "it is entirely possible [China] released another pathogen." He also made claims that China was "likely planning to launch pathogen" from an illegal California lab. However a federal investigation into the lab in question, had not substantiated those claims but instead determined that it wasn't trying to make biological weapons, but instead was simply growing antibody cells to produce test kits for Covid-19.
Wikipedia, Gordon G. Chang,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_G._Chang
@Tezcatlipoca has posted about why it's very unlikely drones are being used to search for radioactive materials,
I'd recommend reading their post:
As for drones in this case. Just no. So, you have three relevant types of aerial monitoring here. You have wide area monitoring, localized monitoring, and hyper-localized monitoring (not the actual fancy buzzwords).
Starting from hyper-localized here for framing- Hyper-localized monitoring is the only type where you see drones currently. This is because the technology this small for that, that can also be put on drones, still tends to be pretty big & you can generally only fit 1-2 onto a commercial sized drone. These are only used for example, for entering buildings during hazmat incidents to sample specific rooms, or for military units to send them forward to conduct very localized CBRN reconnaisance. It would take 1000s of these doing a grid search to even be feasible for what's talked about here, and unfortunately, there's maybe like 300-500 of these in existence operationally across all first response agencies and the mil/govt.
Localized monitoring can come in a wide variety of means, generally there's not dedicated aerial forms of this, the "dedicated" platforms are usually housed within vehicles (eg vans or SUVs) or things like backpacks (you can see these at major sporting events all the time, some contain CBRN equipment instead of the radio tech used to disrupt potential explosives).
Then, what people are talking about here is wide-area monitoring. This requires multi-sensor suites where each individual sensor alone generally weighs more and is too big to fit onto drones. You overwhelmingly see these on helicopters or planes.
But if the US government did need, hypothetically, to deploy large numbers of drones for a specific task, why would they attempt to do it covertly? Just use a cover story pointing out the US losses in urban areas in recent wars, and claim that a major trial of unarmed drones would be taking place in New Jersey in the hope that these technologies might help save American lives in future conflicts.
"We apologise for any inconvenience or disruption, but we ask that the patriotic people of New Jersey forgive us this short intrusion, understanding that what we learn about flying drones in urban areas will undoubtedly help keep our serving men and women safer in the future", that sort of thing.
Plus, if there
were missing nuclear warheads in the New Jersey area, I suspect there might be roadblocks and checks on other means of transport. Again; maybe in conjunction with a cover story, e.g. an escaped suspect or an abducted child.
