U.S. Use of Nuclear Weapons Now More "Thinkable"

[kage69]

It certainly is a power play to have a nuclear arsenal. To be a super power you must have nuclear weapons. Plus we will need them when the asteroid comes

Nukes are actually lousy weapons in space. With no atmosphere, it's not the huge atom splitting power punch we know them to be down here.

You don't want to blow up asteroids, you want to alter their mass or direction so you're simply not in the crosshairs anymore. Of course time is a huge factor here. Knowing 6 years out that you have incoming means a lot more options are on the table then if you find out the ETA is more like 6 weeks.

 

[cbrunny]

No because a bomb thr size of a firecracker is less wasteful of fuel. Aircraft would consume significantly less fuel.

So.... trillion dollar investment for... fuel savings?

 

[IronWing]

Nukes are actually lousy weapons in space. With no atmosphere, it's not the huge atom splitting power punch we know them to be down here.

You don't want to blow up asteroids, you want to alter their mass or direction so you're simply not in the crosshairs anymore. Of course time plays a big role here. Of course time is a huge factor here. Knowing 6 years out that you have incoming means a lot more options are on the table then if you find out the ETA is more like 6 weeks.

We need an atomic high lift jack.

 

[Subyman]

Nukes are actually lousy weapons in space. With no atmosphere, it's not the huge atom splitting power punch we know them to be down here.

You don't want to blow up asteroids, you want to alter their mass or direction so you're simply not in the crosshairs anymore. Of course time plays a big role here. Of course time is a huge factor here. Knowing 6 years out that you have incoming means a lot more options are on the table then if you find out the ETA is more like 6 weeks.

Lol it was a joke...

 

[kage69]

Lol it was a joke...

My apologies. You'd be surprised how many people say pretty much that when the topic of asteroids comes up, like it's hardly an important issue because...nukes. Heard basically that from serious people more times than I care to try counting.

 

[kage69]

We need an atomic high lift jack.

I'm in!

Should really come in handy when we get around to building that carbon nanotube based elevator to low orbit.

 

[kage69]

The 'Davy Crockett' I mentioned earlier. We actually deployed these things. Must have been a shitty detail, knowing that a change of wind direction after firing could kill you and all your friends.

More of a recoiless rifle than a mortar I guess, but still.

I thought this pic was germane to the topic too, gives people a sense of the kind of payloads we are talking here.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm in!

Should really come in handy when we get around to building that carbon nanotube based elevator to low orbit.

One if these days maybe I guess.

 

[SlowSpyder]

We have always been capable of tactical nukes, just many of them were phased out and decommissioned. Like the cruise missile warheads.

Even artillery shells, long ago.

It's something the US has had the capability to produce for decades now.

There are still plenty of Trident and MMIII's hanging about in place.

Pretty cool video if you haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNlOtLhnsEE

 

[MongGrel]

Pretty cool video if you haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNlOtLhnsEE

Pretty sure I have in the past, or one similar.

I'd forgotten the Atomic Annie name.

Yeah, that's a lot of arty in one shot

 

[werepossum]

smaller nuclear bomb.. isn't that just like a regular bomb? Seems wasteful.

In theory it's similar, but a conventional bomb with equal explosive power to even a very small nuke cannot be delivered by any airplane.

Nuclear torpedoes too.

Forgot about those, although they are considerably bigger than a 155.

The 'Davy Crockett' I mentioned earlier. We actually deployed these things. Must have been a shitty detail, knowing that a change of wind direction after firing could kill you and all your friends.

More of a recoiless rifle than a mortar I guess, but still.

I thought this pic was germane to the topic too, gives people a sense of the kind of payloads we are talking here.

A FatMan! Now find me a freakin' Deathclaw . . .

That thing looks like something whose range is exceeded by its blast radius. Not a good idea for the guy firing it!

 

[feralkid]

nm.

 

[MrPickins]

Yup. We had nuclear artillery shells down to 155mm. That's steel armor, charge, and dampening in a 5" diameter package.

Crazy small, but not very efficient:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

 

[Subyman]

My apologies. You'd be surprised how many people say pretty much that when the topic of asteroids comes up, like it's hardly an important issue because...nukes. Heard basically that from serious people more times than I care to try counting.

FWIW, I usually put a smilie behind things that are not to be taken seriously.

 

[MongGrel]

It's always easier and faster to deploy anything the US has in the air these days of course.

Just arty to pop even a small one was impractical long ago to begin with. to move the arty.

 

[IronWing]

It's always easier and faster to deploy anything the US has in the air these days of course.

Just arty to pop even a small one was impractical long ago to begin with. to move the arty.

Some evenings, I sense that I am the only sober person on the forums.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Pretty sure I have in the past, or one similar.

I'd forgotten the Atomic Annie name.

Yeah, that's a lot of arty in one shot

Good thing they used enough powder to get it down range far enough!

 

[Zorba]

So 2 B-2s could go in, drop 3 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, and then 1 B61 nuke, right down the same hole. Could take out bunkers 150+ ft deep or more. It is cool to think about, although, I think the ramifications are far too great to ever actually use a nuke.

The W80 warhead is already pretty small, could easily fit in a suit case.

 

[Brainonska511]

So 2 B-2s could go in, drop 3 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, and then 1 B61 nuke, right down the same hole. Could take out bunkers 150+ ft deep or more. It is cool to think about, although, I think the ramifications are far too great to ever actually use a nuke.

The W80 warhead is already pretty small, could easily fit in a suit case.

I think that's the general idea. Have something in the bag in case, god forbid, you ever need a super bunker buster (such as for NK's massive tunnel complexes). I don't think using a nuclear weapon is something we should ever jump to given the political and moral implications of using one (particularly in a first-strike scenario), but having a precision guided one instead of having to rely on traditional "dumb" bombs with large yields that have a lot of collateral damage seems like a better choice.

 

[kage69]

A FatMan! Now find me a freakin' Deathclaw . . .

That thing looks like something whose range is exceeded by its blast radius. Not a good idea for the guy firing it!

Does kinda look like one, doesn't it? Heh.

Yeah I can see the guy packing the flame-thrower looking over at that crew and having a heartfelt "you poor fuckin bastards" moment.

20 tons of TNT in something the size of a watermelon. Timer with no abort. I think I read somewhere it had a minimum firing distance of 1000ft. :biggrin:

 

[bradly1101]

I guess I'm a bit of a peacenik tree-hugger. I believe that pretty much my whole life (born in '62) that this country has been flexing its muscles and intervening in so many other countries' affairs (including starting recent wars) that it was inevitable that we'd have foes right around the world. And foes breed fights and defensiveness.

IMO we should stop this behavior and be a voice for reason, non-escalation, and peace. But defense/offense is big business, and we can't harm business. What do we want this world to be? Thankfully due to my aforementioned birth date I'll hopefully not be here to see the worst, as if it's not already bad enough. I say this as I sit here in my cozy home unlike so many victims of our policies can say.