[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Why nuke it from orbit? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/20/2010 1:36:36 PM EDT
|
Why nuke it from orbit when you can get most of the punch and none of the radioactives with a simple kinetic strike?
From a budget perspective even the most high tech reentry heat resistant bar of metal is a whole lot cheaper than even a bargain basement nuke. |
Someone had to say it.
|
The issue is time. It takes time to find an asteroid of suitable mass and accelerate it up to speed. Or you can shoot a cheap nuke. Why would you think a spacefaring culture's nukes would be expensive? Even primitive societies like ours have them by the thousands and material to make many more. |
|
Quoted: Why nuke it from orbit when you can get most of the punch and none of the radioactives with a simple kinetic strike? From a budget perspective even the most high tech reentry heat resistant bar of metal is a whole lot cheaper than even a bargain basement nuke.  |
|
Because you don't want to nuke it while you're at ground zero. People these days.  They never think things through  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s1MspmfEwg Edit: one of these days I need to figure out how to embed video. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8n59S8j2C0 MIRV reentry and impact, non nuke test shot |
|
You are in orbit, what do you care about fallout?
And energy ain’t free. It’s a lot easier to carry a couple nukes in your ship than it is to carry enough mass around to replicate their effect. Now, if you are in high orbit and happen to have a couple thousand metric tons of spare hardened metal, then be my guest. Deorbit it right onto the target. But if you don’t have that and you do have a nuke, then nuking it from orbit is the only way to be sure. |
|
Quoted:
You are in orbit, what do you care about fallout? And energy ain’t free. It’s a lot easier to carry a couple nukes in your ship than it is to carry enough mass around to replicate their effect. Now, if you are in high orbit and happen to have a couple thousand metric tons of spare hardened metal, then be my guest. Deorbit it right onto the target. But if you don’t have that and you do have a nuke, then nuking it from orbit is the only way to be sure. And a nuke already has a predictable guidance pattern. Unlike a chunk of space trash or an asteroid. |
Damn. A question I would have actualy had the answer to, and I am late to the party.
|
Quoted:
Why nuke it from orbit when you can get most of the punch and none of the radioactives with a simple kinetic strike? From a budget perspective even the most high tech reentry heat resistant bar of metal is a whole lot cheaper than even a bargain basement nuke. Raise your hand if you were born after 1986. Game over man, game's fucking over! |
|
But mass drivers are illegal, nukes not so much. Hell Sheridan nuked Za'ha'dum with a 2x 1gigaton warheads. Although I am not sure if that is considered from orbit because the White Star did crash into the doom before going up like a Glock. "Jump! Jump Now!" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why nuke it from orbit when you can get most of the punch and none of the radioactives with a simple kinetic strike? From a budget perspective even the most high tech reentry heat resistant bar of metal is a whole lot cheaper than even a bargain basement nuke. Raise your hand if you were born after 1986. Game over man, game's fucking over! I was born in 88, but I was raised right. |
|
Ok. I see where I went wrong. I was thinking too small. I honestly didn't think that a Grizzly or even Chuck Norris would take that much killing. I had in mind taking over once I cleaned out the locals and I forgot that a nice glass surface is alot easier to sanitize than a kinetic strike rubble pile. I bow to the wisdom of the hive.
I still think that a relativistic kinetic strike would be fun to watch. |
|
Quoted: A kinetic "Rod From God" would glass an area pretty efficiently. Vitrification only takes heat, which an orbital bombardment would provide in spades...Ok. I see where I went wrong. I was thinking too small. I honestly didn't think that a Grizzly or even Chuck Norris would take that much killing. I had in mind taking over once I cleaned out the locals and I forgot that a nice glass surface is alot easier to sanitize than a kinetic strike rubble pile. I bow to the wisdom of the hive. I still think that a relativistic kinetic strike would be fun to watch. And if we start talking "relativistic" kinetic weapons, those are on orders of magnitude more powerful than a nuke, but we don't have the technology to get anything anywhere near relativistic speeds.... Imagine a couple of tons of baseball sized tungsten orbs launched at a planet at .9 c in a shotgun spread.... Can you say buh-bye surface life? for those interested Kinetic Bombardment ETA: the best part Project ThorProject Thor is an idea for a weapons system that launches kinetic projectiles from Earth orbit to damage targets on the ground. Jerry Pournelle originated the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-NYT-2006-12-10-0][1][/url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-Pournelle-2006-03-06-1][2][/url] The most described system is 'an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance.' The weapon can be down-scaled, an orbiting "crowbar" rather than a pole.[citation needed] The system described in the 2003 USAF report was that of 20 feet long, 1 foot diameter tungsten rods, that are satellite controlled, and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10, and strike 25-foot accuracy.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-AT-2005-08-18-2][3][/url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-SFC-2006-03-12-3][4][/url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-Guardian-2005-05-19-4][5][/url] The time between deorbiting and impact would only be a few minutes, and depending on the orbits and positions in the orbits, the system would have a world-wide range.[citation needed] There is no requirement to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons. The system is not prohibited by either the Outer Space Treaty nor the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-SFC-2006-03-12-3][4][/url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-5][6][/url] The idea is that the weapon would inflict damage because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 9 kilometers per second. Smaller weapons can deliver measured amounts of energy as small as a 500 lb conventional bomb.[citation needed] Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuke.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-Guardian-2005-05-19-4][5][/url] These designs are envisioned as the ultimate bunker busters.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-SFC-2006-03-12-3][4][/url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-Pitts-2003-07-28-6][7][/url] The highly elongated shape and high density are to enhance sectional density and therefore minimise kinetic energy loss due to air friction and maximise penetration of hard or buried targets. The larger device is expected to be quite good at penetrating deeply buried bunkers and other command and control targets. The smaller "crowbar" size might be employed for anti-armor, anti-aircraft, anti-satellite and possibly anti-personnel use.[citation needed] The weapon would be very hard to defend against. It has a very high closing velocity and a small radar cross-section. Launch is difficult to detect. Any infra-red launch signature occurs in orbit, at no fixed position. The infra-red launch signature also has a small magnitude compared to a ballistic missile launch. One drawback of the system is that the weapon's sensors would almost certainly be blind during atmospheric reentry due to the plasma sheath that would develop ahead of it, so a mobile target could be difficult to hit if it performed any unexpected maneuvering.[citation needed] The system would also have to cope with atmospheric heating from re-entry, which could melt the weapon.  While the larger version might be individually launched, the smaller versions would be launched from "pods" or "carriers" that contained several missiles.[citation needed] The phrase "Rods from God" is also used to describe the same concept.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-TWS-2005-06-08-8][9][/url] A USAF report called them "hypervelocity rod bundles".[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#cite_note-PopSci-2004-06-01-9][10][/url] |