- 2,767
Link - The Sunday Times
Great timing while trying to enforce nuclear treaties on other countries. đź‘Ť
Great timing while trying to enforce nuclear treaties on other countries. đź‘Ť
UK and US developping secret nuclear warheads
- Thread starter Carl.
- 10 comments
- 443 views
- 1,168
Article
You see, the Bush administration can rest easy knowing that the iron man has taken a job in the Liberal Democrats. đź’ˇ
What I'm still confused about is who are we going to use our current missiles against, we could have a massive fireworks display over the Thames in 2010 with the Trident project.
- 1,168
Forgive my ignorance, but the rock means what exactly?
Fossilised remains of the population?
Scarring of the moon?
Looks like pumice to me.
Fossilised remains of the population?
Scarring of the moon?
Looks like pumice to me.
Keef
Premium
- 25,185
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
You're a dumbass. That's not a rock, it's an astroid. It's inevitable that, one day, one of those big "rocks" will collide with Earth. We now have the technology to detect an imminent collision or very close pass with an asteroid. If we do detect an imminent collision the question becomes "What do we do about it?" Well, some scientists say we could bolw up the asteroid before it gets to us. With nuclear warheads. But then we'd have a bunch of tiny asteroids heading for us instead of one big one. So they came up with another idea: get the warhead next to the asteroid and blow it up there, so the shockwave will give the "rock" a big heave and push it off of its collision course with the Earth. This seems a very good idea to me. And I bet it would take more than one warhead to move the big asteroids.
Here's an idea I just came up with. Maybe with some fancy nuclear kung-fu we could entice an asteroid to move into an orbit around the earth. It would have to be pretty far away so it didn't effect the tides with its gravity, but we could set it about as far away as the moon, maybe een a little closer, and be able to get to it witiout any problems and fairly quickly. Then we could harvest whatever useful elements or fuels that my be found on that particular asteroid. We might even be able to corral a couple of them, if we come across that many that are close to the Earth.
Here's an idea I just came up with. Maybe with some fancy nuclear kung-fu we could entice an asteroid to move into an orbit around the earth. It would have to be pretty far away so it didn't effect the tides with its gravity, but we could set it about as far away as the moon, maybe een a little closer, and be able to get to it witiout any problems and fairly quickly. Then we could harvest whatever useful elements or fuels that my be found on that particular asteroid. We might even be able to corral a couple of them, if we come across that many that are close to the Earth.
- 1,168
That's not very nicekeef
.My special thanks go to Famine who managed to answer my n00bish question without insulting me (although tactically pointing to the fact that it would have been wise for me to view the image source before asking it).
keef
Which is no problem because Britain alone has 200 of them.
Anyway Nuclear Kung-Fu sounds far too risky to me. I would personally rather have the asteroid as far away from Earth as possible, than have the possibility (at the risk of causing tidal waves, floods, or other natural disasters) of scientists developing a second generation non-stick frying pan.
- 87,835
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yeah, sorry about that. It was kind of abrupt wasn't it? I blame my girlfriend - and hour 18 of 24 Day 3 - calling me from the other room.
Anyway, most of the UK's nukes are quite aged and attached to ICBMs. What is needed is a much more effective nuke - or array of, more likely - which can be launched into space (or from space further into space).
In any case, nuking an asteroid is a little like firing paintballs at a sandpit. You'll either get surface impact - resulting in a slightly slower asteroid - or a degree of penetration - resulting in a slightly hollower asteroid - since most asteroids are quite porous. You won't get a blown-up asteroid, but even if you do, you'll have the same mass of asteroid falling towards the Earth in lots of pieces. Unless you hit it with hundreds of the damn things.
Anyway, most of the UK's nukes are quite aged and attached to ICBMs. What is needed is a much more effective nuke - or array of, more likely - which can be launched into space (or from space further into space).
In any case, nuking an asteroid is a little like firing paintballs at a sandpit. You'll either get surface impact - resulting in a slightly slower asteroid - or a degree of penetration - resulting in a slightly hollower asteroid - since most asteroids are quite porous. You won't get a blown-up asteroid, but even if you do, you'll have the same mass of asteroid falling towards the Earth in lots of pieces. Unless you hit it with hundreds of the damn things.
- 30,026
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Some asteroids are large, some are small. Not all will burn up on entry of the earths atmosphere, infact I believe most wont though I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on that. If a mass of rock hit's the earth of a size we need to worry about blowing it up, it won't matter where it lands, land or sea.
RE: Famine. Hooks you doesn't it
, it was only a few weeks ago you hadn't seen any of them 
. The only good purpose for nukes is to protect the earth from objects in space, using them on ourselves is retarded thinking, but another reason we have them is simply to avoid going past a stand off with other nations which you can approve or dissapprove of, as long as we don't use them on ourselves I don't really care.
RE: Famine. Hooks you doesn't it
, it was only a few weeks ago you hadn't seen any of them . The only good purpose for nukes is to protect the earth from objects in space, using them on ourselves is retarded thinking, but another reason we have them is simply to avoid going past a stand off with other nations which you can approve or dissapprove of, as long as we don't use them on ourselves I don't really care.
Keef
Premium
- 25,185
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Sorry, Flame, for the insult, but I was in an annoyed mood. So we're cool then, right? Okay.
Now, Famine, I'm surprised you don't like the idea of shocking an asteroid ooff of its imminent path of destruction. I've seen snows about the subject about 20 times on the Discovery Channel. I'm not sure how far away they would detonate the warhead(s), but the idea is to have minimal damage to the asteroid and to have the shockwave sort of whack it in the back of the head to get it to move. Of course, these shows and this idea has mostly been in repsonse to the idea of a "doomsday asteroid"--the big one that would kill everything. Again. Americas current ICBMs have quite the range and would be able to get up to very high speeds in a short period of time. They could then glide through space and explode a million or so miles out. The moon is about 240,000 miles away, an it only took us 3 days to get there in the 60s, so that would give plenty of time to say goodbye to family and friends. I wonder exactly how far they're planning to shoot these rockets, though.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure those scientists know what they're doing, and it makes uber-sense, so I think it'll worl just dandy. We should test it, though. Maybe not.
Now, Famine, I'm surprised you don't like the idea of shocking an asteroid ooff of its imminent path of destruction. I've seen snows about the subject about 20 times on the Discovery Channel. I'm not sure how far away they would detonate the warhead(s), but the idea is to have minimal damage to the asteroid and to have the shockwave sort of whack it in the back of the head to get it to move. Of course, these shows and this idea has mostly been in repsonse to the idea of a "doomsday asteroid"--the big one that would kill everything. Again. Americas current ICBMs have quite the range and would be able to get up to very high speeds in a short period of time. They could then glide through space and explode a million or so miles out. The moon is about 240,000 miles away, an it only took us 3 days to get there in the 60s, so that would give plenty of time to say goodbye to family and friends. I wonder exactly how far they're planning to shoot these rockets, though.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure those scientists know what they're doing, and it makes uber-sense, so I think it'll worl just dandy. We should test it, though. Maybe not.
Similar threads
- Poll
