World War 3

[Exorcet]

An atomic explosion in vacuum creates a relatively small extremely hot bubble with a lot of radiation. A little sun for the fraction of a second. And thats it.

Which heats the surface of nearby bodies, possibly to the point of surface vaporization, turning the target body into a kind of rocket.

You can combine this with surface impacts to increase the efficiency of nuclear steering by directing the blast with the shape of the object itself.

There is no blast wave that tears apart stuff like here on earth. The best you can do is cook the asteroid a little.

You can do more than that, including destroying the asteroid outright (although I don't know the range on size that makes this applicable). If you plant the bomb under the surface, all the energy is transferred to the asteroid.

Thats why NASA uses impactors and not bombs, projectiles with a lot of mass and speed, and you can only destroy little asteroids with that. Big ones need to be deflected with such device.

NASA doesn't use anything, no one has tried steering asteroids as of yet.

 

[mistersafeway]

I hope you people won't be in charge of the planet defense when aliens attack in their huge spaceships.

How would you expect anything we have to be of any use when we can't even master manned space travel in our own solar system, much less invade others? If it's a ground assault then it could be an entirely different story, but an orbital bombardment would see us annihilated in very little time whatever defence we employed.

 

[Michael88]

There's an ginormous burst of high energy particles going in every direction. A nuke inside an asteroid will tear it apart. Unless it's a rubble pile of course. A nuke close to the surface will cook the asteroid, and the escaping gasses will nudge the asteroid out of space.

It would only melt it a little at best, especially if it is composed of iron. And lest
The actual mass of the fissile matter that expands is actually very small. You'd only create a ton of heat and radiation for an insignificant amount of time.
That would do absolutely nothing except its a very loose asteroid barely held together by gravity. Launching a projectile at very high speed at the object would transfer way more energy.
In fact, if you can launch a nuclear bomb to a distant asteroid to create a little bright flash why not swap the bomb with an impactor and slam the entire rocket into the asteroid?

Bottom line is, using any kind of explosive device to ''destroy'' or deflect an asteroid makes no sense and there is no serious research being done in that kind of direction.

NASA doesn't use anything, no one has tried steering asteroids as of yet.

No one has tried it but tests and the math says its possible and experts say its the best option we have right now.
In fact, we have shot an asteroid in 2005 with the deep impact mission. It was too small to deflect the asteroids course, and that was not its mission. But we hit it, and it made a huge crater and lots of material was ejected from the asteroid.

How would you expect anything we have to be of any use when we can't even master manned space travel in our own solar system, much less invade others? If it's a ground assault then it could be an entirely different story, but an orbital bombardment would see us annihilated in very little time whatever defence we employed.

That was a joke.

 

[Dennisch]

I think that you're severely underestimating the power of high energy particles coming from a multi megaton bomb.

 

[Michael88]

I think that you're severely underestimating the power of high energy particles coming from a multi megaton bomb.

Not really, all the research of leading experts in asteroid defense goes into the direction of either kinetic projectiles, laser beams or gravity drag - and thats for a very good reason. If explosives of any kind were a viable option there would be serious research in that area.

Explosives in vacuum are extremely ineffective. Since we cannot accelerate air or water to create a devastating shockwave to break stuff like here on earth we have to rely on the kinetic effect of tiny fast particles that are accelerated in all directions from the explosion. And thats only the actual payload of the bomb which is very small. So it makes much more sense to accelerate one heavy, dense object to blistering speeds to hit the asteroid. The energy transfer would be pretty much 100% compared to a spherical explosion on the surface of an object in vacuum.

Explosions in space only make sense if you have a HUGE payload surrounded by TONS of matter to accelerate - see supernova.

 

[Dennisch]

Most of the research goes to kinetic impactors or gravity tractors, because that's a lot safer than trying to send a nuke into space. There is also research going into nuking them because, as it stands, it's earth's only current available short term option. You can keep repeating that explosions in space are ineffective but as long as the bomb is big enough, we would be able to do damage. Nukes in space behave funny. The 60's space tests proved that. The effects were far greater than expected.

Of course, if it's a giant discovered only a couple of months before impact we're all dead. If we have some time, say a couple of years, we're down to the only current option. A big ass bomb. If we have more time we can send a bunch of rockets carrying parts for an impactor and build it in orbit. If we have plenty of time we build a tractor.

 

[Michael88]

You can keep repeating that explosions in space are ineffective but as long as the bomb is big enough, we would be able to do damage. Nukes in space behave funny. The 60's space tests proved that. The effects were far greater than expected.

I don't think destroying the asteroids iPhone and TV would upset the asteroid enough to make it return to where it came from. Besides an electromagnetic storm that destroys transistors little else happens in nuclear explosions in space.
For a split.-second you get a very bright flash, a bubble of heat and electromagnetic radiation. And thats it.
On earth thats a big deal, the shock wave will flatten anything in a mile radius, the intense heat from the radiation will set forests and buildings on fire. Without a medium like air or water to transfer energy onto stuff though its effect is meaningless.

If we have some time, say a couple of years, we're down to the only current option. A big ass bomb. If we have more time we can send a bunch of rockets carrying parts for an impactor and build it in orbit. If we have plenty of time we build a tractor.

Why are bombs our only current option? We have shot kinetic impactors at moving asteroids in 2005, and also at the moon. If we have enough time dropping one - or better, several of those it will move the asteroid.
Also kinetic impactors have a better bang for the buck ratio so there is even less reason to use any kind of ''big ass'' explosive device because they're so ineffective.

 

[Exorcet]

No one has tried it but tests and the math says its possible and experts say its the best option we have right now.
In fact, we have shot an asteroid in 2005 with the deep impact mission. It was too small to deflect the asteroids course, and that was not its mission. But we hit it, and it made a huge crater and lots of material was ejected from the asteroid.

It hit with about 5 tons of TNT worth of energy. Scaled to the mass (determines ease of transport) of the Tsar Bomba, that's 368 tons. The Tsar Bomba produced 50 Megatons of energy. So by weight, it's 135000 times more efficient.

If you want to cut that into a quarter because most of the energy is lost to space, it's still vastly better than using an impactor at Deep Impact's speed. For Deep Impact to match that kind of energy with velocity, it would need to travel at 600 km/s which has never been achieved. If DI was scaled to the mass of the bomb, it would still need to reach 65 km/s.

Also note that the blast energy doesn't have to be lost in a spherical explosion away from the body. Detonate the bomb in a crater, created or natural, and you gain some control over the thrust produced.

 

[Michael88]

Also note that the blast energy doesn't have to be lost in a spherical explosion away from the body. Detonate the bomb in a crater, created or natural, and you gain some control over the thrust produced.

What blast? You get a lot of radiation and heat for the tiniest fraction of a second and thats it. There is no blast. Just the actual payload material will be accelerated away from the explosion in all directions, and that really isn't much.
85% of the nuclear bombs energy is the blast shockwave and heat - both need air to propagate and there is none in space. Very, very little energy in form of kinetic energy will be applied to the asteroid and the effect radius of the explosion itself will be minuscule.

In contrast, all an impactor does is transfer all its energy onto the asteroid in a very controlled, accurate manner.

In the end bomb power is nothing if you cant find a good way to apply it to a target. Its like having a 1000hp V8 racecar on an icy road. You cant get the power from the engine onto the road.

 

[Exorcet]

What blast? You get a lot of radiation and heat for the tiniest fraction of a second and thats it. There is no blast. Just the actual payload material will be accelerated away from the explosion in all directions, and that really isn't much.

The payload and vaporized asteroid surface heated by the released energy will be blown away.

Energy is energy, as long as some of the mass of the asteroid absorbs the nuclear blast energy, you will get an acceleration. It's the same principle behind using lasers, as you mentioned before.

 

[Michael88]

The payload and vaporized asteroid surface heated by the released energy will be blown away.

Energy is energy, as long as some of the mass of the asteroid absorbs the nuclear blast energy, you will get an acceleration. It's the same principle behind using lasers, as you mentioned before.

Maybe I have not made it clear enough, energy is nothing if you cant transfer it. All megatons in the world won't help if you cant transfer it onto the giant floating rock.

~50% of the bombs energy is blast energy. There will be no significant blast in space without a medium like air or water.
~50% radiation. Ever wondered why there is vacuum between the two layers of glass in modern windows? Vacuum is an excellent insulator. Heat transfer through radiation will be very ineffective.

Megatons of energy will be released by the bomb, very little will be transferred onto the asteroid.


Bombs would have an effect on the asteroid for sure but the weight/effect ratio would be absolutely ridiculous, especially when compared to the effect of such explosions on earth.

 

[Dennisch]

Bombs will effect the asteroid but the weight/effect ratio would be absolutely ridiculous, especially when compared to the effect of such explosions on earth.

That is why they are being mentioned as a last resort. There's no point in shooting a nuke to an asteroid that's going to hit us in 30 years or so. But again, you're severely underestimating the power of high energy particles. If there was no point in using nukes, as you think, why is NASA, and others seeing it as a viable option?

 

[Michael88]

If there was no point in using nukes, as you think, why is NASA, and others seeing it as a viable option?

Because thats the only kind of weapon we could use against an incoming asteroid right now as we're still working on good kinetic weapons.

Even NASA says that atomic bombs would have very little effect on global killers - asteroids 6 miles ore larger.

Heck, for last resort I'd fetch my shotgun and shoot it milliseconds before it touches the earths surface. You gotta try!

 

[Dennisch]

asteroids 6 miles ore larger

We're dead!

 

[Exorcet]

~50% of the bombs energy is blast energy. There will be no significant blast in space without a medium like air or water.
~50% radiation. Ever wondered why there is vacuum between the two layers of glass in modern windows? Vacuum is an excellent insulator. Heat transfer through radiation will be very ineffective.

Vacuum insulation works against convection, not radiation. We're all agreed that the bomb is going to use radiation to transfer energy to the asteriod.

Because thats the only kind of weapon we could use against an incoming asteroid right now

But that's the point. I thought we were discussing whether a nuclear device could be used, not whether or not it was the best solution.

 

[Michael88]

Vacuum insulation works against convection, not radiation. We're all agreed that the bomb is going to use radiation to transfer energy to the asteriod.

Yes, and no. Its radiation and travels through vacuum no problem - but if the source of the radiation is surrounded by air or water a LOT more of the energy would transferred to the target. In vacuum only a little fraction of the total heat created by the explosion directly hits the asteroid, and part of that deflected as well. The majority of the radiation energy floats into space with no effect. The lack of a media surrounding the rock makes both a blast wave and transfer of heat very ineffective.

Imagine if space had an atmosphere - if that was somehow possible the sun would heat up the air all around it and temperatures would rise here on earth. Thanks to the vacuum this is not happening.

But that's the point. I thought we were discussing whether a nuclear device could be used, not whether or not it was the best solution.

Could be used, but it cannot effect large asteroids. I'm very sure that if there was an immediate threat we would use a combination of impactors, lasers, and gravity drag satellites to move it away. All the experimental stuff would be thrown at that thing. Like I, and NASA mentioned, nukes would be too weak to affect a global killer but we would use them anyway if we ran out of viable options.

 

[Grayfox]

~50% of the bombs energy is blast energy. There will be no significant blast in space without a medium like air or water.

You're thinking of a shockwave, you can have explosions in space but you will need a lot of energy to do so.

~50% radiation. Ever wondered why there is vacuum between the two layers of glass in modern windows? Vacuum is an excellent insulator. Heat transfer through radiation will be very ineffective.

Gamma rays are also released during a nuclear explosion and these devils travel through vacuums all the time.

 

[Dotini]

"WE ARE NOW AT DEFCON 3"

Alert level has been raised from 5 to 3. USAF ready to launch within 15 minutes.

http://defconwarningsystem.com/2016/10/14/defcon-warning-system-update-101316/

(not an official site)

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


Edit:
Latest mainstream propaganda: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

 

[TRGTspecialist]

WE ARE NOW AT DEFCON 3

http://defconwarningsystem.com/2016/10/14/defcon-warning-system-update-101316/

It is not affiliated with any government agency and does not represent the alert status of any military branch.

So no, you're not................

 

[Dotini]

So no, you're not................

Noted!
(Post revised)

 

[Rich S]

Ive thought a bit about Putin, he seems like he is a bit itchy under the collar for the baltic countries. These places that used to be part of the iron curtain and such. If putin went into estonia, latvia, Lithuania or even went as far as say hungary you gotta say nukes would not be needed and the US and NATO would be in drastic negotiations trying to get him (putin)out of there...

Now, places like Poland have a powerful military, sweden, etc are off limits because they will fight back and it would be ugly as heck. But i wonder how cooler heads would prevail if vladimir took back some of the old USSR states. Would a trigger happy US president resort to a tactical nuke as a warning shot, I know the french military during cold war said if USSR invaded them with tanks they'd fire a warning shot tactical nuke into an empty field first as a demo. Similar to the US original plans,for Japan in July 1945.

 

[Furinkazen]

"WE ARE NOW AT DEFCON 3"

Alert level has been raised from 5 to 3. USAF ready to launch within 15 minutes.

http://defconwarningsystem.com/2016/10/14/defcon-warning-system-update-101316/

(not an official site)

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


Edit:
Latest mainstream propaganda: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

Dotini, did you write this down in the 1980's? It's about as useful as the Cold War was. There's more chance of Kim Jong Un firing a missile in the right direction than Russia launching a few off at ya.

 

[Dotini]

Dotini, did you write this down in the 1980's? It's about as useful as the Cold War was. There's more chance of Kim Jong Un firing a missile in the right direction than Russia launching a few off at ya.

No, I'm concerned with recent news that Obama's administration is recommending attacks against the Syrian army (and any Russians embedded with them). The Russians have threatened to shoot down any US planes attacking them, and they have the missiles to get some of them. The US has reportedly stationed (nuclear capable?) missiles in Poland and Romania, so there is another potential hotspot for hostilities. Diplomatic relations between the US and Russia are distinctly frayed. Any misunderstanding or accidental wingtip to wingtip contact could result in bad news. Additional hotspots in Yemen, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and in the cyber arena raise the risk level even higher. The risk of war - nuclear war - is at a high point not seen for many decades, IMO.

 

[Furinkazen]

No, I'm concerned with recent news that Obama's administration is recommending attacks against the Syrian army (and any Russians embedded with them). The Russians have threatened to shoot down any US planes attacking them, and they have the missiles to get some of them. The US has reportedly stationed (nuclear capable?) missiles in Poland and Romania, so there is another potential hotspot for hostilities. Diplomatic relations between the US and Russia are distinctly frayed. Any misunderstanding or accidental wingtip to wingtip contact could result in bad news. Additional hotspots in Yemen, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and in the cyber arena raise the risk level even higher. The risk of war - nuclear war - is at a high point not seen for many decades, IMO.

Middle East is a cesspool, and one that the USA was partly responsible for. North Korea won't do anything major because otherwise China will squash them.

 

[Rich S]

No, I'm concerned with recent news that Obama's administration is recommending attacks against the Syrian army (and any Russians embedded with them). The Russians have threatened to shoot down any US planes attacking them, and they have the missiles to get some of them. The US has reportedly stationed (nuclear capable?) missiles in Poland and Romania, so there is another potential hotspot for hostilities. Diplomatic relations between the US and Russia are distinctly frayed. Any misunderstanding or accidental wingtip to wingtip contact could result in bad news. Additional hotspots in Yemen, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and in the cyber arena raise the risk level even higher. The risk of war - nuclear war - is at a high point not seen for many decades, IMO.

I dont think any arab countries are likely to stir non conventional warfare but if we were to think of what may lead to a 'world war' meaning nuclear it would have to be Russia trying to take territory presumably old states from past glories that Stalin swallowed up after hitler was beat aka baltic countries. Thing is if putin hurried up and rolled into these smallish countries real fast and toppled their defensez with convential warfare they'd be his without a nuke or even shot fired. Crimea was relatively "smooth" so why not estonia, latvia, Lithuania, hungary in quick succession... as soon as he got in>>>>> those conquered countries will beg NATO and US not to launch nukes as to save themselves. A bold leader in russia knows no one wants to go nuclear so why not just grab some extra real estate.that has sizeable Russians already living there.... then he can start manipulating germany and poland and sweden and finland next once hea in their backyard.

Then..... When a few years or even decades of stand offish trench like behavior has passed russia decides poland is next or finland is next and they fight back and it starts. But the temptation has gotta be there for vladimir to grow mother russia and defend russian interests otherwise he wouldn't have bothered with the Crimea fiasco.

 

[niky]

nukes would be too weak to affect a global killer but we would use them anyway if we ran out of viable options.

Nukes are still the most energy dense option we have, and if used properly, have the potential to both cause the most damage and to impart the most kinetic energy, if we were trying to deflect the asteroid.

All you need to do is get the warhead inside the asteroid. But rather than burrowing into it, you use either another explosive or a kinetic weapon to blow a hole in the asteroid. Then aim the warhead at that hole.

Either you have enough explosive to blow the asteroid apart in a way that most of the debris spreads out and misses Earth (doubtful, if it's an Earth Killer), or you can nudge it off course more effectively with a warhead detonated within that hole (as long as you don't shatter it into a million-piece lethal meteor shower).

 

[Dotini]

One of the traditional nostrums for curing economic woes is war. According to alt media reports, conditions are ripe for a new banking crisis of very serious proportions.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-15/5-urgent-warnings-big-banks-economy-has-gone-suicidal

1. HSBC Issues “Red Alert” Over Imminent Sell-Off of Stocks

2. I.M.F. Issues “Stability Warning” Over Deutsche Bank

3. Bank of America Warns That a Recession is Imminent, and Unavoidable

4. Macquarie Group’s Leading Investor Warns That the Private Sector Will Never Recover From QE3… and the Age of Human Jobs Is Over

5. The Bank of International Settlements – the Central Bank of Central Banks – Warns of Chinese Economy Meltdown

 

[Dotini]

Putin's response options to a US cyber attack.
https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/putins-response-options-to-u-s-cyber-attack-ad7dd4ab72ee#.w183xdcxx

 

[Rage Racer]

Ive thought a bit about Putin, he seems like he is a bit itchy under the collar for the baltic countries. These places that used to be part of the iron curtain and such. If putin went into estonia, latvia, Lithuania or even went as far as say hungary you gotta say nukes would not be needed and the US and NATO would be in drastic negotiations trying to get him (putin)out of there...

I dont think any arab countries are likely to stir non conventional warfare but if we were to think of what may lead to a 'world war' meaning nuclear it would have to be Russia trying to take territory presumably old states from past glories that Stalin swallowed up after hitler was beat aka baltic countries. Thing is if putin hurried up and rolled into these smallish countries real fast and toppled their defensez with convential warfare they'd be his without a nuke or even shot fired. Crimea was relatively "smooth" so why not estonia, latvia, Lithuania, hungary in quick succession... as soon as he got in>>>>> those conquered countries will beg NATO and US not to launch nukes as to save themselves. A bold leader in russia knows no one wants to go nuclear so why not just grab some extra real estate.that has sizeable Russians already living there.... then he can start manipulating germany and poland and sweden and finland next once hea in their backyard.

Then..... When a few years or even decades of stand offish trench like behavior has passed russia decides poland is next or finland is next and they fight back and it starts. But the temptation has gotta be there for vladimir to grow mother russia and defend russian interests otherwise he wouldn't have bothered with the Crimea fiasco.

Ooohh... just... Why?

I think you stereotype Russia too much. If you think Russians are lacking land to live, you're 17 million km^2 wrong.
Why would RF aim for Baltic states or even Hungary(!)?

If you take Crimea for an example: Crimea is populated by people vast majority of which (over 80%) identify themselves as "Russians". Hungary is populated by Hungarians (or Magyars), Poland is populated by Poles, and Finns live in Finland. (What do you think Russians would do with them once they're annexed? Deport them to Siberia?)

Granted, there are some Russians living in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. But it's not like they're majority in those countries, it's not like they would like to join Russia, it's not like something (like a civil war) threatens them, it's not like Russia claimed this territories as its "historic land".

And, a little correction:

Russia trying to take territory presumably old states from past glories that Stalin swallowed up after hitler was beat aka baltic countries.

well, technically they were regained after the Nazis left them, but actually they were "swallowed" by Soviets a bit earlier.

 

[Rich S]

Ooohh... just... Why?

I think you stereotype Russia too much. If you think Russians are lacking land to live, you're 17 million km^2 wrong.
Why would RF aim for Baltic states or even Hungary(!)?

If you take Crimea for an example: Crimea is populated by people vast majority of which (over 80%) identify themselves as "Russians". Hungary is populated by Hungarians (or Magyars), Poland is populated by Poles, and Finns live in Finland. (What do you think Russians would do with them once they're annexed? Deport them to Siberia?)

Granted, there are some Russians living in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. But it's not like they're majority in those countries, it's not like they would like to join Russia, it's not like something (like a civil war) threatens them, it's not like Russia claimed this territories as its "historic land".

And, a little correction:

well, technically they were regained after the Nazis left them, but actually they were "swallowed" by Soviets a bit earlier.

Haha everybody know that scenerio wont happen, its just fun to toy with the idea. Anyways, I said its 'possible' Russia could invade those without provoking a nuclear war. After all, its the type of scenerio thats trained for. Actually its anticipated by the US government europe in general would be invaded. I said chunks would likely be bitten off first before then.

Ooohh... just... Why?

I think you stereotype Russia too much. If you think Russians are lacking land to live, you're 17 million km^2 wrong.
Why would RF aim for Baltic states or even Hungary(!)?

If you take Crimea for an example: Crimea is populated by people vast majority of which (over 80%) identify themselves as "Russians". Hungary is populated by Hungarians (or Magyars), Poland is populated by Poles, and Finns live in Finland. (What do you think Russians would do with them once they're annexed? Deport them to Siberia?)

Granted, there are some Russians living in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. But it's not like they're majority in those countries, it's not like they would like to join Russia, it's not like something (like a civil war) threatens them, it's not like Russia claimed this territories as its "historic land".

And, a little correction:

well, technically they were regained after the Nazis left them, but actually they were "swallowed" by Soviets a bit earlier.

Haha obviously Russia will not invade its just fun to toy around with the idea after all. much of siberia is very chilly after all. Germany is comparatively warm as was proven in the 2nd world war. Again, not to judge but the Russians in the dominican republic during winter love to judge americans.

I think the chances of a nuclear exchange with NATO is probably 10%. Its not zero but it wont happen. Eventually somebody will use nuclear weapons in anger again. Thousands of years cannot go by without it happening. It probably wont be Russia.