General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA real nuclear deterrent: US, Russia may team up to use weapons against asteroids
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/16/20979593-a-real-nuclear-deterrent-us-russia-may-team-up-to-use-weapons-against-asteroids?liteThe Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd takes a "deep dive" look into the meteor that hit Russia and why NASA did not have earlier notice of it's coming. Rep. Rush Holt explains NASA's tracking system and discusses budget cuts to NASA and the department's future.
You fragment it with enough force so that the pieces spread out, and most miss the Earth, he said. Small bits of rock would burn up in the atmosphere.
This is the ONLY reason I think we should keep a few nuclear warheads around, and even then they'd have to be under international controls. Other than that, we should get rid of all of them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967) bans nuclear weapons from space.
I'm not saying its a bad idea, just that it would require some changes to the existing treaty.
longship
(40,416 posts)Not only is it an insane thing to do, even if there were a big enough bomb (there isn't except for very small asteroids), the result would be like a shotgun blast, a radioactive one. The amount of energy of the impact would be effectively the same.
The stand off blast is something to consider, but there are better ways that do not abrogate the "no nuclear bombs in space" treaties.
And make no mistake. These would be big nukes.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)A nuke detonated to the side of an asteroid could create thrust in a new trajectory by causing some of the asteroid to burn off, essentially creating a rocket nozzle effect.
But yeah, it would likely be a hail-Mary attempt anyway, because any asteroid big enough to make you consider using nukes on would likely be on the scale of the K/T impactor. IE, we'd go extinct if it hit intact, so we might as well throw everything we got at it and pray something works.
And you're right; these would be BIG nukes. But on the plus side, it's space and we'd be nuking a dead chunk of rock.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)painting one side of the asteroid is actually a sound theory.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Small bits compared to what. ALL the bits would have to be smaller than a VW or Smart Car. What are the odds?
The rock that made Meteor Crater was about the size of of my house-1000 sq. ft.
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, Nick.
tjwash
(8,219 posts)That's a he-mans freaking answer to everything - "BLOW IT UP!!!"
Even though just about every legitimate scientist, for the last 3 decades at least, has already dismissed plans such as this as even worse than letting the asteroid hit. There are tons of better ways to deflect asteroids, when you have a 10 year or more notice, than shooting giant projectile penises at it.
Sounds like something that these guys would have come up with:
YEAH! Lets just launch a shitload of nukes up simultaneously, what EVER could go wrong?
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)http://www.space.com/23246-russian-meteor-asteroid-threat-assessment.html
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)A better approach would be developing methods to divert the entire asteroid so that it's orbit swings away from the earth. If an asteroid is broken up, the breakup needs to be efficient enough to create small pieces that burn up in the earth's atmosphere and don't cause damage when they hit earth. If the pieces are broken up enough, they could wipe out life as we know it.