4 ms·
>Surely someone would be interested in buying the remains of it for the technology. ...unless it, say, exploded. Personally, I wouldn't want to pick up an une
by metageek 16y ago
>Surely someone would be interested in buying the remains of it for the technology.
...unless it, say, exploded.
Personally, I wouldn't want to pick up an unexploded missile anyway; there'd be no way to know whether it didn't explode because it doesn't have a warhead, or just hasn't exploded yet.
- tibbon 16y agoI'd really hope that (if it was the US Military) that they wouldn't shoot live weaponry like that on US territory. Sounds like a great lawsuit- although not one that I'd want the damages (death, harm) originally from.
- nickpinkston 16y agoActually, that happens all the time. There are many live fire ranges for planes, artillery, etc. scattered across the US. No reason the Navy wouldn't light a few off from a sub.
- Pyrodogg 16y agoThere isn't a reason that the military can't test weaponry, they just usually do it in quarantined areas or with notice to the public.
- nickpinkston 16y agoHaha - tell that to my uncle who got buzzed by an F16 in his Cessna outside the live fire zone ;-)
- roedog 16y agoThis is why they usually fire the self-destruct ordnance on spent stages so it's not floating in the ocean. I imagine likewise for anything they want kept secret. Self-destruct or flight termination systems are required by the missile ranges.