20 ms·

Why not? The Genie anti-air nuclear rocket [1] was designed to take out soviet bombers, in a time when guided missiles were too immature to provide the require

Why not? The Genie anti-air nuclear rocket [1] was designed to take out soviet bombers, in a time when guided missiles were too immature to provide the required precision. A more modern guided nuclear anti-air missile (with features such as PAL security and tritium boosted fission for a higher / dialable yield) would probably work quite nicely for reducing swarm density. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie

ceejayoz 6y ago
There's a reason we've pulled back from the Cold War craziness of nuclear bazookas and chicken powered nuclear landmines. The casual tactical use of nuclear weapons is seen as geopolitically extremely dangerous.
- waste_monk 6y ago
  If drone swarms might be a threat in the near future then it only makes sense that the capability to fight them needs to be developed now so you aren't scrambling to R&D a response during wartime. The way I see it, we're probably headed towards a cold (at minimum) war between sino-russia et. al. and the western allies, so (in the absence of something more effective) tactical nuclear weapons to counter aircraft swarms will become more tolerable as tensions continue to rise - far better to use one to take out a drone swarm and cause drama than risk losing an air wing (or something else that interferes with force projection). Hopefully I'm wrong though.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    There is no circumstance where tactical nukes will be acceptable in a global conflict between nuclear powers. One nuke goes off and everyone will assume it's no-holds-barred. The potential to escalate to a full-on MAD scenario is just too high. If you can develop a drone swarm that can totally own an airspace then chances are you can develop drones that can beat them.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Since drone swarms are a hypothetical, why do you have such a problem with the hypothetical use of tactical nukes as a response?

ceejayoz 6y ago

There's a reason we've pulled back from the Cold War craziness of nuclear bazookas and chicken powered nuclear landmines. The casual tactical use of nuclear weapons is seen as geopolitically extremely dangerous.

waste_monk 6y ago
If drone swarms might be a threat in the near future then it only makes sense that the capability to fight them needs to be developed now so you aren't scrambling to R&D a response during wartime. The way I see it, we're probably headed towards a cold (at minimum) war between sino-russia et. al. and the western allies, so (in the absence of something more effective) tactical nuclear weapons to counter aircraft swarms will become more tolerable as tensions continue to rise - far better to use one to take out a drone swarm and cause drama than risk losing an air wing (or something else that interferes with force projection). Hopefully I'm wrong though.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  There is no circumstance where tactical nukes will be acceptable in a global conflict between nuclear powers. One nuke goes off and everyone will assume it's no-holds-barred. The potential to escalate to a full-on MAD scenario is just too high. If you can develop a drone swarm that can totally own an airspace then chances are you can develop drones that can beat them.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Since drone swarms are a hypothetical, why do you have such a problem with the hypothetical use of tactical nukes as a response?