5 ms·
Isn’t the real issue the Russian’s nuclear propelled version though? If we shoot it down it still leaves a huge fallout problem right?
by alex_young 6y ago
Isn’t the real issue the Russian’s nuclear propelled version though? If we shoot it down it still leaves a huge fallout problem right?
- okl 6y agoIsn't that true for any nuclear warhead that you shoot to bits?
- yodelshady 6y agoNope. Fissile material is relatively calm unless it's actually fissioned, which usually requires more than just shooting it. And the radiation it does emit won't penetrate skin. Basically, don't eat, snort or attempt relations with it and you're probably fine.
- drtillberg 6y agoEh, not sure how the word "Russian" ended up in that comment. It was an American design before it was a Russian one.[1] Plus, there was an added feature in some American plans I've read about (but can't immediately locate) of long-term loitering over adversarial territory and discharge of radioactive material. What would it matter if it were hypersonic? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
- detritus 6y agoPresumably the choice of noting Russia here is because they are presently and actively suggesting they're going to field one of these soon, and are apparently developing the concept - whereas Project Pluto was the sort of standard fantastical deployment of nuclear technology popular in the 60s, subsequently discounted as being A Bad Idea. ed- typos
- jjoonathan 6y agoYeah, I thought the Russians did field a long-term-high-speed-loiter nuclear submarine drone in the last few years. My military-tech-enthusiast friends were all very worried and I'd be lying if I said none of it rubbed off.
- detritus 6y agoThat nuclear submarine drone's a different project, but also as-equally threatened to exist by the Russian government. "They're pulling Crazy Ivans all over the place!".