4 ms·

Having nuclear missiles ready at all times, all over the world (near populated areas) is a risk on its own... In a politically stable world without conflicts, s

Having nuclear missiles ready at all times, all over the world (near populated areas) is a risk on its own... In a politically stable world without conflicts, sure, but we haven't had that kind of world for centuries...

kadoban 5y ago
That's true, but we already have that. There's nukes all over the place. Not in all countries, but many.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  > Not in all countries, but many. In 9 out of 195 countries.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    True (I think? Right ballpark anyway). But, how much of the population does that cover? Between China and India to start with, should be quite a lot. And then you have alliances, the US has nukes in Europe and submarines a bunch of places. And that's just all the publicly known ones.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dr_zoidberg 5y ago
      You're not wrong. Possibly the biggest issue would be how can you quickly launch one of these without triggering WW3. Another issue I'm thinking is that I don't know the state of the art of meteor/bolide trajectory estimation (it's apparently very poor), so you'd probably need to fire a bunch of these (or a very large one) along an (uncertain) path hoping for it to affect the impactor. So this is just more of the same problem: how do you fire a barrage of nuclear missiles over a region to stop an impactor in such a way that you're not mistaken for a madman starting nuclear war?
      - kadoban 5y ago
        Yeah that's a real problem, or several. Not even sure which would be the hardest to solve... Am I wrong to wonder if a nuke would even do it either? I mean it's a ~solid rock that's capaple of surviving a pretty good beating from the atmosphere. What's a nuke going to do exactly? Are we hoping for redirection, or destruction or?
        cuspycode 5y ago
        As I understand it, redirection is our best hope. Destruction via nukes would only work for comparatively small rocks. There is a fairly comprehensive write-up of the various options on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        This discussion is all wrong - nuking an approaching asteroid is like shooting an approaching freight train - it's too late to stop. The asteroid needs to be pushed with a nuke, or another method, while it's still in deep space, months or years before it would strike. It would be many times beyong the orbit of the moon, millions of kilometers. ICBMs are for ground targets, their "reach" is a thousand kilometers or so, they have no navigation or tsrgeting for space. Instead a spacecraft like Rosetta would to be equipped with a nuke and launched on a normal space rocket like Falcon 9 or Ariane or Soyuz. We only need to produce a couple of them in case of launch failure, we don't need thousands of them like we have ICBMs. The launch would not look anything like an ICBM launch, it does not come back to earth.
        raducu 5y ago
        It depends on the asteroid size. Afik, there's a very abrupt limit on the size of an asteroid where if it's larger it will "touch" the ground and if it's smaller, it airbursts. So if we could split the asteroid in 10, maybe we go from "completely destroy everything within a 100 miles radius" to 10 Chelyabinsk events.
rscoots 5y ago
Why would they have to be stored near populated areas for this purpose? Even if you were gonna hit the meteor during significant downward trajectory (which seems unlikely), that would still have to be done at quite a distance from the impact location. Also wondering when there was ever a "politically stable world without conflicts"
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kadoban 5y ago

That's true, but we already have that. There's nukes all over the place. Not in all countries, but many.

yesenadam 5y ago
> Not in all countries, but many. In 9 out of 195 countries.
- kadoban 5y ago
  True (I think? Right ballpark anyway). But, how much of the population does that cover? Between China and India to start with, should be quite a lot. And then you have alliances, the US has nukes in Europe and submarines a bunch of places. And that's just all the publicly known ones.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dr_zoidberg 5y ago
    You're not wrong. Possibly the biggest issue would be how can you quickly launch one of these without triggering WW3. Another issue I'm thinking is that I don't know the state of the art of meteor/bolide trajectory estimation (it's apparently very poor), so you'd probably need to fire a bunch of these (or a very large one) along an (uncertain) path hoping for it to affect the impactor. So this is just more of the same problem: how do you fire a barrage of nuclear missiles over a region to stop an impactor in such a way that you're not mistaken for a madman starting nuclear war?
    - kadoban 5y ago
      Yeah that's a real problem, or several. Not even sure which would be the hardest to solve... Am I wrong to wonder if a nuke would even do it either? I mean it's a ~solid rock that's capaple of surviving a pretty good beating from the atmosphere. What's a nuke going to do exactly? Are we hoping for redirection, or destruction or?
      - cuspycode 5y ago
        As I understand it, redirection is our best hope. Destruction via nukes would only work for comparatively small rocks. There is a fairly comprehensive write-up of the various options on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      This discussion is all wrong - nuking an approaching asteroid is like shooting an approaching freight train - it's too late to stop. The asteroid needs to be pushed with a nuke, or another method, while it's still in deep space, months or years before it would strike. It would be many times beyong the orbit of the moon, millions of kilometers. ICBMs are for ground targets, their "reach" is a thousand kilometers or so, they have no navigation or tsrgeting for space. Instead a spacecraft like Rosetta would to be equipped with a nuke and launched on a normal space rocket like Falcon 9 or Ariane or Soyuz. We only need to produce a couple of them in case of launch failure, we don't need thousands of them like we have ICBMs. The launch would not look anything like an ICBM launch, it does not come back to earth.
      - raducu 5y ago
        It depends on the asteroid size. Afik, there's a very abrupt limit on the size of an asteroid where if it's larger it will "touch" the ground and if it's smaller, it airbursts. So if we could split the asteroid in 10, maybe we go from "completely destroy everything within a 100 miles radius" to 10 Chelyabinsk events.

rscoots 5y ago

Why would they have to be stored near populated areas for this purpose? Even if you were gonna hit the meteor during significant downward trajectory (which seems unlikely), that would still have to be done at quite a distance from the impact location. Also wondering when there was ever a "politically stable world without conflicts"

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]