It was also felt best not to disturb the moon's environment.
Well there is that!
Na fuck it, lets blow the bitch up yee-haa!
This one's for you Paris, baby!
America once hatched a plan to nuke the moon, according to a report from CNN. The broadcaster interviewed one Leonard Reiffel, a former US Air Force physicist CNN says led the project to plan a lunar nuclear launch. Cold war paranoia drove the project, Reiffel says, with the plan calling for a conventional missile to be …
Well there is that!
Na fuck it, lets blow the bitch up yee-haa!
This one's for you Paris, baby!
Just shows us the mentality of our friends from across the pond.
No wonder so much shit emanates to the rest of the world from there.
I've thought it before but I'll say it now - thank fuck we had the commies to protect us all from that lunatic redneck Uncle Sam.
What exactly is wrong with nuking the moon? It makes more sense than setting it off on Earth, which is what we actually did.
Although, would a nuke work as well with no atmosphere... you need matter to create a shock wave.
Without an atmosphere there is no effective blast wave nor thermal radiation. However, the effects of nuclear radiation are much stronger in a vacuum than a similar detonation at sea level.
Probably shouldn't express that sentiment anywhere east of germany, mr noodles...
Wow, so far 7 people think setting a nuke off on the moon is worse than doing it on Earth.
Yeah, what use is the big bang if you dont get a mushroom cloud?
Icon shows how it must look like or it did not happen.
I'm not so sure.
I think 4 of them think that it's your "what's wrong with nuking the moon" that's worth a downvote, and the other 3 think that whilst there would be a lot of collatoral damage, nuking the earth would take you out and therefore be just about preferable.
"Without an atmosphere there is no effective blast wave nor thermal radiation"
No thermal radiation ? - better tell the sun
How the commies "saved us" from Uncle Sam....
- seized power without electoral mandate
- sadistically tortured political opponents to death
- forced their own citizens into slave labour camps in their millions but not admitting to it
- confiscated grain supplies from the peasantry and took away all their farm machinery so they starved to death in their millions (in the name of Collectivisation)
- forced their soldiers to advance or take a bullet in the back of the head (the Nazis never treated their troops this way), then encouraging mass rape of the women in occupied lands
- building walls and border fences to prevent people escaping rather than invading
- imprisoned the head of their rocket programme for political reasons (countless other less fortunate high profile persons were executed)
- building more nukes and subs than NATO
- building ever more powerful nukes while the US made their Minutemans smaller with improved targeting
- installing puppet governments in surrounding nations
- covertly supported communist takeovers in developing nations across the globe, again involving numerous executions and disappearances of political opponents
- infiltrating the West and using subversion to brainwash a generation of academics, students and the future educators and political class into self-hating, unpatriotic commie-loving traitors.
But you're right, nuking the moon would just have been a step too far!!!!
@YARR: Remove the star-spangled blinkers. The US is equally guilty of a good lot of those sins and plenty others besides.
AC, I don't know if you're an idiot or just poorly educated. I'll assume the latter.
"No thermal radiation ? - better tell the sun"
Yes, well done. If you'd read the linked article you might understand what was actually meant by thermal radiation in this context. Of course electromagnetic radiation is emitted by any nuclear explosion, but at much shorter wavelengths than the infrared radiation we perceive as heat from the sun. When a nuclear detonation occurs within an atmosphere more of that high frequency radiation is absorbed by the air around the blast, which subsequently heats it. In a vacuum this doesn't happen, so you have less heat directly generated from such an explosion.
Thinking that the Russians wouldn't immediately begin their own program of Moon Missile Bases. Followed by skirmishes during construction of the two enemy instillations. The Yanks and Russians fighting astride giant moonworms and dewbacks. And finally the grim realization in Washington that their missiles needed wings and pilots to guide them, lest they accidentally hit London or Paris, while the Russians even then were practicing to drop space capsules on a ten kopeck piece.
I would have thought a massive rocket moving in a not-so-dissimilar-to-an-ICBM trajectory would cause somewhat unwanted disturbance to the political environment here on earth too...
.....what did the Clangers ever do to piss the Americans off?
Clangers? I think they're still hunting Nazis.
Highly unlikely I think most of 'em have been in the employ of the good old US since 1945 or shortly after.
To quote Mr Lehrer....
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown
"Ha, Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun
I can imagine some dumb general chomping on his cigar, enthusing: "We'll light up the dark side - then those damn commies will be able to see who's the boss."
We have to wait until we have a moonbase up there, and then we nuke the Moon!!!
Obviously they should have continued with the development programme so we would have had Eagles by now.
That anyone would think this was a good idea
But blowing up islands and deserts and populated Japanese cities is?
Right, it's a much better idea to nuke the shit out of Bikini Atoll. What's that? Castle Bravo yielded 15 megatons? You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
How about we agree to not blow anything up m'kay?
I think we agree that blowing up islands and deserts and populated Japanese cities is NOT generally considered to be a good idea; it's a bit of an oxymoron to conclude from this that blowing up bits of the moon therefore IS a good idea.
"How about we agree to not blow anything up m'kay?"
For some nutters there's a disturbed sort of creativity in destruction!
But if you're GOING to test the tech can't we agree the moon is a better target than part of our own planet?
>That anyone would think this was a good idea
Hmmmm... let me think....
I've got this enormous and unimaginably toxic nuclear device and I want to see if I can make it explode. Should I:
a) Drill a very deep hole into the bedrock of some uninhabited backwater of my own country, carefully lower my lethal contraption down the hole, plug the hole, then see if I can make it go bang.
b) Pile said pile upon an even more enormous conventional bomb with a small hole at the bottom, light the fuse and run away.
Can you grasp that neither is a good idea? Or are you too worried about bodily fluids?
Depends on exactly what you are trying to test. The moon would yield lousy data on shockwave and other data. And it's remoteness actually makes gathering data rather more difficult.
On the other hand, if you have the tech to hit a specific spot on the moon and guarantee detonation, and you time it to go off when the moon is up over Moscow and making a very bright light that everyone can see, there is a certain fear and awe affect. This affect is particularly persuasive with the sort of atheist megalomaniacs who chatter endlessly about what kind of baby killing neanderthals Americans are when they are the real killer on the planet and fear nothing more than their own deaths.
Still I do prefer Reagan's solution on crushing them economically.
I think the word, or rather expression, you're looking for is "non-sequitur" (Latin for "it doesn't follow")
It would be an interesting way to see the effects of a blast "first hand" with little danger. Lord knows that every little kid likes to blow things up anyway. And as for "disturbing the moon's environment", all I can say is that there isn't much of one there, just dust. Science might even discover something a bit below the surface, water for instance?
With little danger?
Does anyone know what destroying the moon will do?
Isn't it responsible for the sea's tides? I think the earth would go through some serious changes if the moon was destroyed.
Besides, if we accidentally killed all the aliens living inside the moon the mothership is gonna be mighty peed off...
Erm... nuking the moon is not the same as blowing up the moon. As other posts point out, the Earth has been nuked several times, to relatively* little effect.
Not saying I approve of nuking anything, terrestrial or otherwise, mind you.
*cf volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc...
@Peyton. To be fair to the Soviets, Tsar Bomba had a yield of about double that of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami and about a quarter of the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa. And that's only because they reduced the bomb's yield by 50% to stop it blasting the drop aircraft out of the sky!
"I can imagine some dumb general chomping on his cigar, enthusing: "We'll light up the dark side - then those damn commies will be able to see who's the boss."
Perfectly reasonable statement, you do realise that once a month the dark side of the moon is facing the earth? (for any particular spot on the earth I mean). I am sure you are confusing the Far Side of the moon with the incorrectly named "Dark Side of the Moon" musical album by...um..musicians, not astronomers. Fair enough for them to make a mistake, being filthy rich musicians they probably know naff all about anything else, although I won't swear on that since I have never met any of them, but a reader on a tech site? Come now!
Made me giggle considering Brian May has a PhD in astrophysics.
You mean the one containing the words "There is no dark side of the moon"
"as a matter of fact, it's all dark"
Mine's the one with the light splitting prism in the pocket, thanks
Hum.....I suppose that is "correct" depending on what you call "the dark side of the moon". Just to be slightly pedantic, the moon is tidally locked the the Earth, so, the same face points at us all the time (ignoring the fact that precession and such does add about 1.6% to the total visible amount). It is the Moon, going from the same side of the Earth as the Sun, to the opposite side to the Sun that causes the changes in the illuminated amount of the Moon's surface.
So...the only way to create a flash visible to the USSR would have been to time it so the missile hit as the new Moon was setting, and, making sure that a general broadcast through VOA alerted the population to the event. Frankly, though, it would not be worth the cost and effort, as the biggest bombs available would have had less energy than quite a few of the meteors that continually pound the Lunar surface. Much more effective to blow up an island, film the event, and broadcast it all over the places
the dark side of the moon is always there, whether it is visible or not.... Y'know when you see the moon, and it is crescent shaped??? the part that is not lighted/ visible, is .... guess what???? lol
Y'know when you see the moon, and it is crescent shaped??? the part that is not lighted/ visible, is .... guess what????
When the moon is less than full, the earth-facing part that is not lit is visible, even to the naked eye once sufficiently dark-adapted.
I've always found him to be a bit schizophrenic in his reasoning.
Especially his argument about atheists being unable to prove god exists due to the lack of evidence has somehow always rubbed me the wrong way. But maybe he was just trying to be funny.
Well, I screwed that one up didn't I ? It should've read 'unable to prove god DOESN'T exist'. I still don't like the argument though. Demanding proof of negatives is very unscientific.
Demanding proof of negatives is actually very scientific, follow this thought experiment if you will.
I can prove the oxygen is toxic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity) and if you believe that you don’t have to prove negatives (in this case oxygen isn’t toxic) ,then you must agree that you would be better off living in an environment free of oxygen, as its toxic.
This is one of the things that annoys me about Richard Dawkins and his religion of god doesn’t exist, yes I called it a religion. If you believe god(s) exist good for you, if you believe gods(s) don’t exist good for you too. However, from a purely scientific point of view neither hypothesis, the existence or non-existence of god(s), can be proved so both are matters of personal choice, faith, or religion if you like.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017