Ok guys i want to know how will we use nukes in 21th century. What defenses will we use? what the scenaries?

if everyone keeps themselve in check and has the brain to do so, there won't be any use of nukes in the 21th century.

I doubt they will ever get used in the way you are imagining.

Smaller more controlled nukes however, may see use if they can eliminate the "dirty" part of the bomb (Is this possible of have i dreamt that?)

I doubt they will ever get used in the way you are imagining.

Smaller more controlled nukes however, may see use if they can eliminate the "dirty" part of the bomb (Is this possible of have i dreamt that?)

you dreamt it.

n/m then. I say no, it is highly unlikly that "nukes" will ever get used with exception of a terrorist attack.

Mabye, there would be mini-Death Stars. Or the "Eathquake Bomb" might make a comeback. That'd be cool.

I very much hope that nukes will never again be used. Although its possible that we could get some tactical usage if there is a large scale war breaking out. But either way, using nukes in the MAD world ( I made teh funny) will lead to nothing good.

Mabye, there would be mini-Death Stars. Or the "Eathquake Bomb" might make a comeback. That'd be cool.

death star uses the graviton beam to destroy things. It's quite different from a nuke

however i think we will go ahead developing more powerful nukes like anti-matter nukes. Small, light and powerful. The best.
After i think we will create a big treaty to ban the making nukes and stock them in some hidden places under a military controll

After we will return to conventional wars between nations

We will not see wars between conventional states. Wars are now fought on ecomonics

Wars will no longer be fought by conventional states, with the exception of maybe the Middle East and Africa.

This is now a global war, of sovereign nations against organizations.

They may not necessarily be terrorists, maybe the nations will be the aggressors while the organizations are the ones terrorized.

We are unable to make new nuclear weapons, but I recall reading an article about the government remaking/remodeling/revamping most if not all of Americas nuclear arsenol. I'm sure that part of the goal was to make these weapons more effective/modern, but realy the government is only seeking to make nukes safer, less likely to be obtained, and used by terrorists.

I think it is safe to say that no nation will ever launch a nuke unto another. We will always have nuclear weapons, and everyone from now until the end is going to live with that choice. Our situation is kinda of like "The Garden of Eden". now that we have had the forbinden fruit we will never be able to return to the old way.

I can only see nukes being used in a few ways:

-Global political/economic meltdown resulting in nuclear exchanges by major powers. Not likely, but the chances will increase depending on how things go with global warming and/or diminishing oil supplies.

-Retaliation for a nuclear terrorist attack. IMO, we will see a "nuclear" terrorist attack (probably a dirty bomb, possibly a true nuke) in the next 10-20 years. If the target nation has the ability, they'll almost certainly respond with a nuclear attack of their own.

-Small nukes used for specific applications, eg destroying bunkers. Highly unlikely though, simply because of the stigma attached to using nukes (even if the explosion were entirely contained underground) and the resulting can of worms it opens.

I can only see nukes being used in a few ways:

-Global political/economic meltdown resulting in nuclear exchanges by major powers. Not likely, but the chances will increase depending on how things go with global warming and/or diminishing oil supplies.

-Retaliation for a nuclear terrorist attack. IMO, we will see a "nuclear" terrorist attack (probably a dirty bomb, possibly a true nuke) in the next 10-20 years. If the target nation has the ability, they'll almost certainly respond with a nuclear attack of their own.


My friend, that's quite a pessimistic view.
You should watch 24. The US didn't nuke back when it was nuked thanks to Jack Bauer. :lol: I love that show.

But, anyways, I agree with rmxtrax. Anti-matter bombs are the future of mass destruction warfare. A small amount could potentially wipe out a city.

-Retaliation for a nuclear terrorist attack. IMO, we will see a "nuclear" terrorist attack (probably a dirty bomb, possibly a true nuke) in the next 10-20 years. If the target nation has the ability, they'll almost certainly respond with a nuclear attack of their own.


I cant see the US or Russia to allow the other or any nation to respond with nukes.

But, anyways, I agree with rmxtrax. Anti-matter bombs are the future of mass destruction warfare. A small amount could potentially wipe out a city.

Aahhhhhh.... anti-matter...:drool:

Now that's something. One gram delivers an explosion comparable to a nuke. Only need to store it safely, and a bomb the size of a tin can kill millions. And manufacturing it in large quantities is an issue too. Only some mg have been made thus far, and many, many years will be spent before we can make "a lot" of it.

-Small nukes used for specific applications, eg destroying bunkers. Highly unlikely though, simply because of the stigma attached to using nukes (even if the explosion were entirely contained underground) and the resulting can of worms it opens.

Personally i think we can't use nukes not for the explosion but for the terrible secondary effects like radio-active fall-out. We have to create a not radio-active nuke

But, anyways, I agree with rmxtrax. Anti-matter bombs are the future of mass destruction warfare. A small amount could potentially wipe out a city.

Aahhhhhh.... anti-matter...:drool:

Now that's something. One gram delivers an explosion comparable to a nuke. Only need to store it safely, and a bomb the size of a tin can kill millions. And manufacturing it in large quantities is an issue too. Only some mg have been made thus far, and many, many years will be spent before we can make "a lot" of it.

Really a anti-matter bomb can easily destroy the entire world. According to Einstein we can traform matter in energy by e=mc^2 so a bomb with a kilo of antimatter can reach the power of 470 megatons :woohoo:

Personally i think we can't use nukes not for the explosion but for the terrible secondary effects like radio-active fall-out. We have to create a not radio-active nuke

They tried that. Guess what they invented

The neutron bomb:rolleyes:

Really a anti-matter bomb can easily destroy the entire world. According to Einstein we can traform matter in energy by e=mc^2 so a bomb with a kilo of antimatter can reach the power of 470 megatons :woohoo:

But we'd need a hideous amount of it. 1000 grams would be only some 10 huge nukes. We'd need tons of it, because Next War is not correct with the "Earth's crust cracking..." unless the nukes will be tuned up a lot.

But if I had to destroy the world, I'd use killer strangelets.

and why would anyone need or even consider using such an bomb?
I certainly wouldn't funnel research in making ZOMG BIG BOMBZ, cause it's just plainly retarded. Is this how the Sci/tech subforum has to look like?
I'm very dissapointed in this thread.

They tried that. Guess what they invented

The neutron bomb:rolleyes:



Neutron bomb doesn't produce radiations? :lol:

Ok you need a little bit of elementary of Physics
neutrons are considered as radiations so if a bomb produces neutrons it produces radiations

ok? :D

and why would anyone need or even consider using such an bomb?
I certainly wouldn't funnel research in making ZOMG BIG BOMBZ, cause it's just plainly retarded. Is this how the Sci/tech subforum has to look like?
I'm very dissapointed in this thread.

We are only speaking about technology what's the problem? Don't you like nukes ok change simply thread and not offend people here

Neutron bomb doesn't produce radiations? :lol:

We are only speaking about technology what's the problem? Don't you like nukes ok change simply thread and not offend people here

Do you even got a clue about how anti-matter works?
Actually, i'll rephrase: do you have any clue?
And what is this obsession from kiddo's for big bombs?
Life isn't a videogame you know.

Neutron bomb doesn't produce radiations? :lol:

Ok you need a little bit of elementary of Physics
neutrons are considered as radiations so if a bomb produces neutrons it produces radiations

ok? :D

Irony. They tried to make a nuke with the least radioactive fallout possible and ended up with causing as much radiation as possible.

Do you even got a clue about how anti-matter works?
Actually, i'll rephrase: do you have any clue?
And what is this obsession from kiddo's for big bombs?
Life isn't a videogame you know.

Anti-matter is the opposite of matter, composed of similar* but opposite particles as matter which when making contact, destroy each other and release mc^2 energy.
*They are considered exactly similar to each other but some studies and theories have hinted of possible differences as matter is the dominant as we know.

Anti-matter is the opposite of matter, composed of similar* but opposite particles as matter which when making contact, destroy each other and release mc^2 energy.
*They are considered exactly similar to each other but some studies and theories have hinted of possible differences as matter is the dominant as we know.

Yes, brownie points to you but what are you going to use as element for to trigger the antimatter bomb? H²? O²? H²O? what element are you going to use for an "bunker buster"? Do we even want to "play" with anti-matter? Do you guys realise the ENORMOUS cost and energy required to make such little antimatter.

And why make antimatter bombs anyway (which I doubt actually the mechanic of making an anti-matter bomb will ever work). Don't we got enough deterrents with the good ol' minuteman?

Yes, brownie points to you but what are you going to use as element for to trigger the antimatter bomb? O²? H²O? what element are you going to use for an "bunker buster"? Do we even want to "play" with anti-matter? Do you guys realise the ENORMOUS cost and energy required to make such little antimatter.

And why make antimatter bombs anyway (which I doubt actually the mechanic of making an anti-matter bomb will ever work). Don't we got enough deterrents with the good ol' minuteman?

Anti-matter can be triggered by any element because it is composed of anti-protons, anti-neutrons and positrons which react with protons, neutrons and electrons respectively. Anti-hydrogen is the simplest anti-matter, and when it is triggered with heavier elements, such as uranium, there is also a resulting neutron release as H1 has no neutrons so no anti-neutrons to react with. Thus it's not necessary to keep any specific trigger for anti-matter explosives, as the magnetic holding mechanisms will work fine.

CERN high-speed collider produces minuscule amounts of anti-matter. Jules Verne wrote in 'Paris in the 1960s' about a scientist who invented "nihilium, which costs billion dollars per kilogram [to produce]" That is remarkably like anti-matter in rarity and cost.

The main advantage of anti-matter is its unmatched destructive potential compared to its weight.

And what is this obsession from kiddo's for big bombs?
Life isn't a videogame you know.

Is it kiddo's obsession speaking about technology?
naturally we don't want to build a nuke we want only try to understand how it works or will works

that's all

And why make antimatter bombs anyway (which I doubt actually the mechanic of making an anti-matter bomb will ever work). Don't we got enough deterrents with the good ol' minuteman?

You have to ask Einstein and Enrico Fermi

You have to ask Einstein and Enrico Fermi

I'm very sure they would horribly dissaprove such further bombs just as Einstein was a pacifist, especially after hiroshima and nagasaki.
Are you aware he was very fervent anti-nuke person after WWII?

Anti-matter bombs could save humanity from killer asteroids. Light but powerful. Exactly something you want to mount upon a rocket to blast them off-course.

I cant see the US or Russia to allow the other or any nation to respond with nukes.
IMO whichever nation is first to fall victim to such an attack is going to be so infuriated that they won't give a damn what we or anyone else tell them.

I'm very sure they would horribly dissaprove such further bombs just as Einstein was a pacifist, especially after hiroshima and nagasaki.
Are you aware he was very fervent anti-nuke person after WWII?

Anti-matter will be the technology of future. If we wanna travel in the space we need anti-matter technology. Naturally it's logical that this sort of technology will be used also like a form of weapon. It's about this we are speaking "how will be built a future anti-matter weapons". That's all :)

I mentioned Einstein and Enrico Fermi who were favourable initially for the building of nuke in order to let you understand the nuke is a inevitable thing. It's better a nuke in our hands or a nuke in Bin Laden's hands. It's obvious that this sort of technology must stay in the right hands under continual control. It's obvious that we must develop this technology as first possible keeping it secret and prevent others to build it. I'm pacifist and for this i want these weapons under our controll and not in Bin Laden's controll. :)

I'm pacifist and for this i want these weapons under our controll and not in Bin Laden's controll.

Antimatter energy or weapons probably won't be viable for centuries, so I doubt you have to worry about that.

Antimatter energy or weapons probably won't be viable for centuries, so I doubt you have to worry about that.

Centuries :lol:

ok likely your scientific knowledge are in a bad status ;)

Centuries :lol:

ok likely your scientific knowledge are in a bad status ;)

oh give us an timetable then, oh, exalted person of wisdom :p

Centuries :lol:

ok likely your scientific knowledge are in a bad status ;)
Source?

Creating a few antimatter particles for a few seconds is a long, long way from any viable use.

Don't forget the quote from CERN, after all: "If we could assemble all of the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes."

Somebody has been watching too much star trek. Antimatter is a looong way off from being usable. As Speedo quoted, we have barely made enougfh to light up a light bulb. To create a bomb equivalent to a nuke we would need quite a bit more.

30 mg of anti-matter could propel a graphite-uranium sailed spaceship (unmanned) to the outskirts of our solar system. That's not so far away.

oh give us an timetable then, oh, exalted person of wisdom :p

Source?

Creating a few antimatter particles for a few seconds is a long, long way from any viable use.

Don't forget the quote from CERN, after all: "If we could assemble all of the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes."

1) CERN isn't a anti-matter factory, it is a lab. The purpose of CERN isn't to make big quantities of anti-matter but to study it. Given that anti-matter is expensive they make only the right quantity for their tests. CERN is only the first step to the fabrication of anti-matter not the last. And then how can you know how much anti-matter cern can produce at maximun level? have you tried it?

2) I think anti-matter technology will be available in more or less 50 years. We will build weapons and spacecraft with anti-matter technologies with huge profit in time and power. the problem is "who will build it the first anti-matter bomb?" We, the chinese or others. This is an important question because if such weapons go in the wrong hands, we will have a lot of problems

1) CERN isn't a anti-matter factory, it is a lab. The purpose of CERN isn't to make big quantities of anti-matter but to study it. Given that anti-matter is expensive they make only the right quantity for their tests. CERN is only the first step to the fabrication of anti-matter not the last. And then how can you know how much anti-matter cern can produce at maximun level? have you tried it?

I know because they publish their data. During their ATHENA tests they were only about to capture 0.04% of the antimatter produced. You do realize, I hope, that labs like CERN have to develop the technologies to produce and capture antimatter efficiently before anyone can dream of using it... right?

2) I think anti-matter technology will be available in more or less 50 years.

Do you have any scientific source at all to support this conclusion?

Hell, I think we'll be very lucky if fusion becomes a viable energy source within the next century. And if we can't even produce a controlled fusion reaction, what makes you think we'll be able to have any kind of control over antimatter?

2) I think anti-matter technology will be available in more or less 50 years. the problem is "who will build it the first anti-matter bomb?" We, the chinese or others. This is an important question because if such weapons go in the wrong hands, we will have a lot of problems

The good news is, making nuke-like amounts of AM is extremely difficult, and AM bombs can't be assembled in my garage.

I know because they publish their data. During their ATHENA tests they were only about to capture 0.04% of the antimatter produced. You do realize, I hope, that labs like CERN have to develop the technologies to produce and capture antimatter efficiently before anyone can dream of using it... right?

As i've said before CERN is only a lab, an purpose of reaching anti-matter controll. Have you any idea of how many attempts scientists have done for their discoveries in the history? Being pessimist for the first steps is silly given that we're only at beginnig of research

Do you have any scientific source at all to support this conclusion?

Hell, I think we'll be very lucky if fusion becomes a viable energy source within the next century. And if we can't even produce a controlled fusion reaction, what makes you think we'll be able to have any kind of control over antimatter?

Dont' be pessimist. We are going toward a golden age of development and scientific research. Now only a small part of world population is formed by scientists but in the future scientists will be a big part of population. You're right probably the idea of having anti-matter technogy in 50 years is quite ottimistic but the ideao of centuries for me is excessive

The good news is, making nuke-like amounts of AM is extremely difficult, and AM bombs can't be assembled in my garage.

the garages of 2050 will be different ;)

As i've said before CERN is only a lab, an purpose of reaching anti-matter controll.

Ok then, give me some info on the people who are "really" working on antimatter product. Just a little teaser about how much more efficient their production and capture technologies are.

We are going toward a golden age of development and scientific research.

Quite the opposite, IMO. Our "Golden Age" was the 20th century. Many areas of technological development are beginning to slow simply because the next levels of technology are exponentially more difficult to develop.

Ok then, give me some info on the people who are "really" working on antimatter product. Just a little teaser about how much more efficient their production and capture technologies are.

We don't need a mass production of anti-matter because actually it's useless. Nothing uses anti-matter as fuel and scientists prefer to research other thing rather a expensive anti-matter production. But this doesn't mean anti-matter production need of centuries or more

I didn't want to prove we have already anti-matter but just centuries of research is exsagerated

Quite the opposite, IMO. Our "Golden Age" was the 20th century. Many areas of technological development are beginning to slow simply because the next levels of technology are exponentially more difficult to develop.

This is your opinion ;)

This is your opinion ;)

i tend to take his opinion over yours. :p

Speedo is right. The rate at which new technologies are being discovered has slowed down a lot.

Now I am not saying antimatter tech will not be developed, I'm sure a lot of people see the potential in it. Its the fact that it might not be there in time for the 23rd century ;)

I agree, the 20th century was the golden age of technological advancement. Over a course of a hundred years, we went from being stuck on Earth to traveling to Mars.

Of course, I bet the next 100 years will be the golden age of terrorist expansions. :( (JK US should win.)

However, I must take back what I said. Antimatter will not be the future of mankind. According to CERN "I was hoping antimatter would be the future answer to our energy needs... No, the true answer is that it will never happen simply because of the entropy problem... It is not a matter of 'more research' or 'more advanced technology' to find ways around these limitations." Antimatter requires a great deal more energy to create than can be extracted from it." (Check Angels&Demons wiki article.)

the garages of 2050 will be different ;)

Not to mention that if AM is sealed in a suitable way almost anyone can make it explode...

However, I must take back what I said. Antimatter will not be the future of mankind. According to CERN "I was hoping antimatter would be the future answer to our energy needs... No, the true answer is that it will never happen simply because of the entropy problem... It is not a matter of 'more research' or 'more advanced technology' to find ways around these limitations." Antimatter requires a great deal more energy to create than can be extracted from it." (Check Angels&Demons wiki article.)

Anti-matter isn't the best way to produce energy but best way in nature to conserve and trasport it. A kilo of anti-matter can produce the energy of millions of tons of coal or oil. It's the best fuel in the nature and it will let us travel in the space.

On-topic
How will we use future nukes? By orbital bombers or rockerts?

both really. The problem with satellites is that while they are quite high up, they're still vulnarable( See this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test) )
On the other hand, they could provide a faster launch, as well as more flexibility of where the weapon is aimed at. For instance, a counterbattery strike could take 10 minutes instead of 30 as with land based ICBM's

On the other hand, ICBM's are much harder to destroy, whether it is while they're in their launch tubes or in the air. Its pretty hard to catch a nuke falling from space, especially with conventional missiles.

So it will all depend on the situation. Space based weapons are still a dream, but they can provide a significant advantage ( A third platform for nuclear weapons, alongside SSBN's and land based silo's ) but on the other hand ICBM's are also not to be discounted.

It's quite clear to me by reading the various posts in this thread that many of the people posting here are completely ignorant of the uselessness of weaponizing every class of physical phenomenon we discover.

The nuclear weapons build-up over the last 60 years lead, step by step, dollar by dollar, ruble by ruble, to a degradation of the quality of life of 500 million people.

Talk of AntiMatter as an energy source is interesting, indeed. But when, in the course of rational discussion, people revert to primitive impulses of 'Wow - we could blow a lot of stuff up with this!', I tend to devalue anything else the poster has posited. :old:

Why is it that discussion of energy issues frequently falls into discussions of technologies to kill people? :confused:

Until we colonize another world, all talk of 'bombs' should be regarded as incredibly counter-productive. :nope:

It's quite clear to me by reading the various posts in this thread that many of the people posting here are completely ignorant of the uselessness of weaponizing every class of physical phenomenon we discover.

The nuclear weapons build-up over the last 60 years lead, step by step, dollar by dollar, ruble by ruble, to a degradation of the quality of life of 500 million people.

Talk of AntiMatter as an energy source is interesting, indeed. But when, in the course of rational discussion, people revert to primitive impulses of 'Wow - we could blow a lot of stuff up with this!', I tend to devalue anything else the poster has posited. :old:

Why is it that discussion of energy issues frequently falls into discussions of technologies to kill people? :confused:

Until we colonize another world, all talk of 'bombs' should be regarded as incredibly counter-productive. :nope:

Simply because of the nature of this world that if something can be used as a weapon, it will be. At least until something more powerful comes about.

Didn't they just find a rather large antimatter cloud (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080112160830.htm) near the center of the galaxy?

Lucky for me, I'll be long dead before any of that stuff gets made into a bomb ;)

Simply because of the nature of this world that if something can be used as a weapon, it will be.
Perhaps. But the only entities capable of that sort of engineering are governments. There's no reason for a government to embark on such a venture at this point. Nuclear weapons are so powerful, and their effects so devastating, that something deadlier is simply unnecessary.

And when it comes right down to it, the nature of this world is a result of the actions and choices of the people living in it.

in a really far future (i mean really, really, really far future), a nuke creates an unique reaction, forming a black hole... (i said really, really, really far future)...

i just hope i don't face any kind of WMD...

:please: no :nuke:

It's quite clear to me by reading the various posts in this thread that many of the people posting here are completely ignorant of the uselessness of weaponizing every class of physical phenomenon we discover.

The nuclear weapons build-up over the last 60 years lead, step by step, dollar by dollar, ruble by ruble, to a degradation of the quality of life of 500 million people.

Talk of AntiMatter as an energy source is interesting, indeed. But when, in the course of rational discussion, people revert to primitive impulses of 'Wow - we could blow a lot of stuff up with this!', I tend to devalue anything else the poster has posited. :old:

Why is it that discussion of energy issues frequently falls into discussions of technologies to kill people? :confused:

Until we colonize another world, all talk of 'bombs' should be regarded as incredibly counter-productive. :nope:

So do you oppose the design of counter-asteroid defensive systems? Big bombs to derail the asteroids going to hit Earth you know...

You guys who are saying "omg antimatter is the future!!!" realise that e=mc^2 works both ways, right?

As in, if 1kg of antimatter releases 9x10^16 J of energy, it also requires 9x10^16 J of energy to create 1kg of antimatter.

Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the "near" future (whatever "near" means -- it's been a decade away for at least half a century), not because of the amount of energy it releases, but because the raw materials are in such abundance.

So do you oppose the design of counter-asteroid defensive systems? Big bombs to derail the asteroids going to hit Earth you know...

I'm very skeptical that an explosion would successfully prevent a strike. All the matter of the target will still be travelling in an orbit around the sun that brings it across earth's orbit. Without changing object's orbit, a collision is still likely. :run:

I'm not against using existing nuclear weapons in that manner, or even research into improving on existing design for that specific purpose. But because the threat is of a global nature, the research should be done internationally as well, along the lines of ITER or CERN. :hammer:

Even considering the possible need for a handful of NEO-deterring nukes, there's still no valid political reason for the US and former Soviet countries to keep the thousands of warheads remaining in the arsenals.

There will be no nuke.

There will be no nuke.


no that's sci-fi!


of course there will! Till now, we've invented infinite ways to kill each other... why should we stop?

no that's sci-fi!


of course there will! Till now, we've invented infinite ways to kill each other... why should we stop?

why should we continue?

why should we continue?


because we're humans!!!

because we're humans!!!

three exclamation marks doesn't give more worth to an worthless explanation :p

I'm very skeptical that an explosion would successfully prevent a strike. All the matter of the target will still be travelling in an orbit around the sun that brings it across earth's orbit. Without changing object's orbit, a collision is still likely. :run:

I'm not against using existing nuclear weapons in that manner, or even research into improving on existing design for that specific purpose. But because the threat is of a global nature, the research should be done internationally as well, along the lines of ITER or CERN. :hammer:

Even considering the possible need for a handful of NEO-deterring nukes, there's still no valid political reason for the US and former Soviet countries to keep the thousands of warheads remaining in the arsenals.

I don't support those vast arsenals and agree that nukes should be controlled by the UN or something.

Such an explosion when directed at the right place can put the asteroid off-orbit thus preventing the collision. If one doesn't help then send another.

three exclamation marks doesn't give more worth to an worthless explanation :p


i know, but it's cooler! :cool:

Such an explosion when directed at the right place can put the asteroid off-orbit thus preventing the collision. If one doesn't help then send another.

Perhaps. But from what I've read it seems that a braking technique or slow acceleration technique is less costly and more predictable in outcome.

Give this report (http://secureworldfoundation.org/mainc.php?ax=06&ay=16) to Congress a quick read; specifically the paragraphs under the heading 'Precision Matters'.

Essentially, the report acknowledges the utility of using a nuclear explosion to change the orbit, but suggests that there are better tool in our kit already.

How about clinging to them and blowing them to pieces when they are far away from Earth? And what can we do with our nukes if not that???

And what can we do with our nukes if not that???

Reprocess them into fuel rods - precisely what Nunn/Lugar is doing as we speak :)

Reprocess them into fuel rods - precisely what Nunn/Lugar is doing as we speak :)

Or do this:


A successful deflection requires both adequate strength and high precision. Immediately following an impulsive deflection the new orbit of the asteroid must be precisely determined and examined for a future keyhole transit. if headed for a keyhole then a small "trim" maneuver can be executed using a weak but precise "slow push" (as NASA refers to it) deflection to avoid that critical passage.
This combination of imprecise strength and precise adjustment is both necessary and sufficient to declare to the world that a fully successful deflection has been achieved. NASA completely missed this essential point in its analysis.


So first with a nuke and then with an accurate tractor device.

Absolutely - but you don't need to keep thousand of them sitting around for that. At the same time, you absolutely have to trust that the gadget still works :crazyeye:

why should we continue?

To conquest the universe

Absolutely - but you don't need to keep thousand of them sitting around for that. At the same time, you absolutely have to trust that the gadget still works :crazyeye:

we don't need thousand of them:eek:

and what will we do if thousand of asteroyds are coming to the hearh?

NASA and a European group are actively hunting for Near Earth Objects (NEOs). When an object is spotted, it is cataloged, the orbit is described, and then they determine if the object poses a threat.

There aren't going to be thousands of objects that cross Earth's orbit requiring a nuclear response. For that matter, I wonder if the existing devices are even appropriate for that use - I suspect they aren't.