Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ashotep

Nuclear bomb could save Earth

42 posts in this topic

CBS News..(Space.com) A well-placed nuclear explosion could actually save humanity from a big asteroid hurtling toward Earth, just like in the movies, a new study suggests. Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, a United States Department of Energy facility in New Mexico, used a supercomputer to model nukes' anti asteroid effectiveness. They attacked a 1,650-foot-long (500-meter) space rock with a 1-megaton nuclear weapon - about 50 times more powerful than the U.S. blast inflicted on Nagasaki, Japan, to help end World Read More Here

Think we've had it if an asteroid does come for us or do you think they will save the day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally trust Bruce Willis on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lord will sustain us on our sickbed

and restore us from our bed of illness. Psalm 41:3

God sent ME into the world not to condemn the world;

but that the world through ME might be saved. John 3:17

This is the wisdom of ME, and US to save the world.You are me, and me, you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It will most likely seperate a killer asteroid into either smaller (still large) sections, or thousands of irradiated smaller ones, which would hopefully disintegrate before they impact on the Earth. It would still probably do a lot of damage, with high levels of radiation now added to the mix. It would no longer be a planet killer, but there would still be some extensive fallout.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Hero... um... I consider myself faithful to God, however throwing a bible at the rock problably wouldn't do much good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

maybe but if it does then there is a chance that small radio active meteors hit earth and some places get radio active etc :P

Edited by dest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, this is the dumbest idea since the construction of the Tower of Babylon. We can more or less estimate the damage any rock coming this way will cause, we cannot estimate the damage 1000 rocks will cause, especially if we blew the first rock up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to go on record officially in agreement with Questionmark and Spid3rCyd3.

There are SOOOO many problems with this idea, it's ridiculous to even discuss.

But let's...

1) Getting the Warhead into orbit - totally dangerous, not to mention potentially mis-interpreted as a ICBM strike and the start of WW3...

2) Getting the Warhead to the target - totally impossible. Space isn't like firing a missile in the atmosphere, an aerodynamic shape means nothing in the vacuum. Let alone keeping a missile lit long enough (tiny fuel supply) to cover the distance to the target (target must be VERY far out to have the resulting pieces not hit Earth...)

3) Destroying the target - good luck destroying (not irradiating like is the threat on Earth from Nukes, but actually physically shattering...) something the size of the State of Rhode Island with a single warhead. Have fun with that. I've done the math, and there is simply no way.

4) Predicting the course of the shards after the explosion - absolutely impossible.

5) Predicting the size(s) of the resulting pieces (if you end up with just 2 rocks at half size on the same course, you weren't effective).

6) WE HAVE NO SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE. So no matter what goes wrong en situ (and SOMETHING WILL), we have zero ability to respond to the situation. Apollo 13 was scary, but imagine if the success of that mission also represented the survival of our entire species... That's us, right now, in 2012.

This idea is ridiculous non-sense.

At the very least, if you are going to 'shoot' at asteroids, let's build a magnetic railgun that has the range to fire at the targets first! Sheesh.

-Brand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally trust Bruce Willis on this one.

Dunno man. The dude's getting pretty old. I don't think he'd be able to lift a nuclear missile and throw it at the asteriod.

Just sent a picture of Chuck Norris to the damn thing and it's going to nuke itself into the sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smaller bits would kill us, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The smaller bits would kill us, I think.

Nuclear bombs can save earth? Eh?

If the middle east kicks of this year, with Israel threatening to nuke Iran - which in turn triggers WW3... there will be nothing much worth saving. We're in more danger from wars than asteroids, lets get the worries into perspective!

besides, think about it, so you're an asteroid who's been zooming thru space, being so massive and so fast - traveling at who knows what speed... and a nuclear bomb, IF it can be launched into space, and IF it doesn't malfunction on the way, and IF the trajectory doesn't go awry, and IF it actually hits the target, it 'may' alter the trajectory so it hits us better than it would of, or as has been said, breaks some bits off... meaning we're in for more than one impact..

But what if it doesn't do as much damage in space as it does on earth? Have nuclears been tested in space? Anyone?

If theres been no tests, and that's what its all about...whose to say what may happen?

Edited by bouncer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that possibly cause an EMP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that possibly cause an EMP?

Depending on how far they blow the thingy up the answer is yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) Getting the Warhead to the target - totally impossible. Space isn't like firing a missile in the atmosphere, an aerodynamic shape means nothing in the vacuum. Let alone keeping a missile lit long enough (tiny fuel supply) to cover the distance to the target (target must be VERY far out to have the resulting pieces not hit Earth...)

This is the only one I really have to call BS on, sorry :)

We have that technology......Doesn't really take much to see it, what we have all ready done with Mars expeditions, and others shows we could get the war head there......

Remember the satelite they shot out of orbit from a US Navy ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depend on the size of asteroid and volume . if it's as small and light as the satellite then yes . if it's the size of an island then NO .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depend on the size of asteroid and volume . if it's as small and light as the satellite then yes . if it's the size of an island then NO .

You have no idea what I quoted, or why, do you? ( on the reply you quoted of mine )

That should not have been a question by the way.............

I hate when people do not read entire topics......Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that clearly the OP article is true. 1 Megaton is big sure, but not enough to irradiate any real sizable portion of the Earth for any long amount of time. Blasting the asteroid would be the difference between being hit by a brick or a snowball. Even most large (Train sized) meteors don't make it to the ground.

What would be better still is to predict an asteroid strike ahead of time and send out a 1 Kiloton nuke to nudge it somewhere else. Or purposefully push it into the Moon.

It all really depends on the size, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all really depends on the size, doesn't it?

I was told size does not matter......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the cutbacks in the space program? We don't have space shuttles anymore so how are they going to get to the asteroid to set up the bomb? As depicted in Armageddon, it will probably be necessary to place the device below the surface of the asteroid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the cutbacks in the space program? We don't have space shuttles anymore so how are they going to get to the asteroid to set up the bomb? As depicted in Armageddon, it will probably be necessary to place the device below the surface of the asteroid.

Im not an expert on nukes, but using the Hiroshima example, it seemed to destroy so much 'on' the earth....but not the 'earth' itself if you know what I mean? It was a heck of a bomb for sure!

Even the Bruce Willis movie...(and ok its just a movie)...but they had to drill deep into the asteroid in order to have the nukes fracture it sufficiently. so would just sending a bomb towards an asteroid actually do anything - except, maybe, (if blast waves behave in the same in space) giving it a wobble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not an expert on nukes, but using the Hiroshima example, it seemed to destroy so much 'on' the earth....but not the 'earth' itself if you know what I mean? It was a heck of a bomb for sure!

Even the Bruce Willis movie...(and ok its just a movie)...but they had to drill deep into the asteroid in order to have the nukes fracture it sufficiently. so would just sending a bomb towards an asteroid actually do anything - except, maybe, (if blast waves behave in the same in space) giving it a wobble?

Hiroshima was blown up over the town, not on the ground. The reason for that is that strong explosions above ground level cause a much bigger shock wave then if their energy goes partly into the ground.

And you are right, blowing up something on the surface of an asteroid is only going to shift its orbit a little... maybe even making it worse. You would need to drill a hole into it, place the bomb there and then blow the thingy up to get a lot of little pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Im not an expert on nukes, but using the Hiroshima example, it seemed to destroy so much 'on' the earth....but not the 'earth' itself if you know what I mean? It was a heck of a bomb for sure!

Even the Bruce Willis movie...(and ok its just a movie)...but they had to drill deep into the asteroid in order to have the nukes fracture it sufficiently. so would just sending a bomb towards an asteroid actually do anything - except, maybe, (if blast waves behave in the same in space) giving it a wobble?

At Hiroshima the bomb was detonated at about 580m (1900ft) of altitude. It surely wiped out pretty much everything on the surface but effectively, the earth itself wasen't literally blown away.

I was thinking about the same. How would a nuclear explosion behave in vaccum (space)?

The energy released comes from the blast, thermal radiation, ionizing radiations and residual radiations.

How would that all be affected by vacuum? Radiations can travel in vacuum but what about the blast? I don't think there can be a blast in space. We would perhaps have to drill a hole and put the bomb down so it has some "matter" to propagate the shockwave.

And how heat is going to affect the asteroid when thermal radiation hit it? What about the ionizing radiations (extreme UV and beyond)? Are they going to be sufficient to "destroy" the asteroid or affect it in anyway sufficiently?

Edited by JayMark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

At Hiroshima the bomb was detonated at about 580m (1900ft) of altitude. It surely wiped out pretty much everything on the surface but effectively, the earth itself wasen't literally blown away.

I was thinking about the same. How would a nuclear explosion behave in vaccum (space)?

The energy released comes from the blast, thermal radiation, ionizing radiations and residual radiations.

How would that all be affected by vacuum? Radiations can travel in vacuum but what about the blast? I don't think there can be a blast in space. We would perhaps have to drill a hole and put the bomb down so it has some "matter" to propagate the shockwave.

And how heat is going to affect the asteroid when thermal radiation hit it? What about the ionizing radiations (extreme UV and beyond)? Are they going to be sufficient to "destroy" the asteroid or affect it in anyway sufficiently?

yeh got me thinking now, more so anyway, so

heres a snip:

"If we have an asteroid that is really large, and we don't have more than a few years notice, nuclear is probably all we can do," Morrison told SPACE.com. "If it's a mile or smaller and we have 10 to 20 years warning, we probably won't go nuclear."

In such cases, scientists could opt to impact the asteroid with a ballistic rocket, sending the cosmic interloper off course.

source: http://www.space.com/8666-nuclear-bombs-save-earth-asteroids.html

and:

"On a human scale, a nuclear weapon is a very powerful thing.

But compared to things that happen all the time within just our solar system, it is like a flea on a Great Dane - completely inconsequential.

The fusion reactions in any star release, every second, billions of times the amount of energy contained in the most powerful weapon that people can create.

One of the effects of any bomb on earth is the blast wave - created by the almost instant compression of the atmosphere at the point of the blast. That pressure wave propagates outward and contains enough energy to destroy buildings. In space, there is no atmosphere, so there is no such pressure wave".

source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101230115124AAAWJfG

Ok its yahoo answers but is seems reasonable!!

Edited by bouncer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeh got me thinking now, more so anyway, so

heres a snip:

"If we have an asteroid that is really large, and we don't have more than a few years notice, nuclear is probably all we can do," Morrison told SPACE.com. "If it's a mile or smaller and we have 10 to 20 years warning, we probably won't go nuclear."

In such cases, scientists could opt to impact the asteroid with a ballistic rocket, sending the cosmic interloper off course.

source: http://www.space.com/8666-nuclear-bombs-save-earth-asteroids.html

and:

"On a human scale, a nuclear weapon is a very powerful thing.

But compared to things that happen all the time within just our solar system, it is like a flea on a Great Dane - completely inconsequential.

The fusion reactions in any star release, every second, billions of times the amount of energy contained in the most powerful weapon that people can create.

One of the effects of any bomb on earth is the blast wave - created by the almost instant compression of the atmosphere at the point of the blast. That pressure wave propagates outward and contains enough energy to destroy buildings. In space, there is no atmosphere, so there is no such pressure wave".

source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101230115124AAAWJfG

Ok its yahoo answers but is seems reasonable!!

Good. That's pretty much what I thought.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiroshima was blown up over the town, not on the ground. The reason for that is that strong explosions above ground level cause a much bigger shock wave then if their energy goes partly into the ground.

And you are right, blowing up something on the surface of an asteroid is only going to shift its orbit a little... maybe even making it worse. You would need to drill a hole into it, place the bomb there and then blow the thingy up to get a lot of little pieces.

Quite correct IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.