Trump orders mini nukes

[Fake Messiah]

The Trump administration is considering proposing smaller, more tactical nuclear weapons that would cause less damage than traditional thermonuclear bombs — a move that would give military commanders more options but could also make the use of atomic arms more likely.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/09...uke-242513

The thing is there is a video of Michio Kaku on youtube talking about Project Orion - spaceship that would be propelled by nuclear explosions which would propel them to speeds that 1ly could be traveled in 10 years - and at the end he says that the deal-breaker is that in order to have Orion spacecraft we would need to create mini nukes and that would be too dangerous world to live in, since terrorists could easily smuggle them into cities and detonate them.

So now that Trump is mini nuking does that mean we'll be flying to nearby stars?!

[AFTT47]

It's an interesting question. I doubt mini-nukes translate to the development of practical, slower-than-light starships but I would love to be proven wrong.

Although I am very liberal socially and somewhat liberal economically, I am probably to the right of center when it comes to national defense. I favor development of any technology which gives us additional options in warfare. It has the added benefit of maintaining our ability to lead in the development of advanced technology.

I am convinced we cannot continue to be a world leader without being at the forefront of the research and development of cutting-edge technology. Wealth alone doesn't cut it. If you don't know how to design and build things, you are a slave to those who do. I would prefer that our efforts in this area would be focused and driven by space exploration and clean energy but I'll take military development over stagnation.

[Anomalocaris]

The Trump administration is considering proposing smaller, more tactical nuclear weapons that would cause less damage than traditional thermonuclear bombs — a move that would give military commanders more options but could also make the use of atomic arms more likely.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/09...uke-242513

The thing is there is a video of Michio Kaku on youtube talking about Project Orion - spaceship that would be propelled by nuclear explosions which would propel them to speeds that 1ly could be traveled in 10 years - and at the end he says that the deal-breaker is that in order to have Orion spacecraft we would need to create mini nukes and that would be too dangerous world to live in, since terrorists could easily smuggle them into cities and detonate them.

So now that Trump is mini nuking does that mean we'll be flying to nearby stars?!

I don't believe project Orion actually envision using real nuclear bombs. It envisions shooting a stream of small hydrogen containing pallets behind the space craft and trigger fusion reaction in them by blasting them with powerful lasers. This is a totally different principle from any nuclear weapons.

---

It's an interesting question. I doubt mini-nukes translate to the development of practical, slower-than-light starships but I would love to be proven wrong.

Although I am very liberal socially and somewhat liberal economically, I am probably to the right of center when it comes to national defense. I favor development of any technology which gives us additional options in warfare. It has the added benefit of maintaining our ability to lead in the development of advanced technology.

I am convinced we cannot continue to be a world leader without being at the forefront of the research and development of cutting-edge technology. Wealth alone doesn't cut it. If you don't know how to design and build things, you are a slave to those who do. I would prefer that our efforts in this area would be focused and driven by space exploration and clean energy but I'll take military development over stagnation.

I believe certain options, if available, will be enthusiastically used in a short sighted and ultimately self-defeating and self-destructive manner. Any estimate of the range of options that would likely be so used must expand greatly when the United States had proven capable of installing a trump in the position of commander in chief.

Therefore I no longer favor giving the us any new options involving nuclear weapons. Instead I favor a very sharp reduction in those options.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Tactical nukes have always been around since they were invented. Ten atomic bombs were reserved for the invasions of Japan. We would drop one on a particularly difficult point-of-resistance, wait thirty minutes, then march our troops through ground zero.

[Anomalocaris]

Tactical nukes have always been around since they were invented. Ten atomic bombs were reserved for the invasions of Japan. We would drop one on a particularly difficult point-of-resistance, wait thirty minutes, then march our troops through ground zero.

At the start, there was no distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, nor are any possible because available bomb building skills didn't allow for a large range of different yields and weapon sizes.

The concept of separate strategic weapons only come into vogue because increasing air defenses made it necessary to deploy very powerful megaton class hydrogen bombs that can be toss bombed in the grneral direction of cities by bombers still 100 miles away, and still destroy the city even if the roughly tossed bomb misses by a few miles.  These are obviously too large to use in proximity to friendly forces or civilians on the ground, hence separate class of strategic and tactical nukes.

As it were, for the invasion of Japan, the next usable bomb after fatman that was dropped in Nagasaki wasn't available until well after the planned date of operation Olympic, the initial invasion of Japan proper.   So the story of planned use of tactical atom bombs is somewhat suspect.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Tactical nukes have always been around since they were invented. Ten atomic bombs were reserved for the invasions of Japan. We would drop one on a particularly difficult point-of-resistance, wait thirty minutes, then march our troops through ground zero.

As it were, for the invasion of Japan, the next usable bomb after fatman that was dropped in Nagasaki wasn't available until well after the planned date of operation Olympic, the initial invasion of Japan proper.   So the story of planned use of tactical atom bombs is somewhat suspect.

Really? We had two more in the Pacific at the time of the surrender, they were used for Tests Able and Baker rather than transport them back to the US. And we had a production schedule, initially of one per month, more as things got routine. I've studied this issue for thirty years, I'm confident of my material.

[Anomalocaris]

As it were, for the invasion of Japan, the next usable bomb after fatman that was dropped in Nagasaki wasn't available until well after the planned date of operation Olympic, the initial invasion of Japan proper.   So the story of planned use of tactical atom bombs is somewhat suspect.

Really? We had two more in the Pacific at the time of the surrender, they were used for Tests Able and Baker rather than transport them back to the US. And we had a production schedule, initially of one per month, more as things got routine. I've studied this issue for thirty years, I'm confident of my material.

Materials were only manufactured for 3 bombs by the mid of 1945.   The first was tested at Alamogordo, the second and third were expended in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.   No additional bombs were immediately available afterwards, and material for new ones had to be manufactured.   Operation Olympic was scheduled for nov 1945.  The bombs for Able and baker were only ready in early 1946.  The tests themselves were done in Jun and July of 1946.

[downbeatplumb]

He only wants mini nukes so his hands look bigger.

[vorlon13]

How mini ??

Neighborhood size ?

[Anomalocaris]

It is pointless to produce nukes whose powers can easily be replicated by a single or a few conventional ordnance.   0.5 kilotons is probably the absolute minimum warhead size that can remotely be justified.