Why launch Nukes from Space when we have Rocks?

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress



When Mike launches rocks at sparsely-populated locations on Earth, warnings are released to the press detailing the times and locations of the bombings; but disbelieving people, as well as people on religious pilgrimages, travel to the sites and die. As a result, public opinion turns against the fledgling nation.

So we set up an asteroid smasher, deleter, or Nudger. Looks like a perfect excuse to make a super weapon as well. Why not? Space Rocks are plentiful and cheap and don't release as much radiation as a nuke..

btw I don't endorse WMDs, but I could see this kind of project being "manipulated"

Something like the "mass drivers" of Babylon Five?
2nd
3rd

reply to post by Lazarus Short


And what about the space mining industry that is about to take off in the next little while... If you can "grab" a meteorite, then surely you could toss one as well...

I wonder if the destructive minds in power are looking at the Russia event in a different way than most...

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Something like the "mass drivers" of Babylon Five?

I was also thinking of the way the bad guys attacked the planet Metaluna in the movie, This Island Earth.

Using a mass driver to put some rocks into orbit would cost more than the missles we currently have.
The next problem would be to make certain they could be controlled accurate enough to hit a target. A few too many pounds in the wrong place could bring it back home.
The other possibility would be to retrieve a "space rock" and bring it into orbit, then drop it where you want it to land.
This would actually combine the two afforementioned problems of cost and accuracy.

Otherwise, this would be a good way to avert being blamed for an agressive act, like bombing some one back to the stone age.

Finally, under the third phase of the company's plan, a Harvester spacecraft would blast off with the ability to collect hundreds of tonnes of materials from asteroids. Read more: www.ctvnews.ca...

www.ctvnews.ca...

Oh yeah.

We've been laughing about the last card.

All the while, the one before it has crept passed terrorism/nations of concern.

It's all about weaponization of space.

Using a mass driver to put some rocks into orbit would cost more than the missles we currently have.

You use rocks that are already in space. That's my point

reply to post by Lazarus Short



Dropped in to Star and Flag you for mentioning Babylon 5............

You Rock Brother !! ( Fellow B5 Nerd)

On Topic............ Catapult in 0 Gravity, Wouldn't that by exceptionally efficient ?

reply to post by canucks555


Lots of the space shuttle launches were probably these things for sure fior sure.

Kill all guns!

reply to post by Blue Shift

I was also thinking of the way the bad guys attacked the planet Metaluna in the movie, This Island Earth.

Sorry, it had to be done...

reply to post by canucks555


My first response to that would be, that rocks are irregular in shape, and do not come with on board tracking and guidance equipment. The combination of these factors would make them less than the most accurate projectiles to use. Also, one would have to be able to track down a rock of a size to create a comparable explosion to a nuke, and although such a thing would be of considerable size, locating and aquiring such an object would be an awful lot more costly and difficult than simply dropping a nuke.

The reliance on locating and gaining directional control over the movement of such an object would also be very time consuming. This means, that in a situation where deployment of a WMD were required by a government against the land and property of another in short order, the simplest and fastest route to microwaving an antire region would not be to drop a space rock on it, but to launch a device designed to create a thermonuclear chain reaction, for the purpose of blowing the living hell out of the region, and irradiate it a bit into the bargain.

I should add for completeness sake, that it would be a much better idea to quit wanting to blow the living hell out of ourselves, and start getting to grips with unified action on a global basis, i.e. concentrating our collective efforts on escaping this overcomplicated rock we live on, and exploring the universe.

After Tunguska, don't you think the elite would have said that they needed to prevent a future similar event that might disrupt their plans? or even better, actually control rocks in space to defend or bring them in over certain countries? I would.

The B612 Foundation was set up in 2001, the 2 main goals were the Gravity tractor and the Sentinel telescope. The Gravity Tractor is simple, just sit an object no bigger than a golf cart off the side of an asteroid and you could affect it's orbit. You don't need to blow it out of space at all!

Goolge B612, Google, JPLs Gravity Tractor. Then in 2008 the Gravity Tractor was shelved, forgotten about, then is 2009 the U.S Military who for the previous 15 years allowed scientists to research and explore data about objects exploding in space, made all that data classified and no one outside of the military was to see it.

2001, we landed NEAR on the Asteroid EROS, we can mine these objects, we can change their course, we can save humanity! But of course, as we are controlled by the elite then these events are also controlled.

Gravity Tractor
www.youtube.com...

The problem is the action/reaction laws of motion, it takes a lot of jet fuel to get rocks into a stable firing orbit to make such a thing practical.

reply to post by ProjectUltra2013


The point being (and thanks for bumping the thread) is that the rocks don't need to be placed in orbit. You launch the rocks via catapult-type device from the lunar surface. ..

Dude, they probably already have plasma beams and crap up there. They don't need a nuke. But those are probably up there too. They could give me a heart attack or brain aneurism, from space, through the roof of my house.