I heard of EMP. Remember these nukes WERE touched off in testing. And remember also I'd rather have EMP then have cities hit by the full range of effects of nuclear weapons.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Wraith <wra...@xmission.com> wrote: > > > At 11:04 PM 2/21/2010, you wrote: > > > > > > >sing a nuke to "defend against" a nuke is pretty much shitting where you > eat > > > >Not really. Imagine a nuke blowing up high in the atmosphere and > >taking down (vaporizing or disrupting the incomnig weapon. This is > >of course not optimal, but it's far healthier for everybody on the > >ground than having the nuke on the ground. > > > > >>I don't think even the US feral government is stupid enough to > > destroy a city's worth of folks >that have relatives of voting age > > everywhere else on the continent to take out one plane, >though of > > course I might be over-estimating the IQ of the US (or any other) > government). > > > >Why would you need to do that? > > > >Again, tactical munitions, blowing up in the air. A wing of > >strategic bombers are coming, masked by stealth and electronic > >interference. Each of them carries bombs or guided missiles, enough > >to devastate, oh, a small state. You fire your nuclear missile into > >their vague location. Your missile misses the lead plane by a > >hundred yards. They don't care. They're dead. > > > >In the meanwhile, you can create - and people have tested - nuclear > >missiles with sufficient yield that a person can stand DIRECTLY > >UNDERNEATH the explosion which occurst at air combat heights, and > >the person below remains safe and healthy. > > Ever heard of EMP? Using high altitude nukes over ones own territory > isn't very bright. > > >
