Michael Jackson could turn into a robot and a space ship as seen in the documentary Moonwalker. Perhaps he passed down this gene to his children. I demand that we investigate his children's possible robot transforming ability.
Nuclear Defence
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
I don't know why you guys are so hard on Tachyon Shield, he poses some very intriguing theoretical questions that make you think, I like to read his posts and see what kind of theories you guys can come up with, cause you guys are a lot smarter than me in terms of science and physics. He has a very creative mind, and I like that, I enjoy reading his posts and thinking about them. Who knows what our future holds, and it is thinkers like him that will come up with the really cool stuff.
^ Mmmm. No comment.
On topic. They are still trying to implement a form of SDI, saw it on the Aust ABC show 'Foreign Correspondent' where the US has a base on some Pacific islands and they lob missiles in its general direction to see what they can do about detecting them and/or shooting them down.
Myself, I can't see why an orbital radar system coupled to ground-based misslile or laser interceptors couldn't be set up. But then, I'm not all that up on current or near-future weapons.
Suggestion to Tachy - see if you can get the pay-TV show 'Future Weapons', covers everything from handguns up to Big Bang Things.
On topic. They are still trying to implement a form of SDI, saw it on the Aust ABC show 'Foreign Correspondent' where the US has a base on some Pacific islands and they lob missiles in its general direction to see what they can do about detecting them and/or shooting them down.
Myself, I can't see why an orbital radar system coupled to ground-based misslile or laser interceptors couldn't be set up. But then, I'm not all that up on current or near-future weapons.
Suggestion to Tachy - see if you can get the pay-TV show 'Future Weapons', covers everything from handguns up to Big Bang Things.
I don't think there is an acid that would work quick enough. Then there is the danger of it falling on someone. It would have to work quickly and then become inactive.
Disabling nukes, let's see:
- Directed beam weapon to compromise its structural integrity, ie, blow them up, as mentioned.
- Use a directed EM pulse to affect the timing mechanism for the detonators of the explosive lenses. However, you don't know exactly when the device is going to go off and the electonics would be hardened so this is probably not practical.
- Antineutron beam to make the nuclear chain reaction subcritical or delayed supercritical (meltdown) rather than prompt supercritical. I have no idea how to produce antineutons in sufficient quantity, contain and direct them so this is very fanciful.
- Neutron (or neutrino, even more fancifully) beam of sufficient intensity to induce premature supercriticality in the device.
- Increase the strength of the weak nuclear force in the vicinity of the device to reduce the lifetime of free neutrons. Very fanciful indeed.
Nuke missiles can be destroyed without necessarily igniting it. Of course this can't always be successfully done without compromising the payload. And sometime they will detonate. Planes have come down carrying nukes in the past, and they have been recovered.
Also, if a missile can be tracked, its speed and trajectory can be extrapolated, as missiles don't dodge or change course much, and should therefore can be intercepted.
Also, if a missile can be tracked, its speed and trajectory can be extrapolated, as missiles don't dodge or change course much, and should therefore can be intercepted.
We already have defences against nuclear attack, they are called Chuck Norris and Mr T. The plan is for Mr T to throw Chuck Norris helluva far in the general direction of the ICBM, Chuck then intercepts the missile in mid air and round house kicks it out of the sky.
Keep in mind a nuclear explosion is a controled, planned, reaction that requires quite a bit to happen and "go right" for it to occur.
Simply blowing up a nuclear missile is all you need to do and there'd be no resulting nuclear explosion, although, yes, the material would have to be dealt with/ensured to not fall in a place where it'd pose a danger.
Think of it this way, vinegar and bakingsoda causes a reaction of foam, gassy, expansion. If these were in a container together set to "go off" when combined when a time relases them onto one another, blowing up the entire container would destroy them without them ever having to combine.
Oh, and, Tachy? In GI Joe they were pretty clear on what the weapon in the movie is and does.
Simply blowing up a nuclear missile is all you need to do and there'd be no resulting nuclear explosion, although, yes, the material would have to be dealt with/ensured to not fall in a place where it'd pose a danger.
Think of it this way, vinegar and bakingsoda causes a reaction of foam, gassy, expansion. If these were in a container together set to "go off" when combined when a time relases them onto one another, blowing up the entire container would destroy them without them ever having to combine.
Oh, and, Tachy? In GI Joe they were pretty clear on what the weapon in the movie is and does.
I still wanna know WHY my llama-tron idea won't work!
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
It would regardless of the defenses. Even if your defensive shield is 99% effective (and NO weapons system is even close to this) then you will still let through 1% of the missiles, with an arsenal the size of Russia's this would mean the destruction of most of the USA's major cities.
Well there are all kinds of articles on the US missile defense shield - various methods are being employed including satellite-based weapons and anti-missile missiles.
Well no - for the simple reason that if you can contain said compound in a missile, it probably will not destroy a missile, at least not quickly.
Destroying ICBMs is extremely difficult, they move incredibly quickly on a trajectory that makes them almost impossible for most missiles and all but the luckiest fighters to catch. They spend much of their journey in space, and they turn into many targets on the way down.
Ultimately the only truly effective defense against nuclear weapons is to maintain a peaceful co-existence with anyone who possesses them, which of course is the whole point.
Then making presumptions on what is going on in it is foolish.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Why would it be foolish? whether the green stuff in the trailer is or is not some kind of acidic compound which eats away at the target is completely irrelevant.
From my watching the trailer and making that particular presumption it gave me the idea to ask about an acid based weapon to defeat inbound nuclear missiles. This thread isn't about G.I.Joe.
What the actual green stuff is or does does not matter since we're not actually talking about it directly, we're talking about acidic weapons which I thought about after seeing the trailer.
So tell me, what was foolish about making a presumption about what I saw in the trailer? I'd love to know.
That acids dissolve things, like large metal towers, almost instantly instead over the course of hours or even days like in real life.
Development of a "Phantom Zone Projector" to dismiss any incoming nukes into an alternate "ghost" dimension seems a good way to proceed . . .
This thread is better than that G.I. Joe movie.
If you wanted an acid to work that fast, you'd need stuff like a xenomorph's blood from the Alien films. There is just no going to the eye wash station in case of accidents.
If you wanted an acid to work that fast, you'd need stuff like a xenomorph's blood from the Alien films. There is just no going to the eye wash station in case of accidents.
Similar threads
