Moontanman

I understand exactly how a nuke works, evidently even reading it in this article it remains unknown to you. No place in that article dose it say a nuke detonated anyplace inside the moons orbit will EMP the Earth. In fact it only mentions EMP up to 300 miles or so, not 250,000 miles so do you have a citation to support your assertions or not!

Please show the paragraphs that support your assertions, its why we have the quote feature, I read it I don't see them. Mordred, I'm not asking you to do anything more than I or anyone else would have to do if called out on such an assertion. You made a claim that a nuke detonated close than the moon would result in a destructive EMP on the earth, you asserted a nuke wouldn't be effective unless it was detonated inside the atmosphere and suggested a 100 megaton nuke. Please provide a citation for these things!

I do not say that zero reentry is necessary or even possible. Can you provide a citation or not?

I never said there is no risk, I am promoting risk mitigation, I say the risk can be mitigated. Can you or can you not back up your assertions about the EMP or the 100 megaton bomb needing to be detonated in the atmosphere or that the radiation from a nuke used to prevent an asteroid impact will be worse than the impact of the asteroid?

Yes, if an irradiated asteroid enters the atmosphere it would drag the radiation it contains with it but it would only be the radiation from the nukes, how ever many modern nukes it took. I am well aware of the blast effects in and out of the atmosphere, no one has a 100 megaton nuke and I see no one making one or being able to launch such a huge nuke and detonating it in the atmosphere would not work, the kinetic energy and mass of the asteroid would still impact the earth and you get the radiation too. So why would anyone so that? No, you made an assertion that defies the physics of how an EMP works, you need a citation on that. I say that is not necessary the amount of radiation released would be trivial over the entire earth compared to what we already have.

Yes, he asserts that a nuke detonated in space millions of miles from the earth would create enough radioactivity to threaten the earth... citation please! So far all he has done is show that radiation from past bombs exist and he equates the deep space detonation with the 507 bombs that resulted in part of our radiation exposure on the Earth. Show me that one or even several detonations would do any such thing, even if they all detonated on the Earth the vast majority of the people on the planet would remain as oblivious as they were of the past detonations. I am not saying that would be a good thing I am saying it wouldn't be worse than an asteroid impact. Risk mitigation, which is worse the release of a small amount of radiation or the impact of an asteroid. Even Tunguska would have been much worse than a modern nuke of 1.5 megatons exploding in space to try to prevent it. His assertion that nuke in space inside the orbit of the moon would cause an EMP needs a citation! Can he not defend himself?

Before this I was up for forgiving Mordred for lots of things but his assertions need to be backed up. I am well aware of the dangers of radioactivity he apparently is not and keep insisting on exaggerating the dangers with no reason other than his assertions. The links he has provided so far do not back up his assertions at all and in fact support my view of mitigating risks. Dilution is the solution to pollution!

Who is suggesting a 100 megaton explosion? I never said there is no threat, I said the risk is minimal and not significant to what we already have. You forget that I might already be familiar with them, this is an area I was obsessed with many years ago. I am well aware of that, are you aware that the risk of shattering the asteroid can be mitigated? If the pieces still hit the earth the radiation will be the least of your worries. Now how about a citation that actually supports your assertions? EMP inside the moons orbit, can you support that assertion?

I don't doubt that nuclear fallout can be dangerous what I am asserting it that the fall out from a bomb detonated millions of miles from the earth will not be significant. The amount of fall out is what is dangerous, a single bomb doesn't have the ability to significantly affect the environment, the fact that 507 didn't do it long term suggest that the idea of a nuclear explosions millions of miles away wouldn't do it either. You do realize that radioactivity is part of the natural environment and that the actual amount is what is important not that any amount exists.. right? I'm not suggesting there is no risk, I am asserting that the risk is far less than a asteroid hitting the earth. Risk management is the important thing here. What poses the most risk, an asteroid impact or the detonation of a warhead millions of miles away?

Why is this relevant? Please explain. Starfish Prime was detonated in very low earth orbit not the distance of the moon! Citation for your assertions that a nuclear explosion inside the moons orbit would cause a EMP please.

Citation please, how far out would a nuke have to be to have a EMP effect on the Earth? I was assuming a nuke or any other means of deflection would have to used way before the moons orbit was breached by the object. Once it got that close it would essentially be only a few minutes to impact! Even if that is true and the entire radiation load of the war head was transferred to the Earths atmosphere how is that any different than a nuclear test back in the era of atmospheric tests which we know didn't have much if any long term effects. Citation please your assertions need to be backed up by more than your fear of nukes.

Nuclear power and bombs are not the existential threat so often hyped up by anti nuke activists. I honestly do not understand why the use of nukes in space is so feared. A nuclear warhead detonated in space away from the Earth poses essentially no threat to the earth but could be an effective tool against an asteroid strike. A rocket to deliver such a payload could be built out of existing stock in just a few weeks, months at most. All the other methods would be fine if they were already in place, its practically a crime we don't already have them in place! But if we were confronted with such a threat with little time I see no other alternative except maybe just hunkering down and riding it out and that might be the right move for a small asteroid like the Tunguska event. In fact if we are presented with a Tunguska sized asteroid it would be a great reason to try and test the non nuke methods. If of course we could get some warning of such an event which I doubt is likely. It would take years to develop, build,and deploy the technologies that might work while a nuke is simple, easy to deploy and most importantly already available! I am not suggesting detonating a nuke in low earth orbit, I would assume it would be deployed as far away as time allowed but to suggest that the fall out from the detonation of a few nukes on an asteroid millions of miles away would threaten the earth in some existential way is preposterous. Between 1945 and 1980 507 atmospheric nuclear tests were carried out none of them resulted in widespread damage to the environment or the destruction of civilization. If I remember correctly IVY Mike was the worst of these, it resulted in some pretty bad contamination but that was due to poor planning and less than accurate science. I doubt detonating nukes on an asteroid millions of miles away would be the end of our civilization or be any real threat to anything. Chernobyl, as bad as it was, didn't do that and and it released far more radioactive contamination than a few nukes would. Nor would a war head accidentally falling to the ground from orbit cause widespread damage or even widespread contamination. Preparation is the key, at this time I see no viable short term alternative but I wholeheartedly agree we should be preparing a way to counteract this threat and asserting that nukes should not be used really needs to be thought out a bit more clearly. So far all I see are vague notions of some harm a nuke might cause exaggerated beyond all reason.

Mordred, it would take more than a year to even coordinate such an effort, solar sails? There are no operational solar sails, we have no space craft capable of flying to the moon much less an asteroid. A gravity tractor is an idea, none actually exist, the ability to get to the asteroid doesn't exist, refueling in orbit is an idea, the actual process doesn't exist. You have a year not 20 years. It should be the first option if no other option is credible, I see no reason to discount nukes, you seem to think a nuke is somehow a threat to the planet despite that being obviously hyped anti nuke propaganda.

Quite the contrary you seem to fear a nuke worse than an asteroid strike, a nuke is not the end of the world, a major asteroid strike might very well be!

Mordred, lets set up a hypothetical, today NASA finds out a 250 meter asteroid is going to impact the Atlantic ocean near Bermuda in one year... what do you propose we do?

by the time we make a decision the impact has already occured

I would have to agree since that is exactly what I have been saying, given time (in our current state I would bet we would need 20 years lead time, probably take 5 years just to make a decision) we can use whatever method is best but we don't always get much warning in fact I would say we seldom do. All I have said is that nukes are the best if a quick but powerful method is necessary, if you have several years lead time then you can make different choices but to immediately say no nukes due to some exaggerated fear of nukes is not rational. a nuke or even several nukes would not be an existential threat to us. A significant asteroid impact could end us or at least have a significant impact on us, far more significant than a couple nukes. I know people who are terrified that a rogue state might detonate a single warhead as though it would kill us all, that is not a rational fear level. I agree time is the deciding factor but at some point a nuke is not just the best option it would be the only option. If we had a year lead time to deflect a 250 meter asteroid what would be the best method of deflection? Expend a few megatons of nuclear explosions or allow a 10,000 megaton explosion to devastate the earth... your choice.

Mordred, you are completely missing my point, the potential harm done by an asteroid strike is far worse than the damage that could be done by a little radiation from a nuke. A nuke or even a few nukes would not destroy life on earth or even have a significant impact on life on earth but a 10,000 megaton explosion and the dust and debris kicked up by such and iact would have a dire effect on the Earth, on our civilization, on humans in general. Not as foolish as allowing an unhinged fear of nukes to allow an asteroid strike.

I am sorry to me that is a given, I missed your point. Of if an asteroid lands on billions of people heads.

Protons can be defeated by a magnetic field, neutrons cannot, anti neutrons are even better when they contact matter, due to the half life of the neutrons it should create some interesting effects, like the beam being visible, and the the point of contact being a continuous multi megaton explosion. It should leave behind an expanding cloud of anti hydrogen if I understand neutron decay correctly. This would have to be a space weapon, no handheld anti neutron beam weapons! I am thinking of a beam that puts a microgram of antimatter on the target every micro second. Space operas illustrated by AI are becoming popular on you tube, I've already had one story published this way and I am hoping for others. No money in it but its still fun to hear your own words being narrated over AI images. I didn't know Vernor Vinge had died, his level of genius is a distant goal but it shines bright as a guiding star. BTW anyone who follows the erotic story (Slave girl Patty) on my blog I have two more chapters published!

Well first off the space shuttle is at least a couple orders of magnitude more debris than a single warhead would be and a single warhead is a lot stronger than the space shuttle for the same reason a Tonka truck is tougher that a real truck. The cube square law applies here, something as small as a war head would be much tougher than a space shuttle. But the fact remains that a few kilos of plutonium spread over such a large area isn't exactly the end of the world. If you were talking about a few kilos of cobalt 60 you'd have a point but the actual impact of the space shuttle, which broke up well before it impacted the ground and spread out before impact and a warhead that is designed to survive reentry with out breaking up or spreading out cannot really be compared. Plutonium is not some sort of magical poison that kills everyone and everything exposed to it. A few kilos of nerve gas would do far more damage. I lost my existential dread of nuclear power decades ago, its not magic and the risks can be mitigated. And again the amount of radioactive material is important here, the remnants of a nuke compared to the 507 already detonated is miniscule and would pose no realistic danger. Radioactivity is all around us and part of the natural world, the dose is important. I would like to propose that a small dose of radioactive material is far better than a large dose of asteroid. I disagree, in this case nukes are the best, easiest, and fastest method we currently have. Should we develop more than one method? Of course we should but currently I see nothing that even comes close to the potential effectiveness of a nuke. I am well aware of this, how does this change my assertion pointed out above? Again I am well aware of this, how does this change the assertion I have made above? Still the best we currently have, what we use has to be weighed against the time we have to react, the actual size of the asteroid, and the technology we have ready to use. I am not saying that nukes are our only hope, I am saying that currently they are our best hope until someone plans ahead and actually creates the technology to do this without nukes. I see no reason to take nukes off the table due to some exaggerated fear of radioactivity. If a 250 meter asteroid showed up that is going to hit within a year what would you do> Do we sit around arguing over how to do this without nukes or do we act as fast as possible to divert the asteroid away from our planet? How ever many nukes it takes wouldn't the goal of preventing a 10,000 megaton impact be worth the actual radioactive danger from a few nukes? I'm betting you guys won't like this at all!

And how many people died from operation star fish? How bad was the contamination, how long did people have to stay in fallout shelters? I was under the impression that we are planning on stopping the asteroid from impacting the earth and just how many nukes will it take to release enough radiation to be a realistic threat?

What would be your point here?

Obviously, if that plutonium wasn't encased in a reentry vehicle it would probably contaminate a few acres, the plutonium in the Cassini probe was in the form of a ceramic btw, the risk would have to be weighed against the risk of an asteroid strike. Just how dangerous do you think plutonium is, the amount in one warhead would certainly not threaten the planet significantly if 507 nukes can be detonated yet not have a significant affect and yes they leave behind plutonium.