Should nuclear weapons be kept to protect earth from space debri?

Posted by: Mathgeekjoe

  • Yes

  • No

61% 14 votes
39% 9 votes
  • They have very little impact on an asteroid. There are many other ways Sure Nuclear weapons might add something, but we could always re-build a few even if we don't have any lying around.

    Posted by: MrFox
  • Would you rather have one big asteroid hit us or a whole bunch of smaller ones raining down everywhere? I wouldn't rely on nuclear weapons to blow up an asteroid into small enough peaces so that they could burn up in the atmosphere. There are much more better ways to go about this.

    Posted by: reece
  • What if they blow up in transit? Then what?

  • A nuclear explosion in space near Earth could increase potentially harmful radiation levels. Also, instead of one big asteroid, you'll have hundreds of smaller ones careening towards the planet. Multiple asteroids are harder to target than just one. Also, don't forget how expensive the nukes and the property damage would be.

  • I like my asteroids not being radioactive.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-02T07:21:29.4889320-05:00
@reece Quote-a 1,000-foot-wide (300 m) asteroid can be neutralized far outside Earth's gravitational field with a warning time of just 30 days, according to Wie. Computer simulations suggest that less than 0.1 percent of the destroyed object's mass would eventually strike our planet.-end quote. Http://www.Space.Com/24696-asteroid-strike-nuclear-bombs.Html
reece says2015-04-02T09:45:26.8333112-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe 404 error.
reece says2015-04-02T09:56:23.9607408-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe Next time could you please specify the size because More than 90% of NEOs are larger than a km anyway.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-02T10:15:31.2161955-05:00 Sorry about the 404 error, debate.Org capitalized the Html causing it to not work. "@Mathgeekjoe Next time could you please specify the size because More than 90% of NEOs are larger than a km anyway." Keep in mind that nuclear weapons can also used in deflection, since they carry a large amount of energy they are the most effect way to deflect an asteroid in a small amount of time. Now if you see a NEO ten years ahead of time, I would recommend using a gravitational tractor. But if you have only a year to deflect it, gravitation tractors wouldn't work, effectively you would need to use nuclear devices to deflect it.
reece says2015-04-02T10:34:29.2338577-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe Nuclear weapons would be worse than doing nothing at all in a small amount of time. If you're just talking about 300m ones, yeah it would be alright but 90% are over a km remember. I would say using lasers or concentrated sunbeams would be better if we detected it 10 years away.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-02T10:41:36.9959735-05:00
A nuclear weapon would be used to destroy them if they are small, If they are large then you explode them on the outside of the asteroid to push it in a direction. Against asteroids larger than a kilometer you can use nukes to deflect. If you have a kilometer asteroid that is going to hit earth in a year, you are not going to be able to deflect it with lasers, sun beams, or gravitation tractors. The only option you would have is use the energy of a nuke to push it to a different path. And if you read my comment, I said a gravitational tractor would be the best way to deflect a asteroid if you have a ten year advantage. Gravitational tractor like the one used in the 'no' image would give more control of the path of an asteroid than a laser.
reece says2015-04-02T10:49:41.5761918-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe Yes you keep on going on about deflecting them even though it's still too risky. If it's a yeah away it's better to land on it and use Thrusters. I know what you said.
reece says2015-04-02T10:50:35.5127752-05:00
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-02T11:01:19.4920131-05:00
It requires a lot of fuel to move an asteroid that is kilometer in length. All that fuel would be extremely heavy, requiring many rocket launches. It is questionable if we would be able to get enough rockets to send up the fuel necessary to deflect the asteroid in a year. A single nuclear blast would provide many times the thrust compared to other options. After the initial deflection, gravitational tractors could be used to prevent future collisions. If by some unfortunate event the asteroid splits apart, majority of it would still be deflected, Any remaining fragments that somehow were not deflected would be small (less than 300 meters) and capable to be destroyed by other nuclear strikes.
reece says2015-04-02T11:15:54.3599967-05:00
You're appealing to consequences. A thruster doesn't need to be rocket fuel. Nvm i'm done. I'm sick of assumptions and intellectually dishonesty
reece says2015-04-02T11:18:20.0621287-05:00
What fuel are you talking about?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-02T11:26:48.6542767-05:00
Name a thruster that doesn't use rocket fuel? I know a few experimental ones exist but I don't know which one you think would be used on an asteroid.
reece says2015-04-02T11:38:28.3914371-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe i'm talking about a gas thruster. Using them on and off for a year makes a large difference if we're talking about a 300 meter one. But you were appealing to consequences.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-02T13:37:14.3832395-05:00
By gas thruster you mean a thruster that uses pressurized gas to produce thrust. Something that works like a fire extinguisher or co2 cartridge. Well unfortunately that wouldn't be any more efficient than rocket fuel. The current mixture that comprises rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen and oxygen which emits a lot more thrust when burned per weight than a gas thruster. Effectively you wouldn't be able to get enough rockets to move anything large.
reece says2015-04-02T14:00:50.6235199-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe No, i'm talking about gas within the asteroid.When it gets heated up it ejects it's self.
reece says2015-04-02T14:03:15.0788807-05:00
I haven't slept in two days. I'll catch some sleep now.
CannedBread says2015-04-02T21:55:48.3458596-05:00
I think so, but they should still be used for annhilation.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.