Re: Nukes and such.
Graeme Lennon (graeme@balefire.net)
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:38:21 -0400 (EDT)
> Hmm.. I'm no physicist or anything, but I think a nuclear explosion would
> have much less of an effect if used in space then on the surface of a
> planet, as I thought the primary destructive force of a nuclear blast was
> its shockwave and not the actual radiation and heat. Since there is no
> material for the shockwave to propogate through in space, only the
> radiation (infrared included) of the blast is effective. Considering that
> most spaceships are probably heavily shielded against heat and radiation
> (two common dangers in space), I think this nuclear blast would have little
> effect.
>
> Just some theorizing..
Nucleonics wouldn't be very useful as weapons in a space battle, for the
simple fact that their biggest advantage on land - blast radius - doesn't
really apply in a space-based engagement. Why waste a nuke missile, which
is slower and more expensive than a laser blast, if it's only going to
take out one ship anyway? The animation in LoGH takes some liberties with
scale so that we can actually see the ships, but it's perfectly reasonable
for each vessel to be 100-200km apart, at least. Even multi-megaton
warheads aren't going to affect more than one vessel in that kind of
situation. Missiles can also be intercepted, etc.
A much more realistic method of dealing with missiles appears in the Honor
Harrington series of novels by David Weber (highly recommended, btw),
where warheads mount bomb-pumped laser clusters rather than nukes. But
that's a little off-topic...
--
Graeme Lennon -=- graeme@balefire.net -=- Montreal, Canada
... deadening the flow of relentless biography ...
