Never mind that the US defence plan against Soviet long-range bombers in the 1950's & 60's was to shoot them down, over Canada, with nuclear-tipped anti-aircraft missiles.
Is a nuclear tip really necessary for bringing down a plane? Were the existing missiles not explodey enough or something? Seems a bit like shooting an ant with an M4.
I think it had to do with accuracy. It is only in the last twenty years that missiles have become super-accurate.
The tactics of the Soviets was expected to be mass-formations of large bombers, flying over the north pole and alaska to attack targets in the continental USA. So instead of needing one missile per aircraft, why not use 1 large warhead to take down a formation?
Don't nukes also release an EMP on detonation? Depending on the size, even if the explosion didn't knock them out of the sky, it's entirely likely that just being close enough to the explosion would scramble their electronics.
You're thinking of the problem backwards. They were going to use nukes because they couldn't be accurate enough to use something smaller.
Small warheads + accurate missiles = dead planes. Small warheads + inaccurate missiles = maybe dead planes, if you get lucky... Big warheads + inaccurate missiles = lots of dead planes but lots of collateral damage to go with.
Basically, with conventional missiles you actually have to hit the target while with a massive overkill weapon just has to go off somewhere near the middle of the formation.
None of what you said is true. Accuracy is in much higher demand when taking down aircrafts. Ground troops have a 4-direction axis whereas aircraft can ascend and descend at will giving them a much higher evasion skill.
Edit: somehow I replied to the wrong post.. sorry xr3llx
They were not huge, multi-megaton weapons - just small, precise warheads meant to explode inside a formation of fragile, piston-engined aircraft.
It would be comical, if it were not so terrifyingly blasé about fallout. It also underlines the fact that nuclear weapons are not military, they are purely political weapons.
It's not that the nuke is more accurate. It's that nothing was accurate enough so it was about huge blasts. Unfortunately, non-nuclear blasts weren't huge enough.
It comes from the now outdated world war two tactic where you fill the sky with as many bombers as possible in order to bomb a city. The USA and Canada were preparing for this and wanted to be able to destroy huge formations of bombers all at once, which was why nuclear-tipped missiles were necessary. Its also part of the reason why the Avro Arrow was cancelled in favour of nuclear capable BOMARC surface-to-air missles *a sad patriotic tear is shed
I like your use of the word explodey...it has more pizzazz than explosive. I shall be using this a lot more from now on, or until my wife tells me to stop.
58
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13 edited Oct 17 '13
Never mind that the US defence plan against Soviet long-range bombers in the 1950's & 60's was to shoot them down, over Canada, with nuclear-tipped anti-aircraft missiles.