detonating nuclear bombs on the moon

[yearntolearn]

i can't seem to find anything listed on here about this fact i just learned, so i figured i'd share it. DID YOU KNOW that the US and the soviet union considered detonating nuclear bombs on the moon?

to quote russ kick:

"...the United States and the Soviet Union have seriously considered exploding atomic bombs on the Moon.

It was the late 1950s and the Cold War was extremely chilly. Someone in the US government got the bright idea of nuking the Moon, and in 1958 the Air Force Special Weapons Center spearheaded the project (labeled A119, 'A Study of Lunar Research Flights").

The idea was to shock and awe the Soviet Union, and everybody else, with a massive display of American nuclear might. What better demonstration than an atomic nuclear explosion on our closest celestial neighbor? According to the reports, the flash would've been visible to the naked eye on Earth."

"Carl Sagan was among the scientists lending his intellectual muscle...."

"The Soviet Union got in on the act, also in the late 1950s. Project E4 would've used a probe armed with an A-bomb to blast the Moon, apparently as a display of one-upmanship. The idea reached the stage of a full scale model, but was aborted for fear of the probe falling back to Earth."

personally, i think it's "WOW."

[martin]

The idea was to shock and awe the Soviet Union

"The Soviet Union got in on the act, also in the late 1950s. Project E4 would've used a probe armed with an A-bomb to blast the Moon, apparently as a display of one-upmanship. The idea reached the stage of a full scale model, but was aborted for fear of the probe falling back to Earth."

Each could launch the rocket over the territory of the other. Then if the probe falls back to earth the other will be even more in shock and awe.

Martin

[JustAGuy]

Personally, I've always found the deep cold war mentality intriguing. This was an era that saw massive nuclear proliferation, even in forms of nuclear air-to-air missiles and nuclear torpedoes, of all things.

I suppose "nuking the moon" would seem like a natural extension to that frame of mind, but all these ideas seem highly extreme in today's context. Never-the-less it was a real proposal that was given real consideration, although the very thought seems foreign and perhaps even somewhat repugnant these days.

Perhaps a board member with first hand experience can shed some insight on these times and the thinking that went with them.

[kucharek]

http://utenti.lycos.it/paoloulivi/nuke.html

[novaderrik]

i heard about that a couple of years ago, and mentioned it to a particularly "patriotic" co-worker. he's one of those folks that thinks the USA can and should do whatever we can to scare the hell out of all the other countries of the world to show them not to mess with us or even question us. but he's not exactly a scientific thinker.
he said nuking the moon would be a bad idea because without it's gravity, the earth would be all screwed up like in the overly bad remake of "The Time Machine" that he'd just seen on cable that weekend..
i just didn't respond and ended the conversation right there..

[Stuart]

Personally, I've always found the deep cold war mentality intriguing. This was an era that saw massive nuclear proliferation, even in forms of nuclear air-to-air missiles and nuclear torpedoes, of all things.

There was nothing strange about nuclear air-to-air missiles or torpedoes; both were developed because they were a logical solution to an operational problem. In the case of air-to-air missiles, it was the absolute necessity of getting kills against bombers targeted against cities. WW2 had shown that big bombers were hard to kill. For about five-ten years after WW2 the American B-36 was almost invulnerable due to its combination of speed and operational altitude. Speed considerations meant that the defending fighter would probably only get a single shot in so that shot had to be reasonably certain of killing. Also, guidance systems in those days were pretty crude and could be jammed. Again, a nuclear warhead giving a one-shot kill was attractive.

Nuclear torpedoes were a product of the same logic train. If an SSBN is launching missiles, it has to be killed quickly and certainly - hence a nuclear torpedo was the preferred system. Also nuclear torpedoes were a strategic weapon in their own right before ICBMs were developed; just fire one into a port.

I suppose "nuking the moon" would seem like a natural extension to that frame of mind, but all these ideas seem highly extreme in today's context. Never-the-less it was a real proposal that was given real consideration, although the very thought seems foreign and perhaps even somewhat repugnant these days.

My understanding is that the proposal was made as a scientific experiment to gain information on the lunar surface and any political effects were very much secondary. However, my knowledge of these programs (all of which were killed pretty early) is very much third-hand. However, I must add that a lot of things are proposed as programs and get killed off; sometimes the proposal is nothing more than a way of demonstrating that said proposal is a really bad idea.

[Van Rijn]

The idea was to shock and awe the Soviet Union, and everybody else, with a massive display of American nuclear might. What better demonstration than an atomic nuclear explosion on our closest celestial neighbor? According to the reports, the flash would've been visible to the naked eye on Earth."

At most, it would have been a tiny, very brief flash. This is nearly a quarter million miles away, remember, and there is no atmosphere, so unless it is blown right on the surface, there will be minimal blast effect.

I think the main reactions would have been "That's IT???" and "Did you see anything?"

he said nuking the moon would be a bad idea because without it's gravity, the earth would be all screwed up like in the overly bad remake of "The Time Machine" that he'd just seen on cable that weekend"

Please don't call that piece of ... garbage a "remake." It had very little to do with either the original story or the George Pal movie of that name. But that is a great example of the ideas this type of nonsense fosters. (For those who mercifully have not been exposed, low yield nukes somehow split the moon. A million years later the moon looks like a pie with a slice removed. Arggh. The pain, the pain!)

[ngc3314]

For about five-ten years after WW2 the American B-36 was almost invulnerable due to its combination of speed and operational altitude. Speed considerations meant that the defending fighter would probably only get a single shot in so that shot had to be reasonably certain of killing. Also, guidance systems in those days were pretty crude and could be jammed. Again, a nuclear warhead giving a one-shot kill was attractive.

The B-36 was probably the single piece of engineering most responsible for my Horrified Fascination with Cold War technology. But this is the forst time I've heard it mentioned as "fast". High-flying, long range, able to maneuver at altitude in a way early jets couldn't come close to - but fast? Cruising speed was listed at a blistering 230 mph.

For non-aficionados, the B-36 was somewhat larger than a B-52 and in operational versions, deployed for only about 5 years, had six pusher piston engines plus 4 jet engines on pods near the wingtips for that extra bit of oomph. Its design dates to the early dayes of World War II, when the US brass were nervous that they might find themselves at war with Germany and not be able to stage from the UK, so the basic requirement was more or less "dump a lot of bombs on Berlin flying straight from the US". It actually flew a few years after the war, and was the primary US nuclear deterrent in the mid-1950s. There were experiments in carrying its own jet fighters for escort, either internally and deployed on a trapeze or clamped on the wingtips, since the range of what the USAF hoped would amount to an aircraft carrier on wings was vastly beyond what they could match with jet fighters. Best on-screen appearance was in "Strategic Air Command" with Jimy Stewart, where the aerial cinematography actuall made these beasts show up as graceful.

[die Nullte]

The B-36 was probably the single piece of engineering most responsible for my Horrified Fascination with Cold War technology. But this is the forst time I've heard it mentioned as "fast". High-flying, long range, able to maneuver at altitude in a way early jets couldn't come close to - but fast? Cruising speed was listed at a blistering 230 mph.

Yeah, I was pretty surprised to read this, too. When I was young I frequently saw B-36s high overhead, and one thing they were not was fast. The Air Force was much ridiculed for suggesting that these planes could survive over the USSR. The B-36s were visibly much slower than the B-47s, which were also a common sight for a few years. I have read (and please don't demand a source -- this was quite a few years ago) that the B-47 proved quite difficult to intercept by U.S. fighters of the time (primarily F-89s and F-94s)

[jt-3d]

But the B-47 was a medium range bomber. The B-36 was a long range bomber and thus more capable of showing the Ruskies the light.

[die Nullte]

But the B-47 was a medium range bomber. The B-36 was a long range bomber and thus more capable of showing the Ruskies the light.

Cool model!

[ngc3314]

But the B-47 was a medium range bomber. The B-36 was a long range bomber and thus more capable of showing the Ruskies the light.

Hey, I have a big 1/72 version like that in my basement! Except that it looks like you went for the orangish primer on the wheel doors rather than green. Sure slurps up the silver paint. B-47 coming up on that list. Just found a 1960s U-2 kit for $5 (in a local shop that got a bunch of stuff from an estate sale).

These things get hidden away after an unfortunate incident involving the cat and my recently-completed ISS model. Had to send to Germany to replace that solar array panel. Also explains the big Soyuz capsule on my desk at work...

[sts60]

The B-36 was probably the single piece of engineering most responsible for my Horrified Fascination with Cold War technology.

You really want to read a book called Bombs Awry! by a fellow named Ted Tate. He was a flight mechanic/navigator/pilot/etc. from before WWII to Vietnam, and worked on the development of planes from the B-26 to the F-111. It's basically a collection of short (mostly true) stories, many funny, some tragic. No, I don't get a commission on sales, but I really liked the book. And he spends a good chunk of the book on the B-36.

[jt-3d]

Hey, I have a big 1/72 version like that in my basement! Except that it looks like you went for the orangish primer on the wheel doors rather than green. Sure slurps up the silver paint.

I think that's the way it was painted in Strategic Air Command and I used that plane for an example of a real one. That was before the whole internet fad. I also used silver spray paint which was a good and bad idea.

[Kiwi]

Some cold war rhetoric from my local newspaper. Those who are interested may be able to find the same articles in their own newspapers, though with different headlines:

Manawatu Daily Times, Tuesday 5 November 1957, page 7
Red dye on the moon soon?
(Received 11:30pm) New York, November 4
... [Headline only]

Manawatu Daily Times, Thursday 7 November 1957, page 6
New Zealand watch on moon for possible Soviet bomb
Nuclear blast could wreak more havoc than on earth
(P.A.) Wellington, November 6
...[Headline only]

Manawatu Daily Times, Monday 18 November 1957, page 7
Quantum rocket would pass moon in seconds — Russians forecast reaching the speed of light
(Received 10pm) Moscow, November 16
...[Headline only]

Manawatu Daily Times, Monday 27 January 1958, page 7
Krushchev boasts of Soviet might in ballistic missile field
Powerful ICBM can launch still heavier Sputniks, send them higher
(Received 10pm) Moscow, January 26
...[Headline only]

Manawatu Daily Times, Thursday 30 January 1958, page 7
Moon must become military base
(Received 7pm) Washington, January 20
An Air Force general said today it was inevitable that the moon would become a military base that could be used to rain "massive destruction" on nations on earth.
Brigadier-General Homer Boushey, deputy director of United States Air Force research and development, said that a moon base could be established by 1968. If no international space control agreement could be obtained, he said, "then the United States must control the moon. The conquest of space is vital to U.S. interests," he said.
General Boushey said the "most important" military advantage of a U.S. moon base would be that it would put the Russians on notice that they faced "sure and massive destruction" within 48 hours if they ever launched a missile attack on the United States.

Manawatu Daily Times, Thursday 20 March 1958, page 7
Manned satellites within five years?
(Received 9:50pm) Dallas, Texas, March 19
...[Forecasts by Dr Wernher von Braun.]
...Close race
In Washington, Army scientist James Edson predicted the United States would fire a rocket to the moon within months, put a man on the moon in the early 1960s and set up a base there about 1975.
Mr Edson, assistant to the director of Army research and development, made the predictions in an address to the Civilian Club. He said both the United States and Russia were now capable of shooting a rocket to the moon, adding: "The race will be close."
Mr Edson said whichever country controlled the moon would be able to strike any place on earth with armed rockets without much fear of retaliation. He added it would be much easier to hit the earth from the moon than go from the earth to the moon.

Manawatu Daily Times, Saturday 22 March 1958, page 7
Plea against programme of "Buck Rogers stunts"
Scientists urge peaceful use of space travel technologies
(Received 10pm) Los Angeles, March 21
Dr Lloyd Dubridge, president of the California Institute of Technology said yesterday it was "utter nonsense" to regard the moon as the ultimate military base for launching of weapons on earth targets.
Dr Dubridge, addressing the opening session of the 1958 Western space age conference, urged against permitting the United States space programme to develop into a "wild programme of Buck Rogers stunts and insane pseudo-military expeditions." He urged instead "conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration."
Dr Dubridge listed three primary reasons that would discount the military advantages of the moon, despite statements to the contrary by some military generals who ought to know better." A hydrogen warhead, plus men and equipment, would have to be transported 240,000 miles "just to shoot it 240,000 miles back to earth when the target is only 5000 miles away in the first place. It would take a warhead five days to reach the earth because of space factors. "The war might be over by then. An intercontinental ballistic missile can reach any target on earth in 20 minutes."
"If we have rockets good enough to land men and equipment on the moon, the enemy will surely have ones good enough to put a hydrogen bomb at the same spot."
Dr Dubridge, whose jet propulsion laboratory at the institute played a major role in developing the United States satellite Explorer I, added: — "Either people will land on the moon for peaceful purposes by mutual agreement — or else we will surely launch the nuclear war here on earth which we are all trying to avoid."
He said he thought that the challenge of the space age was to see "whether we can use the great new technologies of space travel for peaceful and scientific purposes — conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration."

[jt-3d]

Dr Lloyd Dubridge... He urged instead "conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration."

What madness!

[captain swoop]

Dr Lloyd Dubridge... He urged instead "conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration."

What madness!

Yup, sounds like a Commie!

[Stuart]

The B-36 was probably the single piece of engineering most responsible for my Horrified Fascination with Cold War technology. But this is the forst time I've heard it mentioned as "fast". High-flying, long range, able to maneuver at altitude in a way early jets couldn't come close to - but fast? Cruising speed was listed at a blistering 230 mph.

But, cut the jets in and the old girl could make it up to around 420 - 435 miles per hour for the run to its target (usually about an hour before.

Now, that isn't spectacular speed, I agree but it is enough to cause the defense conniptions in the late 1940s and early 1950s, The problem is that most fighters back then were still piston-engined, very few could even get up to the sort of altitudes the B-36 habitually flew at (which were a lot higher than one might suspect from the bare performnce details. If we look at mission logs, we find that they habitually "bombed" US cities from over 49,000 feet). Even the ones that could get up there couldn't hold the combination of speed and altitude needed to maek an intercept. The rule of thumb is that the interceptor needed a 50 percent speed excess to do that. The early jets were short on operating altitude as well and still lacked speed - and the B-36 could out-turn any of them. (huge wings and excess power).

The B-36 became vaulnerable to defenses very suddenly. It needed two things to come together - fighters that could fly fast and happily at 50,000 feet and air-to-air missiles. When they came together (happened in the 53 -55 era), the B-36 changed from queen of the skies to cold meat.

[ngc3314]

The B-36 was probably the single piece of engineering most responsible for my Horrified Fascination with Cold War technology. But this is the forst time I've heard it mentioned as "fast". High-flying, long range, able to maneuver at altitude in a way early jets couldn't come close to - but fast? Cruising speed was listed at a blistering 230 mph.

But, cut the jets in and the old girl could make it up to around 420 - 435 miles per hour for the run to its target (usually about an hour before.

Now, that isn't spectacular speed, I agree but it is enough to cause the defense conniptions in the late 1940s and early 1950s, The problem is that most fighters back then were still piston-engined, very few could even get up to the sort of altitudes the B-36 habitually flew at (which were a lot higher than one might suspect from the bare performnce details. If we look at mission logs, we find that they habitually "bombed" US cities from over 49,000 feet). Even the ones that could get up there couldn't hold the combination of speed and altitude needed to maek an intercept. The rule of thumb is that the interceptor needed a 50 percent speed excess to do that. The early jets were short on operating altitude as well and still lacked speed - and the B-36 could out-turn any of them. (huge wings and excess power).

The B-36 became vaulnerable to defenses very suddenly. It needed two things to come together - fighters that could fly fast and happily at 50,000 feet and air-to-air missiles. When they came together (happened in the 53 -55 era), the B-36 changed from queen of the skies to cold meat.

There are a few coy ex-crewmembers out there who will slyly hint that the RB-36 could make it to something like 60,000 feet given a few thousand miles' running start. After all, that was a biiiig wing area.

The bomber-fighter arms race oscillated a lot (and then missiles entered the mix, which is why the B-36 was a real deterrent for 5 years tops). An interesting earlier version came up around 1936, when the USSR military leadership noticed that bombers belonging to the Probable Adversary could fly fast enough and high enough that, pre-radar, piston fighters couldn't make intercept altitude before the bombers were past. This is why Korolev and some other later big-name Soviet space designers spent the war years trying to make rocket fighters (or even rocket-boosted fighters) work. First the Stalinist purges carried off key engineers, then they had to move the factory past the Urals... and when the planes finally worked, after a fashion, the military picture had changed so that it was no longer the USSR in need of point air defense. But that veers into an article I wanted to write over the holidays...