For what purpose?

they had nuclear SAMs too. like said, soviet bombers were the top priority threat, and missile guidance technology wasn't what it was today. it really isn't that stupid. extreme, maybe, but it was an intelligent choice given the time period.

Fun fact: some of those nuclear SAMs where placed in the custody of national guard battlions, the only time the NastyGirls have ever had custody of nukes.

The cold war was pretty metal man

SHALL

Nuking the target is only way to be sure.

You can also have guided nuclear air to air missiles.

Attached: AIM-26A_1.jpg (768x1024, 74K)

NOT

all i can think is

>in the middle of a dogfight, severely outnumbered
>see my wingman go down
>thatsfuckingenough.jpg
>maneuver sideways around enemy aircraft
>pull trigger
>kill them, myself, and 30 million people below

IIRC the Genie's main purpose wasn't to just shoot down bombers, but to disable their bombs. Something about the gamma pulse when it detonates can cause a momentary critical reaction in the bombs that makes them far less effective in the event that they go off, and it can still effect bombers that are outside of the blase radius.

NUKE STUFF IS SO FUCKING COOL.

BEE

In case you have to dab on them haters at Mach 5

INFWINGED >:3

The shockwave would be very effective against swarms of soviet bombers. And the best place to use them would be over northern/arctic Canada and Alaska due to severe lack of people. It's one of the few nukes that Canada ever had in their inventory as well.

soviet zerg rush

Attached: 8637917889_34201dbc8b_b.jpg (1024x683, 271K)

bomber formations

>yield in low kiloton range
Weak. They should have gone big or gone home.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Scorcher

Attached: 800px-Advanced_F-106.jpg (800x532, 88K)

The whole point was that they could use it over friendly positions if need be.

youtube.com/watch?v=1VZ7FQHTaR4&t=

Oh shit. Soviet nuclear zeppelin inbound. What do.

Attached: nuclear zeppelin.jpg (800x530, 236K)

If you just detonate a nuke over someone's head, are they still of a friendly disposition to you?

>Sir, radar's picking up one of our nuclear armed fighters heading this way, they have clearance to fire!
>SHOOT IT DOWN!

>he thinks soviet uses bomber formation
retard, their air doctrine is different from land.
their bombers fly alone on high altitude

To cause as big a boom as possible. Clearly, you do not think like a mad scientist.

>Hey guys, here's a design I made for a nuclear-powered missile!
>How the hell would we justify this? It would fly for fucking months
>I dunno, dropping other warheads? Flying fast/low enough to avoid radar, or even just to spread more damage/radiation? Plus even if it just hit something on its own it would destroy a hell of a lot
>...hey
>What if it did ALL OF THOSE?

Attached: COME ON AND.jpg (978x530, 74K)

TLDR nato during the Cold War: “we can put a nuke in that? Fuck man let’s do it!”

UNGUIDED NUCLEAR AIR TO AIR MISSILE

Imagine what could have happened if they had missed and the missile just carried the fuck on until it ran out of fuel and exploded wherever the fuck it did.
Who's idea was this?

IIRC it was remote detonated, and it probably also had back up safety fusing to detonate or render it inoperable in the event that it missed or it's controlling plane was shot down.

>For what purpose?
Destroying formations instead of individual targets

Attached: 1-1.jpg (600x739, 67K)

Bear hunting.

Well yeah, who do you think the Russians recruit for their military

Attached: slam jamd.png (538x676, 159K)

>A single fighter being able to take out a whole bomber squadron is a bad idea.

>COME ON AND SLAM
>AND WELCOME TO THE JAM

>take out bomber squadron
>also yourself, both fleets below you, fish in a 36 mile radius and part of the moon

We went fucking nuke crazy there for a while.
>nuclear mining
>nuclear land mines
>nuclear depth charges
>nuclear recoilless rifle
>nuclear man portable demolition charge
>nuclear reactor powered tank
>nuclear reactor powered bomber
It's probably for the last two never left the drawing board.

Attached: LasVegasnuketest.jpg (1926x2046, 376K)

Ships are surprisingly resistant against nuclear attacks and you wouldn't destroy yourself with it, majority of the time anyway.

Also vacuum tubes are extremely resistant vs EMP

>probably

Where's the greentext about this

I was about to say something about 'that timelime' then I realized I was imagining the Fallout world

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
Essentially fuck the world and everyone who inhabits it

COME ON AND SLAM AND WELCOME TO THE JAM

>huge number of commie nuclear bombers
>fire nuclear air-to-air missile
>destroy dozens in one shot
Nope, not seeing the stupid.

You're an idiot.

Build more Prisim towers.

But they don't work against air targets. I'd train more IFV's or Rocketeers instead

COME ON AND SLAM
AND WELCOME TO THE JAM

Come on and slam and welcome to the jam!

nuclear bombers were flight-tested by both the US and Russia, and found impractical

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-14_Nike_Hercules

To shoot down bombers. Here's a nuclear SAM.

Carnage.

Come on and slam and welcome to the jam!

Attached: 1200px-Mauricio_rugendas_-_el_malon.jpg (1200x908, 205K)

Use british snipers in IFVs to kill shitty infantry and level up the IFVs to veteran, then they shred the fuck out of Kirovs

So would each aircraft in the group have these as their main weapon?
Not just one aircraft with one if things got way out of hand?

COME ON AND SLAM AND WELCOME TO THE JAM

Attached: 1505763495942.png (407x393, 192K)

come on and slam and welcome to the jam

>Jackass Flats
Was it called that before people tried to build this shit there?

COME ON AND SLAM
AND WELCOME TO THE JAM

Canada had Genies & BOMARC nukes, but the BOMARC's became a political hot potato so they were gotten rid of early; Genies after we got enough AIM-7 and AIM-9 to feel safe.

COME ON AND SLAM AND WELCOME TO THE JAM

Attached: 2B24075D-BB0D-4B17-AD60-99B1B1157721.jpg (638x676, 74K)

This is NOT what the sky king wanted for us

Attached: f.jpg (640x575, 83K)

Build more GI's, no kirov is getting trough my base.

>fire unguided nuclear missile
>miss
>massive collateral damage

>The proposed use for nuclear-powered ramjets would be to power a cruise missile, called SLAM
>Once it reached cruising altitude and was far away from populated areas, the nuclear reactor would be made critical.
>The SLAM, as proposed, would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber.
>After delivering all its warheads, the missile could then spend weeks flying over populated areas at low altitudes, causing tremendous ground damage with its shock wave and fallout.
>When it finally lost enough power to fly, and crash-landed, the engine would have a good chance of spewing deadly radiation for months to come.
holy shit the absolute mad men

Dont nukes make a coms barrier due air ionization?

Tbh I can't imagine those missiles were armed with anything but the lowest yield nukes inventoried

No, holmes

If it was high enough the ground effects would be negligible with those sized yields. Or at the very least some small town would get wiped out instead of a major city.

Stop posting Pluto in every nuclear thread. Everyone knows about it and it's not relevant

>>kill them, myself, and 30 million people below
...yeah. Go to nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Select Tokyo, Tsar Bomba, check casualties, and click detonate. That's the biggest fucker ever hitting the biggest urban centre in the world. The genie rocket on the other hand had a 1.5kt warhead, you can pop that just about anywhere in the world without even getting Nagasaki numbers.

>intercepting enemy bombers flying at 12km alt
>100s of km from your own soil
>warhead is 1.5kT
>collateral damage

If you have a floating cities that were samehow catch by jet streams in stratosphere and drifted in random direction then maybe.

And here's a video of when they tested it. Popped it 3.5miles off the ground, and the people standing right underneath it, well, see for yourself: youtube.com/watch?v=1VZ7FQHTaR4

Only briefly. It has to go off up in the van Allen belt to be more lasting, and there won't be any bombers that high.

Yes, to avoid nuclear tipped unguided javelins of pure democracy.

>unguided
But what if you miss?

I think it's exactly what he would have wanted.

Attached: What should have been.jpg (800x774, 133K)

Soviets were also deploying nuclear suitcases in that time. Some time ago I've read that about 200 of them are missing.

>Soviet Union lost 200 nukes
I can believe it.

Attached: 1533781060692.jpg (480x567, 49K)

Any and all legal.

You're shooting at a bunch of bombers flying level and straight ahead. If you can't aim well enough to get one or a few with the blast radius of a fucking nuke then you have no business whatsoever flying an interceptor. Mopping the mess is probably more your thing.

Pst, hey kid. Wanna buy a bridge?

Also US developed man portable nuclear bombs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
I think that more appropriate name would be SADAM instead of SADM

>mfw
The idea isn’t stupid at all, it was to either fuck up the bombers that were on the receiving end or if not that fry their systems and comms, basically make the payloads nothing more than big metal duds.

Attached: AD5FDA2E-1AA9-4B06-A40C-02A924E43B62.png (423x423, 234K)

Wait wait. There were nuclear landmines? Please tell me they were "anti personel"

youtube.com/watch?v=GhRapsbwhqE

Attached: 1309292425379.jpg (185x82, 19K)

>We
As in "both superpowers". Former Soviet states still have "presents" left after all the nuclear craze. No I don't mean Chernobyl.

More than that, there were planned to be chicken powered nuclear land mines.

>I'm Johnny Knoxville and this is "Project Pluto"

Attached: in-flight-with-bomb_600.jpg (600x375, 40K)

Chicken heated, thankyouverymuch.

>leaving out nuclear space travel
Wonder if we’ll go as crazy with hydrogen as we did with nukes.

>Atomic demolition munitions (ADMs), colloquially known as nuclear land mines, are small nuclear explosive devices. ADMs were developed for both military and civilian purposes. As weapons, they were designed to be exploded in the forward battle area, in order to block or channel enemy forces. Non-militarily, they were designed for demolition, mining or earthmoving.
>demolition
What would you plan to demolish with 1kt nuclear device? Flaktürme?

>civilian atomic landmines

Attached: 2EE9F8D2-611B-4C64-9997-67051D9AD70A.png (493x276, 34K)

hydrogen is good as space fuel because you can get it basically anywhere in space

and good earth bound vehicle fuel because the only exhaust is water

Figures

Roads and bridges, command and control facilities in case of imminent capture, stay behind weapons in towns that were expected to be captured by Soviet forces. The US hid hundreds of ADMs all over West Germany.

Unlikely, we kinda know that radiation ain't good nowadays, and while fusion gives you less of it, you still get a good deal of contamination if you start fucking around. Fusion also has significant scale advantages to running shit large.