Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Carl Sagan Was On US Team To Nuke the Moon

Posted by timothy on from the only-a-light-nuking-around-the-edges dept.

First time accepted submitter novakom writes "Apparently during the cold war, one fall-back position the U.S. was looking at to ensure mutual assured destruction was to put nukes on the moon. This would ensure that the U.S. could retaliate against even an effective first strike by the Russians. The first step, of course, would be to detonate a nuke on the moon. And yes, Carl Sagan was on the team (and apparently leaked the info!)"

22 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Why would that be the first step? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In what world does putting nukes on the moon require first detonating them on the moon? It would seem like that might make things harder.

    1. Re:Why would that be the first step? by sribe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In what world does putting nukes on the moon require first detonating them on the moon? It would seem like that might make things harder.

      I think the summary was poorly worded. It's not the first step to getting them on the moon; it's the first to using them as a deterrent, after siting on the moon, because it would be proof positive to the Soviets that you had actually gotten working nukes onto the moon, as opposed to some kind non-functional decoy. (Ironically, decades later, Ronald Reagan used a non-functioning decoy (SDI) to wreck the Soviet economy and win the cold war...)

    2. Re:Why would that be the first step? by ari_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also proof of concept. If you can launch a nuclear missile from Earth and detonate it on or near the surface of the moon, particularly if you can get reasonably close to a specific position on the surface of the moon, then you can likely do the same in reverse. If you can't nuke the moon from Earth, then you can't nuke Earth from the moon.

    3. Re:Why would that be the first step? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... If you can't nuke the moon from Earth, then you can't nuke Earth from the moon.

      Horse manure. Different size gravity wells.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    4. Re:Why would that be the first step? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhhh...we had already seen how they work in space, so making the moon glow in the dark would make NO sense!

      My guess is its more likely an "Operation Plowshares" kind of deal, everyone forgets that once upon a time they thought you could use nukes like really really REALLY big dynamite, they even looked at making canals by using shaped nuke charges.

      Considering how many completely stupid things we did, what with the above ground tests and air bursts and water tests? Frankly we are lucky we aren't having to look at the moon as a new home, man we were REALLY stupid when it came to radiation back then. Of course back then our ships were filled with asbestos to cut down the risk of fires so long term thinking? REALLY not big back then.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Why would that be the first step? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's much harder to get a nuke to the moon. You're climbing up the big gravity well and falling down the little one instead of vice versa. It took a Saturn V to get people to the moon and only a couple of puny boosters to get them back.

    6. Re:Why would that be the first step? by Coisiche · · Score: 4, Funny

      By "people", do you mean the extraterrestrial explorers investigating the remains of a civilization?

    7. Re:Why would that be the first step? by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Funny

      >so making the moon glow in the dark would make NO sense!

      Because it already does that ?!

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. Re:It is truly frightening by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have faith that there are so many stupid people in so many positions that they kinda cancel each other out most of the time

  3. That's crazy... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but also kind of badass at the same time.

  4. Re:It is truly frightening by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is stupid about it? At the time, the only true revenge weapon was the nuclear submarines, and the US in 1959 had just 5 of those.

    You need an if-all-else-fails weapon, otherwise you have to keep your nuclear forces on high alert at all times to avoid losing to a first strike. Staying at high alert risks launching by mistake.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  5. stupid by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's stupid. They should put the nukes on the dark side and then detonate them all at once to crash the moon into Russia. That's so much more direct and efficient than launching the missiles themselves from the moon at Russia.

    1. Re:stupid by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don’t know. I knew a Polish physics professor who had defected in the 60’s. He though it would be a great idea to detonate a few nuclear bombs to increase earth’s tilt so the USSR would be where the North Pole is now.

      This seems a lot less radical.

  6. slow news day? by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    > [...........] And yes, Carl Sagan was on the team (and apparently leaked the info!)

    That's in the wiki entry. Slow news during the holiday season?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  7. Re:Carl Sagan Use To Drop Acid by Zephyn · · Score: 4, Funny

    But then he'd find a base to neutralize it and clean it up with a mop.

  8. Re:Typical slashdot summary by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well it's not going to nuke itself.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  9. News for Nerds, Stuff from Twelve Years Ago by Swampash · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/may/14/spaceexploration.theobserver

    Slashdot editors, kill yourselves.

    1. Re:News for Nerds, Stuff from Twelve Years Ago by fotoguzzi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      http://slashdot.org/story/00/05/15/1238219/us-had-plan-to-nuke-the-moon

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
  10. Re:It is truly frightening by Pulzar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "MAD" was exactly what the prevention was about. If you have a system that's going to kill the opponent even after he kills you, then they will likely not try to kill you in the first place.

    If Russians felt, at any time, that a quick strike would take the US revenge capability, they'd be a lot more likely to strike than if they knew that moon nukes would be coming afterwards.

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  11. Re:Typical slashdot summary by slew · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hmm, might review your history a bit.

    Potsdam (w/ Truman hinting to Stalin about the A-bomb) happened in 1945. Eisenhower was President after 1953. This nuke-the-moon plan didn't get rolling until 1957 (after Sputnik) when the US heard a rumor about a similar Soviet plan to nuke-the-moon (aka Project E-4).

    The publication "A Study of Lunar Research Flights" (which documented the nuke-the-moon plan) wasn't printed until 1959.

  12. Re:War; War never changes by alostpacket · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, but the Moon deserved it. Have you seen the way it can hit your eye?

    --
    PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
  13. Re:War; War never changes by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 5, Funny

    WTF man? Of course he was talking about going some where else with sufficient resources and habitable conditions. You might as well have assumed he meant we should set up a colony on the surface of the sun for all the idiocy you've attributed to him.

    As long as you stayed inside during the day, and only went out at night, a solar colony might be workable.