Register to reply

Why can't any missile carry a nuclear warhead?

by liorde
Tags: carry, missile, nuclear, warhead
Share this thread:
liorde
#1
Dec19-12, 04:09 PM
P: 15
Hi,

Question about nuclear weapons:

Often you hear about a missile that is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
But actually, why can't any missile be capable of this? Just take your favorite missile, build for it a nuclear warhead which is the same shape and size as the missile's original warhead (and with the same interfaces), and install it on the missile instead of the original warhead.

Thanks
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Bees able to spot which flowers offer best rewards before landing
Classic Lewis Carroll character inspires new ecological model
When cooperation counts: Researchers find sperm benefit from grouping together in mice
Aero51
#2
Dec19-12, 04:56 PM
P: 546
Politics
Astronuc
#3
Dec19-12, 04:57 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
Quote Quote by liorde View Post
Hi,

Question about nuclear weapons:

Often you hear about a missile that is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
But actually, why can't any missile be capable of this? Just take your favorite missile, build for it a nuclear warhead which is the same shape and size as the missile's original warhead (and with the same interfaces), and install it on the missile instead of the original warhead.

Thanks
Well, warheads with nuclear weapons are different than conventional ones, so the missiles are different because there special features (not subject to public discussion). Also, some missiles were designed specifically to carry multiple warheads. The very old warheads were quite heavy, so specific missiles were designed for those warheads. The use of 'capable' is now perhaps a misnomer.

turbo
#4
Dec19-12, 07:33 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Why can't any missile carry a nuclear warhead?

The use of "capable" is probably too out of date. With technology, MIRVs can be lugged into appropriate trajectories, and can let nuclear weapons be individually targeted. We have too much killing power, IMO.
etudiant
#5
Dec19-12, 08:12 PM
PF Gold
P: 858
Nuclear warheads tend to be much more powerful than conventional ones, so the detonation has to be adjusted to reflect that difference.
That means different fuzes, maybe different trajectories, surely different interlocks and data links. Nukes are pretty expensive, you don't want to loose one in a launch accident and if that happens, you don't want to loose the whole base. Putting a nuke on a missile under normal circumstances forces you to consider these issues and address them. That makes the nuclear capable part.
Of course, in an emergency, that all may go out the window. Given the proliferation of suicide bombers, even a Cessna would make an effective nuclear delivery vehicle.
jambaugh
#6
Dec19-12, 08:29 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
jambaugh's Avatar
P: 1,776
I think part of the answer is whether a missle of a given level of engineering can carry a nuclear warhead of comparable engineering level. The US army had nuclear artillery rounds but that required exponentially greater refinement of the fissile material. A WW2 German V1 buzz bomber or modern equivalent cruise missile can carry one.

If a country is just starting their nuclear program one would expect their level of refinement is just enough to build a working device, it's going to be big and heavy, and they'll need a big missile to get to target.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
A missile fired Introductory Physics Homework 1
Problem about missile General Physics 6
Missile velocity kinematics Introductory Physics Homework 9
The missile and the aircraft Introductory Physics Homework 13
Urgent help needed on Nuclear bomb and missile delivery Introductory Physics Homework 3