Why can't any missile carry a nuclear warhead?

In summary: If they're a nuclear power with a long history of making nuclear weapons, they're going to make a smaller, more refined warhead that will fit on the missile.Thanks for the question! In summary, 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.
  • #1
liorde
15
0
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
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Politics
 
  • #3
liorde said:
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.
 
  • #4
The use of "capable" is probably too out of date.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.
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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.
 

1. Why can't missiles carry nuclear warheads?

Missiles are not capable of carrying nuclear warheads because they lack the necessary propulsion and guidance systems to accurately deliver such a heavy and complex payload. Additionally, the intense heat and pressure generated during launch and re-entry could potentially compromise the safety and stability of a nuclear warhead.

2. Can't missiles be designed specifically to carry nuclear warheads?

While it is possible to design missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, it is not a practical or ethical solution. The development and deployment of such weapons would likely lead to a dangerous arms race and increase the risk of nuclear war.

3. Have there been any attempts to create missiles that can carry nuclear warheads?

Yes, there have been attempts to develop missiles that can carry nuclear warheads, such as the Soviet Union's R-7 Semyorka missile in the 1950s. However, these attempts have been largely unsuccessful due to the technical challenges and ethical concerns surrounding the use of nuclear weapons.

4. Can't missiles be modified to carry nuclear warheads?

While it may be possible to modify existing missiles to carry nuclear warheads, it would require significant resources and expertise. It is also important to note that the use of nuclear weapons is heavily regulated and any attempts to modify missiles for this purpose would likely be met with international condemnation.

5. Are there any alternatives to using missiles for delivering nuclear warheads?

Yes, there are alternative methods for delivering nuclear warheads, such as using aircraft or naval vessels. However, the use of any type of nuclear weapon is highly controversial and poses significant risks to human life and the environment, making it a last resort option in most cases.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
42
Views
19K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
3
Replies
102
Views
12K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top