Did Star Trek's Nuclear Mortar Have a Real-Life Counterpart?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 256bits
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of nuclear mortars and their real-life counterparts, particularly in relation to the portrayal of such devices in Star Trek. Participants explore the historical context, applications, and implications of nuclear devices used for military and non-military purposes, including excavation and demolition.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the nuclear mortar depicted in Star Trek may have been inspired by real devices, specifically referencing the Davy Crockett nuclear device and its potential applications beyond military use.
  • Another participant confirms that there were tests conducted for peaceful nuclear explosions, suggesting that such devices were indeed explored for Earth movement.
  • A participant describes the development of a "suitcase bomb" intended for use in military operations, highlighting its purpose to destroy strategic targets quickly and effectively.
  • Discussion includes the mention of the "atomic cannon," which fired nuclear warheads, and raises questions about the practicality and implications of using such weapons in warfare.
  • Further elaboration on the M65 Atomic Cannon and its historical context, including its development and eventual retirement due to changing military needs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying viewpoints on the practicality and historical significance of nuclear devices. While some agree on the existence and testing of such devices, others raise questions about their applications and effectiveness, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of these technologies.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific historical tests and developments, but there are limitations in terms of the assumptions made about the effectiveness and practicality of these devices in various contexts.

256bits
Gold Member
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,237
There is an episode of Star Trek where Kirk and Spock use a mortar with a nuclear explosive head against an alien threat.
At the time I had thought that it was an interesting device, but completely futuristic. But, as I have learned, it does seem that in this instance, Star Trek had copied from a real working technological device.
The device is discontinued for service troops with good reason.

In the 50's, 60's, 70's ingenious minds could come up with crafty use of such a small kilo-ton device other than military, such as espoused in magazines such as Popular Mechanics or Popular Science, such as excavation, dam building or whatever.

It never caught on as being practical or necessary. AFAIK, no Earth movement was ever tested with such a device.

I guess possible questions would be:
1. Was there ever a test for Earth movement?
2. How many other "new" technologies on Star Trek were actual adaptations of technology of the day.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

( Half science and half fiction, so could be in the incorrect sub-topic, except for the nuclear part )
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
We also developed a "suitcase bomb." Actually it fit into a large backpack. The idea was that in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe, small teams could parachute in, and destroy bridges and other structures useful to the invader, by placing the suitcase nuke next to the target. This was a quick and easy alternative to using plastic explosives. As long as the bomb went off, you were certain to destroy the target. Naturally the other side developed their own. A few years ago, during the breakup of the USSR, there was a report that some of their suitcase nukes had gone missing.

We also had an "atomic cannon." I saw an old model of this cannon in a toy store. I thought it was a joke until I looked it up. This was literally a cannon that fired a shell with a nuclear warhead. Combine this fact with the ability we have to develop ultra-long-range cannons. You would not need to fire many shells, would you?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 256bits
The Davy Crockett underwent two atmospheric tests, the Little Feller II weapons effects test shot on July 7, 1962, and the Little Feller I weapons system test shot on July 17, 1962. Little Feller I was the last atmospheric nuclear test conducted at Nevada Test Site.

Here's a film reel explaining Little Feller I and showing the test shot.

 
David Reeves said:
We also developed a "suitcase bomb." Actually it fit into a large backpack. The idea was that in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe, small teams could parachute in, and destroy bridges and other structures useful to the invader, by placing the suitcase nuke next to the target. This was a quick and easy alternative to using plastic explosives. As long as the bomb went off, you were certain to destroy the target. Naturally the other side developed their own. A few years ago, during the breakup of the USSR, there was a report that some of their suitcase nukes had gone missing.

That's the Special Atomic Demolition Munition.

We also had an "atomic cannon." I saw an old model of this cannon in a toy store. I thought it was a joke until I looked it up. This was literally a cannon that fired a shell with a nuclear warhead. Combine this fact with the ability we have to develop ultra-long-range cannons. You would not need to fire many shells, would you?

That's the M65 Atomic Cannon (nicknamed Atomic Annie). The W19 nuclear artillery shell was developed for the 16 inch guns of the Iowa class battleships (I think also usable by the South Dakota and North Carolina classes). Nuclear shells were developed for 8 inch and 6 inch artillery pieces shortly afterwards, but there was such rapid development of nuclear and rocketry technology in the 1950s that the systems were deemed unsuitable for use in Europe due to short range. They saw a few more years service in Korea before being retired.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
454
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K