An upbeat description of the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile by Convair, describing its low level nuclear powered flight and ballistic ejection of nuclear bombs - from 1955 to 1964
Posted by Xeelee1123@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 27 comments
Busy_Outlandishness5@reddit
My nomination for the most evil weapon ever devised.
Stenthal@reddit
I don't see how it's any more evil than the MIRV ICBMs that we have in real life, which are even more destructive and almost impossible to defend against. Reddit gets excited about the radioactive exhaust, but that was never intended as a weapon, and a handful of extra cancer deaths don't really move the needle when you're vaporizing entire cities.
Inevitable-Regret411@reddit
The main problem with a weapon like this is that, especially at the time, it would have been potentially strategically destabilising. Since it would be hard to detect on radar and it would move so fast it would have a greater chance of destroying the majority of the Soviet nuclear arsenal on the ground before they could launch in the event of an American first strike. This means that for the Soviets they need to adopt the most hair trigger nuclear use policy possible and launch their retaliation at the first sign of trouble to avoid risking losing their arsenal in a suprise attack, which increases the risk of launching in response to a false alarm. It also means that for the Americans launching a preemptive strike starts to look like more and more of a good idea.
TacTurtle@reddit
Cruise missiles (even supersonic ones) were far slower and less destabilizing than ICBMs. You are talking launch-to-target times on the order of 2-3 hours for Mach 2-3 cruise missiles instead of 15-30 mins for ICBMs
Stenthal@reddit
I thought about mentioning the game theoretical angle, but I would take it the other way: since this weapon is much easier to defend against than an ICBM, nations might be willing to attempt a first strike if they think they can shoot down the counterattack.
Even if you buy the argument that this weapon would be hard to detect on radar, the enemy would certainly notice and respond after the first bomb exploded, so it wouldn't be effective as a first strike.
In any case, it's difficult to apply game theory into an argument about how "evil" a weapon is. I mean, you're literally arguing that this weapon is more evil because it would cause fewer deaths. Game theory says that you might be right, but it's still hard to say that with a straight face.
CocoSavege@reddit
I think one can apply a "good evil" fitness test to game theory. A vanilla version might be mean expected lives. I'm just using it for discussion.
If a particular nuke strategy changes this value, it's "gooder" or "eviller". I can fireesee this which changed the shape of expected outcomes. Might have lower deaths 90% of the time, but more kills 10% of the time. If the more kills is a lot more kills, is higher mean, is eviller.
I think it's entirely possible to use game theory. We're way better now. It was cruder back then and moreso not as validated nor widely understood so probably less useful as a persuasive tool.
SloCalLocal@reddit
That's ICBMs, not cruise missiles. Large cruise missiles, conventional and otherwise, were heavily pursued at the beginning of the Cold War. Once both sides got long range ballistic missiles to work the large cruise missile projects were quickly abandoned because they combined the slow speed of manned bombers with the relative inaccuracy of ballistic missiles, IOW the worst of both worlds. They were also interceptable, which for a long time ICBMs were not (arguably they still aren't, at least not fully).
Mach 3 is fast, but ICBMs are far faster.
TacTurtle@reddit
I would submit that nerve gas and long term biologicals like anthrax were far more evil - they were inherently less able to be targeted or contained, and in the case of biological would have lingered and only been effective over days or weeks against population centers... at least nukes could be targeted to individual structures or facilities instead of cities.
Both-Collection812@reddit
The “handful of extra cancer deaths” bit is doing a lot of work here. A wandering, unshielded flying reactor feels like escalation, not just redundancy.
Stenthal@reddit
I know that's what it feels like, but your feelings are wrong. It's a small amount of radioactive material, and it's diluted over a huge area. It would be dangerous to stand next to the engine, but you're not going to get any significant exposure if it passes a kilometer over your head at mach 4.
Also, again, this is a weapon that's designed to destroy the world. It's literally meant to put multiple unshielded nuclear reactors in the middle of cities. I don't see how leaking a little radiation in flight makes it any worse.
Yoinkitron5000@reddit
A nuclear bomb-shitting, flying Chernobyl.
Rooilia@reddit
The fun part is, the soviets created their own program and afaik russia does indeed claim to have tested this concept recently. I guess the reactor part of it, since it is the most crucial one.
Annual-Advisor-7916@reddit
You mean 9M730 which is probably the same concept as project Pluto (which this Convair design should be related to)? What I don't quite undestand is, if 9M730 constantly emits radiation? Pluto did a bit from what I understand?
Anyways, probably the least concern for a weapon like that, lol.
weirdal1968@reddit
Most critical just to split hairs.
Tasty-Fox9030@reddit
Supercritical even. Sometimes prompt critical if the occasional explosion of the damn thing is any indication.
vivid_spark_5602@reddit
“handful of extra cancer deaths” really shows how deranged the whole Cold War mindset was.
rickthevideoguy@reddit
See, this guy gets it.
an_older_meme@reddit
That town looked nice
Archididelphis@reddit
A supersonic aircraft powered by a nuclear reactor, armed with nukes! What could possibly go wrong???
neurid@reddit
This vehicle was intended to utilize a nuclear fission-powered ramjet to heat the incoming air instead of chemical fuel. This, of course, means exposing radioactive material to the atmosphere.
In a testimony to Congress, the head of development of the proposed engine, Dr. Merkle, stated that the engine design would not lead to harmful amounts of radioactive material reaching the ground. However, the section of the SLAM Wikipedia article has [citation needed] on this claim, so take it with a grain of salt for the time being.
The "supersonic, low-altitude" aspect of the vehicle is very, ah, interesting as well. The Wikipedia article states that the vehicle would have a speed of Mach 4.2 at an altitude of 30,000 feet. However, the "low-altitude" nature of the vehicle was intended to put it below the operating range of radar - to my understanding, this would be below 200 feet or so.
I'm not knowledgeable enough on the science of high-speed, low-altitude flight to know how fast it could move at such a low height, but even if the speed were halved - Mach 2 or so - the shockwave alone would be highly destructive and potentially lethal. Oh, and it would have been capable of traveling for about 113,000 miles.
scibust@reddit
Just want to point out that you can design a nuclear ramjet that doesn’t contaminate the environment by using a working fluid between the reactor core and a ramjet’s heat exchanger, this is called an indirect air cycle. It was a design decision to make the SLAM use the direct air cycle and radioactive contamination was kind of an afterthought in the design process when you’re designing a weapon to assure mutually assured destruction.
zoinkability@reddit
I have always assumed it was a practical decision to use a direct air cycle because the weight and volume of a high enough output heat transfer system would be far to high for a missile.
He-who-knows-some@reddit
Really cool project no notes, I rubber stamp it as a good idea 👍
Rooilia@reddit
I don't see any problems here. Certainly no environmental or moral ones.
Opinions?
Inevitable-Regret411@reddit
I see one potential problem, the Soviets may one day develop an aircraft capable of intercepting such a missile. I propose we must modify the missile to include space for a couple of gunners armed with machine guns to shoot down enemy interceptors mid flight before parachuting to safety at the last possible minute.
Working_Fig_4087@reddit
I was fortunate enough to visit the Nevada Test Site before the Project Pluto building was demolished. Pretty cool to see and perform radiological hazmat response training in it.
Xeelee1123@reddit (OP)
Source: https://youtu.be/4VcXqtl3FAI?list=PLYmofYO_FjGDWfuFub2ldnqUXwPvvJpjV
Source: https://www.youtube.com/@sdasmarchives
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile