15 replies to this topic

[OMRi]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2yK6fwygG8&NR"][/url]

its hell cool!

[General]

Watch it before but still cool and scary :enforcer: and err wtf, wrong section

Edited by General, 22 October 2006 - 17:53.

[BlackBob]

seen it
it is scary cuz this was in the 60' and its still really crazy
it was used to see the effects of radiation against living things. those wat the pig were for

[Flying Tigers]

If they have cannons then why we still use missiles?

[Waris]

-Range
-Accuracy

And 59 more advantages of using missiles to deliver nuke warheads.

[Flying Tigers]

but cannon shell can't be intercepted, right?

[General]

But you need to put that cannon near your enemy's border , which would make this attack impossible

[Waris]

-Very heavy
-Weight leads to ultra-cumbersome launcher; the 400mm Dora for example

And 59 more disadvantages of using big shells to deliver nuke warheads.

[AllStarZ]

There's also the fact that missiles are actually less able to be intercepted than anyone thinks. When an ICBM flies into the upper layers of the atmosphere, that's when its most vulnerable. When it reaches its maximum height, it plunges down, and at some point releases the warheads, which are pretty much impossible to defend against.

[Crazykenny]

Well missiles are the perfect nuke carriers because of the so calles MIRV ICBM, Multiple Independed Rentry Vehicles carried by and Intercontinal Ballistic Missile. The MIRV's purpose it to deliver Multiple nuclear warheads on a wide scale. What i said the perfect Nuke.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Flying Tigers, on 23 Oct 2006, 15:04, said:

but cannon shell can't be intercepted, right?

Reason #3 for missles > shells for delivering nukes:

Cannons can't fire nukes far enough to deal with the fallout. Since they can't fire the nuke far enough, the wind also plays a factor in this. If the wind is blowing in the attacker's direction, the nuke cannon shouldn't be fired, since the aftermath would effect their forces as well.


Regards,

Major Nuker

[Waris]

Ah sorry. The 400mm's are actually heavy mortars.

[General]

[attachment=2214:attachment]

It pwns isn't it

[Eddy01741]

Flying Tigers, on 23 Oct 2006, 15:04, said:

but cannon shell can't be intercepted, right?

Yea... like our defense network can even destroy most missiles coming. USA's anti missile system shoots down ABOUT 50% of the missiles in tests done, first off, tests arn't as good as real world. they know there is a test missile coming, they might even know the direction. And secondly 50% is terrible, if it's a batting average, that's great, half the time you hit a home run, half the time you strike out. Well in the real world, how would you like to know that theres a 50/50 chance that your home and everything around it and the whole city and stuff will be decimated. Anyways, adding more reasons:
Cannons simply arn't big enough to yield larger nukes or multiple warhead nukes
Missiles are fired from farther (much farther) away, so you can launch from your home country instead of moving half way across the earth to fire a nuke

[Flying Tigers]

so now I understand why there is a little red button inside home military base that says "PWNED"

[AllStarZ]

Also, Nuclear Missiles are much more easier to carry on to and fire from a submarine than a massive nuclear cannon, even though the shells may be cheaper.