A Real Nuke Cannon
#1
Posted 22 October 2006 - 17:44
its hell cool!
#2
Posted 22 October 2006 - 17:45
Edited by General, 22 October 2006 - 17:53.
#3
Posted 22 October 2006 - 17:58
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
<awesome sig by Mr. Bob
What ever happened to Bob?
the only place you'll never need to go< my website SIGN THE GUEST BOOK
If there was no tomorrow, would you regret today? Nebula, by Myopia
#4
Posted 23 October 2006 - 18:56
Pick up your AK-47s
TIGERS ON ROUTE!
Einstein had said it
"I don't know with what World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
official at 21st January 2007
I don't know from where I got this one
"Revenge is a dish best served cold"
#5
Posted 23 October 2006 - 18:58
-Accuracy
And 59 more advantages of using missiles to deliver nuke warheads.
#6
Posted 23 October 2006 - 19:04
Pick up your AK-47s
TIGERS ON ROUTE!
Einstein had said it
"I don't know with what World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
official at 21st January 2007
I don't know from where I got this one
"Revenge is a dish best served cold"
#7
Posted 23 October 2006 - 19:13
#8
Posted 23 October 2006 - 19:14
-Weight leads to ultra-cumbersome launcher; the 400mm Dora for example
And 59 more disadvantages of using big shells to deliver nuke warheads.
#9
Posted 23 October 2006 - 19:25
#10
Posted 23 October 2006 - 19:52
#11
Posted 24 October 2006 - 17:04
Flying Tigers, on 23 Oct 2006, 15:04, said:
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
#12
Posted 24 October 2006 - 17:22
#13
Posted 24 October 2006 - 17:59
It pwns isn't it
#14
Posted 24 October 2006 - 18:37
Flying Tigers, on 23 Oct 2006, 15:04, said:
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
#15
Posted 24 October 2006 - 19:17
Pick up your AK-47s
TIGERS ON ROUTE!
Einstein had said it
"I don't know with what World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
official at 21st January 2007
I don't know from where I got this one
"Revenge is a dish best served cold"
#16
Posted 24 October 2006 - 20:03
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users