U.S. had plans to nuke the moon
By Brian Todd and Dugald McConnell
You could easily skip by it in an archive search: a project titled "A Study of Lunar Research Flights." Its nickname is even more low-brow: "Project A-119."
But the reality was much more explosive.
It was a top-secret plan, developed by the U.S. Air Force, to look at the possibility of detonating a nuclear device on the moon.
It was hatched in 1958 - a time when the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a nuclear arms race that would last decades and drive the two superpowers to the verge of nuclear war. The Soviets had also just launched Sputnik 1, the world's first satellite. The U.S. was falling behind in the space race, and needed a big splash.
"People were worried very much by (first human in space Soviet cosmonaut Yuri) Gagarin and Sputnik and the very great accomplishments of the Soviet Union in those days, and in comparison, the United States was feared to be looking puny. So this was a concept to sort of reassure people that the United States could maintain a mutually-assured deterrence, and therefore avoid any huge conflagration on the Earth," said physicist Leonard Reiffel, who led the project.
Reiffel, now 85, spoke to CNN at his home in Chicago. A 1959 report Reiffel wrote on the project, declassified many years ago, was obtained online by CNN.
According to Reiffel's report, "The motivation for such a detonation is clearly threefold: scientific, military and political."
The military considerations were frightening. The report said a nuclear detonation on the moon could yield information "...concerning the capability of nuclear weapons for space warfare." Reiffel said that in military circles at the time, there was "discussion of the moon as military high ground."
That included talk of having nuclear launch sites on the moon, he said. The thinking, according to Reiffel, was that if the Soviets hit the United States with nuclear weapons first and wiped out the U.S. ability to strike back, the U.S. could launch warheads from the moon.
"These are horrendous concepts," Reiffel said, "and they are hopefully going to remain in the realm of science fiction for the rest of eternity."
The basic plan, Reiffel explained, was for an intercontinental ballistic missile to be launched from an undisclosed location, travel some 240,000 miles to the moon, and detonate on impact. Various news reports since 1958 have said project leaders considered using an atom bomb the same size as "Little Boy," the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, near the end of World War II.
Reiffel, who was cited for that information in those reports, now says he wasn't in on those discussions.
Contrary to some reports, Reiffel told CNN, the device would not have "blown up" the moon. "Absolutely not. It would have been microscopic, so to speak. It would have been, I think, essentially invisible from the Earth, even with a good telescope."
Reiffel had some brilliant minds on his team. One of them was an up-and-coming graduate student named Carl Sagan. Sagan went on to become one of the world's most renowned astronomers, creating the book and popular TV series "Cosmos."
But after working on the moon program, Reiffel said, Sagan violated security when he mentioned the still-classified project on a job application. "He did formally break the classification status of the project", Reiffel said of Sagan, who subsequently died in 1996.
Sagan's widow, Ann Druyan, told CNN she's not sure if Sagan ever broke the classification, but if he did, she said, it wasn't intentional. "I can't imagine he would have done that knowingly," Druyan said.
By 1959, Project A-119 was drawing more concern than excitement.
"We didn't want to clutter up the natural radioactivities of the moon with additional bits of radioactivity from the Earth," Reiffel said. The project was abandoned.
Project planners also weren't sure of the reliability of the weapons, and feared the public backlash in the U.S. would be significant," Reiffel said.
"It disappeared in the files of the Pentagon", he said of the project. "They come up with what I believe was the right answer."
Contacted by CNN, the Air Force would not comment on Project A-119.
@natlsecuritycnn on Twitter
You know why we draw-up plans like this? BECAUSE WE CAN! WE'RE THE USA!!
ahhhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! AHHHHHHHHH HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
The moon controls womens cycles. We should most definitely get rid of it!
ARE YOU CRAZY!! The moon controls the women's cycle. CONTROLS being the key word. It would the end if you removed that control.
The moon does not control women's cycles. It does create the tides with its magnetic pull. Many, many animals in the sea have spawning times based on those tides, including those that make up plankton. Plankton is a major part of the ocean's food chain. The moon also stablizes the earth's poles from moving around to different directions. Because the poles are fairly stable, there is life on earth.
.
And it is moving away from earth at a surprising rate, too.
I think you mean gravitational pull?
The tides are created by the moon's GRAVITATIONAL pull, not magnetic. FYI
if you didnt know this you probably went to an american school, i learned about this when i was 14.
The ignorance of your comments supersedes the ignorance of the American people (which you're trying to convey).
You've opened yourself up to a lot of comebacks, so here's mine: Where are YOU from? In the space below, I'm inviting you to list all of your nation's accomplishments. Tell us all about YOUR space program, moon landings, jetliner manufacturing, automobile manufacturing, expertise in infrastructures, bailing out entire continents during two world wars, providing economic assistance to half of the world...I think you get the point. Don't bash us, we just might decide to take away many of the things that brings your squalid, oppressed heck-hole of a nation into modern living conditions.
LOL @ Ron. Wow that was deep, man. You come up with that on your own? Keep posting. Your efforts are really making a difference!
When the Chinese are mining Helium 3 and owning all of the nuclear fusion reactors on this planet, we will have wished we were still going to the moon. It contains a very valuable element needed for endless energy here on Earth.
We're Earthlings, let's blow up earth things.
We're going to blow it up during a full moon to make sure we get the whole thing.
Why?
we must not allow a mineshaft gap!
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
This clumsy fool attempted to plant that silly camera on me.
Like I said, mankind is no dam good, what it can't control it will sh-t on or destroy!!!
Sounds like my dog....
We've done some pretty stupid things over the years and planned to do even stupider things.
We have in deed done some crazy things as a species and will possibly do more in years to come. Even though the plan to have missiles launched from the moon or to it were never implemented the people involved were still thinking about it as a possibility. In some ways I am clad that it was not done since it could have caused some unknown results which could have had terrible repricussions on us as a whole.
Like you working as a greeter at Walmart?
唉，瞎搞啥？1969年7月,美国宇航员尼尔·阿姆斯特朗登上月球,充分地展示了美国的综合国力。实际上,美国人在登月10年前就曾将月球当作展示实力的广告平台,只是他们当时盘算的是在月球上搞核爆。苏联技术领先美国拟在月球上搞核爆冷战期间,美苏争霸是两国在各领域进行的全方位竞争,这种竞争在军事领域表现得尤其明显。美国先是在原子弹研制方面取得领先,但苏联在1949年迎头赶上。此后,苏联在航天领域一直力压美国,让华盛顿的战略决策者饱受压力。
Bonjour Street Smart - Honey Molasses invited - Does W.H. luncheon smell like "banana cheese" to everyone?
We looked at it, we shot the idea down. End of story. For all those critics and people with 20/20 hindisght on world events it should be interesting for for us and those in the future to see what we were right and wrong on based on our own beliefs at this point in time. And as a few said at least this is a country where this was able to be discussed.
Yeah, figuring that "nuking the moon" is a bad idea is totally 20/20 hindsight, Monday morning QB-ing. If there was an actual plan in place for it, morons in the high command were advocating for it and would have gone ahead with it.
Clearly not just hindsight since they did not actually do it. And the rest of your post is pure speculation.
Exactly right, because, of course, we had no idea the moon controlled the tides back then. Oh wait, we've known since the late 1600s. Well, maybe our scientists and military folks just hadn't heard of Sir Isaac Newton.
Deej: For cryin' out loud, did you READ the article? We weren't going to blow the moon up. We speculated about putting another crater on its surface to show the Soviets that we can do it. Sheesh!
trigtwit palin is a friend of mine. I don't mind it at all that he drools.
Conrad – stop being a self-hater! Women are no better equipped to rule than men. we are all human, and will all make the same mistakes for political reasons instead of doing the right thing for everyone. Look at the female politicians currently extant in the world – not exactly inspiring. Also, you ask what right we have? Give me a break. As the only intentional beings in the universe as far as we know, we have whatever rights we want to have. We are it, the be all and end all. If we want to put a few more craters on the moon and add a bit to the ambient radiation levels, there is absolutely no reason not to. It's not like there is an ecosystem there to damage or anything. as far as doing something just to make the US look good – when you are in a state of existential danger all means to compete are acceptable. Both the former Soviet Union, and the current Chinese Empire are obsessed with image, so to project an image of technical superiority will cause either to make foolish commitments of resources to counter that image. That is why we won the first cold war, and the only way we are likely to survive the current one. The Soviet Union overspent and collapsed – we can only hope the Chinese do the same.
I am sure that the Chineese Government will crumble when they are faced with their crushing debt. They will soon be forced to borrow money from America just to get by.
My fellow Americans. We have just shot the moon down... That's why the moon is gone. Sorry! Couldn't help myself... It appeared communist on those crescent phases.
God bless America!
Senator McCarthy approved of this plan, I'm sure. But first he'd want that communist moon to name names.
they failed to mention that carl sagan later on campaigned against nuclear weapons and testing on animals
I shudder at the thought of someone testing a nuclear weapon on small animals.
If this was top secret, it wasn't very well kept. I am old enough to remember Sputnik and the excitement it caused. I also knew about the plans to detonate an atom bomb on the moon. I had always assumed the project was dumped because it was a dumb idea. Just like trying to build a nuclear powered bomber and a 600 foot steerable radio telescope.
The airfarce didn't want to be left out of the nuclear game. The navy had nuclear powered boats and the army had the Davy Crockett nuclear cannon. The idea behind the radio telescope was to listen in on Soviet radio traffic reflected off the moon. All of the projects were 'top secret' and yet I knew about them when I was an 8 year old kid
Sputnik wasn't classified. The Soviets announced it to the world. You did not know of the project to nuke the moon, you might have heard as I did about why don't we use the moon to test our nuclear weapons, the project itself was kept secret. You could stretch it and say the Air Force does have nuclear aircraft, they carry nuclear bombs and missiles. The Navy has both nuclear boats AND ships (yes there is a difference). The radio telescopes did exist, there were 14 of them at 8 sites, I was stationed at 4 of them, but they did not collect "bounced" signals off the moon (moon is round, it scatters them), they collected the signals as they bounced off the atmosphere. Those sites have been disbanded and torn down since the early '00s, replaced by satellites.
airfarce???????????? Seriously show some respect the United States Air Force is a branch of the military and don't you forget it. Imagine fighting a war without them. Think before you run your mouth.
It is also called the Chair-Force
" Imagine fighting a war without them."
Yea, imagine ... Revolutionary War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII. Yep, I imagined fighting wars without the USAF. 😉
Oh, so that's where the saying "shoot the moon" came from! Or, just strap Allice to the rocket that was going "to the moon" HEHEHE.
Another misleading headline to grab your attention. Conducting a nuclear test on the moon is not "nuking the moon". Conducting a test in New Mexico is not "nuking the Earth"
We have no business conducting such tests. The moon is a time capsule, reflecting 3.8 billion years of meteorite impacts. It is a reflection of the violent birth of our early solar system. Conducting a nuclear detonation would tarnish parts of that record.
I do not comment on the propriety of lunar nuclear detonations - crazier schemes were devised during the Cold War. I simply find it offensive for CNN to continually use misleading headlines that exaggerate events out of proportion. Most people would agree a nuclear detonation on the moon should not be characterized as "nuking the moon," which suggests plots from the movie Armageddon.
The moon is a lifeless rock, and a possible depository of valuable resources. There is absolutely no moral or ethical reason NOT to detonate nuclear weapons on the moon's surface. I don't know if there is a good reason TO detonate them, but arguments against are lacking in substance and validity.
Wah!
I agree. I was going to post a similar message as you when I read the headline and then read the first paragraph of this article. Its sad that even CNN has to stoop so low as to have sensationalist headlines.
It's surely senseless. If you can drop a bag of potatoes on the moon, you can drop a nuclear warhead. What is the useful payoff for spending couple billion dollars on this? One important point mentioned in the article is that detonating a nuclear device on the moon would change its natural radioactivity profile, and make many scientifically valuable projects impossible.
Useful application is to see if space detonations are similar to atmospheric detonations(check). Can help when the next big rock hurtling towards earth is found, or if the little green men mount an attack...
"What is the useful payoff for spending couple billion dollars on this?"
Job creation. Where do you think those billions go if not to pay people to make this happen.
In fairness to this network, there are two points here that you aren't noticing. First, the headline is correct. Sending a nuke to the moon for detination is "nuking the moon". I think the problem here is you, and a lot of others (including me when I'm not actively thinking about it) equate "nuke" with "blow to bits". Second, they've got about 35 characters to work with before the headline becomes so long it wraps and wipes out the formatting of the front page. The headline for this story gave you the basic idea in 32 or 33 characters. This site IS guilty of misleading headlines nearly every day, but this isn't one of them.
It is not, blowing up the moon, but technically, it is nuking it.
Profit Mummad bet them to it by 1400 years
Susan Rice is against this type of nonsense.
The project was for sure loony. It is reassuring that it was quickly abandoned. It is less reassuring that they actually created a working group to study it seriously.
It wasn't looney because it wasn't designed to actually do anything to the moon. The whole point had nothing at all to do with the moon. It was to be a show of military force to impress/threaten the Soviet Union who was getting ahead of us in the space race. We wanted to show them that we could drop a nuke anywhere we wanted–even not on Earth–any time we wanted. That was the intent, and in that way it was rather sane in its way. It would have been an unmistakable show of force indeed.
"Luny" missed a great opportunity there.
Moon is still a military high ground, only today it's not in the realm of fantasy. Sooner or later someone is going to put an installation in space or on the moon. I'd rather it be us than the Chinese, or Russians.
Sounds like spending cuts is not your thing...
Nobody will militarize the moon. And if it was possible, I would rather it be the Chinese or Russians because the expense to do it and then maintain it would be, no pun intended, out of this world. And to take it one step further, think about it. A nuclear launch on the U.S. from the moon? We would have three days to counter it. Defeats the purpose.
A military base on the moon would be pointless. There's nothing you could do on the moon that couldn't be done from low Earth orbit. The moon is a quarter of a million miles from Earth and in a non-synchronous orbit. Military use would require a more or less geosynchronous orbit, no more than 23 thousand miles from Earth. No rational power, whether the US, Russia, China, nor any other nation is likely to go to the expense of militarizing the moon, because there would be no return on the investment.
"no return on investment"? Well maybe in the recruiting department. I joined the navy years ago because my recruiter told me of all the neat places I would be sent, and it was true. Think of being stationed on the moon!
classic cold war menality.....same old same old.....
It was an option they considered and rejected, so what? All the shrill voices here need to relax. If nothing else, it shows the Moon was on folks' minds. About three years later, President Kennedy's 1961 speech urged us to commit to traveling to the Moon, peaceably.
Agreed, but: If you read the book The Right Stuff, our outward purpose for going to the moon may have been peaceful, but our underying reason was to practice ICBM launches. If we can put all that lunar hardware on the moon, successfully, half a dozen times, we sure as heck can pinpoint Russian cities, military bases, defense plants, etc with nuclear weapons.
I remember the movie "The Time Machine" (the 2000 remake, that is...) and the time traveler went to the year 2037 and the moon was being mined and somebody up there screwed up and blew apart the moon and it was starting to rain down on the Earth. The time traveler escaped into the future while everyone else went underground.
Anyone else remember that one ?
I do, it was with Guy Pearce. It was pretty good; I think I still have it on DVD in a box in my garage.
God, no. Why would anyone have watched that tripe?
Please don't use the lord's name when making sour grape commens. He wants us to be happy : )
The man on the moon keeps looking at me funny. The SOB deserves whatever he gets.
Take your meds.
No, no, no...he's looking at ME, not you. The man in the moon doesn't care about you. He's my friend....
You Americans do know that any change of the moon causes severe tsunami's and interfere's with our planets natural cycle . This just adds to the worlds view of your extreme ignorance ..Its like your country won't be happy till the earth is completely destroyed 🙁 .Babylon the great aye and i am not religious
You do realize this was 50 years ago and not today, right?
Um . . . before you talk about "ignorance" you might want to understand that a 20kt nuke on the moon would have no measurable affect on the moon's orbit or structure.
It's not ignorance, it's just that we'll try anything once!
Besides, look at the hits the moon has taken in the past, a 15 kiloton nuke would be like a nat's bite on the backside of an elephant in comparison. The moon has been "nuked" many many times by bigger rocks falling on it. Only the ignorant would think you could "blow the moon up"!
So, you are indicting the United States for something it didn't do?! While it was a stupid idea, rather than crediting the U.S. with making the right decision, you use something that was under consideration and cancelled to blame the country as if it committed these acts. You also do not note that the U.S. has a free press enough press people who can reveal this and not be punished by the government. That is something to be commended, not condemned.
It's like generalizing the entire US population makes you feel better about whatever armpit of the world you come from.
You realize there are craters in the moon the size of some countries caused by meteor strikes right? Those would each be a major change to the moon and the earth was not wrecked by massive tsunami's. Plus the fact that a "little boy" yield nuke surface detonation wouldn't have barely scratched the surface in comparison to these craters.
And by the way... the United States was in the middle of a cold war where it had to think of every possible avenue it may be attacked from and come up with a plan to prevent that. Obviously we never did the test, so we decided it wasn't a threat worth pursuing. And i'm sure the Soviet Union considered something similar around the same time.
Changes will only impact the earth if we alter the moons orbit or significantly reduce it's mass. Not in the realm of scientific possiblility. Ever look closely and see all those craters? We ain't in the running for moon destruction or alteration.
If you remember in 2008 we bombed the moon, supposedly to check for moisture in the soil. Since then hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes have been more extreme. Is there a connection? Maybe
You're in Gerogia, JD? Same place that stickered textbooks to explicitly call out evolution as "just a theory?" I'm not saying the state's understanding of science isn't top notch, but...
You accuse other of ignorance, and yet your post leaves you sounding more ignorant than most. The Americans DID NOT do it. You are insulting people for something they didn't do. Using that "logic," someone could claim that you won't be happy until the Earth is destroyed. It doesn't make sense, does it? There is a very big different between coming up with an idea and people actually implementing that idea.
Second a nuclear explosion on the moon would not make the changes you claim it would. Yes, it would throw a lot of debris from the surface of the moon. The amount displaced would be trivial when compared to the total mass of the moon and I suspect that much of the debris would stay in the moon's gravity well and fall back to its surface. Also, take a look at the moon's surface. It is covered with craters of various sizes some are very large. If the moon can handle hits from from things large enough to create those, then it could handle a blast from a bomb.
Meanwhile 10 years earlier in the 40's you had the likes of Hitler and Mussolini creating havoc and as I recall, you guys were pssing in your pants hoping that we would join the war effort.
Please remove the word "Realist" from your username if you don't mind...
Actually, of all the impacts of not having a moon, the creation of huge tsunamis really wouldn't be among them as those are generally caused by sudden displacement of water, usually under the water (via earthquake or mud slide) or impact to the ocean (via asteroid impact). Tides would actually level off a lot more if we had no moon, not get wilder.
Of course, we'd have other problems, stagnation of weather, jet streams, and ocean currents, perhaps (because tidal forces would level out and not mix up the air and water as much). It may also lessen the geologic activity of Earth's crust, which would be good and bad. It could screw with a lot of wildlife cycles and abilities (like night vision), too, to unknown affect. But what it would probably not do is either cause, or prevent, tsunamis.
"Contrary to some reports, Reiffel told CNN, the device would not have "blown up" the moon."
Which reports are these? A 3rd graders? They could have done this and nobody would have even noticed. The fission bombs used at that time weren't the planet-exploding 1-nuke-destroys-the-world type of bombs that everybody thinks. You all need to stop watching so much bad TV.
The whole "blow up the moon" thing has been around for years. I mean, seriously, years. I would guess someone early on got wind of this and either didn't do the math, or somehow believed the moon was a giant soap bubble and were genuinely worried that it would blow up if hit by a tactical scale nuke. Or they were willfully taking the "Let's pop a nuke on the moon" idea and blowing it out of proportion into "They're going to bl;ow up the moon!" for wherever conspiracy they were championing at the time.
Maybe they think it would melt all the cheese... :))
Sweet! Who needs a moon of crusty green cheese when you can have a perpetual ring of delicious melted gooey queso going around the planet?
Bonjour Street Smart - Je suis Francais et L'Alegrien mais "Ja, ich kann ein sehr gutes Deutsch sprechen," UND puedo decir algun Espanol tambien - que puis-je dire? Bossa Nova: "Garota de Ipanema" (wink)
U S A!!!!!!, U S A!!!!!!!, U S A!!!!, U S A!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmmm, nuking the moon, better than nuking the Earth, at least there are no people to kill on the moon
Hmm no only wall to wall tidel waves
Whatever its merits or lack thereof, explosions on the Moon would not cause "tidel waves," i.e., tsunamis. Tsunamis are caused by displacement of water. You lack a sense of both the size of the moon and its proximity to the Earth to think that a nuclear explosion (even thermonuclear) would cause tsunamis on the Earth. The Moon has experienced many impacts large enough that the vestiges of them can be easily seen on Earth, which is 300K miles away. The only possible scenario would be a very, very large piece of ejecta which would consequently make its way intact to the Earth's surface. I'm not seeking to be an apologist for this foolish Cold War idea, but tsunamis would not have been a danger.
What right to we have to nuke anything? Leave the moon, and the earth in peace.
did you mean piece?
Um, I believe we have the right because we are America?
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
What an insane world we live in! What insane people rule the U.S.!
Nuke the moon for the sake of the U.S. to look good??? Seriously?!
And this is the same USA that ordered troops to walk to ground zero after nuclear bomb blasts in Nevada in the 1950s, the same USA that ordered "volunteer" troops to ingest LSD so that some Harvard folks could engage in some research, and the same USA that simply can't balance a budget and never wants to.
No! The government knows best! Strong central government means that grass roots issues and problems at the local level get addressed most efficiently! (according to tards)
The Government is inefficient and backrupt, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, now they want to run the ACA. Let's see how that works out? Anybody want to guess???
You may say it is the 'government', but I say it is men.
It's time to give women the reins to make things right. Male ego is too much of a beast and should not be allowed to decide anything any longer.
Sorry conrad, but women like sarah palin, michelle bachman and the witch woman oconnel or whatever her name is, blows your theory.
It was the 50's. A very different time. Nuclear weapons were scary then, to be sure, but atomic bombs were seriously considered for peaceful purposes as well, in both the US and former Soviet Union, such as mining, space propulsion, etc., so popping a nuke on the moon wasn't that far fetched an idea.
Indeed, what bizzarre chest beating logic is it that concludes "nuking the moon will make us look good" ... God, in whose eyes?
If you don't know "in whose eyes" then you have no clue of the gloval socio-political mindset of the '50s. Study some history then comment...
Oh please, you don't think being the first country to both land on AND nuke the moon wouldn't be cool?
It wasn't so much to make America look good as it was to make the Soviets look bad.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this moon!
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
"Tear down this moon". Ha! first comment to make me laugh today. Now back to work I go. I'll leave the rest of you to counter the foriegn commenters here that think we want to "blow up the moon" to prove how powerful we are.
Thankfully this project was stopped and we are still living as a result. If you change the orbit of the moon, every creature on Earth will pay the price.
You do know that a 20kt nuke (roughly what was referenced in the article) would have virtually no measurable affect on the moon's orbit, right? The moon still gets hit with meteoric impacts with higher energy yields then that on a fairly regular basis.
Sigh.
Dropping a nuke that size on the moon would no more affect the moon's orbit than dropping the scores of nukes we have all over earth have affected Earth's orbit. As was said, the moon has gotten smacked by meteors with several tens of times that energy level and been fine.
I have come to the conclusion that the Daleks are Republicans of the future, Exterminate, Annihilate, Destroy!!!
Sorry, but this wasn't a Republican project. Democrats were just as involved as Republicans. Sorry to take the wind out of your sails.
Just don't. I'm pretty sure that if The Doctor were an actual perosn, his opinion would be that ALL of these petty politicians are far too interested in a universe of irrelevant things when there is literally an entire universe of relevant things to consider.
You may, however, treat yourself to a jellybaby for being half right.
Eurodisco: Cerrone "Midnite Lady" - from his "Paradise"
Interesting article, but hardly surprising. Absolutely nothing that went on at the height of the Cold War surprises me.
When the Chinese are mining Helium 3 and owing all of the nuclear fusion reactors on this planet, we will have wished we were still going to the moon. It contains a very valuable element needed for endless energy here on Earth.
I like holding Helium 3 balloons... until my hair and teeth fall out.
It's not the shooting them AT the moon that bothers me... at all. It's the shooting them FROM the moon that's scary.
Scary, yeah, but not as scary as some of the other hair-brained schemes to come out of the cold war. One thing that would have been good though, would have been the Lunar development that would have come with the weapons installation. When the cold war eventually ran down, there would be infrastructure in place for peaceful development.
Sadly, another opportunity lost to history – even if it was spawned from a bucket full of crazy.
What do we need to 'develop' the moon for? To create another garbage pit like we have here on earth?
Leave it be ...we've shown repeatedly we don't know what we are doing. All we do is destroy in the name of 'progress'.
The point of developing the moon is to extend progress and, arguably, to give a chance for Humanity to grow beyond the confines of a single biosphere. While I actually agree with the concept of "we should learn to manage our own biosphere before we go mucking about in others," the Moon is a logical starting point for long term colonization of space and further exploration.
Sorry you don't see the long term potential or the cost of a lost opportunity.
There must've been some tiny wee-wees in the US govt back then. Our arms race with Russia was nothing more than overcompensation for something else.
and your comment must have a hidden meaning too...JB or is BJ?
Perhaps it would be helpful for all of you to understand that the US gov't explores many, many options. Most, like this one, are quickly abandoned as unneeded, unworkable, too expensive, or just too dangerous. Better to consider all options than to adopt a poor strategy.
This is why women need to rule. Women innately understand that our energy, resources, and efforts are better spent on being sure everyone has eaten.
So how would that work when dealing with the Taliban in the Middle East who have no respect for women or any authority they might hold?
Bonjour Street Smart: France Joli "Come to Me"
I wonder what other tantilizing secrets are hidden away?
RE: Obama/Romney W.H. Lunch - Paul Ryan will be there to quickly "slice and dice" any banana cheese.
I would nuke the moon and watch it explode with a nice cold bottle of Colt 45.
You are the typical stupid American .How do you make a country powerful , when the elite control the population and make them incredibly thick .You are a prime example lol
Humor is not your strong suit, is it?
It's not humor, it's acurate analysis.
The moon is populated by ant-like humanoids and dinosaur-size caterpillars....HG Wells and Ray Harryhausen taught us that.
That's why nobody has been back since the 60's....too scary.
Definitely a REPUBLICAN idea... War with this country... War with that country... War with Moon.. War with Galaxy... War with the Universe... War with the Gods... And what did we have as a result => George Bush !!
You, Sir... Nailed It.
So you're saying the Romans, Greeks, Persians, British, Chinese, Germans.... pretty much every civilization in history was Republican? Wow... just wow
Spoken like a true uneducated Democrat. How long will you blame Bush for the issues that stem back in the early 90s during Clinton's reign? Know your facts before posting comments with no justification behind them.
Aaaaaah lighten up Francis
Bush betrayed and murdered our country.
Let see: 2 unending wars, Unpaid tax cuts, Unpaid pharmaceutical benefits...
He ignored our debt while President Clinton tried to resolve it.
Talk about unedumacated (Bushism).
We'll keep blaming Bush until his failed policies and wars no longer affect mine, my childrends and grandchild's lives.
Long after he's dead of course! It's all Bush's fault, without a doubt! Even Mitt and Palin are Bush's fault!
And please recall just how many long years the Rebuplicans blamed Jimmy Carter for everything - and with much less cause.
Obama has been waging war since his first day in office.
And it was a holdover from eight years of arrogance begun by a man that couldn't pronounce "Nuclear" without sounding like an idiot.
Lets blame Bush for everything!
Adam ate the apple ... It's Bush's Fault!
The great flood ... It's Bush's Fault!
Roman Empire fell ... It's Bush's Fault!
English Empire fell ... It's Bush's Fault!
The dark ages ... It's Bush's Fault!
The sun sent a flare to earth ... It's Bush's Fault!
Aliens Invade ... It's Bush's Fault!
12/21/2012 ... Oh so Bush's Fault!
The disappearance of Maya Empire ... It's Bush's Fault!
All Hurricanes ... It's Bush's Fault!
Everything bad in the world ... Bush's Fault!
Ridiculous? Most definitely! Wake up there are bad people all over the place!
Adam and the Great Flood are both myths.
It was Eve that ate the apple you Dork! But her last name was Bush.
Eve got adam to eat the apple is what I'm referring to but what I was saying is that even though everyone knows that we are still blaming Bush for it, because that's just the cool thing to do, right? It's still ridiculous!
MagicJew if they are both myths then it's Bush's fault for starting the myth! Right?
Bush was an arrogant moron that believed everything his handlers told him. It was only at the end of his Presidency that he began to act like an intelligent, involved, concerned and humble human being. A little late since those should have been requirements for the position he held.
Talk to my wife. She'd say all of those things were MY fault.
Really? Well, let's look at some actual facts, rather than bs, shall we?
Abraham Lincoln – Republican – Civil War. You score a point.
Woodrow Wilson – Democrat – First World War. You lose a point.
FDR – Democrat – WW2 – You are negative 1.
Harry Truman – Democrat – Korea – You are negative 2.
JFK – Democrat – Vietnam – you are negative 3.
GWB – Republican – GWOT (Iraq and Afganistan) – You are negative 2.
Lots of Presidents attacked lots of little places, but I only counted the biggies. We can go into those as well if you like. Now that you know the facts – that Democrats have gotten us into more wars than Republicans, will you admit you are wrong and become a Republican? No? No surprise. Facts seem to matter little to liberal idiots. Have a great day!
Republican or Democrate, really doesn't matter, the fact is it's men that start war and usually over something stupid. Men will be th downfall of humanity.
but more importantly look at the reasons for each of those wars and their outcomes.... plus 100 points for Dems!
The republican party at the time of Lincoln was actually closer to the democrats of today
And you Billy were definitely a Democrat idea. Stupid and foolish. and it shows.
No no no ... it's not Republican's it is MEN. It is time to let women rule.
Whey did they not go through with it? Because it was soon discoverd shortly afterwards that the moon was already occupied. THERE ARE ALIEN BASES ON THE MOON. THIS IS FACT, and very much covered up by NASA.
They would have started a galactic war if they did. Not to mention the last time they bombed the moon with a projectile that caused the moon to 'RING LIKE A BELL" for 3 hours. What natural object does that? How do you explain that? The moon is an artificial satalite, not of this origin. NASA was warned to stay away. that is why they have not returned since the 60's. this is all truth.
Riiiighhhht....
You need to quit smoking that stuff so early in the morning... troll.
Well, clearly if it was posted by an anonymous user on an internet comment forum then it MUST be truth. That's the very definition of what const.itutes truth...
Putting things in all caps doesn't make your points true. If these are facts please list your sources.
I don't need to post my resources. Do your own reseach if you want. There is enought of it out there. I don't care if I am rediculed. I used to think it was a load or bull myself and laughed at the idea. Until I started doing my homework. And trust me, many hours put into it. The evidence was overwealming. Even when I remembered books on the Moon I looked at as a child and wondered why so many things were airbrushed out in the photos. I may have been a kid, but I knew the pictures did not look normal and something was blurred out. 30 years later I see the same photos on the internet!!! And find out what they were trying to hide. Go do your own research if you want to find out the truth.
Hybrid, just a hint: when people want to be taken seriously on scientific matters, it behooves them to cite sources for verification. You open yourself up for ridicule by not doing so–aside from having such an... outlandish, at best, claim.
> I don't need to post my resources.
Burden of proof lies with those making the claim. It's not our responsibility to prove your point.
You lost the argument at "I don't need to post my resources."
You have made a claim and not only failed to back it up, but STEADFASTLY REFUSE TO. There are no aliens, your attempt at trolling has failed. Crawl back in your hole.
Ahm.. all planets, moons, and other rock based objects do that.
there's a lot of truthiness to that truth, and not a lot (or any) facts
Read the National Enquirer much?
all of that stuff you said is not true-why, the moon told me so itself last night!
And thus the t.tle of my new book "Goodnight (Secret Alien Bases on the) Moon."
What lunacy!!
I know I know I was there last Friday night...they have really good beer
Hybidhor! For revealing our plans and location to the general public, your punishment is assimilation! Say goodbye to your family. We'll be by around dinner time to assimilate you. You may bring a snack.
LMAO!!!
Good thing they didn't have of earths population would dissapear as well from all the fragments.....
Uhm...we didn't disappear from the fragments from all of the nuclear explosions on the Earth, why would a "small" nuclear detonation on the moon cause the extinction of human life on Earth?
Although it's small in comparison to the Earth, the moon is not "small" and wouldn't be shattered by a Little Boy-sized detonation.
They had no choice. An invasion would have been far too costly in lives and green cheese.
I detonated a device on Uranus last night.
gay
Wrong forum sicko.
lmfao good one.
hahhahahahaah
The moon actually is what keeps the earth in its rotation so destroy the moon, destroy earth.
Ahm... no... actually the moon is slowly decreasing our rotation....
No...Stop reading those christian science books.
Uhm...a whole bunch of fallacy there.
First off, the Earth existed BEFORE the moon formed in our orbit, and would continue to exist without the moon.
Second, the moon doesn't significantly affect the Earth's rotation around the sun. It does marginally affect the earth's rotation on its axis, in that it SLOWS it down, due to tidal bulges.
But, without the moon's presence, the Earth would continue to rotate on its axis just fine–the days would become slightly (undetectable to humans without instruments) shorter, and weather & tidal patterns would definitely be affected, but life could/would continue.
Not that I'm condoning a plan to detonate a nuke on the moon just to prove that "We're stronger!"
Umm, humanity has no ability to destroy the moon...
um, I'm pretty sure that's not accurate. It would disturb the rotation some, but not a lot. Plus, if you'd read the article, it clearly notes that the detonation would never be enough to "destroy" the moon. I doubt we as a species have that kind of capability. The moon may be much smaller than earth, but that's still a giant-a** chunk of rock up there.
wrong.
Is it a requirement to put "uhm" before a condescending statement, or are you thinking of a reply as you...uhm...type.
I think it is required of high-school aged boys who like to roll their eyes before demonstrating their considerable prowess and knowledge of the world. It's the early stages of over-bloated, injured, never satisfied, must get to the top at all costs male ego. It gets worse, though more sublte and manipulative with age.
'Mr. President, are you suggesting we nuke the moon?"
"Would you miss it? Would you miss it?!"
LOL
That was my first thought too... and my favorite line in that particular film
I wonder how many of our readers know that we rammed a rather large rocket into the moon a few years back, then ran a probe through the resulting column of dust so we could analyze it.
Do you mean the LCROSS mission in 2009 to search for water on the moon?
I wonder how nuking the moon became a political debate ??
While society continues to swing back and forth, the only thing that seems to keep "moving forward" is technology.
Yes, we are some much more efficient at killing people today than we were in the '50's. That's something to be proud of (sarcasm for those who are unsure).
It is an internet message board. People expect sarcasm. If you post something honest and straight forward you should consider point that out since it will be much more of a surprise.
Except for the part where our technological efficiency has resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of civilian casualties in war, as well as an increased sensitivity culturally to civilian casualties. As recently as WWII it was common practice to carpet bomb cities. Now (rightly) there's outrage if 11 civilians are killed during a military strike. I'm all for finding ways to end war, but so long as it exists, I'd much prefer efficiency over blanket mass murder.
And as a result of our precision destruction, people are no longer truly bothered by the nastiness of heavy civilian casualties. War is now surgical, taking out the offending article without the associated horror that might preclude someone from continuing to cause destruction.
For those of you unaware, this was the topic of a Star Trek Episode where Kirk was told to bring his crew down for disintegration chambers, because a computer predicted the Enterprise was destroyed. The planet enacted this war style because they were upset at how badly war destroyed culture.
They are horrible for a reason: so you don't keep waging it because people and society are destroyed.
If greater powers of destruction (in the name of exploration) are what you consider to mean 'moving forward', then ok.
Back in the 50's everyone still believed that the moon was made of cheese. The US government was simply trying to create a surplus of cheese for the welfare lines. But when they couldn't pull the job off, they switched the amount of cheese that one should eat from basically whatever you wanted, to a piece of cheese the size of a dice daily.
Democrat "green banana cheese" and Republican saltines.
Nuke the moon???
Well, that sounds like a great idea.
Humans are the smartest organisms in the universe.
We are MOSTLY harmless.
(President) "Well the election is coming up next year. We need a really big media event. Gentlemen, any ideas?"
(Staff member) "Well sir, there's that moon project. We could blow up the moon. We've already got sponsors in place."
The surest sign of life on other planets is the fact that none of it has tried to contact us.
[The surest sign of life on other planets is the fact that none of it has tried to contact us...]
beyond the fact that we don't "officially" know and second beyond the fact that we know that on Earth, pilots from jets and civil planes have witnessed very strange (non-human) things proving a superior intelligence to ours (at least in flight movement).
Well, my guess is 1) they are busy working
2) they don't need anybody else (especially if they are very clever)
3) they don't want to worry anybody else since they know they are very smart
4) coming back to 1) one may ask: well what's on their planet they are so busy working. My guess would be: Responding to the very reason why they are "alive".
It was a joke....ligthen up....
Every one knows that it's just us coming back from the future and then going back to the original time we came from, and of course we can't "disturb" anything without affecting the outcome. And everyone knows that time warp can only go backwards....for now!
Many people believe that intelligent life may exist but is so spread out throughout the universe (hundreds of thousands of light years separating them) that the chances of them contacting one another is slim. Also consider that the timespan that a civilization may remain intelligent enough to contact via electronic signals or otherwise might be very small compared to the life of the universe.
It's a really big universe. The milky way itself is 100,000 light years in diameter.
That's a big Milky Way!!!
American history has been marked by cyclic waves of traditional social discipline versus social conscious awareness - like a pendulum the perpetually swings from extreme left to right then back to left - back and forth. The pitfall of "black and white" western civilization thinking. The economy tends to swing in the same manner. Many in tie dies and love beads shed them for the brooks brothers suit - just to pull the tie dies and love beads out of moth balls. Can we find a healthy balance for the "common good" of all? Time will tell.
Hear hear! Well said, that man!
There is a lot of empty space in Saudi Arabia. When they run out of oil there's not much else there that is needed.
Nothing but propaganda....
The truth is that NASA and the Soviet CCCP were of the same brood of Nazi scientists who were divided among the USA and USSR after the way. Their master plan was to create the false illusion of 'human spaceflight' in order to introduce a new form of brainwashing; astro-evolution. Indeed it was through ICBM research that they discovered vaporization at hypersonic reentry into the upper atmosphere thus 'grounding' human 'spaceflight' (no, they did not reenter the upper atmosphere at 17,500 mph inside their tin-cans and 'brake' with parachutes, hence drop from cargo planes were/are handy....). The 'space race' was one of the grandest frauds that will soon be unmasked.
How's life at the tin foil hat company?
Buck must be Director of Product Development with those grand ideas!
Tin foil Hat Ha ha that is so clever and funny...quick pull my finger.
Ummmm no one ever said they used the parachutes as brakes. They used the ATMOSPHERE as a brake. If you re-enter at the right angle you can survive (hence why not all meteors completely disintegrate). The parachutes were only used during final splash down for the last bit of deceleration to slow AFTER re-entry.
Setting the lunacy of the post aside, NASA's Soviet equivalent was ROSCOSMOS, now The Russian Space Agency. Your reference to Soviet CCCP shows your ignorance (hopefully, just because you're too young to remember). Those aren't English letters. CCCP is the acronym USSR, in Russian using Cyrillic letters. Thanks for play, would you like to try again?
You need help!!
I'm sadly disappointed that this article missed the single biggest fact in all of this and that's that it is not too late. We can STILL nuke the moon if we'd just put our collective minds to it. Sure, American industry isn't what it used to be and sure, we haven't been back to the moon in nearly 40 years despite being the only nation to achieve such a monumental feat...but I bet with a little grassroots push, some scientific grants, and good old elbow grease, we can have a nuclear bombardment of the near side before the next Olympic games kick off.
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Indeed, nuking the moon is exactly what this country needs to boost morale and get the economy roaring like a freight train again ... not to mention it would be a good message to send to the rest of the world. A clear reminder of who exactly is in charge ... 'cause sometimes it seems like they've forgotten.
Are you so dense that you cannot even detect blatant sacasm? Based on the bloat of posts here, you should volunteer with VHMET.
* sarcasm
Hey if we blow up the moon then we wont have to worry about high tides. Sandy wouldnt have been such a b****
FYI: The moon is the reason earth does not wobble.
So the cure for the extreme weather generated by our poor environmental management skills is to annihilate the nearest heavenly body to reduce sea tide issues all together.
I like it...
But if we blow up the moon it will cause tremendous devastation on Earth and we will be forced to hide underground. 800,000 years later the human race will have evolved into two separate races – one, subterranean and carniverous, the other, surface dwelling and prey of the subterranean race......
But I enjoy living in blissful ignorance. Plus, free food!
Sooo, they'll cover this pretty useless bit of info (who didn't already know that the US and USSR were up to some crazy stuff at this time?), but other stuff like Project Northwoods... nowhere to be seen.
Probably because Project Northwoods isn't news. It's been known about for years.
The US having plans to do nuke tests on the moon, and that we thought the Russians were doing the same, have been known for years as well, so I fail to see your point. Mine was that CNN is merely covering the more entertaining bits of information as opposed to the truly significant ones, and in a blog called "Security Clearance" no less.
Also, people's thinking on "the US was going nuke the moon" is probably going to be drastically different than "the US was going to terrorize and lie to its own populace to give the appearance of a justified invasion of Cuba". If you think the two topics are somehow of equal import... well I dunno what to say to that.
Education on the value of free speech and the other freedoms reserved by the Bill of Rights, about what happens when you don't have them, and about how to exercise and protect them, should be an essential prerequisite for being an American citizen — or indeed a citizen of any nation, the more so to the degree that such rights remain unprotected. If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.
– Carl Sagan
http://pulverizedtonearpower.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/pulverized-to-near-power/
More succinctly: If lunacy like this is not exposed, they'll keep trying until they kill us all.
I don't see the problem with either of these entries. There are frequent historic events spotlighted here. Northwoods is juts as interesting as this Moonacy, but they probably just have not gotten to it yet. There's no grand conspiracy here. We can relax.
Hmm, I don't recall mentioning conspiracy. You came up with that one. There's no conspiracy angle, so you can releax now. My point is that this info on nukes and the moon, to me, is really just entertaining.
Hey, newsflash, the US and Russia were engaged in all sorts of crazy one-upmanship during the Cold War. Wowwwww, very compelling "super secret" info there. I'm terribly excited to have Security Clearance informing me of these sorts of revelations.
Yeah, why aren't they covering [insert soapbox topic] instead!
Precisely, why do they only cover [insert mickey mouse topic here]? Bah, no matter, so long as we're all entertained.
Nuking the moon to be a tough guy...how very Republican. Absurd.
Ummm, Kennedy was a Republican? So far as I know, he's gotten closer to nuking the entire human race than anybody else so far...
Not really. Had Russia sited nukes in Cuba they probably would have been used at some point in time. I think our worst nuclear threat today is North Korea. Given that, I'd point to MacArthur and Truman as the ones that came closest (and still may succeed). By goading China into the conflict they almost push the whole world into a war at a time when militaries had emense power and a desire to try to wage a nuclear war. This also prevented NATO from defeating North Korea, allowing the current unstable situation to continue to fester.
Really?? Do you know anything at all about that time period? So you think Kennedy staged the Bay of Pigs against a Castro Cuba that we now know had recommended to Khrushchev that Cuba use its nukes against the US in a first strike? Kennedy did all that, or did Kennedy get us out of that mess?
The article says the plan was developed in 1958. Eisenhower, a Republican, was president, not Kennedy.
CosmicC, what the what? The Soviets did put nuclear missiles in Cuba. Today there is no coverup about it and is freely admitted by all parties. Were do you get your knowledge of history from, the crazy bum in the alley?
Kennedy and the Soviet leadership share the responsibility for taking us to the brink. It was stupid and irresponsible of Khruschev to risk nuclear war to defend Castro's government, but it was also not terribly smart of Kennedy to provoke the Soviets by instigating the Bay of Pigs invasion and threatening to overthrow Castro by any means necessary. The big irony here is that the Soviets actually won that round. They pulled out the medium range missiles from Cuba, but in return U.S. laid off Castro and withdrew medium range nuclear missiles from Turkey. Lo and behold, fifty years later Castro is still there, even though U.S.S.R is no more.
Oh, only those with small simple minds would think so. The ability to launch and detonate a nuke on the moon in the 1950's has a major strategic advantage for the U.S. Remember at this time the Soviet space program was way ahead of the U.S. and it looked like the Soviets would dominate space and land on the Moon decades sooner then we could. But now with the advantage of history those with little minds don't take the effort to understand what was going on and the mind set at that specific time.
If the scenerio did play out with the U.S. lagging behind the Soviets could have used that advantage by positioning nukes in space and possibly the moon to threaten the U.S. With technology at that time only a nuke could threaten those space based weapons, we did not have the guidance systems for the necssary precision so you would need a nuke to compensate. What probably kept the Soviets from putting weapons in space was that we caught up pretty quickly and their established capability prevented us from doing the same.
You don't think these studies were not continued under Kennedy and Johnson? If you don't I got a bridge to sell you.
" The ability to launch and detonate a nuke on the moon in the 1950's has a major strategic advantage for the U.S."
Is this what the Big Minds come up with ? Better our nukes fall from space then their nukes.?! I'll buy that bridge if it gets me far far away from your thinking. “that’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Neil Armstrong. That's "Mankind".
Time for the Truth to join the Human race.
I agree. One strange thing in our revulsion to the thought of detonating bombs on the moon is that we instead nuked Nevada and New Mexico ... to this day there are dead zones there fenced off from the public.
Using the moon as a nuclear testground was not a realistic option in 1950s. By the time it became remotely possible, atmospheric and underwater testing was stopped anyway, and everybody agreed that putting nuclear weapons in space is not a good idea. See Nuclear Weapons in Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
Major media is beginning to model a perfect Washington. Imagine POTUS and Congress negotiating like all the commentators. Lessons to be learned: the X and Y factor. The first human pair was created as "equal compliments," much like all America might wish for our political system. This assumes non-corrupt sincerity among both branches, and both the Democrat and Republican parties. Protests against the contrary is a clear sign of healthy populace.
Huh? I want some of that wacky tabacky you've been smoking!
This is a perfect example of the stupidity that helped fuel the anti-establishment counter-culture of the 60's. Young people shook their heads at things like this, and wondered what the hell are adults thinking?
Young people did not shake their heads at things like this because things like this were classified...moron. The "counter culture" shook their heads at anything that didn't involve smoking pot and dropping acid.
No, the counter-culture shook their heads BY smoking pot and dropping acid. They were shaking their heads at 25 years of almost continual warfare, an increasing repressive culture, and a growing awareness of extreme social inequity. (In case you're wondering, I'm talking about the '60's, not now. We're just repeating history).
There sure were a LOT of stupid things cooked up during the fifties (mostly caused by politician-induced international paranoia) that cost us billions of dollars and countless human suffering during the following decades. Truth be told, even by today's standards, the politicos and military bureauocrats of the day (of all nations) were neither the sharpest nor the cleanest tools in the shed. It was an age of exquisitely packaged, force-fed bullhockey.
Nostalgia assumes you remember when the "high-tech" traditional home had a land line and B&W TV. "Were those mops on their heads?" The 'Good Old Days' may not have been all that good, but every American kid deserves an economy that suports presense of both father and mother. Meanwhile, President Obama 'Big Budget Plan' is to shout: "MY2K!"
So, we have a problem doing any damage to a dead and lifeless orb that we aren't even interested in exploring anymore, let alone build lunar bases on, but we will foul the planet we live on and the only known planet at this time that can support human life? If given the option, I would have no problem exporting all the hazardous waste and other garbage we create to the moon and turning it into one big toxic land fill. But no, let's dig a big hole in Nevada and put it there instead. Nuke it? Sure, why the hell not? I would get more pi$$ed off watching people throw trash out their car window. Sorry lunar lovers but the environment of the moon is of no concern to me. Unless we figure out how to stop killing our planet, I could care less about "damaging" the moon.
Why not just send nuclear waste & toxins to the Sun, the perfect incinerator?
The idea of launching our garbage to the moon or the sun is appealing until you discover the cost to launch something out of earth orbit. It takes a LOT of energy (and cash) to get out of earth orbit. According to this article: http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf
from 2000, it costs a minimum $US 7,000 PER POUND! to get into geosynchronous orbit. More than that to get it on its way to the moon or the sun. And that was 12 years ago. Figure inflation and it costs even more now. It's just not economically feasible.
Not to mention the thought of tons of nuclear waste perched on top of a massive roman candle while it flies over your head.
And then the shuttle blows up. Toxic waste is spread in the upper most part of our atmosphere. And is spread for thousands of mile....
Forget launching it up. Why not just look at disposal inside volcanos or other lava sites in the crust.
The comment about radioactivity on the moon was about the impact it would have on scientific research. That said, the real issue is the militarization of space. If we had taken the past approach, militaries would have been the only ones in space and they would have done so just to gain supremacy. No ISS, no Hubble, no Mars exploration, no Voyager, etc.
You might want to study a little about the importance the moon plays to our existance. Without it, we would wobble and the Earth would be a very violent place. Based on your thought process, let's just throw our garbage all over space. Just because you have no use for something, or property of any sort, doesn't mean you dump on it. But hey, let's destroy the moon and do the Earth a favor, since you really want to clean it up. Once we eliminate the moon, the Earth will get a true cleansing. By the way, that includes you. Look at the bright side, at least you'll get your wish by using your thought process! The Earth will be clean again, CRYSTAL clean!
makes perfect sense to me. why have radioactive islands in the pacific when you can "outsource" the debris to a place where humans won't exist for at least several more decades? i'm sure mitt would love the outsourcing idea!!
Typical American thinking.
Typical foreigner thinking.
Really, considering most of the world outside of the US and Canada has turned their environment it a crap hole, how can you think this is typical American thinking.
The scientific illiteracy demonstrated in these comments is truly stunning.
Obama voters.
In my experience it's the conservatives that are totally ignorant of science.
I agree with 2Smart4Tea. I'm surrounded by scientists on a daily basis, and most of them are quite liberal in their politics. Part of it is an artifact of where I live, but in general we're all concerned and remain concerned about the GOP's stance against important scientific concepts, advancements, and funding.
Democrats view tradition and freedom as mutually exclusive - Republicans view the merge as "paradise on earth."
Well, except the freedom to love and marry whoever you want. Or the freedom of women to make as much money as men and to seek redress when discriminated against. The republicans don't want those freedoms. They consider them to be mutually exclusive to their traditions.
Lessons yet unlearned by both sides
I have no clue what you mean. I'm far left. Certainly left of the Democratic party. I value freedom and I value tradition. If I have to choose between the two, tradition loses, but I'd rather find a way of accomdating both.
Typical of America... They want to blow up everything, even the moon.
I know it's popular to bad mouth America just because they have it better than you, but take a look at the Middle East, embassies throughout Africa, the IRA... war has been around thousands of years before America.
So who has the most military? Who has as much military as the next 30+ countries COMBINED? That's right, it's the United States. But they aren't a warring nation anymore, as long as you don't count Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Korea, and the dozens of propped-up dictators.
Kevin; America has such a large military because the military industrial complex is a major part of our capitalistic economy. That is why defense spending cuts are such a hot issue. It has nothing to do with the US being a "warring" inclined nation.
Um, who do you think many of those 30+ other countries would ask for help if their militaries were actually needed? Any chance some of them get by with small militaries because the US has their backs- and in exchange reaps influence if not very good relations? For some of the others, those that the US would not support- any chance they aren't reporting accurate figures? And the big one- do ANY of those other 30 have the same level of interests and influence as the US? Leadership is funny- if you don't exercise it in the worst of times you find that it goes away in even the best.
I agree that the military supports our economy. Imagine how much more efficient it would be to spend even a small portion of that on better education and healthcare.
Moreover, what you are saying is that our economic success through military spending is more important than the lives and freedom of the people in the countries we chose to attack for our own gain. I cannot think of a single time when the US military took on a conflict from a strictly moralistic position except for the intervention in attempted genocide by Serbia.
We don't have the 'largest military' and certainly not 'more than the next 30 countries combined' you rube. China has far more troops than we do.
What we do have is the most well-funded and well-equipped military.
Yep. Crazy cowboys.
Sure is B- S-- .
We are at war with the moon ?. Humans !!!
Really? You had to bring up President Obama in a story from 1958? Your prejudice is showing, idiot.
There's a student film that's being made about this story: http://www.nukethemoon.net/
That would have been one of the dumbest choices if they went through with it.
Sounds like a story line for Dr> Sheldon Cooper from the " Big Bang Theory"!!
Have you ever watched the show? No aspect of this story would fit his character.
Sounds like a story line for Dr. Sheldon Copper from the " Big Bang Theory"!
Reblogged this on Drivel and Dialectic.
Americans are the strangest beings living on this planet. They think it strange to nuke the moon, but nuked the planet we are living on hundreds of times. They clealy need a serious mental upgrade.
And yet, several other countries have nuked this planet, and several more are trying to develop the means to... and you only blame America... pathetic.
That is because you i_d i ots actually dropped it on living people.There is a big difference. Are you too s_t_uuu_p i d to
understand the difference. Your lot killed people in tens of thousand in a single day without any consideration to their role in the second world war. Learn to shut up and not point fingers at others
as a matter of fact yes a hippie tossing a flower with nuclear radiation LET THE MOON GLOW RED TONIGHT!.
The scientific (and just plain) ignorance of most people in this thread is amazing. The moon is already hit regularly by meteorites that cause explosions far larger than a 20 kiloton weapon could ever hope to achieve. What do you think caused some of the huge 100 mile wide craters ... a hippie tossing a flower??
I love it!!!
It is amazing how a select few in government and the military can decide how to play with nuclear bombs at the expense of mankind . I just hope Iran has no such ideas and determiations to do the same.
Did you read how they hoped it would be a deterrent? But ultimately abandoned the project? You just like to complain about government, don't you.
One more crater on the moon costing millions? Priceless!
Acer Support for Computer It was a wonderful chance to visit this kind of site and I am happy to know. thank you so much for giving us a chance to have this opportunity! I will be back soon for updates.
The very fact that the US even CONSIDERED a plan like this shows how nutty they are and the kind of mindless threat they pose (from nuclear nuttiness to fiscal foolishness). The moon is not owned by any one country. Why mess it up for all mankind for no conceivable reason? They already blew up 2 nuclear bombs before 1950. They had nothing to prove on that front. Space Race? A race to see who can destroy space first?
Do you realize that France, Great Britain, the USSR, as well as a few other countries did many above and below ground detonations of nuclear weapons for testing? Many of these far larger than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. But yes, do blather on about how evil the US is and ignore the rest of history
We plan for everything which is why we are in charge and have a flag on the moon and you do not.
Now go back to throwing rocks at each other, we have a robot on Mars to drive around.
ya were trying to find the origin of life LOL
I wonder about the abstract math and quantum theory that could have been reinforced or shown to have flaws and exceptions, had we have gone though with Lunar bombings.
Honestly, if anything, the time to bomb the moon (um, ...again, 'cause the USA already launched a rocket a few years ago to stir up the moon-dirt) is now, when we have actual instruments and the capacity to use them so as to accurately measure causes and their effects.
...and moon-ghost zombies.
The time to nuke the moon...never.
Moon breaks into huge pieces. force of the blast sends this pieces to earth. could have been followed by headlines THE DAYS OUR MOON RAINED ON US
I saw that (poor) remake of "The Time Machine".
Next nuke the sun and say good bye to earth, ignorant retards.
The sun is a giant nuke.... duh
@ Franklin, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Nukes use Fission and the sun is powered by Fusion.
@Joxer While some of the smaller nukes were fission only, larger thermonuclear weapons (also known as hydrogen bombs) are fission-fusion devices. Most nuclear weapons deployed today are thermonuclear.
You didn't pay much attention in science class, did you?