Moontanman

I understand that but if that heat pulse can vaporise the surface then it should be able to fuse it as well.

I've wondered the same thing, since the blast effects would be minimal would the radiated energy be enough to fuse the surface?

Now which is it, a 100 megaton nuke at the moon's orbit is dangerous or is it just a detectable effect? And again modern nukes fall far short of 100 megatons and why is the moderness of the nukes important?

No, you used the EMP thing as an example of how dangerous the nukes were, in that context you were not being accurate and in fact deceptive so no your assertion was not valid. In fact your idea of stopping the asteroid as it hits the atmosphere with a 100 megaton warhead is not valid, can you use physics and math to understand why? Your exaggerated assertions about the danger of fall out from the detonation of a nuke were not valid. You go be you dude... I'll stick with arguing reality.

You are quoting yourself now? I've not done anything but ask you to support your wilder assertions, everyone is supposed to to do this, why is asking for this an accusation?

One thing you don't have for sure is the desire to discuss this in a non emotional way.

You are exaggerating the risks to further your agenda, I simply seek to mitigate the actual risk potential to further the safety of the human species. Your assertions about the EMP near the moon I think confirm my suspicions. Your example of the Chicxulub impact just shows you are not interested in an actual discussion.

You made he claim that a nuke detonated inside the the moons orbit would cause a damaging EMP pulse on the earth, then you equivacated and said it would have to be a 100 megaton nuke which no one has ever detonated much less currently have. I suggested a 250 meter asteroid, Apophis is over 300 meters if memory serves me. The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs was several kilometers in diameter if such a asteroid threatened us now days we would be screwed AFAIK there is no way to deflect such an asteroid in any reasonable time frame so why do you try to use it as an example? More fear mongering? Why?

Why would such a warhead be used as an example here? Who has 100 megaton warheads? Who is capable of delivering a 100 megaton warhead? Why is the orbit of the moon being used as an limit? If all we would get is a minor effect why bring this up at all? This example is nothing but fear mongering, if you wait until an object is within the orbit of the moon you are up the creek, such an object is just hours, possibly minutes from impact at that point, do the math! Why keep using these exaggerated examples instead of realistic scenarios? We need to plan ahead, get the infrastructure in pace before the threat looms over us but until that infrastructure is in place the easiest and fastest method should be used. Nuclear warheads delivered to the target via existing technology as far from us as possible would seem to be the best option we currently have. An asteroid impact is a serious event quite possibly apocalyptic anything other than our best efforts is suicide. Exaggerating the danger of nuclear technology does not serve us.

You have no argument until you provide a citation for your assertions!

I'm going to assume your assertions around the detonation of a nuke in space compared to the earth is just us talking past each other. I know the effect is not as great in space as it is on the ground but that doesn't mean it won't work... But your assertion that a nuke would produce an EMP all the way out to the moons orbit needs to be supported or you need to simply admit you yanked it from where the sun don't shine and we can move on.

I understand exactly how a nuke works, evidently even reading it in this article it remains unknown to you. No place in that article dose it say a nuke detonated anyplace inside the moons orbit will EMP the Earth. In fact it only mentions EMP up to 300 miles or so, not 250,000 miles so do you have a citation to support your assertions or not!

Please show the paragraphs that support your assertions, its why we have the quote feature, I read it I don't see them. Mordred, I'm not asking you to do anything more than I or anyone else would have to do if called out on such an assertion. You made a claim that a nuke detonated close than the moon would result in a destructive EMP on the earth, you asserted a nuke wouldn't be effective unless it was detonated inside the atmosphere and suggested a 100 megaton nuke. Please provide a citation for these things!

I do not say that zero reentry is necessary or even possible. Can you provide a citation or not?

I never said there is no risk, I am promoting risk mitigation, I say the risk can be mitigated. Can you or can you not back up your assertions about the EMP or the 100 megaton bomb needing to be detonated in the atmosphere or that the radiation from a nuke used to prevent an asteroid impact will be worse than the impact of the asteroid?

Yes, if an irradiated asteroid enters the atmosphere it would drag the radiation it contains with it but it would only be the radiation from the nukes, how ever many modern nukes it took. I am well aware of the blast effects in and out of the atmosphere, no one has a 100 megaton nuke and I see no one making one or being able to launch such a huge nuke and detonating it in the atmosphere would not work, the kinetic energy and mass of the asteroid would still impact the earth and you get the radiation too. So why would anyone so that? No, you made an assertion that defies the physics of how an EMP works, you need a citation on that. I say that is not necessary the amount of radiation released would be trivial over the entire earth compared to what we already have.

Yes, he asserts that a nuke detonated in space millions of miles from the earth would create enough radioactivity to threaten the earth... citation please! So far all he has done is show that radiation from past bombs exist and he equates the deep space detonation with the 507 bombs that resulted in part of our radiation exposure on the Earth. Show me that one or even several detonations would do any such thing, even if they all detonated on the Earth the vast majority of the people on the planet would remain as oblivious as they were of the past detonations. I am not saying that would be a good thing I am saying it wouldn't be worse than an asteroid impact. Risk mitigation, which is worse the release of a small amount of radiation or the impact of an asteroid. Even Tunguska would have been much worse than a modern nuke of 1.5 megatons exploding in space to try to prevent it. His assertion that nuke in space inside the orbit of the moon would cause an EMP needs a citation! Can he not defend himself?

Before this I was up for forgiving Mordred for lots of things but his assertions need to be backed up. I am well aware of the dangers of radioactivity he apparently is not and keep insisting on exaggerating the dangers with no reason other than his assertions. The links he has provided so far do not back up his assertions at all and in fact support my view of mitigating risks. Dilution is the solution to pollution!

Who is suggesting a 100 megaton explosion? I never said there is no threat, I said the risk is minimal and not significant to what we already have. You forget that I might already be familiar with them, this is an area I was obsessed with many years ago. I am well aware of that, are you aware that the risk of shattering the asteroid can be mitigated? If the pieces still hit the earth the radiation will be the least of your worries. Now how about a citation that actually supports your assertions? EMP inside the moons orbit, can you support that assertion?

I don't doubt that nuclear fallout can be dangerous what I am asserting it that the fall out from a bomb detonated millions of miles from the earth will not be significant. The amount of fall out is what is dangerous, a single bomb doesn't have the ability to significantly affect the environment, the fact that 507 didn't do it long term suggest that the idea of a nuclear explosions millions of miles away wouldn't do it either. You do realize that radioactivity is part of the natural environment and that the actual amount is what is important not that any amount exists.. right? I'm not suggesting there is no risk, I am asserting that the risk is far less than a asteroid hitting the earth. Risk management is the important thing here. What poses the most risk, an asteroid impact or the detonation of a warhead millions of miles away?

Why is this relevant? Please explain. Starfish Prime was detonated in very low earth orbit not the distance of the moon! Citation for your assertions that a nuclear explosion inside the moons orbit would cause a EMP please.

Citation please, how far out would a nuke have to be to have a EMP effect on the Earth? I was assuming a nuke or any other means of deflection would have to used way before the moons orbit was breached by the object. Once it got that close it would essentially be only a few minutes to impact! Even if that is true and the entire radiation load of the war head was transferred to the Earths atmosphere how is that any different than a nuclear test back in the era of atmospheric tests which we know didn't have much if any long term effects. Citation please your assertions need to be backed up by more than your fear of nukes.

Nuclear power and bombs are not the existential threat so often hyped up by anti nuke activists. I honestly do not understand why the use of nukes in space is so feared. A nuclear warhead detonated in space away from the Earth poses essentially no threat to the earth but could be an effective tool against an asteroid strike. A rocket to deliver such a payload could be built out of existing stock in just a few weeks, months at most. All the other methods would be fine if they were already in place, its practically a crime we don't already have them in place! But if we were confronted with such a threat with little time I see no other alternative except maybe just hunkering down and riding it out and that might be the right move for a small asteroid like the Tunguska event. In fact if we are presented with a Tunguska sized asteroid it would be a great reason to try and test the non nuke methods. If of course we could get some warning of such an event which I doubt is likely. It would take years to develop, build,and deploy the technologies that might work while a nuke is simple, easy to deploy and most importantly already available! I am not suggesting detonating a nuke in low earth orbit, I would assume it would be deployed as far away as time allowed but to suggest that the fall out from the detonation of a few nukes on an asteroid millions of miles away would threaten the earth in some existential way is preposterous. Between 1945 and 1980 507 atmospheric nuclear tests were carried out none of them resulted in widespread damage to the environment or the destruction of civilization. If I remember correctly IVY Mike was the worst of these, it resulted in some pretty bad contamination but that was due to poor planning and less than accurate science. I doubt detonating nukes on an asteroid millions of miles away would be the end of our civilization or be any real threat to anything. Chernobyl, as bad as it was, didn't do that and and it released far more radioactive contamination than a few nukes would. Nor would a war head accidentally falling to the ground from orbit cause widespread damage or even widespread contamination. Preparation is the key, at this time I see no viable short term alternative but I wholeheartedly agree we should be preparing a way to counteract this threat and asserting that nukes should not be used really needs to be thought out a bit more clearly. So far all I see are vague notions of some harm a nuke might cause exaggerated beyond all reason.

Mordred, it would take more than a year to even coordinate such an effort, solar sails? There are no operational solar sails, we have no space craft capable of flying to the moon much less an asteroid. A gravity tractor is an idea, none actually exist, the ability to get to the asteroid doesn't exist, refueling in orbit is an idea, the actual process doesn't exist. You have a year not 20 years. It should be the first option if no other option is credible, I see no reason to discount nukes, you seem to think a nuke is somehow a threat to the planet despite that being obviously hyped anti nuke propaganda.