During the Cold War there were nuclear anti-aircraft missiles, nuclear anti-missile missiles, nuclear depth charges, nuclear artillery shells, nuclear torpedos, nuclear man-portable demolition charges, even nuclear recoilless guns:
I guess it wasn't the author's fault, but that's the one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. Until about 1990, anti-aircraft missiles were horribly inaccurate. I read somewhere that the chance of scoring a hit with a korean-war era air-to-air missile was about 5%. Why would anyone want to launch a nuclear missile that's pretty much guaranteed to not his its target?
> I read somewhere that the chance of scoring a hit with a korean-war era air-to-air missile was about 5%. Why would anyone want to launch a nuclear missile that's pretty much guaranteed to not his its target?
Because with a nuclear air-to-air missile in its intended role, you don't need to "hit the target", you just need to detonate somewhere in the general area of the bomber formation that you are trying to whittle down.
I used to work on the AIR-2A. It a was a thing of simplicity. Any airplane within a mile that survived had to land immediately. This is before modern guidance systems. The military imagined masses of bombers with fighter cover attacking similar to WW II. Perhaps its a bit of fighting the last war, but it was a simple, effective answer to a real threat.
It's the other way around. If you're sure to get a hit, you don't need a nuke. But if you don't have very much accuracy, you can make up for it with a big blast radius.
Well, "nuclear suitcase bombs" are usually envisioned as taking out a city. Wheel one into Times Square, push the button, and boom, millions dead. The Davy Crockett's yield was about 20 tons, so it would be like a really big truck bomb going off. Not a good thing to happen in a crowded city, but we're talking about a couple of city blocks being destroyed. For a sneak attack, you'd probably be better off buying or stealing a tractor trailer and loading it to the gills with ammonium nitrate.
I was kind of in surprise at the wording too, I didn't believe they would use a nuclear anti aircraft weapon, it seemed overkill, and then I read the rationale of the genie. I'm surprised to say the least.
Hardly overkill, when you consider these weapons were designed for use against squadrons of nuclear-armed Soviet bombers, and the abysmal performance of fighters and interceptors against bomber squadrons during World War II.
Make up for accuracy with power. It doesn't mater if your missile can only make it within a mile of the target if it destroys every aircraft within a mile when it detonates.
>Force pilots were allowed to fire their nuclear anti-aircraft rockets to shoot down Soviet bombers heading toward the United States.
Nuclear anti-aircraft rockets?