Hacker News Reader

Comment by eveningcoffee | Hacker News Reader

>These things are the most over-the-top method of beating missile defenses. A normal response would be to just deploy more missiles

Deploying more missiles would be visible and would clearly demonstrate aggressive intentions.

View on HN

More aggressive than a radiation-belching nuclear ramjet?

We don’t know the design used here. There are nuclear thermal designs that do not enit contaminated exhaust.

Not according to TFA. Do you have a source for your counterassertion? I doubt Tyler Rogoway would get such a point of fact incorrect - even when I've disagreed with his analysis I've never found him to be dishonest.

I have prior training as both aero and nuclear engineer and there are obvious design space solutions? NERVA was an open cycle reactor meaning the propulsive intake air made direct contact with the core, and ablation is what caused radioactive exhaust. Closed cycle designs are more typical in production systems in which a high temperature conventional radiator would transfer heat from the core to the jet reaction chamber. The article is flat out wrong/misinformed.

They've signed agreements limiting the amount of nuclear weapons. This is an intent to improve capabilities while staying in the framework of the treaty.

In a way that saying you are developing nuclear-powered ones does not?

I think if you count public opinion then it may be more acceptable to have small number of advanced cruise missiles than to have more missiles.

For example what sounds more aggressive, 10 cruise missiles or 1000 missiles?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com