For 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? Seems overkill to say the least. Also, not sure too many people would be happy with a nuclear reactor flying overhead.
I'm not saying it's necessary (or even a good idea, see the "accidents" section in the linked to article), but it also wouldn't be the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome
hold up, what
Launch the nukes, abort the launch, and then have the nukes... fly back to base, and land safely without exploding.
Right I get that there's fail-safes for the warheads, but that seems definitely scary, I agree
People have "launch the nuke, abort the nuke, fly back to base and land safely without exploding" already. That is called a nuclear armed bomber.
The scary thing about these is that their propulsion is a nuclear reactor. You know how in a jet engine the air is heated up by burning fuel? Here the air is heated up by comming into contact with the reactor. They exhaust fission products while they fly. To quote from the page: "The other major problem with the SLAM concept was the environmental damage caused by radioactive emissions during flight, and the disposal of the reactor at the end of the mission. Merkle estimated that about 100 grams of fission products would be produced, which would be dispersed over a wide area."
This thing is by design, when nothing goes wrong leaves a contrail of radioactive contamination behind it. And when things go wrong it leaves even more contamination.
And the funny thing is, the Russians are still experimenting with this tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
And predictably as they were trying to scope their test wreckage from the sea floor they managed to have a radiation incident with it in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident
(As you can read the exact circumstances are disputed, but I believe this is the most likely explanation of what we have seen.)
Probably for the ability to replace fossil fuels in an application where batteries don't have enough energy density.
> Also, not sure too many people would be happy with a nuclear reactor flying overhead.
Better not tell them the kinds of things in the cargo holds of existing planes.