RE: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

Someone a while back also suggested that missiles (MT and Salvo) may be
bomb-pumped, one-shot, X-Ray Laser projectors. This explained why MT
missiles had such a poor turn radius, but a good turn radius at the
terminal
point (they only had to orient on the target) and why they had a final
range
(6" or 3-4").

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
ICQ: 12848051
AIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Richard and
Emily Bell
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 3:31 PM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

Matthew Smith wrote:

> > I would assume, as have most SF writers, that any missile being
launched
> is
> > a nuke. There would no  reason not to use them in space.
> >
> > Corey
>
> This is a dilemma that has had me flustered for ages. There is no
reason
not
> to use nuclear weaponry, and yet FT dreadnoughts can take dozens of SM
hits
> before being destroyed. If each SM carries a nuke, then surely one hit
would
> destroy any ship? I mean, what are these vessels built out of that
allows
> them tos survive 30 missile hits intact (if barely)? The way I see it,
SMs
> are non-nuclear. The reason nobody uses nukes in space or ground
warfare
> (except in desparation) is that it is illegal. I can imagine the UN
being
> very strict on this issue, and I always got the impression that the
UNSC
was
> the most advanced and the most powerful human space navy, certainly
more
> powerful than any one national navy. By my reckoning any use of nukes
gets
a
> swift and brutal reprisal in the form of sanctions and blockades
enforced
by
> the UN - they may not be powerful enough to stop colonial warfare
> altogether, but I reckon they should have no trouble imposing enough
> economic loss on a nation that nukes just aren't worth it anyway.

Nukes are not nearly as powerful as you describe them.	Wet navy ships
must
float, yet they are still highly resistant to nuclear blasts.  Very few
of
the
vessels consumed in the A-bomb tests actually sank from the blast
effects.
This
does not mean that they could still fight, or the crew would have
survived,
merely that they were not sunk, one cruiser was pulled up into the
mushroom
cloud, and dropped several thousand feet into the ocean, but (although
any
crew
would have been VERY dead) it still floated after bobbing back to the
surface.
In space, you lack the direct concussive effects of an atmospheric
detonation,
so nuclear warheads are less damaging than expected.  Also, space is
very
large,
and ships are very small, so contact blasts do not happen, the missile
is
happy
enough to find a ship in its proximity range, and detonates at closest
approach
(which can still be many kilometers away from the target).  By mutual
consent,
you could allow SM's fired on non-maneuvering (thrust 0) targets to
automatically hit for 30 points of damage each, unless stopped by point
defence.