Why can't we test our nukes in space?

Question

This is in the context of the Reliable Replacement Weapon (RRW) debate and the international test ban treaty.

If not today, wouldn't the economics only get better? Perhaps it would make economic sense in 20 years?

We'd test the nukes in deep space, so the effects on Earth would be negligible.

Aside from cost (which I'm not sure of), the biggest issue would be safety -- what if it blew up on the launch pad or, even worse, veered off course and then blew up?

My thoughts: first, launch it from as remote a location as possible; second, design a highly reliable system that would not be armed until safely away from Earth (e.g. keep the sub-critical masses of fissile material well apart, with a physical barrier in between).

Is this a ridiculous idea?

Answer 1

One of the main reasons why testing nuclear missiles in space is frowned on, other those you’ve already outlined, is the effects of an EMP in near Earth orbit. You see when a nuke is tested on Earth; it’s generally buried or at least tested in a remote area above ground so that the EMP won’t knock out any delicate vital electrical equipment or vital communication sources. It’s just that an EMP on Earth has a far more limited range that it would have in the vacuum of space, and since we’ve never conducted a test on nuclear missile explosions in space we really don’t know the range of an EMP blast except to say that it’s very great.

What nuclear test scientists would rather do is test nuclear explosions on the far side of the moon that's because the moon itself would act as a physical barrier from any EMP heading toward Earth. But again that won’t occur for many years and until assurances can be made that tests can be done safely and that the missiles can be transported safely too. And let’s also not forget the formidable cost of fuel for such an undertaking, plus where to launch a missile to transport the bloody thing to the moon (Antarctica?). Besides scientists like using the moon for reasons other than just it acting as a blast shield, seismologists and astrophysicists would like it for helping to uncover how the moon was formed and what it’s actually composed of. Some even purposed doing the tests on the near side so that they could use the blasts as a means of excavating the surface for preparation of building a lunar base.

As for the economics only getting better, unfortunately this isn’t always true. Although market demands makes the trend of cost naturally want to go down, there are sometimes extenuating cost issues that make this unlikely. Especially around safety with nuclear materials, plus let’s not forget secrecy. You really don’t want the general public to know when you’re going to be conducting one of these tests or when you’re launching a missile.

Answer 2

The major international reasons for limiting nuclear weapons in space heads way back to Cold-War politics. Everybody had nukes, nobody wanted anybody else to have an advantage in space, so we all signed a treaty which classified space as a weapons free zone. No weapons carrying anything allowed, especially not by a nation or by a military force.

I think that this still stands today due to the abundance of Cold-War politicians still alive. Maybe we can rehash this in about 30 years when all of the Baby-Boomers have died and the Cold War is forgotten.

Until then the international agreement is No Nukes in Space

Answer 3

Pretty silly yeah. We field a whole range of weapons on their third generation even that have never been tested but they work just fine. The cost per pound to put something just in orbit is massive, and nuclear weapons are extremely heavy just based on the nature of the fissile material weight & sheilding.

The replacement weapon concept is a redisign of the inventory. The older weapons were designed for a massive cold war against other superpowers. The new weapons being sought are for small scale strikes against modern threats. Say for instance Iran declares it is assembling nuclear weapons in a bunker too deep & well constructed for the best of our bunker buster bombs & that they intend to use them on Israel as soon as ready to incite a regional world war. It might be nice to have something that could penetrate that facility. Just in case you're curious, that is the facility that exists there, and you can go look at the after action info on our shock & awe strikes against sadam's bunkers that did not penetrate or damage the underground portion of those facilities in any way.

Answer 4

Treaties forbid the testing of nukes in space. All the reasons listed are valid, but the main reason is if a country launches a nuke missile, how does anybody else know it's not headed their way? The most distant launch takes about 25 minutes to hit anywhere else on earth. That's why it's forbidden, IMO.

Answer 5

Yes to me it is an utterly ridiculous idea. We have no idea what the effects could be in doing this. We could set things in motion that could have a drastic effect on the web of life. It would be incredibly disrespectful to the mystery that is outer space. We would have NO IDEA of what we were destroying or what consequenses it would have.
Surely there must be a MILLION other things we can do with our creativity, invention, time and resources than building machines we cant control once weve blown them up. Why not something that actually helps human beings and the planet instead of destroying god knows what?

Answer 6

This may sound odd but it's true...no one knows what the effects of a nuclear detonation would be on the space time continuum. That is why everyone has agreed not to test nukes in space. Until we know more there's no sense in risking a potentially catestrophic result.

Answer 7

Obama receives them their apology,or a minimum of a few thing close adequate that they could save face.and that i'm particular we are able to provide them,or get them a ton of monetary help.after all,Obama and Kim Jong Il at the instant are not so a techniques aside on the Political Spectrum,so i'm particular he can come to three variety of contract with N.Korea. What Comrade Obama gained't do,is take any step that should be seen authoritative.He reported he may take international kinfolk in a clean route,and he meant it.less than Comrade Obama's reign we are subservient in all negotiations.he will bypass in together with his tail tucked firmly between his legs,and ask Kim Jong Il what we ought to do to make him satisfied. RWE

Answer 8

is obvious you need to visit howstuffworks.com then visit the NASA site. What i am trying to say here is that it has already being tough of but the configuration of our planet and other factors relating to particles and fields of energy would actually create a very dangerous problem for earth check it out first and then ask the question with some background on the matter.

Answer 9

It's a good idea, but we still have a pact with other nations banning the use of nuclear-related projects in space. did you know that we had blueprints for an outer space nuclear reactor powered battleship back in the 60s? it was scrapped because of that treaty.

Answer 10

1) Why?
2) why?
3) We have not done atmospheric testing since the '60's. Since then all tests have been underground.
4) Currenly we are honoring a test ban treaty (we've not signed yet).
5) Your right, costly.