Missile + warhead?

Question

It is often said "if they can put a nuclear warhead on the missile...". Why is it a problem to put a nuke warhead on a missile that is already known todeliver a regular explosive warhead? Seems it should work whether it is a nuke or regular or confetti and silly putty.

Sorry, I did not state that clearly. It is said in the context that developing the nuke warhead being one step but that then being able to put it on a missile and deliver it being something harder to achieve. As long as the warhead is not the size or shape of garage, which it logically would not be, or weigh more than the missile capability, I would think that delivering it is the easy part.

Answer 1

If I understand your question, I think the problem relates to the difference between a nuclear device and a viable nuclear warhead.

In essence, it is much easier to create a nuclear device capable of exploding in a ground location, than to design and build an equivalent nuclear warhead for a missle.

Differences would include the need for the warhead to:
- be small enough and light enough;
- still be shielded enough to allow personel to handle it; and,
- withstand the forces (e.g. acceleration)involved in being carried by a missile.

So --- bottom line --- building a "nuclear device" and a "nuclear warhead" are miles apart in terms of technological sophistication. Something like the difference between an old tube radio set and a wrist watch radio: both are radios, but there is a huge difference in size, power requirements and portability of the two.

The situation in North Korea is a good example. The long range missile to carry a future warhead has not yet been proven, and explosion of a nuclear device underground is a long way from having a viable warhead for the missile when / if it finally does work. That said, it is worrying that countries such as North Korea even have the ability to manufacture any form of nuclear device. After all, it would be relatively easy to ship it via ship and truck to somewhere and not need a missile at all! Which is why missile defence is so wrong headed .... but that is another question ...

Hope this answers your question.

Answer 2

A nuclear device is supposed to inflict damage and radioactive fallout over a large area, literally hundreds of miles across. That means that unlike conventional missiles, such as the SCUD, which only had a range of 100 miles or so, a nuclear missile really needs to have a range of several hundred miles to ensure that the fallout does not come back on your own country.

Now you need to design a guidance system that will control and steer the missile to accurately hit the desired target, and not some other country that might have been your friend.

Thirdly, as Iraq so brilliantly demonstrated during the first Gulf War, in order to go several hundred miles, the missile must go farther up into the atmosphere, and resultant acceleration stress on the body of the missile substantially increases, resulting the typical SCUD missile actuall disintegrating during the flight, nullifying your navigation system, assuming you had one. The net result is that most of the missiles that Iraq launched at Israel did very little damage because the missiles had all broken apart well before they impacted.

The secondary point here is that waging a nuclear war against your neighbor is a form of suicide.

Answer 3

if they can put a nuclear warhead on the missile
Then you can put other things

That is the meaning of the saying.