Nuclear Air to Air Missiles.?

Question

Was watching a documentary about fighter aircraft on the military channel. It said at one time US fighters carried nuclear air to air missiles that would destroy a whole enemy squadron at once.They have been retired since.I wonder why and did they really retire them or just say they did.I would be a powerful deterrent.

Answer 1

The missile you are talking about was called 'Genie'. And it was designed to take out a whole formation of aircraft. But with the advent of nuclear weapons by foreign countries it wasn't necessary to send a whole squadron to destroy a target, only one plane is necessary. Why use a missile that powerful to destroy one or two planes? Besides being messy it's overkill to the extreme. They were developed, proved and abandoned in short order.

Answer 2

This is how I will answer your question. Both China and Russia had advanced missile technology too. The same is true when it comes to nuclear technology. So, the U.S. is never really ahead in nuclear air to air missile technology compared to the Chinese and the Russians, which can make real difference in shifting the strategic advantage in favor of the U.S..

If the U.S. had retired those nuclear air to air missiles, it was based on the decision that the usage of such missiles by the U.S. in war will also lead to the Chinese and the Russians getting the right to do the same. Imagine the horror it can cause if the Chinese and the Russians uses them against American squadrons too.

Answer 3

Haphazard is right. The Army used to have atomic artillery rounds in the 1950s as well. In the long run they pose more problems than they solve, especially to friendly troops on the ground.

Plus, if you're going to be the first to break the nuke-u-ler taboo you might as well go all out, rather than play around with sub-strategic weapons.

And lastly, it's unlikely that any modern air force will ever encounter large enemy formations again, certainly not as far as nukes are concerned. It's safer and more effective to deliver your warheads by missile, fired from submarines or a few, scattered, ground hugging bombers.

Great question though.

Answer 4

No, the 2d missile would not explode. it would be eradicated. broken aside. the 1st missile that hits it would. it would probable disperse radiation interior the air. they'd not use a nuclear missile to destroy a nuclear missile nonetheless. There are different missiles for stuff like that.

Answer 5

Nuclear missiles such as the one you mentioned were destroyed after several treaties such as the ABT... ending the cold war.

They are not a deterrent. When one country has nuclear weapons that causes other countries to want them in order to protect itself = a cold war.

You see an example of this when after Bush removed the USA from the ABT in Dec 2001, N.Korea announced it was leaving the NPT and would restart nuclear testing. Following N.Korea a few years later, Iran announced plans to enrich Uranium.

So you see, it is not a deterrent at all.

Answer 6

Besides the lack of tactical advantages in modern warfare, where air formations are loose and in smaller numbers, the main problem is the stigma and danger of nuclear weapons in general. A nuclear weapon's aftermath dispersed into higher atmosphere could pose risks to a great number of civilians, and so such a threat can scarcely account for the minimal offensive advantage such weapons would entail.

Answer 7

Even Canada had the Gennie missle for its part of NORAD on the CF-101 VooDoo Intercepter,and in the early eighties,we stopped using both....But if a squadron of commie backfires came over the pole...they would of been turned into night lights for the next 100 years.

Answer 8

Until now, we don't hear about any kind of weapon like this! Just Air to surface nuclear missiles. But Ur question is very interesting and I have searched an answer for it!
Here we are!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2

Answer 9

Maybe a powerful deterant but not very sensable and cost effective. You would also take out the aircraft shooting them plus stand the risk if they were shot by ground fire them detonating.

Answer 10

The Military had always made tactical publications to keep the enemies guessing about its arsenal.