• @HootinNHollerin
        link
        4
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If you’re ever in Albuquerque, New Mexico you can see it in the nuclear museum (can’t recall what it’s specifically called)

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      53 months ago

      This seems like a rather self-defeating weapon really.

      How was that weapon supposed to work? “Stay back or we will irradiate our own forces”. It’s not much of a threat is it.

      • @macarthur_park
        link
        13 months ago

        The yield is small enough that it isn’t a threat to the soldiers launching it. Still, I wouldn’t want to be the one tasked with firing it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33 months ago

      In a similar vein, Project Pluto. Essentially a nuclear ramjet that could fly 150m off the ground at 3,700 km/h, was impossible to intercept at the time, could carry sixteen nuclear warheads and crop-dusted the earth with radiation everywhere it went. It was eventually cancelled for being “too provocative.” Which, coming from the US army, is quite a thing lol.

    • @merari42
      link
      13 months ago

      The people over at NCD must be getting raging hardons just from seeing this.

  • wuphysics87
    link
    fedilink
    383 months ago

    Alfred Nobel, the originator of the Nobel prize, invented dynamite believing mutually assured destruction would end war.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      343 months ago

      Your comment is only technically correct, so I am gonna add to that:

      Alfred Nobel did invent dynamite and was also a believer in mutually assured destruction, BUT: those two facts are not directly connected.

      Dynamite in itself was not intended for warfare, but for mining. It was still relatively unstable so not really suited for warfare. (TNT, which came around 1900, solved that problem.)

      Nobel did invent smokeless powder for warfare and he transformed Bofors into an arms manufacturing company though.

      https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      333 months ago

      To be fair, mutually assured destruction likely will end war but maybe not in the way we hope.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        23 months ago

        That assumes that you believe that the world would be a safer place if only one nation had nuclear weapons. I would imagine that would be the least safe of all possible scenarios.

        If everyone has nuclear weapons at least there is the possibility they will never be used. If they are used it basically ensures the end of the world so, swings and roundabouts.

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      16
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s not quite the same since there was no reason to believe CFCs would be dangerous. They checked for toxicity to humans and that was about it. It never occurred to anyone to simulate interactions with atmospheric particles, meteorological science was almost non-existent back then, it was essentially just limited to weather forecasting.

      It never occurred anyone to worry to about what might happen 100+ years in the future.

      But yeah he had absolutely no excuse for lead in gasoline, as far back as the Romans we knew lead was toxic.

    • @merari42
      link
      23 months ago

      Edward Teller is just the kind of scientist you need to build civil engineering projects out of doomsday devices.

  • @Etterra
    link
    13 months ago

    Including political science?