
Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile blows up, creating “mini-Chernobyl” - mplanchard
https://arstechnica.com/?p=1550363
======
m463
I looked up energy in different substances for a recent post, but it's
relevant here:

Gasoline is 34.2 MJ/L

A lithium-ion battery is 2.6 MJ/L

Uranium is 1,539,842,000 MJ/L

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy_content)

------
api
What would be the strategic advantage of a nuclear cruise missile? Couldn't a
cruise missile of any kind be shot down by a fighter plane? Seems easier to
deflect than an ICBM, which they already have in abundance.

~~~
joelx
Missiles generally are far faster than fighter planes. Remember anti-aircraft
missiles themselves are missiles. There's a chance that these nuclear missiles
could even outrun those.

These weapons are an enormous existential threat to people everywhere. Weapons
like these will be used to help dictators stay in power permanently.

~~~
tlb
Surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles are fast, but with short range. For any
fuel-burning aircraft there's a tradeoff between size, speed, and range. If
you want Mach 3 and intercontinental range, you need something huge and
expensive like an SR-71.

Nuclear ramjets, if they can be made to work, could be both hypersonic and
very long range. Very long range is important because you can launch them
early in a conflict and have them cruise around, safe from incoming tactical
nukes destroying your launch sites.

~~~
foxyv
What would be really interesting is if they had a nearly unlimited flight
time. You could have your nuclear arsenal in the air, waiting for the signal
to attack. Rather than sitting on the ground. It would make for an
impressively intimidating tactic. The nukes already in the air, just waiting
for the signal.

