WI Eisenhower blows up the Moon

Wasn't there some pseudo-scifi trash movie a couple of years ago with such a plot? IIRC, the story was that the moon had somehow started to break apart and was now tumbling towards Earth, and the only way to stop it from doing so was to blow it up completely and have it form an asteroid belt around Earth. In the end, they somehow saved it anyway by sealing the rift with the help of a lot of nukes from all nuclear nations.

Yeah, something like that.
I bet there was a "rogue scientist" that no-one would listen to who saved the day.
Also, he probably had a daughter who was directly underneath where the first chunk would land.:p
 
The article exaggerates for clickbait purposes.

The actual plan had serious scientific intent, and was not to actually 'blow up' the moon, rather to detonate nuclear weapons on the moon's surface so that they could get a better look at the composition of the regolith and the moon's internal structure. The explosion itself would have thrown up a lot of debris that could have been imaged with spectroscopy. A large crater would be left behind that could be explored by rovers and probes, and seismic monitoring probes could have used the shockwaves to create a picture of what the moon looked like internally.

It would actually have allowed us to learn a lot of things that we still don't know. The actual effect on the Moon as we see it form Earth would have been very minor. A new small crater, and that's pretty much it.

The program was cancelled for two reasons. Firstly it would have involved putting nuclear weapons in space which may have been seen as a provocation by the Soviets. And secondly it would have committed the US to a very expensive and comprehensive set of unmanned lunar exploration missions, at the same time that the Apollo program was under way. It really came down to asking whether they wanted to send men to the moon, or do some big exo-geology experiments,

The sexier option inevitably won.

As to WI they had actually done it? We would know a lot more about the Moon, including whether if there are signification amounts of water trapped in the crust. This might have lead to more focused exploration of the moon later one. The cost involved may also have lead to the cancellation or even serious curtailment of the Apollo program. Though if significant resources had been found on the moon, a manned effort may have been mounted later on anyway.

A minor diplomatic incident with the Soviets may have occurred, but nothing major. The Soviet space program was pretty science focused, and they would have appreciated the intent.

Oh that's really interesting thanks for sharing
 
For background: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christ...-the-moon-is-that-even-possible/#50cb16421f92

A search revealed articles in the Daily Telegraph and Business Insider about this as well, so it seems there were really plans along these lines. To be fair, the idea was just to nuke the Moon, not destroy it, so it probably would have worked out OK.

look read article and

the Facts:
There were two proposal to nuke the moon
One were USA drop a small nuke on moon and study the Light of explosion to understand it composition
the Other was USSR program were a small nuclear warhead send as Luna probe to Moon

Eisenhower not wanted this kind of "military science program" special with poor safety record of Launch vehicle in that time
the Soviet generals politburo had same issue with there Proposal...
 
Last edited:
It would certainly render somewhat moot his critique of the military-industrial complex.

He also said this
I would like to see somebody--people like yourselves--take the whole history of our defense organization from 1945 until this minute, and see what has been done. Frankly, this Nation unilaterally disarmed, and it wasn't until the danger or the great surprise attack in Korea came about that we starred in the other direction. In almost every field of development we were behind. We had to change our policy at that time, back in 1950, and from that time on, we sought one thing--adequacy; adequacy in our power to deter and defend ourselves, and particularly to help these areas which are so exposed to the menace of Communist imperialism so that they may give a reasonable defense of themselves and their lives and their rights, while their allies could come to their assistance. This is what I believe we've been trying to do with all our might.

I get tired of saying that defense is to be made an excuse for wasting dollars. I don't believe we should pay one cent for defense more than we have to.

But I do say this: our defense is not only strong, it is awesome, and it is respected elsewhere.

Dwight D Eisenhower, 2-17-1960
 
The article exaggerates for clickbait purposes.

The actual plan had serious scientific intent, and was not to actually 'blow up' the moon, rather to detonate nuclear weapons on the moon's surface so that they could get a better look at the composition of the regolith and the moon's internal structure. The explosion itself would have thrown up a lot of debris that could have been imaged with spectroscopy. A large crater would be left behind that could be explored by rovers and probes, and seismic monitoring probes could have used the shockwaves to create a picture of what the moon looked like internally.

It would actually have allowed us to learn a lot of things that we still don't know. The actual effect on the Moon as we see it form Earth would have been very minor. A new small crater, and that's pretty much it.

The program was cancelled for two reasons. Firstly it would have involved putting nuclear weapons in space which may have been seen as a provocation by the Soviets. And secondly it would have committed the US to a very expensive and comprehensive set of unmanned lunar exploration missions, at the same time that the Apollo program was under way. It really came down to asking whether they wanted to send men to the moon, or do some big exo-geology experiments,

The sexier option inevitably won.

As to WI they had actually done it? We would know a lot more about the Moon, including whether if there are signification amounts of water trapped in the crust. This might have lead to more focused exploration of the moon later one. The cost involved may also have lead to the cancellation or even serious curtailment of the Apollo program. Though if significant resources had been found on the moon, a manned effort may have been mounted later on anyway.

A minor diplomatic incident with the Soviets may have occurred, but nothing major. The Soviet space program was pretty science focused, and they would have appreciated the intent.
They could have sent a few nuclear charges along with Apollo.
 
Top