What Can Be Done To Stop Destructive Tornados ?
- Thread starter Protectionist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- destructive stop tornados
1. How would the bombs be "destructive" to anything other than the tornado ?
2. I've already explained HOW bombs could stop a tornado.
3. Planes are fast enough depending on how far away from the tornado they are. Every state has National Guard planes, and there are a number of US military bases around the country (USA) and each military service has them (Air Force, Navy, etc)
4. Why might an automated pilotless thing be better ? Automated pilotless may not be able to adjust to the movement to the tornado as easily as jets in the air. Maybe the jet rockets would be easier to control ? What do you base your "15 minute" statement on ? Got a link ?
Last edited:
It'll take 15 years for that tech to develop to a reliable, deployable level.
He didn't really link to anything, just a Google knockoff keyword search. lol
Tornado Drones No Longer Just Science Fiction
Tried it again in both Pageset and Google. Not working in either one. Why don't you just copy-paste the nitty gritty of it (couple of paragraphs) and post ? The we'll know what it says.
More like 15 minutes. All you have to do is send up some jet fighters and shoot rocket bombs to explode in the tornado's wind current. You think that takes 15 years ? :giggle: Pardon my giggle. I couldn't avoid. The door was too wide open.
The link refers to drones sent into storms (not tornados), to monitor data.
("Release probes into a storm in order to figure out which tornadoes could develop into killers.")
Interesting, but not same as knocking out a tornado.
Does anybody here know how to multi-quote? Or are all of you just farming post counts...
If it was that easy, it would already be done.
We can't predict what storms will do accurately enough to always be at the right place, at the right time. As I said, give it 15 years.
No but it's the 1st step to doing what you suggest (both in learning to predict these storms as well as deployment of missiles without risking pilots' lives).
If it was that easy, it would already be done.
We can't predict what storms will do accurately enough to always be at the right place, at the right time. As I said, give it 15 years.No but it's the 1st step to doing what you suggest (both in learning to predict these storms as well as deployment of missiles without risking pilots' lives).
If it would already be done, then airplanes would have already been done in the19th century, as would automobiles (in mass production), TV, etc. To be at the right place at the right time, you jump into the cockpit, and fly to it. What do you think fighter pilots do in an air raid ?If it was that easy, it would already be done.
I don't see where data has to be monitored. Just fly up to the storm and rocket bomb it accurately (and disrupt its consistent air currents).
As far as risking pilots lives, are you kidding ? The pilots don't have to be even near the tornado to rocket bomb it, and this is a piece of cake compared to engaging in dogfights with enemy jets (a basic activity of fighter pilots).
About the same thing that would happen if "one of these "Rocket Bombs" misses the target and instead takes out a school full of kids....or Grandma's house", when defending against an invading army, entering the US in about the same place where tornados start up and "invade" us.
Would you say we shouldn't fire any rocket bombs then ?
People could have said (in 1903, and they probably did) >> "I wonder what will happen the first time one of these" airplanes falls out of the sky and "takes out a school full of kids....or Grandma's house".
People could have said "I wonder what will happen the first time one of these" electric power lines falls down and "takes out a school full of kids....or Grandma's house", when they first built them, and they could still say it now (but they don't). They could say it about dams, cruise ships, large bridges, and jets firing rockets inside the US in training manuevers. When I was in the National Guard, I saw them do it routinely, and within a few miles of cities.
Your post reminds me of the one I saw that said we can't fight a war in Afghanistan. It's too costly. We've already lost over 2,000 troops, (over the past 10 years).
REALITY CHECK: In the Battle of Iwo Jima (Feb. 1945), the US lost 6,821 troops IN ONE MONTH.
Immediately after that, the US lost 12,513 troops IN TWO MONTHS, in the Battle of Okinawa.
I'm not trying to make direct comparisons, just to say we all need to man up a bit more.
Last edited:
Agreed about not being able to stop tornadoes, at least not until we can control thunderstorms. Doming a city would protect it. Bunkers, force shields, etc.
How many casualties are you willing to accept when it begins raining shrapnel? Some tornadoes stay funnel clouds, while others will descend to the ground. Since there is currently no way of telling which is which, you will have to shoot/bomb every funnel cloud. That could be several in every major thunderstorm. That's a lot of shrapnel.
It was stated in the OP and your quote of it, that the proposal is limited to acting when the tornado is in open, uninhabited, undeveloped areas. Even if there was shrapnel, it would not affect people or property. Secondly, the military has rocket bombs that are laser and have no material at all to produce shrapnel. They simply burst and produce massive air pressure and heat. You are entering this discussion late. The issue of casualties was long ago put to rest, in this and other forums.
It does help if you read the thread. See post # 40.
Last edited:
Why waste ammo on a tornado in the middle of no where?
The concussion air-fuel bombs you mention do have shrapnel from their casings, but that is not their primary method of destruction. Nonetheless, I doubt you'd want to be hit by a piece.
Laser bombs? WTF is that? I know of using lasers to target bombs, but not "rocket bombs that are laser".
Yes, I entered the conversation late, but you are assuming I didn't read the posts. No, I disagree that the "issue of casualties was long ago put to rest, in this and other forums." If you don't want to discuss it, fine.
Obviously, because a tornado "in the middle of nowhere" one minute, can be hitting populated and/or developed areas some minutes later.
The issue of casualties was put to rest simply by the point that the rocket bombs could/should be fired when the tornado is in a safe area, before reaching unsafe areas. I AM discussing it. You're just talking silly.
Or we could do what the Chinese did during the Olympics and just make thunderstorms rain themselves out before hitting populated areas. You kill the entire thunderstorm and thus any tornados it might spawn (and you'd only need to target supper cells, so you wouldn't be stopping those population centers from getting rain).
Sounds like an interesting idea, although presented a bit briefly. I'd like to have heard some more about it.
But look at the cost:
China plans to halt rain for Olympics - latimes.com
Note the old maxim "What goes up must come down". Firing thousands of AA guns and rockets into clouds may drain them of moisture, but how many people were killed or injured by falling debris?
Weather Modification Association
Controlling Hurricanes: Scientific American
