But the thing is that they don't need to

ICBMs are a hot commodity for any nuclear triad

imaging having 30 of those things sitting around in a bunker, they lauch them all one right a fter another and the missles just swarm a target

it's completely different from an ICBM

US missiles can reach any target on Earth in less than an hour

They really have nothing to worry about

@Andrew Popa 2.0 it is not about ICBMs any more
You are being way too short-sighted my friend

ICBMs aren't cruise missles

Trump has had an interest in the military industrial complex and he is R&Ding the Space Force so who knows lads
i put my bets on yes he is researching nuclear powered tech

you see an ICBM immediately

heat signature

you don't see a cruise missle

Well it is rather stupid to put so many resources into a weapon of this sorts

With a rocket that can fly for hundreds of years you can mine asssteroids, you can push enemy satellites off the earth orbit, you can spy on everyone without the fear of being caught

The potential is YOOGE

an ICBM can be targeted and destroyed if you can acquire during the ascent stage

but a cruise missle can't be targeted

But hey this is yet another reason why the EU shouldn't federalise nor should it even have a joint military

First of all, why have a single rocket which can carry say 25 megatons when you can have an ICBM with 10 nuckear warheads which can carry 2 to 3 megatons each

do NOT provoke the fuckers developping the nuke powered cruise missiles

This is the reason the US abandoned their project in the first place

a nuclear powered cruise missle makes an ICBM pretty useless

ICBMs are much more convenient

Also another point: a nuclear rocket can lift more into space

yes

cause the cruise missle can just circle almost indeffinately and swarm any ICBM on the ascent stage

Even if it has the same thrust, it can burn for hundreds of years, so it would eventually reach orbit

but @Uksio that's irrelevant as current research is looking into ways of making such things happen in space for better efficiency so as to be more fuel efficient

they would in effect enable a pre-emtive strike

The nuclear doctrine remains that warheads with smaller destructive capacity but which can be feilded in large numbers by ICBMs are more efficient than rocket with big destructive capabilities which can only target one place

because you could have most of the other guys icbms taregted before they even left the bunker and cruise missles just hovering

now you could say that maybe developing nuclear rockets is a good replacement for solid fuel rockets and that's true, but why do that when you can just skip the middle man entirely?

Well not really

Imagine if this is a failed rocket launch, and russia has a fleet of nuclear rockets just idly circling the earth in the furthest orbits, undetected

O O F

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion is eyed only for spacecraft

Imagine if the nukes have already dropped and we are living in inner eather

a cruise missle is a stalking weapon

Not rockets meant to send payloads into space

You'd think the US or China would INSTANTLY pick up on that

Yes, it is the most optimal in interplanetary space